1997/10/21ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 21, 1997
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
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
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
CAPTAIN/POLICE DEPT.: Stephen Sain
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:55 p.m. on
October 17, 1997 at the City Hall Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the Workshop portion of the meeting of October 21, 1997 to order and welcomed
those present. He first announced that although Council Member Tait was present, he has indicated to
him he would be abstaining from any discussion, declaring a conflict as he had done in the past
(regarding Sportstown).
City Manager, James Ruth. Staff has been working diligently with Ogden and with Jack Lindquist and his
group to bring forward a plan that makes good business sense and an exciting opportunity. He then
introduced Joel Fick, Planning Director, the Project Manager for Tinseltown. Mr. Fick will give brief
introductory remarks and introduce the representatives who will give the presentation.
101: TINSELTOWN PROJECT: Joel Fick, Planning Director, Project Manager- Tinseltown. This is a
very high-quality project and bringing this proposal to the Council today has been a team effort. He
appreciates the efforts of the Ogden Group and Forest City and also the members of City staff (who he
named) as well as Jim Raby, Consultant, Keyser Marston, and Jill Draffin, Consultant, Arter & Hadden.
The staff report (see staff report dated October 21, 1997 from Mr. Fick) and accompanying documents
described the proposal in detail. He then reviewed the major points of the project contained in the report
including the financial details (see Pg. 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the subject report). He noted also that
the project has been carefully planned so it could exist as a quality, stand-alone project and also be
compatible with Sportstown. The net cash proceeds exclusive of any improvement-related costs and
associated reimbursement would be $621,000. The financial analysis by Keyser Marston has been
computed exclusive of any direct improvement-related costs. Keyser Marston has estimated that
approval of the subject agreement and the investment of $15 million in private funds to complete the
project, would generate close to $20 million in gross revenues or an estimated $5.2 million in today's
dollars to the City and Agency over the term of the agreement.
Council Member Zemel entered the Council Chamber (3:19).
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Mr. Fick continued that in excess of 130 jobs will be created to operate the facility in addition to jobs
associated with the initial construction. Tinseltown is a significant milestone creating momentum and a
prominent anchor tenant for the stadium area. The project maximizes the use of City land not needed
for stadium events, and provides substantial revenues to the City and the Agency. It reinforces and
continues the City's partnership with Ogden and fulfills an important City goal by providing another first-
class entertainment venue for the enjoyment of Anaheim and Orange County residents, conventioneers
and tourists. Representatives are present from Ogden, Mr. Tom Etter, and also Mr. Jack Lindquist who
are desirous of giving a presentation to the Council.
Mr. Jack Lindquist, Garlin Productions. He is pleased to be able today to bring forth a project that is as
exciting, innovative and dynamic as any other he has been associated with -- Tinseltown. It is a totally
new concept for dinner theatre entertainment experience aimed primarily at an adult audience. It brings
to Anaheim the glitter, glamour and mystique of a Hollywood which perhaps only exists in people's
minds. It is most fortunate that Ogden Entertainment has purchased the creative property of Tinseltown
from them (he and his partner in Garlin Productions, Jim Garber) and they are prepared after approval to
move forward. He then introduced the Senior Vice President for Business Development for Ogden
Entertainment Services, Tom Etter, the person responsible for Ogden's role in Tinseltown.
Mr. Tom Etter, Senior Vice President for Business Development, Ogden Entertainment. He has the
overall responsibility at Ogden for both the development and eventual operation of Tinseltown. He then
relayed the history leading up to the proposal before the Council tonight -- the challenges faced, the
benefits that will accrue to the City, etc. He concluded that Tinseltown should serve as a catalyst for
future desirable development along that important end of the Katella corridor. An even more compelling
benefit is that Tinseltown Studios will be a world-class entertainment attraction that the City can be proud
of. If they receive Council approval, Ogden's commitment is that every aspect of Tinseltown from its
appearance to everything that goes on inside, will set new standards of excellence for wholesome,
innovative entertainment that can only further enhance Anaheim's reputation as a dynamic, progressive
and fun place to be. He then introduced the co-developer, Jim Garber of Garlin Productions.
Mr. Jim Garber, Garlin Productions. He gave the overall concept of Tinseltown which included a video
presentation after which he invited the Council to view the model of the facility that was displayed in front
of the dais along with drawings and renderings. Mr. Lindquist then "walked" the Council through the
project. The facility will be an important "icon" -- the theatre seats 700 guests for a dinner entertainment
experience with two shows a night, 12 shows a week. The building itself is approximately 60' tall and the
vintage water tower is approximately 75' tall. It will add another important anchor to the other end of one
of Anaheim's destination resorts.
In viewing the model and renderings, the Council posed questions which were answered by Mr. Lindquist
and Etter. Mr. Fick also answered questions relative to landscaping and parking.
Council Member McCracken, speaking to Mr. Raby (Keyser Marston), they are advising the Council to
sell this 1.25 acres for approximately $621,000. A question posed to her by a member of the Budget
Advisory Commission was, had there been any consideration given to a land-lease proposal; Mr. Raby
stated he could not answer that because he was not involved in the negotiations, but overall in terms of
the transaction and the monies the City will receive, it is their opinion this is a very good transaction for
the City.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. It is important to note that the sale is limited to 1.25 acres of the overall 4
1/2-acre development. When Ogden first approached the City, they were specifically interested in
purchasing the property underlying the building due to the substantial private investment that would be
undertaken. As part of the agreement, Anaheim has the ability to repurchase the site. It is also
important to note being able to purchase the property made Anaheim's site competitive with other sites
being examined for this facility in other cities. ,An additional side benefit to the City from the sale of the
property, it provides a mechanism through the purchase price to install improvements as well.
Council Member Zemel asked if there was a unilateral option to buy back.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Joel Fick. There are two different provisions. The first would be, if the sale is transacted and the
improvements are not completed, the City has the right to repurchase giving consideration to the
improvements put in. In addition, it provides Tinseltown would be operated as Tinseltown for a minimum
of three years. Beyond that, it would be operated as a dinner theatre house for an additional seven years
and if the proposal is to sell that use for something other than a dinner theatre use, the City does have
the right at that point in time to make the first offer. The property may not be sold for a lesser amount
than that offered.
Council Member Zemel. He asked if the seller would have to accept a certain figure or would it be a
typical buyer/seller negotiation.
Jill Draffin. The right of first offer would require the City to propose the purchase price. If Ogden did not
accept that offer, Ogden could not sell the property for a lower price. The intent is, if the property is
offered for sale, it would basically be a fair-market, arm's length standard.
After additional questions by Council Member Zemel, Mayor Daly stated, to summarize for those who
may have arrived after the start of the Workshop, the dollars being talked about are a total of $19.7
million to the City over 30 years and the value of that cash flow in today's dollars is $5.2 million, net
present value, a combination of the purchase price of the land as well as sales tax and property tax that
would fall to the City minus certain improvements the City would make at the intersection of Katella and
a new service raod. He asked if his summary is correct; Joel Fick answered that his summary is correct.
Mayor Daly. It is a great design and a perfect location for a new attraction in Anaheim. They will look
forward to more discussions on this evening's agenda which will be Item A33. The staff recommendation
is to approve the project as recommended and presented. He appreciates all the participants taking the
time to explain the project/proposal.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA:
See Item C4. Appointed Revi Mehta as Special Prosecutor.
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 LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: State of California v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 74-14-84.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9:
potential case.
one
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: (1996-97 Annual Performance
Review) City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Treasurer.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association, AMEA, and IBEW.
RECESS CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez seconded the motion.
Council Member Tait was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:55 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. (5:37 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Moment of Silence was abserved in lieu of invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - ANNUAL CITY EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - 25, 30, 35 AND 40
YEARS OF SERVICE: Mr. Walt Jerz, Human Resources, introduced the following employees who were
present to receive their Employee Service Awards. Mr. Jerz was assisted by Mayor Daly and Council
Members who personally greeted, congratulated and commended the employees on their long and
dedicated service to the City and citizens of Anaheim.
40-YEAR AWARD: City Administration - William Griffith, Special Projects Director.
35-YEAR AWARD: Park Maintenance - Royce Inglis, Parks Field Supervisor.
30-YEAR AWARDS: Public Utilities - James Rawson, Substation Electrician Supervisor; Police - Anna
Blount, Office Specialist II; Park Maintenance - Charles Pollard, Parks Field Coordinator; Convention
Center - Ralph Rosas, Skilled Craft Worker.
25-YEAR AWARDS: Police Department - Randall Brydges, Sergeant; Edward Dougherty, Police
Sergeant; Robert Elrod, Police Officer; Mary Foss, Staff Analyst; Gregory L. Lawson, Police Officer;
Thomas Mathisen, Police Sergeant; Gregory Mattis, Police Sergeant; James Moser, Police Sergeant;
Steven Walker, Police Sergeant; John Winovich, Police Officer.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Fire Department - Robert Blake, Administrative Services Coordinator; City Clerk's Office - Leonora Sohl,
City Clerk; Public Works/Engineering - Joanne Williams, Engineering Representative; Part Maintenance
- Timothy Smith, Park Maintenance Worker I; Convention Center - Daniel Dominguez, Skilled Craft
Worker; Public Utilities - George Corson, Financial Analyst I; D. Wayne Hoffman, Senior Engineer;
Gaudencia Rubio, Principal Utilities Engineering Aide; Kay Snook, Senior Secretary; Marian Urschel,
Senior Utilities Service Worker.
