1999/08/24ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: MAYOR : Tom Daly
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken,
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER : Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White
CITY CLERK : Sheryll Schroeder
ASST. CITY CLERK : Ann Sauvageau
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER : Greg Hastings
ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Tom Wood
PUBL IC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER : Ed Aghjayan
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 4:59 p.m. on
August 20, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken called the Workshop portion of the Council Meeting of August 24, 1999 to
order (3:12 P.M.), all Council Members being present with the exception of Mayor Daly who had
previously declared a conflict relative to the subject and had abstained from any discussion or action.
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the appointed time for the workshop on Anaheim’s Campaign Reform
Law. He deferred to the City Attorney.
CAMPAIGN REFORM LAW ORDINANCE :
112: City Attorney, Jack White. This is the continued
discussion of proposed changes to the Anaheim Campaign Reform Law found in Chapter 1.09 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code ( AMC). Continuing where they left off at the prior workshop (see minutes of
the Council Meeting of June 22, 1999 – 3:00 P.M. Workshop), the City Council and his office had
formulated a total of 30 possible changes be made to the current political reform law. Of those 30
changes, only three areas remain where there is not unanimity on the Council. (See submittal by the City
Attorney – Anaheim Campaign Reform Law – August 24, 1999 with attached matrix – made a part of the
record.) Since the last workshop, he believes there is now a consensus among three of the Council
Members on 6.1 which is to leave that section the way it is currently in the code not restricting transfer of
funds between a candidate’s controlled committees for different offices. Only two issues remain.
At the last workshop, it was suggested he attempt to craft language on item 5.2 on the matrix which is an
alternative to the requirement – “Requires candidate with outstanding debt to create a new controlled
committee prior to accepting contributions for a subsequent election.” He has done that and provided
language which would include a new Section 1.09.55 which as an alternative does not require the
creation of a new committee but would require that candidates and office holders designate on their
Form 490 which contributions were received during the reporting period for the purpose of retiring debt
from a prior election and differentiate those from contributions for the current election.
The only other remaining issue was item 7.3 which related to in-kind contributions of property, goods and
services. The code provides that they are includable towards the $1,000 per election limit. His
recommendation is to continue to include that otherwise it would be meaningless to have a limitation if
applied only to cash and not in-kind contributions. Secondly , State law defines a contribution to include
in-kind contributions. Third, State law now requires candidates to report such contributions even if there
is no limit. Based upon those reasons, he would suggest keeping the provision as is – that those in-kind
contributions are part of the $1,000 limit. He would also like to point out that personal services are
expressly excluded from the definition in the State law. It would not apply to a person providing personal
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
service as opposed to someone who contracted to pay for personal services to be provided. (He gave
an example for illustrative purposes.)
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken . She noted since the last workshop, the Form 490 had to be filed (Semi-
Annual Statement) wherein the cover sheet asks what election the report is from. She believes the State
already had something in place in order to report properly. She also posed questions relative to funds
collected if a Recall Committee were formed, and the process involved in transferring funds collected if
the recall did not happen; Mr. White answered the latter explaining that the current code provision
provides for the transfer of funds from one committee or election to another election; however,
maintaining the $1,000 per election per contributor limit. It would then be necessary to pro-rate the
amount of total contributions recieved thereby establishing a new contribution limit for those contributors
for the subsequent election. (Council discussion and questioning followed on this issue during which Mr.
White clarified the process in detail).
Further discussion then followed relative to in-kind contributions upon questioning by Council Member
Feldhaus wherein the City Attorney again cited specific examples to clarify what is reportable and not
reportable reiterating that volunteer personal service given to a candidate is not reportable.
At the conclusion of discussion , City Attorney White stated he would like to see if there is a direction
from the Council to agendize an ordinance of some sort for an upcoming Council Meeting amending the
current ordinance consistent with what he has submitted, or, if the Council does not want such an
ordinance, if they would so indicate and he will put a different type on the agenda. His goal is to try to
move the matter forward to some resolution one way or the other. He would like to get some direction
from at least three Council Members to agendize an ordinance for an upcoming meeting perhaps as
early as the next meeting in three weeks, September 14, 1999. He clarified for Council Member Tait if
the Council does nothing, the current ordinance will remain as is until it is either amended or repealed.
He further confirmed all he is looking for is consensus among the Council to direct him to draft the
ordinance and bring it back for consideration on a public agenda wherever they would like to place it on
that agenda. He is not looking for the Council to approve something today but what they can do by a
motion is to direct him to place an ordinance on the agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken . She is not happy with the current ordinance but because the community by
an advisory vote (only) in the November 3, 1992 General Election voted in favor of the Council adopting
a limit, (“Should the City Council adopt an ordinance limiting the amount of campaign contributions a city
candidate may receive from any single source to $1,000 per election?”), she is offering the following
motion:
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to
the current ordinance and place it on the City Council Agenda for consideration and action.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken . She asked if there was any other motion since, without other direction, the
current ordinance stands.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance repealing
the current Campaign Reform Ordinance thereby reverting to State Law. Council Member Feldhaus
seconded the motion. Council Member McCracken voted No. Mayor Daly was absent due to a conflict.
MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White. An ordinance repealing the current ordinance will be on the agenda at the next
Council Meeting, September 14, 1999, at which time the public will have an opportunity to comment as
well.
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
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:
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
1.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and related cases and cross actions)
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
2.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case
: Vista Royale Homeowners Assoc. vs. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone
Company, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74,
( and related cases).
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
3.
Title:
City Manager.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
4. :
Agency Designated Representative :
Dave Hill
Employee organization :
AFA Labor Negotiations.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
5.
CODE SECTION 54956.9 (a) – Existing Litigation
:
Name of case
: Pepper v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange Superior Court Case
No. 782221.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO
6.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8:
Property:
1561-1563 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California.
Negotiating parties :
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Caltrans and Orange
County Transportation Agency.
Under negotiation: price and terms.
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Kring seconded the
motion. Mayor Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of August 24, 1999 to order at 5:47 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Bryan Crow, from the Garden Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Tom Tait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PRESENTATION – INTRODUCTION OF TWO STUDENT VISITORS FROM VITORIA-GASTEIZ,
SPAIN (Anaheim’s new Sister City) :
Mr. Greg Hastings, President, Anaheim Sister Cities Association
(and the City’s Zoning Manager), introduced the two student visitors from Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain – Zurine
Martinez De Luco Gordo and Argine Ruiz De Luzuriaga Beitia. The young women are staying with a host
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
family for three weeks. Their visit was arranged with the assistance of Larry Rosenberg, Co-Director of
the Anaheim Ballet. Both of the students have extensive training in dance.
Mayor Daly first gave additional background on the City of Vitoria-Gasteiz which is considered to be one
of the best planned cities in Europe, noting also that both Spanish and Basque is spoken in that region of
Spain. He then invited the students to speak to the Chamber audience in their language. (They spoke
through interpeter, Stan Madrid, a former Assistant in the City Manager’s Office.)
Gifts were presented by the students to the Mayor and the City (two books on Vitoria-Gasteiz printed
especially for the Millenium – the year 2000).
ANNOUNCEMENT – INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTMENT OF NEW CHIEF OF POLICE :
Mayor
Daly. Before continuing the Council Meeting, there is an important announcement to make which comes
out of their Closed Session today. He deferred to the City Manager to make the announcement.
City Manager, James Ruth. He is very pleased to announce to the public that in Closed Session today,
the City Council and Mayor unanimously approved his recommendation to appoint Roger Baker as the
City’s new Chief of Police.
Mayor Daly. Roger Baker has been a long-time member of the City’s Police force and has been acting
Police Chief. He has been with the Department for 25 years, a Captain for 10 years and has overseen
every operating division within the Police Department. He has a Master’s and Bachelor’s Degree from
Chapman University where he has also taught law-enforcement classes and is a member of the National
Association of Chiefs of Police. It is a great privilege to have Roger as the No. 1 person in the Police
Department. He wished him well on behalf of the Council and the City. It is a great day for the City of
Anaheim. He thanked City Manager Ruth for leading such an extensive, thorough and thoughtful search
resulting in the choice of Chief Baker.
The Mayor noted there will be an official swearing-in ceremony of the Chief on Tuesday, September 14,
1999 prior to the City Council Meeting in the Council Chamber. Details will be forthcoming. The target
time for the swearing in is 4:30 P.M.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION proclaiming September 22, 1999, as American Business Women’s Day.
DECLARATION recognizing the Sons of the American Legion.
PROCLAMATION proclaiming September 12, 1999, as “Let’s Make A
Difference” Environment Faire Day.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $4,235,426.95 for the period ending
August 24, 1999, in accordance with the 1999-2000 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing
Authority meeting. (6:07 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6:09 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Publi c input was received on item A22 (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 August 24, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A24a:
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken , the following items were approved in accordance with the
reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 99R-181 through 99R-183 , both inclusive, for
adoption. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5698 and Ordinance No. 5696 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution/Ordinance Book.
A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against th e City and actions taken as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Dennis Gartner for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about June 29, 1999.
b. Claim submitted by Scout Trail Homeowners Asso c. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 12, 1999.
c. Claim submitted by Villa Samoa Apartments for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about June 7, 1999.
d. Claim submitted by Deepak Vohra for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about November 30, 1998.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held June 24, 1999.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Investment Advisory Commission meeting held May 18,
1999.
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report – July 1999 as submitted by the City
Treasurer.
175: Receiving and filing a Notice of Filing of Docket Nos. ER98-899-004, et al., before the
United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filed August 6, 1999 by the
California Independent System Operator Corporation.
175: Receiving and filing a Notice of Filing of Docket Nos. ER98-441-000, et al., before the
United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filed August 10, 1999 by the
Southern California Edison Co., et al. Order of Chief Judge Extending Date for Filing Testimony
to September 10, 1999.
175: Receiving and filing a Notice of Filing of Docket No. ER98-988-003, et al., before the
United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filed July 27, 1999 by the
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
California Independent System Operator Corporation for a partial compliance filing as required
by the Letter Order issued by the Commission on May 28, 1998.
A3. 123: Approving an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network for $366,300 to develop
and implement a grant-funded project for Fiscal Year 1999/00.
A4. 106: Authorizing a budget amen dment to the Department of Public Works 1999-2000 Capital
Improvement Program in the amount of $272,000 to fund the TravelTIP and Testbed projects.
A5. 174: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 181 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving submittal of a rail station pedestrian and bikeway improvements
project to the Orange County Transportation Authority ( OCTA) for funding under the
st
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century.
A6. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 182 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties, or interests therein to
the City.
A7. 160/123 : Accepting the low bid and authorizing the execution of an agreement with Shield
Security Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $327,393 for street sweeping and parking enforcement
for a period of one year, in accordance with Bid #5956.
A8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Vista Universal, Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $71,853 for the
lighting retrofit of four City Library Buildings and the Brookhurst Community Center, in
accordance with Bid #5947.
A9. 160/123 : Accepting the low bid and authorizing the execution of an agreement with The Golf
Network, Inc., in the amount of $21,300 per year for an automated tee time reservation system
for the Golf Division, Community Services Department, in accordance with Bid #5903.
A10. 137: ORDINANCE NO. 5698 (URGENCY) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
adopting an Ad Valorem Tax Percentage of full market (cash) value for fiscal year 1999/00, for
redemption of General Obligation Bonds at a percentage of .004342 per hundred dollars of full
cash value. A copy of the Ordinance is on file in the Office of the City Clerk for public review.
A11. 123: Approving a License Agreeme nt with the Orange YMCA, to provide recreational activities,
educational classes and social services at the East Anaheim Community Center.
Mayor Daly. He realizes the Orange YMCA has been providing services in Anaheim Hills for a few
years. They have discussed in the past the desirability to instead have the Anaheim YMCA serve every
portion of Anaheim, including Anaheim Hills. He is not suggesting that the recommended action be held
up but would like to ask the City Manager to explore with the Anaheim YMCA and the National YMCA
why the policy cannot be adjusted and if there isn’t some action the City can take to encourage an
adjustment. The policy cannot be that rigid to deny a community-wide service by one YMCA. He would
like to make that an addendum to the recommendation and ask the City Manager to explore the issue
and report his findings to the Council along with any recommended actions he would like to make.
City Manager Ruth. There is a waiting period of five years before petitioning for a boundary change. It is
his understanding they are doing that. He will be glad to come back with a report to see how that is
progressing.
Mayor Daly. If the City adds its voice to that of the YMCA, it seems logical they should serve Anaheim
Hills with the Anaheim (YMCA) provider.
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the City Manager explore and report back his
findings/recommendation on having the Anaheim YMCA serve every portion of Anaheim. Council
Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A12. 123: Authorizing the City Manager to sign the Donated Space Agreement with County of Orange
Health Care Agency to utilize the Downtown Community Center for purposes of providing
preventive health services, such as screenings, referrals, and education to senior citizens, 55
years and older.
A13. 150: Approval of naming the former site of the George Washington Community Center as
Anaheim Colony Park. (Continued from the meeting of August 17, 1999, Item A9.)
A14. 109: Approving the Local Workforce Inv estment Area Designation (formerly Service Delivery
Areas under JTPA) application for submittal to the State.
A15. 000: ORDINANCE NO. 5696 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adding Chapter 1.24, consisting of Section 1.24.010 through 1.24.030, inclusive, to
Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to establishment of a criminal justice
administration fee. (Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of August 17, 1999, Item A14.)
000: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM establishing criminal justice administration fees to be charged by the Police
Department.
A16. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Orange County Health Services Agency for animal
control services for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 in an amount estimated by the
County to be $541,570.
A17. 123: Approving the proposed Amendment to the Program Participation Agreement between the
City of Anaheim and Castle Inn, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into said amended
agreement.
A18. 116: Approving the appointment of Assistant City Manager, Tom Wood as Acting Community
Development Department Executive Director.
A19. 123: Approving a Pipeline Crossing Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Co., in the amount
of $2,886 for the right to construct, reconstruct, maintain and operate an 8-inch water pipeline
within an 18-inch steel casing in the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way in Gilbert Street south of
Pacific Avenue; and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manger to execute and take any
actions necessary to implement the Agreement.
A20. 123: Approving an Agreement with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed
$597,368 to provide engineering services for Well Nos. 45 and 56 Drilling and Site Improvement
Project; and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Agreement and any
other related documents and to take such actions as necessary to implement the Agreement.
A21. 123: Approving an Agreement with URS Greiner Woodward Clyde International Americas Inc.,
in an amount not-to-exceed $95,136 to provide engineering services for Earthquake Risk
Reduction Evaluation and Design for Selected Facilities; and authorizing the Public Utilities
General Manager to execute the Agreement and any other related documents and take such
actions as are necessary to implement the Agreement.
A22. 175: Receiving and filing the R.W. Beck Strategic Options Final Report; and authorizing the
actions set forth in Paragraph 2.b. through e. of the July 27, 1999 joint staff report from the
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Assistant City Manager and Public Utilities General Manager – Subject: Strategic Options
Process Final Recommendations. (Continued from the meeting of August 10, 1999, Item A24.)