Mr. Jerz also recognized 34 other employees who had reached the 25 to 35-year milestone but were
unable to be present tonight.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following Proclamation was issued by Mayor Daly and authorized by the
City Council:
National Customer Service Week in Anaheim - October 6 - 10, 1997.
Anaheim Heart Smart Week in Anaheim - October 20 - 24, 1997.
Mary Francia, President and Alex Madrid, Secretary accepted the National Customer Service Week
Proclamation; Kathleen Blakely Gonzales, R.N., Community Health Education Coordinator and
Coordinator of the Anaheim Heart Smart Project and Diane Harvey, Community Relations
Representative, both from the Anaheim Memorial Medical Center accepted the Anaheim Heart Smart
Week Proclamation.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,881,798.05 for the period ending
October 13, 1997 and $2,423,886.03 for the period ending October 20, 1997, in accordance with the
1997-98 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Housing Authority meeting. (6:15 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 6:18 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Stan Stosel, Business Representative, IBEW, Local 47. He represents and works for the Utility workers
and Convention Center workers in the City. Last August, he met with each of the Council Members and
expressed his concern over lack of progress in their contract negotiations. Since that time, at least four
actions have taken place aimed at drawing attention to their situation, two sanctioned, and two
apparently non-sanctioned, the most serious of which was the "sickout" last week which was as much a
message to him as to the Council. He understands that investigations of last Wednesday's actions are
ongoing and he has been told some employees will not receive sick pay and that some bargaining unit
members are being investigated. It will be a serious mistake to attempt to divide or punish this unit and
will not happen without consequences.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Their bargaining committee has negotiated in good faith with the belief it was in the best interest of the
City to maintain a publicly owned Utility as has been the case for over 100 years, the benefits from which
are reinvested in the City. They want that arrangement to continue. They are all faced with deregulation
of the utility market and the challenge of unchartered territory. By giving up the Public Utility, they will be
giving up control of the rates. Over the next few months, the Council will be faced with difficult choices.
In order to insure there is still a Utilities to protect and save, they need to reach an agreement. He and
the citizens want the Council to step up to the plate and show leadership. They have not been able to fill
vacancies even now because all of the qualified workers see better opportunities elsewhere. They can
no longer subsist on 1992 wages. They will not accept the statement that, because of deregulation, they
are unable to negotiate a better contract. They want their retirement brought into line with what other
cities in California are receiving and a modest raise to keep pace with the cost of living. He urged that
they get the contract settled and to continue to work for the betterment of Anaheim and its citizens and
recognize that they all have too much to lose in this venture.
Mayor Daly, speaking to Mr. Stosel, stated that the IBEW has a long and valued relationship with the
City. They appreciate the comments regarding deregulation and the uncertainties that are out there. If
they can continue to work together in a comprehensive fashion, they will all win. He encouraged him
(Stosel) and the Union leadership to continue negotiating with the City's negotiators -- City Manager Ruth
and Dave Hill. Speaking on behalf of the Council, if they can keep focusing, they will find a way to reach
an agreement and keep the operation strong.
Ron Banderas, 711 S. Dawn, Anaheim. He was contacted by Code Enforcement that he is being cited
for trimming a City tree and they want to charge him $3,900 to remove the tree and plant another. The
tree is not dead as evidenced by the photo he submitted to the Council. He called the City three years
ago and asked them to cut the fallen limbs because of a storm. The response was they would get to him
when they could but were backed up because of the storm. He has lived at this address for over 18
years and there are storms every year and limbs fall all the time. He then explained some of the
problems falling limbs had caused or almost caused creating a dangerous environment. When the City
comes out every three or four years, they do not maintain the big limbs but only the small ones. He
asked them to cut the pivotal limbs for prevention but is told they cannot do so and to contact the City.
He is asking the Council to review his situation and reach a compromise with Code Enforcement. The
tree in question is no longer a threat or danger to his family or property. He hopes the City will accept
the compromise and allow the tree to stay where it is and not remove it to put in another.
Council Member Zemel. He acknowledged receiving a call from Mr. Banderas. He has information that
staff is looking into alternative arrangements and will be contacting him;
Mr. Banderas. Nobody has done so as yet. He wants the Council to see the tree. It is over 60' high.
Mayor Daly. City staff will be reporting back to the Council on the details of the matter.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was received on Item A23 (see discussion under that item).
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of October 21, 1997. Mayor Pro-Tern Lopez seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A33: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem 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-189 through 97R-196, both inclusive, for adoption.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance Nos. 5618, 5619 for adoption and Ordinance 5622 for first reading. Refer
to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al.
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 Patrick Lenow for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about April 24, 1997.
b. Claim submitted by Kenneth Shu for property damages sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about August 5, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by Remedios Brucelas c/o Jacobson & Associates for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 7, 1997.
d. Claim submitted by Yesenia Pacheco for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about August 20, 1997.
e. Claim submitted by John Koch for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about January 2, 1997.
f. Claim submitted by Keith Denno c/o Law Offices of Satin & Russell for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 16, 1997.
g. Claim submitted by Ogden Entertainment Services c/o Frank Camizzaro, Esq. for indemnity
purportedly arising out of actions of the City on or about January 20, 1995. (Main Action,
Lorraine Churchley, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. OCSC No. 75 08 47)
h. Claim submitted by Molly K. Van Norman for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about April 29, 1997.
i. Claim submitted by Robed Campbell for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about September 4, 1997.
j. Claim submitted by Melvin Jones c/o Jerry L. Steering, Esq. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 11, 1996.
k. Claim submitted by Alberto R. Miramontes c/o Sergio A. Gutierrez, Esq. for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 20, 1997.
I. Claim submitted by James Edward Spate c/o Jerry L. Steering, Esq. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 11, 1996.
m. Claim submitted by Rich Boren c/o Dean Kitano, Esq. for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about June 1, 1997.
n. Claim submitted by Sydney Triplett for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about December 12, 1996.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
A2.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held September
3, 1997.
140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical Report for the month of
August, 1997.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held September 4, 1997.
173: Receiving and filing correspondence from Southern California Gas Company Notice of
proposed $27.8 million rate increase (Application 95-06-112/Advice No. 2633).
A3.
175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Steve Casada Construction Co., Inc.,
in the amount of $999,000 for I-5 Segment A2 Watermain Relocations; 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.
A4.
175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, ELC Electric, Inc., in the amount of
$294,999.96 for Hannum and Yorba Substations (2B Transformer Bank Construction); 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.
A5.
158: Approving an Amendment to Acquisition Agreement for Real Property at 631 West Katella
Avenue (R/W 5180-15) Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; approving the
Agreement for Right-of-Entry; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreements;
and authorizing the acquisition payment of $2,633 to Desert Palm Suites Limited Partnership, a
California LP, executed by SAI Management Company, Inc.
A6.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for 424 West Katella Avenue (R/W 5180-57) Katella
Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; approving the Right-of-Entry Agreement; authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreements; and authorizing the acquisition payment
of $15,000 to Dilip Patel.
A7.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for 1779 South Heather Lane (R/W 5180-85) Katella
Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Agreements; authorizing the acquisition payment of $175,000 to Grover Escrow; and authorizing
the relocation payments in accordance with the relocation plan developed for the project and the
State Relocation Assistance Act not to exceed $20,000.
A8.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS, AND SETTING A DATE AND TIME TO CONSIDER
ABANDONING THOSE CERTAIN EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES LOCATED
GENERALLY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BALL ROAD
AND PALM STREET - ABANDONMENT NO. 97-5A. (Suggested date: November 18, 1997, at
6:00 p.m.)
A9.
123: Approving and authorizing an Agreement with UMA Engineering, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $86,932 for design services for the State College Boulevard Corridor Master Plan.
Mayor Daly. He salutes staff for moving forward with a plan that the City Council has asked for which is
beautification and improvement along State College Boulevard. The upgrading of such corridors is
important to the City.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
AIO.
158: Approving and adopting the Relocation Plan for the Katella Avenue Smart Street
Improvement Project - Phase II (Katella Avenue/Haster Street).
All.
167: Approving the City's comments to the Orange County Grand
recommendations on the Grand Jury Report on Traffic Signal Preemption.
meeting of October 7, 1997, Item A7.)
Jury findings and
(Continued from the
Council Member Zemel. He realizes this item is overdue by several months.
City Manager Ruth. A request regarding this issue was made by the Council a couple of weeks ago (see
minutes of October 7, 1997, Item A7.)
City Attorney White. The response back to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court under the statutes
was technically due at the end of September.
Council Member Zemel. His concern was that the Orange County Board of Supervisors has not taken
their position. He also believes there are other companies who may have offered services to the City.
He does not know if they will be in violation if they continue this.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. The offer from 3M is just that -- an offer. If other
vendors want to step forward on a no-charge basis and ask the City to test their equipment as well, they
will do so to insure compatibility.