The following people then spoke urging the Council to adopt the recommendations presented by staff in
report dated July 27, 1999 giving their reasons, additional comments, expressing concerns,
recommendations, etc., the bottom line being that the customers-ratepayers of the Anaheim Public Utility
would not be better served by outsourcing the operation and maintenance of the distribution system:
John McKinney, 2430 Bethel Drive, Anaheim.
Stan Stossel , Business Representative, IBEW Local 47.
Ken Jackson, Service Crew Supervisor, Public Utilities Dept., Executive Board, IBEW Local 47.
David Onken, Yorba Linda (25-year employee, Public Utilities Department – PUD).
Wayne Atkins , 729 N. Lemon, Anaheim.
Jack Dutton , 1400 S. Sunkist, Anaheim (former Anaheim Mayor and Council Member).
Rita Davis, Hotel Employees Union, Local 681, Orange County/Long Beach.
Ron Bengochea, 1630 W. Chanticleer, Anaheim (Employee – Public Utilities Department).
Ken Rolf, 551 Lexington Place, Anaheim.
Miriam Kaywood , Anaheim resident (former Council Member and Planning Commissioner/Ana.).
John Lenny, 139 W. Winston Road, Anaheim (he addressed Y2K, the Utilities , and if City overall is
prepared for Y2K).
Sheryl Ecker , 404 S. Claudina , Anaheim.
Tom Kirker, 647 S. Bruce, Anaheim (Member of the Public Utilities Board - PUB).
Fred Beebe , 1501 Westmont Drive, Anaheim.
Stephen Faessel , 1005 S. Cardiff, Anaheim (Chairman, PUB and representing the Board).
Delia Schweitzer, 5358 E. Rural Ridge Circle, Anaheim (Member – PUB).
L. Ward Wiseman, 1246 Westmont, Anaheim (Member – PUB).
Mayor Daly. There are a series of recommendations/actions as outlined in report dated July 27, 1999
from Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager and Edward K. Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager
(with attachments) – Subject : Strategic Options Process Final Recommendations – recommending that
the Council (1) accept and file the attached R.W. Beck Strategic Options Project Final Report (Final
Report, Attachment A), (2.a.) approve an agreement with IDACORP Energy Solutions, (2.b. – e.)
directing certain other actions related thereto. (Also see minutes of July 27 and August 10, 1999 where
extensive input and discussion took place on this issue). Mayor Daly first noted that one of the
recommended actions listed, Item 2a ., was to enter into a partnership by agreement with Idaho Power
with a guaranteed annual savings to the City of at least $1 million a year. He subsequently recalled that
the Council had acted to approve that agreement at their meeting of July 27, 1999 (see minutes that
date.) He then read the remaining recommendations listed, Item 2b. through 2e. Before proceeding, he
asked the City Manager to comment relative to some of the input received asking specifically where the
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
analysis came from and why the study was undertaken. He noted it was almost two years ago when the
Request for Proposal was crafted and private sector utility companies were invited to make proposals,
the genesis being a new State Law which allows competition state wide.
City Manager, James Ruth. The City has had an ongoing practice of looking at all of its operations within
the City in terms of how to make them more efficient and effective. As part of the process, when
deregulation was approved at the Federal level, there was a great deal of uncertainty in the utility
industry. They looked at the utility operation which they are very proud of as to how they could make
the operation better. They decided to pursue a course as to what options might be available. The only
way to find out was to put together a proposal to test the market. They did so and embarked on a long
and involved process (which he explained) trying to identify their future strategies to maintain their
competitivness in the market, keeping rates at the lowest possible level and providing the highest level of
service and efficiency. Through the process, they found out there is still a lot of uncertainty and the
conclusions of the consultant (R. W. Beck), the committee (formed to study the matter), and the PUB
arrived at is that there are benefits that have been derived form the process (i.e., IDACORP Energy
Solutions agreement) along with the determination that there are other options to look at as well to
maximize and improve the operation all of which resulted from the study.
Mayor Daly. He feels it is fair to say that the decision to look at the future of the electric utility in light of
deregulation taking place state wide was a unanimous decision of the Council and recommended by the
City Manager about two years ago. Having said that, he believes there were a series of questions on the
minds of the Council at the time - most importantly, in an era of deregulation, when in theory virtually
any outside electric company, public or private, could come into Anaheim and compete for the Utility’s
customers. The Council wanted to make sure the utility was in a position to compete in order to keep its
customers. A lot has been learned in the last two years. City staff recommended hiring R.W. Beck to
look at the issue and to aid Council and staff in terms of the analysis, an outside, independent look and
the report is now public record (see the subject report previously made a part of the record.) He feels it
is also important to hear from the Public Utilities General Manager. He would like to hear on the public
record record his perspective on open access, when will other companies be able to serve Anaheim and
offer deals to the City’s customers, and how is Anaheim prepared to deal with that. (He also apologized
for his absence at the Council Meeting of August 10, 1999 when the issue was previously discussed due
to illness.)
Mr. Ed Aghjayan , Public Utilities General Manager. He recounted the events that took place starting in
February, 1997 when the memo was sent to the Council about the potential strategic options study noting
the three-part process that would take place, up to the present. He continued that what they thought was
going to happen two years ago is not happening relative to losing customers. The utility’s customers will
always remain their customers. When the Council decides whether or not to allow direct access allowing
other companies to provide energy, it will be a credit on the customer’s utility bill. They have calculated
that the energy part of the business is not a necessary component in order to stay competitive, but
service and delivery is. Upcoming in the next six months is a process they want to work on with the
Public Utilities Board and Council -- the whole question of direct access. The AB1890 Law requires that
they address direct access and establish at least a temporary competitive transition charge by October 1
which will then be followed by an elaborate process. The Council will make the decision on direct access
by March 31, 2000. Staff’s current direction is to recommend allowing direct access. They will be
allowed a ten-year phase-in period. There are many issues that have to be discussed and the likelihood
is, staff will recommend direct access on a phase-in basis. In terms of how well the utility can compete ,
they will be able to drop rates faster than surrounding communities.
Mayor Daly interjected and asked Mr. Aghjayan to talk about the monopoly position that the City has
been in where all of the utility’s customers have had to buy power from the Anaheim Utility. He asked
that it be done from the perspective of large users such as Boeing, Delco Battery, large condominium
complexes, etc. Will they still be in a monopoly situation one, two or three years from now or not, will
they have choices; Mr. Aghjayan answered yes, provided the Council allows them to have direct access
in terms of where they would buy their energy supply.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Council Members then gave their input relative to the proposal before them today:
Council Member Tait read a prepared statement: “When the California Public Utilities Commission
( CPUC) decided to deregulate the electric industry, every electric utility in the State, public and private,
embarked on a process to rethink their strategic plans and chart a course for survival. This Council
asked our City Utility to do the same. In November of 1997, our Utility Department issued an RFP
(request for proposal) asking for proposals for alliance and partnership opportunities. Many companies
responded and here we are today almost two years later considering the proposals of two finalists –
Southern California Edison Company and Enron Capital and Trade. Both of them are large international
companies well respected on Wall Street and in the utility industry. Both of them have submitted at our
request proposals to operate and maintain our City’s electric distribution system. Both of them offered
to join with us in the strategic alliance and save us approximately $3 million per year which is up to 25%
of our operation and maintenance budget. Both proposals offer the same job and pay to the IBEW local
employees. As an elected official responsible for the well being of the City and the Utility, it is very
difficult to ignore offers like these. It seems like both of these proposals are what we are looking for --
what we asked for in the RFP and what uncertain possibilities in deregulation suggests. So why has this
become a controversial issue? Why did we get all the phone calls last week from citizens concerned
about these proposals? Unfortunately, I think the general public has been misled about what we were
trying to do and the nature of the two proposals. Neither of these proposals call for taking over anything
more than the operation and maintenance of the distribution system. That leaves the City in total control
of rates, planning, policies, billing, accounting, expansion, partnerships and every other activity except
the operation and maintenance of the distribution system. Rather than raising rates, we have had the
ability of actually lowering the rates with the savings offered from these proposals.