City Attorney White. There is no expressed penalty provided in the statute for not complying. In his
opinion, the only available remedy would be for the Grand Jury itself to bring a Writ of Mandate to get a
response from the City. He believes the time limit is somewhat flexible.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue this item for 30 days. Council Member Lopez
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly asked if they knew the status of what other cities are doing in this
regard; Council Member Zemel. The information he has, only one or two cities that have responded thus
far.
Mayor Daly. This is a subject the Council discussed two weeks ago and there is background on the
previous action taken by the Council. Hopefully, in the next 30 days, they can obtain more information
and they will know what other jurisdictions are thinking.
A vote was then taken on the motion for continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
A12.
A13.
000: Approving a reduction of the Stadium Area traffic improvement fees for the proposed
Stadium Crossings development at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College
Boulevard by fifty-six percent.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF ANAHEIM BUS STOP ACCESSIBILITY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FOR FUNDING UNDER THE BUS STOP ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM. (FUNDING IN THE
AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR TRANSIT RELATED PROJECTS/IMPROVEMENTS AT
BROOKHURST STREET, EUCLID STREET, HARBOR BOULEVARD, LA PALMA AVENUE,
AND LINCOLN AVENUE.)
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
A14.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-191: 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'S 5209, 5231, AND 5172.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-192: 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'S 5180-15 AND 5180-85.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-193: 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'S 5204 ETC.)
A15.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of B & J Tree Service, in the amount of $34,374 for the full trim of
435 trees, and the removal of three trees, in accordance with Bid #5709.
A16.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of, and authorizing the execution of an Agreement with Sun-Belt
Landscape and Maintenance, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $104,940 for landscape
maintenance for a two year period beginning November 10, 1997, with three one-year optional
extensions, in accordance with Bid #5708.
106: Amending the Fiscal Year 1997/1998 Community Services Budget by increasing
expenditure appropriations in account number 455-213-9001-7825 by $52,470.
A17.
160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase
Order to Keystone Information Systems, in the amount of $33,525 for software and software
licenses for the Metro Cities Fire Authority Communications Center.
A18.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 5618: (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTIONS 1.13.070, 4.08.090, 4.12.010, 4.12.060, 4.29.220, 4.82.150, 4.90.160,
4.97.180, 4.98.080, 6.04.100, 6.42.150, 6.44.170, 6.60.060, 7.24.080, 7.32.100, 9/04.080,
10.08.140, 10.18.160 AND 15.12.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PUNISHMENT FOR CONVICTION OF MISDEMEANOR FOR VIOLATION OF VARIOUS
MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS. (Introduced at the meeting of October 7, 1997, Item A13.)
(To conform Municipal Code fines to State Law maximum.)
Council Member Zemel. He asked the City Attorney to elaborate on the proposed ordinance; City
Attorney White then explained the rationale as he had done at the meeting of October 7, 1997 (Item
A13).
At the conclusion of the City Attorney's explanation, Council Member Zemel was satisfied and stated he
was not going to take any action and the proposed ordinance should stand as recommended.
A19.
A20.
A21.
107: ORDINANCE NO. 5622: (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 6.44 OF, AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 6.44 TO, TITLE 6
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NUISANCES.
123: Approving an Agreement with the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Fall Festival for the
cosponsorship of the Fall Festival on October 25, 1997.
123: Accepting funding from Proposition 70, the California Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land
Conservation Bond Act of 1988, in the amount of $29,700 for Anaheim's "Community ReLeaf
Tree Planting Project"; and amending the Fiscal Year 1997/1998 budget by increasing revenue
account 101-213-4242-1728 and expenditure account 101-213-4242 by $29,700.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
A22.
150: Accepting the Heart Smart Cities Project Grant Award of $22,041 from the University of
California, San Francisco, and increasing the revenue and expenditure appropriations in program
budget 101-213-7245 by $22,041 to conduct project activities.
A23.
161: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-194: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES OF THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC
DISTRICT; AND TO ADOPT THE LIST OF QUALIFIED HISTORICAL BUILDINGS. (THE
ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT IS THE AREA BOUNDED BY NORTH STREET,
SOUTH STREET, EAST STREET AND WEST STREET.)
The following person spoke to this issue earlier in the meeting under Public Comments on agenda items.
Alon Larsen. She is happy to be present this evening as the spokesperson for the Anaheim Historic
Preservation Committee. They are present to show support for establishing the Anaheim Colony Historic
District. She explained some of the work that had been done leading up to this evening. They find the
proposal very exciting and beneficial and one which will keep the integrity of their neighborhood intact. It
will be a positive influence on property values and make it an even better place to live. They would like
the City Council to recognize the pride they have in the Anaheim Colony being designated the Anaheim
Colony Historic District and adopting the list of qualified historic buildings. She asked those who are
supporting the recommendation to please stand -- approximately 25 people were present in support.
Council Member Zemel. At the previous workshop on the issue (see minutes of July 22, 1997), they
spoke about a couple of subjects that were important to him that he wanted answers to. One was the
number of properties in that district that were affected. He asked staff to confirm that but it was not
done. They talked about 1,100 structures of historic significance within those boundaries. There are a
huge number of property owners in that area, perhaps around 10,000 but he does not see the figure in
the report. Also, relative to the consultant hired to work on this project, he wanted to know how many
districts she had established which were probably all voluntary and of those how many ended up being
converted from that status to where the City subsequently held people to the letter of the law.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She confirmed that the information
was not in the subject staff report but staff did respond to those questions under a separate
memorandum about a week ago. She also clarified that the workshop where the issue was discussed
was held on July 22, 1997. They did investigate the number of parcels in the area and there were over
3,000. The one area where they had difficulty was the specific question asked regarding how many other
districts started out voluntary and subsequently may have become mandatory. The consultant did some
research but was unable to come up with anything except three or four cities that started out voluntary
and are still voluntary. The Cities of Pasadena, Orange and Fullerton are three that still remain
voluntary. In Anaheim, the area itself is about two square miles with a fairly large portion that is
industrial that runs along the railroad tracks particularly south of Broadway.
Council Member Zemel. He realizes how important recognition is for this neighborhood and to allow the
residents who live there to try to make it a nicer place. That is important to him as well. He is trying to
justify voting for something that could eventually lead to a future Council impinging on property rights.
He has not been able to find a way to do that other than sending a strong message.
Lisa Stipkovich. There is nothing creating anything new and different in terms of hindrances or creating
barriers for people to do whatever they want. This is seen much more as an educational process. There
is no way of knowing what future Councils will do but the intent of staff and the current Council, from
what she understands, is to keep it a positive and voluntary program.
Mayor Daly. There was an extensive workshop on the subject. This is long in coming and long overdue.
A tremendous amount of voluntary work has gone into setting up the district. Looking at the experience
of the City's neighbors, Orange and Fullerton, they have been huge successes. This will be a great
improvement for the City and a lot of fun besides. The history of Anaheim is as rich as any City in
California. There is so much to work with within the originl boundaries of North, South, East and West
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Streets and there are already about 50 structures in that district on the National Register. This is a great
idea with outstanding work by City staff. What happens in the future with this will be up to the residents
themselves with the cooperation of City government. He emphasized that the primary responsibility and
the driving force for the success of the district will be the residents and property owners in the district.
He is looking forward to it with great enthusiasm.
Council Member Zemel. He will be supporting this but would like to have the caveats on record.
Council Member Tait. He thanked the community for the initiative in putting this together. He
appreciates what they have done and the sensitivity to their neighbors, the property rights issue and
being a voluntary program.
Council Member McCracken. During the past week, she met with Barbara Piper, the California Arts
Council Director. One of her comments was that Anaheim has everything but the City does not package,
sell or educate people about it. This is a very important area of the City and this process will "tie the
ribbon around it." Perhaps with a little bit of promotion, it will also be considered a cultural asset as well
as a tourist asset for the City.
A24.
150: Authorizing an application for the Orange County Emergency Food and Shelter program, in
the amount of $50,000; and authorizing the Mayor and/or Executive Director to execute the
required certifications and application documents.
A25.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-195: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE STANDARD SUBGRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE TERM OF OCTOBER 1, 1997, THROUGH SEPTEMBER
30, 1998.
106: Amending the Fiscal Year 1997-1998 JTPA Budget by increasing revenues and
expenditures in Fund 220 in the amount of $100,000.
A26.
144: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-196: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM WAIVING NOTICE OF LEASE AGREEMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (WAIVING THE 60-DAY
NOTICE PROVISION FOR OFFICE SPACE IN TWO SEPARATE LOCATIONS - 160 WEST
CERRITOS AVENUE, BUILDING 4, AND 306, 308 AND 312 WEST CERRITOS AVENUE,
BUILDING 7, FOR THE YOUTH AND FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM.)
A27.
129: To consider authorizing the City Manager/Fire Chief to initiate a Request for Proposal for
emergency transport services. (Continued from the meeting of September 23, 1997, Item A19.)
City Manager Ruth announced that staff requests a continuance of this item for one week.
A28.
A29.
130: ORDINANCE NO. 5619: (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FRANCHISE FOR COLLECTION, HANDLING,
TRANSPORTATION, PROCESSING, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL OF CITY SOLID WASTE
TO TAORMINA INDUSTRIES, INC. (Introduced at the meeting of October 7, 1997, Item A17.)
153: Approving the 1998 Health and Welfare plan rates; and authorizing the Human Resources
Manager to sign all required renewal documents on behalf of the City.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
A30.
123: Approving the Settlement Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Dow Plumbing
Company for audit findings resulting from the City of Anaheim Audit #95306; and authorizing the
Mayor to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City.
A31.
108: Approving the Findings of Fact from Hearing Officer Victor J. Kaleta, on the Application of
Amer El Rousan for a permit to operate a Sex-Oriented Business designated as the Sahara
Theater at 1210 South State College Boulevard, Unit C, Anaheim, CA together with the
Administrative Record of the public hearing, in accordance with the provisions of 18.89 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code.
Council Member Zemel. He would like to have a report from the City Attorney to determine if there is a
way not to support this recommendation.
City Attorney White. This is a result of the ordinance that the City Council adopted approximately three
years ago relating to regulation of adult businesses in the City. The ordinance was required to be redone
because of a court decision invalidating a prior CUP requirement. One of the major thrusts of the
ordinance was to determine what areas of the City would be least impacted by adult businesses because
the courts by their decisions have indicated every City has to provide an adequate number of locations
for these businesses. The decision by the Council at that time was, rather than to relocate existing
businesses to another location in the City, that any existing adult business in operation would be
grandfathered as to its location provided it complied to all of the other requirements including the
requirement that it obtain a non-discretionary adult business permit that gives the City the ability to
monitor the business and impose conditions consistent with the ordinance. Two or three have come
forward through the hearing process to the Council for confirmation. This is the latest seeking a permit.
His legal opinion, the permit is non-discretionary where the applicant has demonstrated they have met all
the requirements of the ordinance. The Hearing Office has made the recommendation that it meets the
requirements of the City's ordinance and it is being brought to the Council for authorization of issuance of
a permit. This business, as all adult businesses, is closely monitored by Code Enforcement and the
Police Department. There is a continuing effort to make sure all these businesses comply with the
requirements of the City's ordinance. Recently, the City obtained convictions and guilty pleas in several
instances where the businesses have not been in compliance. His view is, in order to be consistent with
what was put in place several years ago in adopting the ordinance, that it is in conformance with that
procedure for the Council to approve this permit.
Council Member Lopez. He believes that the business was opened illegally.
City Attorney White. The business originally obtained a permit as a sports bar, opened, and shortly, if
not immediately, became a topless or totally nude entertainment; Council Member Zemel. It was a no-
alcohol sports bar.
Council Member Lopez asked why they cannot close it down; City Attorney White. This business owner
went to court when they were denied a CUP under the City's ordinance and obtained a court order
invalidating the ordinance and mandating that the City allow the business to remain open. The new
ordinance was adopted and it changed the requirements because there is now an Appellate Court
decision required to be followed throughout California that cities cannot make these permits discretionary
CUP's. As a result of the case in Anaheim, cities are now required to do away with those discretionary
CUP's. When cities have not done that, they end up back in court on the losing end of a law suit.
Council Member Lopez. That clarification is very important because he has received several phone calls
from the public asking why the businesses are there.
City Attorney White. One of the ironies, the City is in a position to maintain stricter control because the
businesses are fearful they will lose their permit. If they do not comply, the City is in a better position to
go into court and close a business where the City can demonstrate it has followed the constitutional
mandates set out by the court.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Council Member Zemel. He believes he can speak for the Council that none of them want this business.
He asked if there was any logic or would it make sense to "go to the wall" each time saying that the City
is always going to fight no matter what and would that not cause a retardant effect.
City Attorney White. One thing he finds with regard to these businesses, there does not seem to be a
lack of resources in terms of the money, time and effort they are willing to put into litigating these cases.
These types of actions can be brought where the City could actually end up paying not only its own
attorney fees, but also paying the costs and attorney's fees and being responsible for damages for a
business not allowed to open. After further elaborating on the situation, including the constitutionality
issues, he concluded by stating, whether they want to litigate cases where there is no reasonable
likelihood of success that could cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars in each individual case is
a decision for the Council to make, but not one he would recommend.
Council Member Zemel. Under the stringent letter of the City's ordinance, he does not believe the
location is an area which could be described as what the ordinance would allow; City Attorney White.
That is correct. If the business were being proposed as a new use today, it would not be allowed in that
location.
Mayor Daly. As the staff report points out, uses such as this are constitutionally protected. The City may
regulate them but cannot outright deny them.
Council Member Zemel stated he will be registering a no vote.
Later in the meeting when the Council voted on the Consent Calendar items, the following discussion
took place regarding this issue.
Council Member Lopez stated he was voting no on Item A31 (as was Council Member Zemel).
Mayor Daly. He stated that two Council Members are voting no. If a majority of the Council voted no,
the City would be subject to a law suit. He asked the City Attorney their odds of winning that law suit;
City Attorney White answered, about as Iow as he could estimate.
Mayor Daly. The alternative to voting against this is an automatic law suit which the City will lose costing
Anaheim taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Two members are willing to do that because they
probably believe a majority of the Council is going to vote yes and later on they will hear they are the
only two members of the Council who are strong against sex-oriented businesses and the other three do
not care.
Council Member Lopez. The people do not want these types of businesses in Anaheim. He noted that
the City spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultant fees. He feels they should stop these
businesses once and for all; Mayor Daly asked if he had a plan to do that.
Council Member Lopez. He is not an attorney, but he
message that they do not want these businesses. If it
the public wants, and that is the message he is getting,
would be willing to take this on again and send a
means it is going to cost $100,000, if that is what
he is willing to spend that money.
Mayor Daly. Casting a quiet no vote on something like this accomplishes nothing, so if there is an
alternative, he would like to hear it. When the City Attorney says hundreds of thousands would be
thrown down a "sink hole", they should all be concerned. They should also be concerned it was approved
on a 3-2 vote because three members of the Council had the guts to vote yes on the City Attorney's
recommendation to allow the business where the alternative is to spend thousands with no chance of
winning and the two Council Members voting no offer no other course of action.
Additional discussion and debate followed between the Mayor and Council Members Lopez and Zemel
with the no vote of both (Lopez and Zemel) still standing.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
A32. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held September 23, 1997.
A33.
123: To consider approving the Consent Agreement with Forest City Development California,
Inc., relating to the Negotiation Agreement for the Sportstown Site. (Proposed Tinseltown
Project.)
RESOLUTION NO. - ..... : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF A CERTAIN
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND
JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO.
Council Member Tait declared a conflict on this item. He will, therefore, be abstaining from discussion or
a decision.
City Attorney White. This item requires four affirmative votes for approval.
Submitted was staff report dated October 21, 1997 from the Planning Director, Joel Fick recommending
approval of the subject agreements. (Also submitted under Attachment A was the Consent Agreement
and the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions, Exhibits A through G.)
Mayor Daly. A workshop was held this afternoon where some of the financial and operational details of
the proposal were discussed.
Council Member Zemel. He is surprised to see this item on the consent calendar and is curious why it is
not a Public Hearing.
City Manager Ruth. It does not require a Public Hearing. There have been meetings with the Council,
they have addressed all the issues and there has been sufficient time to educate the Press. The
documentation has been prepared well in advance for people to review. It will ultimately be reviewed by
the Planning Commission.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. All uses within the Area Development Plan require review by the Planning
Commission to insure consistency with the plan -- for example, the site design aspects and landscaping.
Council Member Zemel then posed an extensive and specific line of questions which were answered by
City Manager Ruth, Joel Fick, Jill Draffin, Arter& Hadden and Jim Raby of Keyser Marston (the City's
consultants), and the City Attorney. The questions mainly revolved around the financial aspects of the
transaction and its ultimate benefit to the City, i.e., the sales price and the deductions from that price,
what will occur if the buyer does not build Tinseltown, clarification of items in the escrow instructions,
why the City is not doing the street improvements, the reason for the Letter of Credit, why an appraisal
was not done, responsibility for supplemental taxes, signage, parking, landscaping, etc.
City Manager Ruth explained that the sales price is $1,000,000 with deductions of $379,000 for the
improvements plus a potential $164,000 for the traffic signal in the event the City goes first on the
development. The City would front the money and recover it from other developments such as the
property across the street (Stadium Crossings) and also from Sportstown. If the buyer starts the project
and for some reason defaults, the City would buy the property back. They would be required to operate
there for three years and at the end of that time if they decide to change the operation, for another 7
years it would still be operated as a restaurant. For 10 years, the City is pretty much guaranteed an
operation.
Jill Draffin, Arter& Hadden. The Letter of Credit is the security for the City in assuring it will be paid and
the site work comleted. If payment is not made in 13 months or if the site work is not completed, the City
would be able to draw down the Letter of Credit. It is more efficient than a Deed of trust.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Relative to an appraisal of the property, this project is within a
Redevelopment Project Area and staff followed the process typically followed by the Agency. There was
an extensive RFQ process for the Sportstown site. The City entered into a negotiating agreement with
Forest City and in addition prepared an overall Area Development Plan and EIR. This is also a blended
mix. There is 1 1/4 acres for sale and also 3 plus acres in a parking license situation which even
becomes more complex because that parking may be shared with future development as well. The
Keyser Marston report notes this is a better rate than all of the other similar transactions and twice as
good as the property sold across the street in 1996.