Having said this, however, since both companies stated that the cooperation of all parties would be
necessary to make the proposals work, I can’t imagine why they would want to be handed back to staff to
negotiate a contract stemming from either of these proposals. I think the City could benefit by accepting
either of these proposals but the combination of misinformation in the community and negative attitude
on the part of the Utilities Department management leads me to the conclusion that trying to do either of
these deals practically would not work. These two companies independently believe there are $3 million
in savings in the operation and maintenance of the Utilities Department independently while not making
cuts in jobs or pay. Since Mr. Aghjayan is not inclined to accept either of the proposals, I would like to
challenge him and the Utilities Department and the Public Utilities Board to find $3 million in annual
savings with some other approach without cutting jobs. If we are going to pass on these offers, I think we
need to assure the taxpayers of Anaheim that we are vigilant with their money in running a lean and
efficient operation. And, what about the future. While I don't think it would be prudent nor do I think
there is the support to move forward on either of these two proposals at this time, I do think we need to
keep the door open for other proposals and continue to explore other strategic options that will serve the
citizens of Anaheim. I, therefore, propose that the Council Liaison Committee of Mayor Daly and myself
continue to monitor these issues and bring recommendations back to the full Council when appropriate. I
would also like to ask the Chamber of Commerce for their assistance in advising us. I believe this
approach will allow Mr. Aghjayan to return to the business of running the Utilities Department while
leaving the Council and City Manager’s Office the task of continuing to explore strategic options to keep
the electric utility viable in an uncertain environment of deregulation”.
Council Member Kring . Many things were said tonight and many people have given their input over the
past few weeks not wanting the Council to sell the City’s utility. She emphasized that at no time was
selling the utility ever an option. That was never on the table nor was raising rates. As Council Member
Tait said, it was just a small piece of the business that was going to be outsourced.
Council Member Feldhaus . One of the things that makes it easy for him to vote to retain what the City
presently has in the Utilities Department relates to the agreement that they have already approved with
Idacorp. Either party to that agreement can terminate the power services portion after one year and the
scheduling services portion after three years. The agreement provides the opportunity to “test the
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
waters”. They should always continue to talk with Edison and Enron and anyone else who has a proposal
to bring forth which might open the door for some opportunity for the citizens to benefit even more on the
operation of the utility, something that has been done over the 100 years the City’s utility has been in
operation. Periodically, the issue of selling the utility comes up but as Council Member Kring pointed
out, at no time was any thought given to selling the utility, only to maximize benefits to the ultimate
benefit of the ratepayers. Since they do not know what is going to happen when total deregulation takes
place, they must always be vigilant. He wants to keep the door open for any provider at any time.
Council Member McCracken . Electric utility restructuring as mandated by the State is a challenging and
complicated issue. When the time comes for utility customers to have a choice of electric generation,
the distribution and maintenance of that system is what is left. In order to make sure it is viable, its
existence depends on farsightedness, looking at cost-cutting strategies and keeping options open for the
kinds of partnerships and liaisons which can help to maintain the system and continue to serve its
customers. It is necessary to look for ways to reduce operating costs. It is necessary to pay the stranded
costs, i.e., outstanding debts on generation facilities. In the past four years, the utilities has paid off $150
million in debt (through cost-cutting strategies). They also must challenge employees to assist in
additional cost-saving strategies if the Utilities is to be competitive in the “new world” of electric
restructuring. They have heard from the community, over 400 calls, letters, personal input, etc., from the
residents and businesses of Anaheim. She clarified they were not trying to destroy the utilities but to
look at ways to make it even more efficient and responsive to its “constituents” and to be competitive in
the market place. As Council Member Tait stated, they have to continue to be open to the possibilities of
the kinds of strategies, liaisons and partnerships that will continue to make us do that. The process thus
far resulted in one strategy and alliance that has turned out to be very profitable, and a non-threatening
one, the Idaho Power liaison, the kind of alliances that are vital. They need to keep the doors open.
Mayor Daly. He agrees it is important to keep the door open to future opportunities and partnerships.
They will be looking to the City Manager and Public Utilities General Manager to continue to pursue cost
savings and any other potential strategic moves that can make the Anaheim utility as strong and as
independent as possible. He is looking forward to some of the governance proposals that have been
mentioned in the staff report and in the R.W. Beck report. It is important to take any steps to strengthen
and protect their assets. He reiterated, one thing he would like to be certain of relative to their largest
users such as Boeing, Delco and countless others , is to understand exactly where their thinking is and to
hear in some formal way how they view the situation – are they going to be active with other companies
in California seeking changes in State law that would go beyond what the City believes is going to be
happening in the next couple of years – are they going to be content with only limited choice in the
future, etc.
Mayor Daly. There are a series of actions staff is asking the Council to take. Council Member Tait laid
out a course of action that incorporated some of those. He asked to hear from Council Member Tait.
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved that they follow the staff recommendations listed in report dated
July 27, 1999 (Subject: Strategic Options Process Final Recommendations) incorporating approval of
items 2b. through 2e. ( item 2a. having been approved by the Council at the meeting of July 27, 1999),
and that the Council continue to look at other strategic options to determine ways to reduce costs in the
Utilities Department, bring in the Chamber of Commerce and also incorporate the Mayor’s suggestion to
bring some of the large business users in the City into the advisory process.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Daly asked if he ( Tait ) was incorporating all the other staff
recommendations in his motion which include working with the employee bargaining units, pursuing
some of the specific outsourcing opportunities that have been recommended, all the rest of the
recommendations; Council Member Tait clarified his motion included all the items as listed, 2b. through
2e.
Mayor Daly. Council Member Tait’s motion essentially incorporates the staff recommendations listed but
adds to it that strategic alliances would continue to be evaluated, that the Chamber of Commerce would
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
be asked to review all the materials and to comment, and whether it is the Chamber that brings forward
the opinions of the top users or some other device, if he ( Tait ) wants to so specificy , or if there was
anything else to be added to the motion; nothing else was added.
Mayor Daly seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Ayes: Council Members Feldhaus, Kring, Tait and
McCracken and Mayor Daly. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A23. 173: Approving an Agreement with Mycoff & Associates to provide executive search services for
specialized management positions in the Public Utilities Department.
A24. 105: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held July 20, 1999.
A24a. 123: Approving a Cooperation and Contribution Agreement with Home Depot USA,
Incorporated, for Fair Share Participation of Energy and Maintenance costs for Traffic Signal and
Safety Lighting.
Council Member Tait . He is declaring a conflict of interest on this item since Home Depot is a customer
of his engineering firm. He will, therefore, be abstaining from any discussion or decision on the matter.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-181 through 99R-183, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-181 through 99R-183, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5696 and 5698 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL ME MBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5696 and 5698 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for purposes of allowing the Chamber to clear (7:50
p.m.).
AFTER RECESS : The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (8:27
p.m.).
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT:
A25. 105:
Appointing Mr. W. Gary McGuire to the Anaheim Private Industry Council ( PIC) for a four year
term, representing the Public Sector Category.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to appoint W. Gary McGuire to the Anaheim Private
Industry Council for a four-year term representing the Public Sector Category as recommended in
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
memorandum dated August 24, 1999 from Ruben Aceves , JTP Manager pursuant to letter dated July 21,
1999 from Joe Newmyer , Interim Chancellor of the North Orange County Community College District.
Council Member Kring seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PLANNING COMMISSION - ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION:
A26. 105: Accepting the
resignation of Alden E. Esping from the City Planning Commission and directing the City Clerk to post
the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy for the term ending June 30, 2002.