Jim Raby, Keyser Marston. A real estate appraisal was not done. In looking at the comparable sales
and the real estate revenue flows that would come from this project, they have determined at least for
this site, this is a market value transaction.
City Attorney White. Sec. 1222 of the City Charter gives Council discretion to not either sell the property
through a bidding process or to even require an appraisal to be done if the City Council finds that the
proposed transaction is in the best interest of the City by 4/5's vote of the Council. The Charter would
provide a mechanism which is what is before the Council. He confirmed that legally, there does not
have to be an appraisal.
Council Member Lopez interjected noting that since there were a number of continuing questions by
Council Member Zemel whether the item could be continued for a couple of weeks or 30 days.
City Manager Ruth. He prefers not to continue this item noting that thus far all questions were
addressed. The developer is very eager to move forward since they are in a tight time schedule and the
contractor is ready to proceed. If there are issues, they would like to work through them and hope to
respond in a positive way.
Council Member Lopez. He is not ready to vote on this matter tonight and would like at least another
week or two. He has heard questions and concerns from citizens and now Council Member Zemel has a
number of questions. If they are written down, he asked that staff get a copy for him.
Mayor Daly suggested that if there were additional questions, they should do their best to get through
them tonight.
Council Member Zemel. He has several more questions he would like answered especially relative to
the value and the appraisal process. However, he noted one Council Member is not ready to vote and
since four affirmative votes are necessary (with Council Member Tait declaring a conflict), he
recommended a one-week continuance.
City Manager Ruth. If it is necessary, he assumes it would be OK, but it would be helpful if they could
address any additional questions tonight.
Council Member Zemel then continued with his line of questions which were addressed by appropriate
staff and/or consultants at the conclusion of which, Council Member Lopez requested at least a week's
continuance so he can meet with the Planning Director.
During the questioning, City Manager Ruth explained for Council Member Zemel normally development
projects are not taken to the Budget Advisory Commission. This has no budgetary impact on the City of
Anaheim; in fact, it is $5 million plus over a 30-year period of time, net present value. As a result of that,
they did not feel they needed to take it to the Commission.
Mayor Daly. As the City Manager previously pointed out and as indicated in the documentation, the total
revenue to the City over the next 30 years from this proposal is $19.7 million. Right now, the property is
vacant. Also, the project itself is an investment of $15 million in private funding which will create a lot of
construction jobs and permanent employment in the project. It will be a dramatic financial impact. It is
good to hear there appears to be strong and unanimous support for the project but there are questions
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
that still need some answers and also a desire to understand better how this will work in with the 40-acre
Sportstown Project. It is his understanding one of the values of this project is that it works as a stand-
alone project and also as one of the anchors or main features of the Sportstown Project either way. They
do know that the Sportstown developers are out recruiting tenants for their center and it is an ongoing
process.
Council Member Zemel. He asked the Mayor if he had seen the Sportstown plan; Mayor Daly answered,
no.
Council Member Zemel. Sportstown will surround the entire Stadium area. He questioned how that
would work with this piece carved out. He asked what Sportstown is really going to be. As a Council
Member he would like to know where is Forest City and the entire Sportstown situation before he votes
on this saying this is a stand-alone project and it is going to be OK.
City Manager Ruth also confirmed he had not seen Sportstown as yet either. There is a concept of what
it is going to look like but until they do their due diligence and determine the interest which they think is
positive, they will then put it into the development plan. They have been very careful in terms of making
any commitment.
Mayor Daly. They have all seen the Sportstown concept plan. There is tremendous competition in
central Orange County for projects of this type. The developers of Sportstown have a great deal to
compete with and it is important to seize opportunities while they are at hand.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the decision on this item for one week. Council Member
Zemel seconded the motion. Council Member Tait abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 97R-189 throuqh 97R-196, both inclusive, 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-189 through 97R-196, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5618 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5618 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5619 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5619 duly passed and adopted.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Ordinance No. 5622 was introduced for first reading.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. (Council Members Zemel and Lopez voted No
on Item A31 .)
A34 156: PUBLIC HEARING - SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND
(SLESF): To consider the expenditure plan for funds, in the amount of $679,647.28 received by
the City of Anaheim Police Department as a result of Assembly Bill 1584, Citizen's Option for
Public Safety (COPS).
Submitted was report dated October 21, 1997 from the Chief of Police recommending that a Public
Hearing be held for approval of the Police Department's Expenditure Plan for the FY 97/97 SLESF
award from the State budget.
Captain Stephen Sain. The Police Department submitted a grant on October 21, 1997 which is the
second year of the grant, in the amount of $679,647.28. It allows, through current legislation AB1584, to
continue with additional personnel for the department -- 13 full-time people and 4 part-time.
City Manager Ruth. With budget cuts, these positions were taken out of the budget and this puts them
back in. The Council made the decision to put back those positions funded by this grant.
Mayor Daly. He asked the status of future funding; Captain Sain stated the last report from the State is
that the funding would last until at least the year 2000.
Mayor Daly asked if there was any public input on this item; there being no reponse, the hearing was
closed.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the expenditure plan for the SLESF in the amount of
$679,647.28 as requested by the Police Department in report dated October 21, 1997. Council Member
Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Tait asked that staff send their appreciation to the Legislature and the Governor's
Office.
ITEMS B1 - B9 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1997:
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS OCTOBER 21, 1997:
B1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3952 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
OR NECESSITY NO. g7-11 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LIMITED, 1990 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 250, Los Angeles,
CA 90025
AGENT: ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE, Attn: Robert Weiss, 1440 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. Property is 14.74
acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard.
To permit a 6,809 square foot addition for a television studio and entertainment area and
determination of public convenience or necessity for retail sales of beer for on-premises
consumption and a second level, 1,209 square foot office area in conjunction with an existing
indoor swap meet.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
CUP NO. 3952 GRANTED for one year from the date of issuance of an occupancy permit
(PC97-135) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
APPROVED Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 97-11 (PC97-136) (5 yes
votes, 1 no votes, and 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B2.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3949 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 21:
OWNER: SUMANBHAI N. PATEL AND NIRMALABEN S. PATEL, 426 South Beach Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard - Pacific Inn Motel. Property is 0.36 acre located on
the east side of Beach Boulevard, 408 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue.
To retain a 23-unit motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3949 DENIED (PC97-137) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by Hari S. Lal & Associates, 100 S.
Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 320, Anaheim Ca. 92805, in letter dated October 15, 1997 and, therefore, a Public
Hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B3. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3948 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: GENERAL BANK, 4128 Temple City Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770
AGENT: QUINCY T. DAO, 44 Montelegro Street, Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION: 3107 - 3115 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.51 acre located on the north side
of Lincoln Avenue, 95 feet west of the centerline of Grand Avenue.
To permit the conversion of an existing 8,684 square foot commercial center to a mortuary with
waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces - APPROVED, (b) prohibited signs - DENIED,
(c) maximum number of roof signs - DENIED, (d) maximum area of roof signs - DENIED, (e)
permitted location of roof signs - DENIED, (f) minimum distance between signs - DENIED and
(g) maximum height of illuminated roof signs - DENIED.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3948 GRANTED, IN PART (PC97-138) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
APPROVED, IN PART, waiver of code requirement - Waiver (a) APPROVED based on the
findings from the parking study; DENIED waivers (d) and (g) on the basis that they were deleted
following public notification; and DENIED waivers (b), (c) (e) and (f) on the basis that the
applicant agreed at the public hearing to remove all roof signs and to comply with the sign Code
requirements.
Approved Negative Declaration.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Daly concurred in by Council
Member Lopez and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B4. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3960 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: BHUPESH PARIKH AND KUMUO B. PARIKH, 427 West Colorado, #201, Glendale,
CA 91204
AGENT: JOHN E. BUTTERS, 27410 Laurel Glen Lane, Valencia, CA 91354
LOCATION: 212 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.93 acres located on the east side of
Beach Boulevard, 900 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
To construct an 85,000 square foot, 2-story self-storage facility with one caretaker's unit with
waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway - DENIED, (b)
minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary - DENIED, and (c)
required site screening - APPROVED.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3960 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC97-139) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, waivers (a) and (b) DENIED on the basis
that they were deleted following public notification; and waiver (c) APPROVED only for the rear
property line where the building wall takes the place of the required block wall.
Approved Negative Declaration.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayaor Daly concurred in by Council
Member Lopez and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B5. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3484 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY, 1825 West Collins, P.O. Box 4159,
Orange, CA 92867
AGENT: SIGN DEVELOPMENT INC., Attn: Fernando Baluyot, 1366 West Ninth Street, Upland,
CA 91786
LOCATION: 1431 North Raymond Avenue - Ultramar.
Property is 0.61 acre located at the southwest corner of Raymond Avenue and Orangefair Lane.
Request to amend or delete a condition of approval to permit additional wall and canopy signage
for an existing service station.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to condition of approval for CUP NO 3484 (PC97-140) (6 yes votes, 1
absent).