MOTION. On motion by Council Member McCracken seconded by Council Member Kring, the
resignation of Alden E. Esping from the City Planning Commission was accepted and the City Clerk
directed to post the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy for the term ending June 30, 2002. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Daly. He noted that it is the custom to present a special City certificate to outgoing members of
City advisory boards and commissions to be presented at a future meeting.
ITEMS B1 – B7 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
August 2, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS August 24, 1999:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B1. 179:
OWNER:
Harvey Owen, 11061 Huntington Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705
AGENT:
AOUN Inc., Attn: Harvey Owen, President, P.O. Box 308, Buena Park, CA 90621
LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard - The Shack.
Property is 0.9 acre located on the
east side of Kraemer Boulevard, 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on
August 3, 1998 until August 27, 1999) to retain an existing restaurant with public dance hall and
sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and live entertainment.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 2090 APPROVED reinstatement for 6 months, to expire February 2,
2000 ( PC99-141) (4 yes votes, 2 no and 1 absent)
Negative Declaration previously approved.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
B2. 179:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-14
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4128 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER :
Yassini Living Trust, Attn: Morteza Yassina or Dan Van Rosen, P.O. Box 2110,
Ventura, CA 93002
Anaheim Housing Authority, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Blvd., #1003, Anaheim,
CA 92805
AGENT :
Yassini Management, P.O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd. #1003,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION : 600-626 North Brookhurst Street.
Property is 4.8 acres located at the southeast
corner of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue.
Reclassification No. 98-99-14
- To reclassify subject property from the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) and the ML (Limited Industrial) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4128
– To permit a 10-unit commercial retail center including a
detached clock tower, service station with car wash and convenience market, and a separate
drive-through fast food restaurant with waivers of (a) required dedication of right-of-way, (b)
required improvement of right-of-way, (c) permitted location of monument signs, (d) minimum
drive-through lane requirements, (e) minimum number of parking spaces, and (f) minimum
landscape setback.
Continued from the Commission meetings of June 21, and J uly 19, 1999.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4128 APPROVED IN PART( PC99-143), RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-9914
GRANTED, unconditionally ( PC99-142) waiver (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) approved, and waiver (e)
denied pertaining to minimum number parking spaces (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
Approved Negative Declaration
Mayor Daly posed a number of questions to staff relative to the site plan and signage for purposes of
clarification which were answered by Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Mr. Hastings confirmed
for the Mayor that the Planning Department was comfortable that the project is designed as well as
possible and the screening issues will be dealt with as he explained.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4023 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B3. 179:
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
FINAL SIGN PLANS
OWNER:
Kee Whan Ha, P.O. Box 761039, Los Angeles, CA 90076
AGENT:
Santiago Cervantes, 837 East Orangethorpe Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 837 East Orangethorpe Avenue - S. Cervantes Tires.
Property is 0.8 acre
located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangethorpe Park (a private
street).
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on
May 27, 1998 until May 27, 1999) to retain a tire sales, repair and installation facility and to
amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation, number of employees, and timing
pertaining to submittal of landscape and irrigation plans.
To request an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval and review and approval
of final sign plans.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4023 APPROVED reinstatement, to expire May, 27, 2000 ( PC99-144) (6 yes votes, 1
absent)
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4141 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B4. 179:
OWNER:
CH Anaheim, LTD. 20101 SW Birch Street #260, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT:
Crown Realty & Development, 20101 SW Birch St. #260 Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 2005 East Katella Avenue – Stadium Crossings
(Pad E).
Property is 1.10 acres located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and
Katella Avenue.
To construct a full service restaurant (Denny’s Classic Diner) with sales of alcoholic beverages
for on-premises consumption and an outdoor dining area within a mixed use commercial center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4141 GRANTED ( PC99-145) (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
Negative Declaration pre viously approved.
A review of the Planning Commission’s decision was requested by Mayor Daly and concurred in by
Council Member McCracken. A Public Hearing will, therefore, be scheduled before the Council at a later
date.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION
B5. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3935 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER:
M/M Invesco Inc., 6732 Westminster Boulevard, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT:
Victor Patel, 24351 Rue De Gauguin, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
LOCATION: 1125 North Magnolia Avenue - Magnolia Plaza Office Building.
Property is 1.5
acres located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, 280 feet north of the centerline of La Palma
Avenue.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on
August 31, 1998, to expire on July 21, 1999) in order to begin operation of a previously-approved
2,876 square foot restaurant and 5,760 square foot banquet facility with on-premises sales and
consumption of alcoholic beverages. Request for a retroactive time extension to comply with
conditions of approval.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3935 APPROVED retroactive extension of time ( PC99-146) (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4138 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B6. 179:
OWNER:
Sepulveda Partners, L.P., 4545 Willis Avenue #10, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
AGENT:
Larry A. Dase, 29212 Starboard Court, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
LOCATION: 710 South Brookhurst - Sherwood Professional Center.
Property is 1.34 acres
located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Niobe Avenue.
To permit an acupressure facility within a commercial/office complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Withdrawal. (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4090 – AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION REQUEST
B7. 179:
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SIGN PLANS :
Michael Hearn - KDG Investments,
8180 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808, requests review and approval of final wall
sign plans for two previously-approved indoor roller hockey rinks with accessory retail and
concession sales to be in conjunction with a future industrial park. Property is located at 2890
East La Palma Avenue and 1000 North Edward Circle – Anaheim Hockey Club.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4090 APPROVED
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager confirmed for the Mayor that the Planning Commission
approved only one sign for the project at this time.
END OF PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM AUGUST 2, 1999.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
ITEMS B8 – B19 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 16, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 7, 1999:
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B8. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4100 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99-05
OWNER:
R. Mark Shidler, Sheryl A. Shidler, Robin Shidler and Sally Shidler, 20880 Little
Canyon Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
AGENT:
K. W. Lawler and Associates, 2832 Walnut Avenue #A, Tustin, CA 92780
LOCATION: 905-985 North Weir Canyon Road.
Property is 3.34 acres located at the
southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4100 -
to construct a service station and auto care complex
consisting of four buildings including auto rental, lube facility, automated car wash, service
station/fast food restaurant/convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption, and roof-mounted equipment with waivers of (a) permitted commercial
identification signs, (b) permitted number of wall signs, (c ) maximum structural height abutting a
residential zone, (d) minimum landscape setback abutting a residential zone, (e) required site
screening abutting a residential zone and (f) minimum structural and landscape setback abutting
a freeway.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-05
– to Determine Public
Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption
within a proposed convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4100 GRANTED waivers (a) and (b) approved in part, ( PC99-149) (6 yes votes, 1
absent)
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-05, Approved ( PC99-150) (5 yes
votes, 1 no vote, 1 absent)
Approved Negative Declaration.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-13 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B9. 179:
INITIATED BY:
City of Anaheim (Community Development), 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION:
Property is 2.27 acres located at the southwest corner of Monte Vista Road and
Bauer Road.
To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43 ,000 (SC) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) Zone.
Withdrawn.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B10. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4120 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-15
OWNER :(CUP 4120)
Frank Chu and Linger Chu, 926 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT :
Stephen Lam and Associates, 900 S. San Gabriel Blvd. #208, San Gabriel, CA 91776
INITIATED BY: (Reclassification No. 98-99-15)
City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
LOCATION : 926 South Beach Boulevard - Lyndy’s Motel and Restaurant.
Property is 1.1
acres located on the east side of Beach Boulevard and on the north side of Ball Road, 200 feet
north of the centerline of Ball Road and 245 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard.
Reclassification No. 98-99-15
- to reclassify this property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy)
Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone (or less intense zone).