B6.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3970 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: VIC PELOQUIN, 4740 East Bryson Street, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 108 South Fairmont Boulevard - Hibachi Steak House. Property is 2.4 acres
located at the southeast corner of Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
To permit the expansion of an existing 1,655 square foot restaurant to 3,490 square foot with
sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3970 GRANTED (PC97-141) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B7.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, Attn: Richard DeBeikes, 5289 Alton Parkway,
Irvine CA 92604
LOCATION: 5645-5675 East La Palma Avenue - Imperial Promenade. Property is 4.4 acres
located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway.
Request to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a limitation of restaurant uses
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to condition of approval for CUP NO. 3253 (PC97-142) (5 yes votes, 2
absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Member Zemel, concurred in
by Council Member Lopez and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
B8. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3924 REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
FINAL PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
LOCATION: Property is located at 2212 West Sequoia Avenue.
David Jackson, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests review of final elevation
and landscape plans (to construct a gymnasium/auditorium and classroom for a private
educational facility).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3924 APPROVED, IN PART, the final building elevations and landscape plans.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B9. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3922 REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
FINAL PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
LOCATION: Property is located at 1244 North Harbor Boulevard.
Steve Philips (RHL Design Group Inc.), 1201 South Beach Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631,
requests review and approval of final exterior elevation and canopy plans for a previously-
approved service station and convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved the revised elevation plans and canopy plans for CUP NO. 3922.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
ITEMS B10 - B12 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997:
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS OCTOBER 23, 1997:
B10. 179: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14733 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
LOCATION: Property is located at 2625 West Lincoln Avenue.
K.C. Chang, 1265 Manassero Street, #303, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests an extension of time
to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved l-lot, RM-3000 subdivision to
construct a 2-story, 15-unit condominium complex with waivers of private street improvement
and minimum dimension of garage spaces. This petition was originally approved on November
2, 1992.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 14733 (to expire 11/2/98) (6 yes votes,
1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Bll.
179: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 92-163 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME,
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15
LOCATION: Property is 1120 & 1130 West La Palma Avenue.
Thomas H. Tice, 4351 Lakeview Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 92886, requests an extension of time
to comply with conditions of approval to create two (2) commercial parcels. Petition was
originally approved on August 24, 1992.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 14733 (to expire 8/24/98) (6 yes votes,
1 absent).
B12. 134: REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN
FOR USE OF LEASED SPACE:
LOCATION: Property is located at 160, 306, 308 & 312 West Cerritos Avenue.
Linda Barry, Real Property Agent, County of Orange, Probation Department, 909 North Main
Street, Suite 1, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511, requests determination o conformance with the
Anaheim General Plan for County use of leased space for the Youth and Family Resource
Center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in substantial conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (6 yes votes, 1
absent).
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
B13.
155: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-197: Amending Resolution Nos. 94R-194 and 94R-195 relating to
the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 (Amendment No. 1). (Public Hearing on this item held at
the City Council meeting of September 9, 1997, Item D3.)
Mayor Daly. He opposed this earlier and will again be voting no on both the resolution and the
ordinance.
Council Member Zemel Offered Resolution No. 97R-197 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-197: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 94R-194 AND 94R-195 RELATING TO THE
HOTEL CIRCLE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-1 (AMENDMENT NO. 1
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-197 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Council Member Zemel declared Resolution No. 97R-197 duly passed and adopted.
155: ORDINANCE NO. 5614: (ADOPTION) Amending Ordinance Nos. 5443 and 5444 relating
to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1, Amendment No. 1 (Chapter 18.79 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code). (Introduced at the meeting of September 9, 1997, Item D3, and continued
from the meetings of September 16, 1997, Item B4, and September 23, 1997, Item B6.)
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Council Member Zemel offered Ordinance No. 5614 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5614: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 5443 AND 5444 RELATING TO THE HOTEL
CIRCLE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-1, AMENDMENT NO. 1 (CHAPTER 18.79 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE).
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5614 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Council Member Zemel declared Ordinance No. 5614 duly passed and adopted.
B14.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5620: (ADOPTION) Amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Zoning (Reclassification No. 96-97-08) (Introduced at
the meeting of October 7, 1997, Item B9.)
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5620 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5620: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO.
96-97-08 LOCATED AT 2004 AND 2006 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE, AND 230,232,234,236,
240,244,246, AND 248 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD FROM THE RS-A-43,000
ZONE AND THE CG ZONE TO THE CL ZONE.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5620 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5620 duly passed and adopted.
B15.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5621: (ADOPTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 96-97-06 located at 714 North Brookhurst Street from the ML zone to the CL
zone. (Introduced at the meeting of October 7, 1997, Item B11 .)
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5621 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5621: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO.
96-97-06 LOCATED AT 714 NORTH BROOKHURST STREET FROM THE ML ZONE TO THE
CL ZONE.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5621 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, 7emel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5620 duly passed and adopted.
B16.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5623: (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 97-98-03 located at the northeast corner of Pullman Street and Old Canal
Road from the CO (SC) zone to the CL (SC) zone.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5623: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-03 LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF PULLMAN STREET AND OLD CANAL ROAD FROM THE CO (SC)
ZONE TO THE CL (SC) ZONE.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF A REHEARING:
B17. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONAL US PERMIT NO. 3922
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 97-07 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: CARL N. & MARGARET M KARCHER TRUST, 1200 North Harbor Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, 4 Center Pointe Drive, La Palma, CA 90623
LOCATION: 1244 North Harbor Boulevard. Property is 1.16 acres located on the east side of
Harbor Boulevard, 240 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive.
To permit a 2,944 square-foot service station with an accessory convenience market with retail
sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of (a) minimum distance
between signs and (b) minimum required landscaping adjacent to interior property lines and to
determine public convenience or necessity for retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3922 GRANTED, IN PART, denying the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption (PC97-49) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, waiver (a) was denied on the basis that it
was deleted following public notification, and waiver (b) was approved.
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 97-07 DENIED (PC97-
50).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of May 20, 1997, Item BT.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
At the rehearing held September 23, 1997, Item D3, the Anaheim City Council granted CUP NO.
3922 (Resolution No. 94R-183), and approved Determination of Public Convenience and
Necessity No. 97-07 (97R-182).
The above action is requested to be reheard by World Oil Co., appeal submitted by Arthur H.
Barens, Attorney.
Council Member Tait declared a conflict and temporarily left the Council Chamber (8:10 P.M.).
Council Member Lopez stated he is going to vote no.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel asked if there was any new information regarding this item; there
being none, he moved to deny the request for a rehearing. Council Member McCracken seconded the
motion. Council Member Lopez voted no since he favored a rehearing. MOTION CARRIED.
D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4307 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT,
CLASS 11:
OWNER: WATT COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, INC., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3040,
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218
AGENT: SIGN METHODS, 1749 East 28th Street, Signal Hill, CA 90806
LOCATION: 5711-5799 East La Palma Avenue - Canyon Village Plaza. Property is 9.91 acres
located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway.
Waiver of permitted freestanding signs and permitted type of sign (deleted) to construct two (2)
freestanding pole signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4307 DENIED (PC97-117) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 abstained).lnformational
Item at the meeting of Sept. 9, 1997, Item B4.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by the
Agent, Sign Methods 1749 E. 28th Street, Signal Hill, Ca. 90806. Public hearing continued from the
meeting of September 23, 1997, Item D2, at the request of the Agent.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - September 11, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 12, 1997.
Posting of property - September 12, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 17, 1997.
Wendy Campbell, Director of Construction and Special Projects, Watt Management Company, the
Managing Agent for the owner of Canyon Village Plaza. She is representing the interests of the tenants
who have expressed their concerns over the years about the lack of visibility from the street for their
businesses. This is due to the pad buildings on the front of the property, mature trees, and the setback
distance of the main building. With that in mind, they started working with the sign company, Sign
Methods, to put together a new signage program for the center including mounted illuminated signs for
the individual businesses as well as two, 25' pylon signs with a directory of tenants, one each on
LaPalma and Imperial Highway. Upon presentation, the Planning Commission was not willing to approve
the pylon signs due to the height and asked them to go back and redesign the signs to 8' to 10' maximum
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
monument signs. They did that and also included in their presentation a list of commercial sites in the
corridor area that currently have signs of equal or greater square footage which exceed 10'. The request
was denied with little explanation. They could not understand why the proposal was denied. She turned
the presentation over to Dan Cardone of Sign Methods.
Mayor Daly interjected and asked first to hear from staff.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission. Originally, there were
two items requested as part of the variance. One pertained to signs constructed above a parapet. At one
of the Planning Commission meetings, that was withdrawn and there is a better design with the signs
dropped down to be wall signs. The second part and the part outlined in the presentation is for signs to
be constructed on LaPalma and Imperial. The current request is for two, 10' high by 17' 4" in length
double faced, 227 sq. ft. internally illuminated signs. The Planning Commission rejected that request but
he believes that some would have been receptive to a freestanding sign on LaPalma if the sign would
have been perrhaps an 8' high monument sign 80 sq. ft. in area. That level of reduction was not
proposed and the Planning Commission denied the sign variance. It was reported that there are other
signs on other properties of larger or different character. A number of those are on industrial properties or
previously industrial properties or, in almost all cases, are non-conforming signs.
Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber (8:14 P.M.).