Conditional Use Permit No. 4120
– to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use
requirements for an existing restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption,
to expand the existing motel and to construct a commercial retail center on the same property
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4120 Withdrawn by applicant, Waiver of code Withdrawn by applicant,
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-15 GRANTED, unconditionally ( PC99-151)
Approved Negative Declaration.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B11. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4139 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OWNER :
American
National Properties, Inc., P.O. Box 10077, Santa Ana, CA 92711-0077
AGENT :
Phillip R. Schwartz, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 1516 West Embassy Street.
Property is 5.8 acres located at the terminus of
Embassy Street.
To establish an Orange County Transportation Authority operated paratransit transportation and
maintenance depot to service approximately 175 medium size buses and to construct an office
and maintenance building for light vehicle maintenance with enclosed washing bays and two
above-ground 500 gallon fueling tanks with waiver of minimum required site screening adjacent
to a railroad right-of-way.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4139 GRANTED ( PC99-152) (6 YES votes, 1 absent)
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED
Approved Negative Declaration.
Mayor Daly. The Planning Commission granted only a one-year permit on this bus storage yard but
there are a few issues he wants to get to. The company seeking the permit is a vendor of the Orange
County Transportation Authority ( OCTA). He is sure that the proposed use is not going to happen. He
does not want approval to happen if the original need is no longer valid.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The Planning Commission approved the request for six years.
Staff suggested one year and the applicant asked for six to coincide with their contract. He confirmed
that in the hearing process it did not come up that they might not need the site.
A review of the Planning Commission’s decision was requested by Mayor Daly and concurred in by
Council Member McCracken. A Public Hearing will, therefore, be scheduled before the Council at a later
date.
CONVERSION IMPACT REPORT
B12. 179:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER :
Jon M. and Nancy E. Dowell; Gabriel and Virginia Patin; Shirley and William U.
Almand; Willa Jean Cornett; and Wilton B. and Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3336 West Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT :
William Talley, 500 North State College Boulevard #1020, Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION : 3345 West Lincoln Avenue.
Property is 2.27 acres located on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue, 1,070 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Conversion Impact Report
- To permit the closure of an existing
30-space mobile home park.
Reclassification No. 99-00-05
– To reclassify subject property from the CL ( MHP) (Commercial,
Limited, Mobilehome Park Overlay) and RS-A-43 ,000 ( MHP) (Residential/Agricultural, Mobile
Home Park Overlay) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) and the RS-A-43,000
(Residential/Agricultural) Zones.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-05 GRANTED ( PC99-153)
CONVERSION IMPACT REPORT APPROVED (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3304 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OWNER :
B13. 179: Weir
Partners Ltd., 1 Park Plaza, Suite 430, Irvine, CA 92614
AGENT :
Joseph D. Caroll, 1 Park Plaza, Suite 430, Irvine, CA 92614
LOCATION : 731 South Weir Canyon Road - First Class Pizza.
Property is 11.9 acres located
at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue.
To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the landscaping of a vacant outdoor
dining area located at 701 South Weir Canyon Road.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3304 APPROVED MODIFICATION ( PC99-154)
Deleted Condition No. 38 of Resolution No. PC 98-195 (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3991 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OWNER:
B14. 179: The
Salvation Army, 1300 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1300 South Lewis Street - Salvation Army Rehabilitation Center.
Property is
14.51 acres located on the east side of Lewis Street, 820 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos
Avenue.
To revise plans to attach a previously-approved women’s rehabilitation center to the existing
Salvation Army men’s rehabilitation center and work therapy unit.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3991 APPROVED Revised Plans.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B15. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4144 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER:
Helmut and Ruth Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 821-825 North Euclid Street.
Property is 0.94 acre located on the west side of
Euclid Street 130 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue.
To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing
commercial center, to construct a new unit for a retail carpet sales warehouse with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. GRANTED, in part ( PC99-156) (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, 1 absent)
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT APPROVED in part (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, 1 absent)
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member McCracken . Planning staff advised against this. It is an existing commercial center
and it is a warehouse type unit ; Greg Hastings. The applicant is requesting to add on to an existing retail
center for warehousing of carpets. Staff recommended denial because they felt the warehouse portion of
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
the property would be too close to the residential behind it and could create parking congestion. If it went
out of business, they would be faced with a warehouse in a retail project.
A review of the Planning Commission’s decision was requested by Council Member McCracken and
concurred in by Mayor Daly. A Public Hearing will, therefore, be scheduled before the Council at a later
date.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B16. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4145 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER:
Ming International Group, c/o Partners Realty Group, Attn: Wendy Wild-Myers, 5405
Alton Pkwy ., #631, Irvine, CA 92614
AGENT:
Jasvinder & Rajinder Singh, 8663 East Silver Ridge Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 5247 East Orangethorpe Avenue.
Property is 1.47 acres located at the northeast
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Post Lane.
To permit a day care center with a maximum enrollment of 84 children with waiver of (a)
minimum setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones and (b) minimum number of
parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4145 DENIED ( PC99-157)
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT APPROVED, in part (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, 1 absent)
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1629 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION INITIATED
B17. 179:
BY :
City of Anaheim(Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92805
OWNERS:
Tillie Jones, 512 East Central Park Avenue, South, Anaheim, CA 92802
Guillermo Ibarra, 1416 North Central Park Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION : 1300 and 1416 West North Central Park Avenue - Coffee Break.
Property is 0.38
acres located at the southwest corner of North Central Park Avenue and East Central Park
Avenue.
City-initiated request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation
for an existing restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
ACCEPTED recommendation for withdrawal. (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Withdrawn.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION REQUEST
B18. 179:
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS :
Khoda B. Ostowari,
6263 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests review and approval of final
architectural plans for a previously-approved service station and convenience market with retail
sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and a drive-through self service car wash.
Property is located at 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4069 APPROVED final architectural plans.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1629 – REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF
B19. 179:
REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS :
City-initiated (Planning Department), 200
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to initiate revocation or modification
proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 1629 (to permit a restaurant with sales of beer and
wine for on-premises consumption). Property is located at 1300 and 1416 North Central Park
Avenue – Coffee Break.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 1629, initiated revocation or modification proceedings.
ITEM B20 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
AUGUST 12, 1999 - DECISION DATE: AUGUST 12, 1999
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 27, 1999:
VARIANCE NO. 4372, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION – CLASS 3
B20. 179:
OWNER:
David W. Anderson, 215 South Remington Court, Anaheim , CA 92808
AGENT: T he George Phillip Group, 115 S. Olive Street, Orange, CA 92866
LOCATION: 215 South Remington Court ( Q.S. 197): Property is 0.32 acre located at the
terminus of Remington Court, having a frontage of 60 feet on the north side of Remington Court,
having a maximum depth of 126 feet and being located 480 feet northwest of the centerline of
Fairmont Boulevard.
Waiver of minimum side yard setback (10 feet required; 4 to 6 feet proposed) and a minimum
rear yard setback (25 feet required; 9 to 25 feet proposed) to construct a patio cover in the side
and rear yard setback areas of an existing single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED VARIANCE NO. 4372 ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-32)
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:
B21. 142: ORDINANCE NO . 5699 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Amending Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to excavation and
recovery of nonfuel minerals and reclamation of mined lands.
B22. 179: ORDINANCE NO . 5700 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Amending the zoning map referred to in Tilte 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to
zoning (Reclassification No. 71-72-4).
Mayor Daly offered Ordinances 5699 and 5700 for introduction.
ORDINANCE NO . 5699 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM Amending Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to excavation and recovery of nonfuel minerals and
reclamation of mined lands.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
ORDINANCE NO . 5700 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM Amending the zoning map referred to in Tilte 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 71-72-4).