Dan Cardone, Sign Methods. Planning staff has given the impression they want a big pylon sign. They
actually came in with a complete plan. What they have tried to do is revamp the shopping center. (He
explained what their plan was.) In order to do so, they added a parapet above the roof which is actually
a canopy that hangs over the front of the building. They never did take that back but said if they could
get the big pylon sign, they would move the parapet below the canopy but that never happened. His
impression from the Planning Commission was if they went down to 8', there would be no need for a
hearing; they could just go to the Planning counter. He then clarified for Mayor Daly exactly where they
would like to put their signs.
Mr. Cardone subsequently gave a slide presentation first showing the center and the visibility problem
and then slides showing other signs allowed in the area at different centers, mostly on LaPalma, with
heights ranging from (approximately) 45' to 22'. There are already large signs in the scenic corridor area
and they feel they need some exposure. For years, this center had a captive customer base but with the
advent of the many shopping areas that have been built, the customer base is moving farther down. The
City of Yorba Linda is going to be spending a half- million dollars on signage for Savi Ranch. If so, the
people in the subject center need a little help. A 10' monument sign would not be too much to ask as
well as the channel letters over the building.
Council Member McCracken noted that of the signs shown in the slide presentation, there are none on
any of the shopping centers with grocery stores, drug stores and stores similar to the subject center.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone was present opposed to the request; no one was present in opposition. He
then asked to hear from those in favor. The following people, tenants in the subject center, spoke in
favor and their comments summarized:
Sharon Solar, Tenant/Owner, Victorian Rose in the subject center. People are visual.
single-most effective advertising tool, especially for the small tenants in the center.
further consideration of this proposal.
Signage is the
She urged their
Michel Arts, Tenant/Owner of the flower shop in the center (4 years). She owns another flower shop four
miles down LaPalma and she hears people weekly saying they do not know she is located in the subject
center. She urged the Council to consider the proposal for the sake of the tenants who are trying to
survive. Signage is very important.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Mary Lowe, Property Manager of the center and also the center across the street. All of the small
tenants consistently get comments that it is very difficult to see their businesses. Carl's Jr. and
Oshman's are at the front of the property and it is not until getting into the center that the other
businesses are visible. The situation has been a problem for them operationally and for leasing. People
even call the leasing number asking why they do not get additional signage. The proposed signage is
quite tasteful and she does not believe it is going to cause a problem.
Mayor Daly noted that the Von's Center on Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road (Crossroads) was also
pretty deep but does not require signage. If they have to address a 30-year old design problem (with the
subject center), it is important to understand the dominoe effect that might occur. He asked if there are
any plans to do any other rehabilitation of the center.
Mary Lowe. They are looking at possibly doing something within the next 12 months; another
representative of the center also spoke and stated there were only a certain amount of funds to spend on
the center and the property owner believes the primary issue is visibility. If they are allowed to have the
signage, it will cost a lot of money and they would rather spend it on signage than on other things.
John Arts (flower shop tenant). The lack of signage has always been a problem in trying to attract
customers. Management wants to provide rehabilitation for the center and Option A in the package
submitted (previously made a part of the record) does a refinish of the entire front roof area. That is
included in the request to put in the two separate signs at Imperial and LaPalma. All they are asking for
is the same consideration given other agenda items relative to signage so that they can increase their
business and livelihood and revenue back to the City.
Council Member Tait. He asked if staff made a recommendation on either Option A or B. (Option A:
add 36" high X full length parapet extension to create sign band -- Option B: remove existing overhang
rafters and add 30" high X full length lower sign band; 24" high individual internally illuminated channel
letters or signs to be installed - see Drawing 96-194 by Sign Methods illustrating both options.)
Joel Fick. Staff's preference would have been B. Option A would have been considered roof signs
under the sign ordinance. At the Planning Commission when this was considered, A was withdrawn so
that portion of the variance was withdrawn and reflected in the Planning Commission resolution. The
Council heard tonight they would like to reincorporate that as part of the package.
Mayor Daly. It would help to understand exactly what the request is.
Joel Fick. The original application was for a pole sign and then revised to the monument sign proposal
before the Council tonight. At least along LaPalma, the Planning Commission would have been
receptive to a somewhat smaller monument type sign but that did not come forward. Option A was part
of the original variance request. That was withdrawn at the Planning Commission meeting. Option B
does not require a variance because those are wall signs and could be constructed without further action.
Council Member Lopez. He does not object as long as it conforms to what the Planning Commission has
approved for the area. He is very familiar with that center. The bottom line, he agrees that they need
signage, but feels they need to go back and work with staff for signage that is according to code or policy
and that the applicant conform to everything else that will be built in the area. Otherwise, if it is different,
it will be a benchmark and everyone else will want the same.
Dan Cardone. He would like to have some architectural flavor rather than building a 6' X 12' box,
something with a steeple on it with the name of the center. This sign is actually 6' 6" X 14'.
Council Member Zemel. What he just described was a 10'X 17 1/2' billboard type sign. They are trying
to give him a message it is way beyond what code is for that size property. The Council wants to help
and give them signs, but signs that everyone else gets. He should meet with staff, find out what code is
and come back with a reasonable opportunity for the Council to approve the signage.
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Mayor Daly. There appears to be direction to ask the property owner to meet with Planning staff to try to
find an acceptable compromise. One of the proposals made to the Planning Commission was for
parapet signs which were withdrawn by the applicant.
Council Member Tait.
formally withdrew that.
was more important.
He asked if both A and B were withdrawn; Dan Cardone. He stated he never
He said if they got a pylon sign, they would lower the parapet sign because that
Joel Fick. Option B does not require a sign variance because it is considered a wall sign. Option A
would require a variance as a roof sign.
Mayor Daly. His one concern would be that they not add in any way to the visual clutter in the Imperial
Highway area. With a 30-year old shopping center, there are inherent problems because of the design.
He believes a compromise is possible.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the Public Hearing for three weeks to November
11, 1997 and staff directed to try to help the applicant come up with a plan. Council Member Lopez
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3659 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: NOAH KHOURAKI AND MOHAMED KHOURAKI, 1217 South Brookhurst Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: PAUL RUSSAVAGE, 9762 Fairtide Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
LOCATION: 1217 South Brookhurst Street - Al Tayebat Market. Property is 0.31 acre located
on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 280 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road.
To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
APPROVED amendment to Condition No. 14 of PC94-15 for CUP NO. 3659, to expire 9/30/98,
(PC97-122) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by the
Agent, Paul Russavage, 9762 Fairtide Cir., Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646. Informational item at the
meeting of September 23, 1997.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - October 9, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 9, 1997.
Posting of property - October 9, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 3, 1997.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the
proposal. The Planning Commission also imposed a condition of approval to remove an existing
scissors gate and outdoor display at the entrance to the store. The decision of the Commission was
appealed by the applicant solely related to the fact that it was a one-year extension. Their letter notes a
cost of $3,000 to go back through with this item. For informational purposes, a renewal of an application
like this would cost approximately $400 in fees.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Mayor Daly. He asked the reason the recommendation was for only one year.
Joel Fick. It was primarily related to the changing nature of the parking. They are looking at 35 spaces
on the adjacent ARCO property but do have another parking arrangement with the property to the south
which does cover by one space the minimum code requirement.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Ed Hoke, representative of the owner and the contractor who built the building. One of the concerns is
the time limit being 3 yrs. and 7 months. In the beginning, it was their understanding that the time limit
was only in case conditions were not met or there were problems getting things done. Now after the 3
yrs. and 7 months and investing $1,700,000, the owner could potentially lose his project. He
emphasized, he was under the impression it was merely a time limit set during which conditions had to
be met and there would not be another reason to come before the Council and the Planning Commission
to extend it. Even now with a one-year extension, the owner has a concern not only relative to the filing
fee, but he also does not want to go another year and face the same worry, heartache, and stress and
then possibly lose everything.
Mayor Daly asked for clarification if the request is for a longer period or limitless; Mr. Hoke answered, he
believes limitless as with all CUP's.
Council Member Tait pointed out that many CUP's do have a time limitation.
Ed Hoke. He has what is required, he meets the code, and has even provided next door, 19 more
parking spaces. That is his property also. It is a mini-warehouse where he stores his goods. If he does
not have enough spaces, he will make the decision himself that it is not practical to stay in the location
and would relocate. The other issue is the scissors gate out front. He has had the gate there "forever".
Code Enforcement had a problem with the produce being stored out front and they suggested moving the
gates out 3' and keeping everything behind them. He did that and Code Enforcement felt it was OK.
When they did the remodeling, they did the same thing and put in new gates rather than the old ones.
Now, by making the change, it is not OK because he is losing the grandfather clause.
Josef Ibraham. He sold the two buildings to Mr. Khouraki. He described what was on the property
before. Mr. Khouraki demolished the old flower shop and remodeled the original building which is now
the market. The City required landscaping and removal of the two pole signs. They made him close two
driveways and install one large driveway which resulted in the loss of nine parking spaces on the north
portion of the shopping center adjacent to the ARCO property. If he had known that he would be facing
the problem now with the parking, he would not have put the parking in as the Planning Department
requested, but further south in order to keep the spaces.
Mohamed Khouraki. He is the owner of the market. He first explained what he had done on the
property. The City sent a letter indicating site inspection showed the property was well maintained and
upgraded and it was nice and clean. They were given a one-year extension and he does not know why.
He would like an explanation why it is for only one year and not indefinitely. He met all the demands.
Relative to the gates, to his knowledge, no permit was required. He also did not know he was not
supposed to store things outside.
Council Member Zemel. If he removed the (scissors) gate and is given more than a year, perhaps three
or five years, ultimately there could be a parking problem. If he agrees to take the gates down and the
permit extended for five years, he asked Mr. Khouraki how he would feel about that.
Mr. Khouraki. He was concerned about the five years. He reiterated, he has met all the demands and
would like them to consider an indefinite permit.
Mayor Daly. He noted one of the conditions was to remove the scissors gate. He asked if that was not
already a condition even of the one-year extension; Mr. Fick confirmed that was correct.
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Council Member McCracken. She asked if he was losing his parking lease at the end of the year; Mr.
Khouraki answered probably, but they do not know what is going to happen.
Council Member McCracken. Parking is the Planning Commission and City Council's concern. She
asked if he was going to have sufficient parking if he loses the lease at the end of the year. If so, it will
not be a viable business. She reiterated the biggest issue is the parking issue.
Mr. Khouraki. His understanding is that he has sufficient parking. He has 29 spaces and when the City
required him to close two driveways and remove two signs they did so and as a result, lost nine parking
spaces.
Council Member Tait asked if staff anticipated a parking problem in year two of operations;
Mayor Daly also asked if staff is concerned that the 19 parking spaces provided next door might go
away.
Joel Fick. Their understanding was they do have an arrangement that that parking will be available
beyond the one year time period -- the parking to the south. A Letter of Operations submitted by the
applicant indicates that there are 30 employees associated with the business which he would assume are
in different shifts. There originally was concern related to the adequacy of parking. A fact that came out
of this hearing was the substantial investment that has gone into the property. Staff was not aware of
that and they typically take that into consideration when they make recommendations to the Commission
and Council in terms of time limitations.
Council Member Tait. He has problems with the scissors gate and outside storage of food. Without
those, he would not have a problem extending the limit to five years or even beyond that.
Mayor Daly. The Planning Commission action which extended the use for one year requires removal of
the scissors gate. Also if the applicant comes back beyond that additional year, he would have to submit
evidence he has the 29 spaces; Joel Fick confirmed that was correct.
Mayor Daly asked how that would be done; Council Member Tait asked if they could just extend the
permit on evidence of sufficient parking -- a parking lease or arrangement so that he would not have to
come back.
City Attorney White. He is not sure he could draft exact language on the spot but could fashion language
that would extend the permit to a time certain and then automatically extend it again if there was
adequate parking.
Council Member Tait. He asked if it was acceptable if they brought evidence that parking requirements
were met, Mr. Khouraki would not have to come back.
Mohamed Khouraki. He would definitely have the 29 parking spaces. Right now, he owns both
properties.
Council Member Tait suggested that they just make that a condition of approval that they have those
parking spaces; Mayor Daly. He asked if he was suggesting that the parking be to code with proof of
sufficient parking to meet the City's codes.
Joel Fick. Presently with this application, they do have it. They could work with the Attorney's office that
some documentation be submitted whether a lease arrangement or reciprocal parking with the adjacent
property that they do have sufficient parking to meet code requirements.
Ed Hoke. He understands code is what they currently have without ARCO; Joel Fick. Presently that is
correct but if they intensify the adjacent property, that could change in the future.
3O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
Council Member Tait. It would be a condition of approval and if that was not met, they would have to
come back for a CUP.
Paul Russavage. He is the original agent. Mr. Khouraki does not like dealing with the City so he
(Russavage) handled all of the meetings. Planning was aware of the money that was spent on the
property and Redevelopment had to approve everything. He also owns the shopping center across the
street.
The Public Hearing was closed.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: On motion by Council Member Tait,
seconded by Mayor Daly the City Council finds that the Negative Declaration previously approved in
connection with CUP No. 3659 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation, that it
has considered the previously approved Negative Declaration together with any comments and evidence
received during the public review process and that there are no additional impacts in connection with the
subject action. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Tait offered Resolution 97R-198 for adoption deleting the condition of a one-year time
limit and adding a condition that the parking be to City code.
Council Member Tait offered Resolution No. 97R-198 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-198: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3659 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC94-15.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White suggested adding that the applicant submit proof
satisfactory to the Planning Director and City Attorney that the use currently meets City code
requirements.
Council Member Tait. He will incorporate that in his offering of the resolution. He asked how long they
would have to submit that; City Attorney White. Within 60 days.
Council Member Tait. If for some reason the property fell out of code, then the CUP would expire;City
Attorney White. If they do not have required code parking, like any other CUP, they would be in violation
and the permit would be subject to revocation.
It was also determined that the scissor gates would have to be removed since that was already a
condition imposed by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Daly. He intends to vote no because he believes some type of time limitation is appropriate due
to the configuration of the property. He supports an extension but with some type of limitation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution deleting the condition of a one-year time limit as long
as the business continues to meet the City parking code and that the applicant submit proof satisfactory
to the Planning Department and City Attorney that the use currently meets City code requirements.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-198 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
Mayor Daly declared Resolution No. 97R-198 duly passed and adopted.
31
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
C1. 000: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND
IMPROVEMENT FEE FROM SPIEKER PROPERTIES:
To consider the application of Spieker Properties for the relief of the Transportation Impact and
Improvement fee established in Section 17.32.080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for Stadium
Plaza Business Park. This matter was continued from the meeting of September 9, 1997 to this
date (see minutes of September 9, 1997).
Letter dated October 7, 1997 was received from Dan O'Hare, Project Director, Spieker Properties
retracting its protest of transportation fees. This item was, therefore, withdrawn by the applicant.
City Attorney White stated that no further action is required by the Council.
C2. 173: PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COACH - PROPOSED CHANGES IN
RATES: Approving the Southern California Coach Freight Transportation Arrangement. At the Council
meeting of September 23, 1997 (see minutes that date), the Anaheim City Council determined to set a
public hearing regarding the Southern California Coach proposed changes to increase the schedule or
rates of their jitney type transportation service.
Submitted was report dated October 6, 1997 from Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works and City
Engineer recommending approval of the subject arrangement.
Mayor Daly noted that staff is recommending approval of the proposal.
Council Member Tait. On the applicant's letter to Mr. Lower on September 30, 1997, it states the
application would be for use of corporate charters, and on September 5, 1997 that it would be for shuttle
services, airport transportation and charter services. He asked if the inconsistency was of concern.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. That was his concern. Subsequently, after the motion
on September 23 to set this matter for a Public Hearing, he contacted Larry Weinstein, Vice President of
Southern California Coach. Mr. Weinstein confirmed in his follow up letter it is their intent to provide
charters and contract service at the Convention Center.
Mayor Daly left the Council Chamber temporarily (9:21).
Mayor Pro Tem Lopez opened the hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak or if the applicant was
present; no one wished to speak.
Mr. Lower confirmed that the applicant indicated he would not be attending the meeting with the
understanding that he (Lower) would be recommending approval of the request.
Mayor Daly entered the Council Chamber (9:22).
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the Southern California Coach Freight Transportation
Arrangement as recommended in staff report dated October 6, 1997. Council Member Zemel seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
32
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
C3.
127: INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO REVIEW CAMPAIGN REFORM LAW: To consider the
names of qualified attorneys. This was requested by the City Council at the September 23, 1997
Council Meeting. (See minutes that date.)
Submitted was report dated October 1, 1997 from the City Attorney, Jack White, regarding the subject
attached to which was information on the individuals/firms he (White) prepared for Council consideration
and in response to their direction to prepare a list of four to five qualified attorneys who could provide
written advice to the Council on the issues outlined in his report (1 -3 on page 1).
Council Member Zemel. He is going to ask for a continuance on this issue since he has not had an
opportunity to call anyone.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the subject appointment for four weeks. Council
Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C4. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
The City Attorney reported that the Council appointed Ravi Mehta as Special Prosecutor fot the City
concerning campaign finance laws. Ayes: McCracken, Zemel, Lopez - Abstained (conflict): Tait, Daly.
C5. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member McCracken. She reported on her attendance at the California League of Cities Annual
Conference (in San Francisco) and referred to the materials she had brought back. She reported that the
resolution Anaheim submitted asking for support for legislation addressing the shopping cart problem,
was passed unanimously. The League will take on the issue and work with the City.
Council Member McCracken. To update those in the community who have asked about a Youth
Commission, there is an organization that is being put in place called Anaheim Youth in Action made up
of representatives from all of the high schools in Anaheim and the AUHSD as well as Servite, Connelly,
Esperanza and Canyon High Schools. The AUHSD will assign an administrator to staff the meetings and
provide guidance and a Community Services staff member will provide them with a link for information
and receive input from the students regarding City issues.
Council Member McCracken. She is asking for a personal privilege to thank a member of the Anaheim
community, Norman Rivet, who found some personal items of hers, contacted a Police Officer, and they
were returned to her. She appreciates the fact that they do have honest citizens in the City.
33
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1997
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council meeting of October 21, 1997 was
adjourned (9:27 P. M.).
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
34