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION:
B23. 155: ORDINANCE NO. 5695 (ADOPTION) AN ORDIANANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Amending Chapter 18.73 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Specific Plan No.
88-3 and amending Ordinance Nos. 5045 and 5046, as previously amended, accordingly (The
Pacificenter Anaheim Specific Plan) .(Introduced at the meeting of July 27, 1999, Item D2).
B24. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5697 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Approving Specific Plan Adjustment No.1, to the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1,
amending Ordinance No. 5109, as previously amended, and amending Subsection .080 of
Section 18.74.080 of Chapter 18.74 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5695 and 5697 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO . 5695 (ADOPTION) AN ORDIANANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM Amending Chapter 18.73 of Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to Specific Plan No. 88-3 and amending Ordinance
Nos. 5045 and 5046, as previously amended, accordingly (The Pacificenter
Anaheim Specific Plan) .(Introduced at the meeting of July 27, 1999, Item
D2).
ORDINANCE NO. 5697 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM Approving Specific Plan Adjustment No.1, to the Anaheim
Hills Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1, amending Ordinance No. 5109, as
previously amended, and amending Subsection .080 of Section 18.74.080
of Chapter 18.74 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5695 and 5697 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5695 and 5697duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-3 :
B25. 155:
Approving amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 88-3 and amending Resolution Nos. 89R-59 and 89R-
60, as previously amended, and approving final site plan and rescinding Resolution No. 99R-169, Nunc
Pro Tunc (the Pacificenter Anaheim Specific Plan).
City Attorney, Jack White. The City Council previously approved amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan 88-
3. Inadvertently, the conditions that were approved in the prior resolution included a requirement that the
signage program would first go back to the Planning Commission for a Report and Recommendation to
the City Council. The intention was that the matter would come directly to the Council because it had
already gone to the Planning Commission and been reviewed by them. In fact, the signage program is
actually the next item (B26.) on the agenda. If the Council adopts the resolution, Nunc Pro Tunc, to
correct the error they will be in a position to consider B26. That was the only change.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Mayor Daly. He asked Council Member Tait if he was going to vote on this issue since it is the
Pacificenter project with a Home Depot (i.e., Home Expo Center); City Attorney White. He advised
Council Member Tait that an abstention would be in order due to the reasons he set forth on a previous
agenda item (24a.).
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-185 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R- 185for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT/ ABSTAINED :MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-185, duly passed and adopted.
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-3 FINAL SIGN PROGRAM APPROVAL:
B26. 155:
rd
OWNER:
Catellus Development SF Pacific Properties, Inc. 201 Mission Street 3 Floor, San
Francisco , CA 94105
LOCATION: 3610-3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001-1091 North Tustin Avenue.
Property consists of 25.7 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin
Avenue ( Pacificenter).
Approval of Final Sign Program in connection with the Pacificenter Specific Plan.
Public hearing item at the meeting of August 10, 1999, Item D2 ., when the Final Site Plan was
approved. Additional sign information submitted by Catellus Development SF Pacific Properties,
Inc., as requested by the City Council.
Mayor Daly. His understanding is that the Planning Department and the City Manager’s Office have had
up-to-the-minute conversations with the developer based on the Council discussion of a few weeks ago
(see minutes of July 27, 1999, Item D2.) where discussion took place about the free standing sign on the
freeway as well as the monument sign for the Taco Bell. He asked to hear from staff.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. On July 27, 1999, Council approved the Pacificenter Specific
Plan Amendment with the exception of the sign program and asked that it (sign program) be resubmitted
to the Council because of concerns pertaining to both a freeway identification sign and a monument sign
on Tustin Avenue which advertised Taco Bell. The applicant has worked with staff and has submitted
versions of a revised sign program. The latest version he is aware of is that both signs are still proposed.
The freeway sign originally proposed at 70’ was reduced to 55’ by the Planning Commission and now has
been further reduced (by the applicant) to 44’ high which includes a decorative 6’ high cornice. This sign
would contain three panels totalling 350 square feet advertising the Expo Center, Pacificenter and a third
panel reserved for the name and logo of the City’s Anaheim Canyon Business Center. He understands
the applicant may be eliminating that panel as well. He then briefed the history of the existing sign
program as well as the proposed signage by Taco Bell – a monument sign now reduced to 60 sq. ft., 6 ½’
high by 14 ½’ wide adjacent to Tustin Avenue. Staff continues to recommend denial of the Taco Bell
sign and feels that the wall signs and the Taco Bell building itself to be sufficient for identification and
advertising along Tustin.
Mayor Daly. In summary, the staff recommendation is to approve the freestanding freeway oriented
sign, 44’ high, not to approve the monument sign for the Taco Bell on Tustin , and that the wall signs on
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
the hotel and the office building will have to return to the Planning Commission; Mr. Hastings clarified the
latter is a hotel and restaurant/retail pad and that there are wall signs proposed for the Expo Center.
Mayor Daly. Rather than a three-panel sign on a 44’ high sign, that will go to two panels and one of
those two would be for the City’s use to advertise the Anaheim Canyon Business Center ; Tom Wood,
Acting Executive Director of Community Development. They have suggested that the applicant may
wish to consider a two-panel sign on the freeway – the top panel for Expo and the second panel for
regional identification for the center.
Mayor Daly. He believes the compromise staff has recommended is a good one. He appreciates the
extra work staff has put forth on this issue.
Broderick Hamilton, Catellus Development. The compromise with regard to the number of panels is
acceptable to Catellus. They look forward to working with the City and Redevelopment Agency in
designing the other panel to provide identification for the area and the site. With the elimination of the
third panel which would have been identificaton for the project, they are essentially building entry
signage that identifies their principal occupant and the region without identification for the project itself.
In the process of the development of the design for the sign as they work cooperatively to complete it, if
there is an opportunity for project identification, that it be considered denovo at a subsequent hearing.
He would also like to make one correction for the record. The sign as designed has a 4’ cornice at the
top not 6’.
A brief discussion followed wherein Mr. Wood confirmed upon questioning that relative to the two-panel
freeway sign, staff would like to work with the sign contractor within the design as presented. If it looks
better to use the smaller panel for regional identification, they will go with that.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the compromise on the freeway sign, that being a 44’ high sign
with a total of two panels consistent with the specifics as articulated. Council Member Tait seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor asked to hear from the representative for Taco Bell relative to the monument sign request.
Scott Duffner, Fancher Development, present on behalf of Taco Bell. They read the staff report but still
believe that the 60’ monument sign is absolutely necessary in order for Taco Bell’s visibility to be
sufficient to be successful at the subject location. He feels that the staff report is a bit misleading in
terms of the architecture. It is one designed to be consistent with that of the existing center. The 50’
setback off Tustin combined with the additional landscaping will all but serve to screen the building. The
two wall signs proposed at the north end have a cumulative area proposed of 42 sq. ft. (21 sq. ft. each).
Those, along with the 60’ monument sign, would not be overbuilding. They are imploring Council’s
approval of the sign.
Council Members then posed a line of questions to Mr. Duffner relative to the sign issue including related
issues of access, visibility, and circulation.
Council Member Kring stated her concern is the fairness issue. She does not see how they can deny
Taco Bell a sign when the Carl’s Jr. facility across the street has a sign. She is very supportive of the
monument sign request.
Mayor Daly. Relative to the access question, it does not have anything to do with the appearance issue.
In fairness to Planning staff, it is his recollection, and he believes the staff report mentions it, that
Planning staff recommended denial of the Carl’s Jr. sign on La Palma as well thereby being consistent
with their recommendations in this case. He believes it was a split vote to allow the monument sign but
cannot remember specifically. Because of increasing activity on Tustin, the fact that this was going to be
a sit-down restaurant and the City agreed instead to allow a 24-hour fast food on the site, he feels it is a
property value and appearance issue. He intends to support the staff recommendation on the monument
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
sign. They have worked to find a reasonable compromise on the entire project. In this case, he does not
think fast food is a step forward for this important site in Anaheim. They should also keep in mind that
additional signage requests will be presented on this property including signage for the hotel and another
restaurant pad. (Mr. Hastings clarified that it would be either restaurant or retail).
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to adopt the staff recommendation denying the monument sign on Tustin
Avenue as requested by Taco Bell. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. Council
Members Feldhaus, Kring and Tait voted No. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved to approve the 60 sq. ft. monument sign request to be located
on Tustin Avenue as requested by Taco Bell. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Council
Member McCracken and Mayor Daly voted No. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White. The Council needs to act on the proposed wall signs for Expo that are part of the
staff recommendation ; Greg Hastings. Staff does not have a problem with what has been
submitted/requested by the applicant consisting of three wall signs north, south and east for Expo, and
signs facing north and south for Taco Bell. The latest plan shows two signs but the applicant when
before the Planning Commission showed four wall signs. He requested that the applicant address the
issue.
Scott Duffner . They would agree to limit those to the north and south side (2 signs) with the monument
sign as shown in the material submitted in the Council packet.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved to approve staff’s recommendation for two wall signs for Taco
Bell on the north and south side and three wall signs for the Expo Center on the north, south, and east
side. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
D1. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4118 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Susan Manuel, 4314 Marina City Drive, Apt. 516, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
AGENT:
Pacific Rim Builders, One City Boulevard, Suite 1105, Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION: 5031 Orangethorpe Avenue.
Property is 3.88 acres located at the northwest
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive.
To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing
commercial center, including a liquor store, and to further subdivide this center to add 1 tenant
space for a total of 16 spaces with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4118 GRANTED, IN PART ( PC99-122) (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
Waiver of Code Requirements DENIED
Approved Negative Declaration
Informational item at the meeting of July 27, 1999, Item B3. Letter of appeal submitted by
Athanasios & Sofia Tatsis.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News –August 12, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet –August 12, 1999
Posting of property –August 13, 1999
Mayor Daly asked if there was an explanation as to why the continuance requested is necessary ; Greg
Hastings, Zoning Division manager. The person who has appealed is not the applicant and the person
who was appealing had originally asked for this not to be scheduled for until two months following the
date it was appealed which ends up being September 21, 1999.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Mayor Daly. He did not see the letter from Douglas Nicholson previously (see letter dated August 19,
1999 from Mr. Nicholson) but only the FAX sent. The cover page on the FAX did not give a reason for
the request for continuance, but the letter does.
Abe Babuhunda , 5244 E. Tango, Anaheim. He will be the tenant. They don’t know the reason for the
request to continue the hearing since the project was approved. The representative of the landlord is
also present. Basically, there is no reason for a continuance. He has been waiting for eight months.
The Planning Commission approved the CUP and the decision was appealed but he does not know why.
The appellant owns a restaurant in the center and have a menu of 150 items. Basically what they are
objecting to is someone coming in an competing with their part of the menu which consists of Mexican
food. He confirmed for the Mayor that the continuance would create a hardship for them.
Gerald Nix, Property Manager, 16851 Skyview , Huntington Beach, representing Susan Manuel, the
owner. The appellant is asking for another traffic/parking study. It was conducted and has shown parking
to be adequate for the current configuration. He does not see the need for a continuance.
City Attorney White. The decision whether to continue is always at the discretion of the Council. When
the request for continuance is by the applicant, it is his advice to honor the first request. It is the
applicant’s permit under consideration and when they are not prepared to go forward, it would probably
result in an overturning of the denial because they had not had an opportunity to present their case. On
the other hand, the matter was appealed by an opponent who is asking for a continuance. It is within the
discretion of the Council to grant or deny the request.
Mayor Daly. He is inclined not to grant the continuance. He asked if they needed to act on the request
for a continuance; City Attorney White answered no. The Council is just not honoring the request. The
only action they need to take is on the permit.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July
7, 1999 which described the proposal which initially requested to simply divide a 2,500 sq. ft. retail unit
into two equal-sized units. The applicant also requested that the CUP include establishing conformity for
the existing shopping center and for an existing liquor store in the center as well as a parking waiver. If
Council does approve the request there needs to be a correction to Condition 16 and 29 to correctly
reflect the maximum number of units at 10 rather than 16. He also confirmed for the Mayor that
Planning staff is comfortable with the action of the Planning Commission (granting the CUP in part and
denying the waiver of Code requirements).
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Applicant’s Statement : Mr. Gerald Nix. They are merely trying to divide a 2,500 sq. ft. vacant area into
two separate units.
Abe Babuhunda . When he wanted to lease the space, he did not consider the other businesses but
merely wanted to lease the space because it was close to his house. The only objection is probably
because his food is better tasting than that of the other business.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, Mayor Daly closed
the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION : On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the
public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect of the environment.
MOTION CARRIED.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-184 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-184 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 4118.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-184 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-184, duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
D2. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4089
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
La Palma Family Partnership, P.O. Box 448, Los Alamitos, CA 90721
AGENT:
Coorg Corporation, P.O. Box 448, Los Alamitos, CA 90721
LOCATION: Parcel 1-
This irregularly-shaped 1.18-acre property has a frontage of 120 feet
on the south side of La Palma Avenue, a frontage of 120 feet on the north side of North Street, a
maximum depth of 430 feet, and is located 120 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street (740
Parcel 2 -
East La Palma Avenue). This rectangularly -shaped 1.5-acre property has a frontage
of 85 feet on the south side of North Street, a frontage of 95 feet on the north side of Wilhemina
Street, a maximum depth of 770 feet, and is located 159 feet east of the centerline of Pauline
Street (no street address).
To permit a building material/contractor’s storage yard and outdoor storage of recreational
vehicles, boats and trailers with waiver of required site screening.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4089 DENIED ( PC99-120) (5 yes votes, 1 no, 1 absent)
Approved Negative Declaration.
Waiver of Code Requirements DENIED.
Informational item at the meeting of July 27, 1999, Item B1. Letter of appeal submitted by Coorg
Corporation.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – August 12, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – August 12, 1999
Posting of property –August 13, 1999
Mayor Daly asked if staff had any problem with the request for continuance, either the date or the
rationale; Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager answered that they do not.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
Mayor Daly noted in this case, the applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. He
asked to hear from the City Attorney ; City Attorney White. The applicant has requested a continuance.
Normally, it has been the custom to grant the request.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the subject Public Hearing to Tuesday, September 28, 1999 as
requested by the applicant. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FLYING OF FLAGS OVER THE DOWNTOWN VETERANS MONUMENT:
C1.
Action requested by Council Member McCracken at the meeting of August 17, 1999 (C2 .,
Council Comments) relative to flying the POW-MIA Flag along with the American Flag over the
new Downtown Veterans Monument when completed.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to approved the flying of the POW-MIA Flag over the
Downtown Veteran’s Monument along with the American Flag. Mayor Daly seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member McCracken noted that the Council several months ago
adopted an ordinance that would allow the flying of flags recognized by the U. S. government. With the
Veteran’s Monument under construction and soon to be completed, she feels it is appropriate that the
POW-MIA Flag be flown along with the American Flag on a permanent basis. She believes the veterans
are supportive as well.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Later in the discussion, however,
the matter was continued in order to obtain additional information – see below.)
Council Member Feldhaus questioned flying the flag in perpetuity and also if other veteran’s
organizations could come forth and ask that other flags be flown as well; Council Member McCracken
stated if they want to limit flying the flag for a year or two and then renew it, she is willing to do that.
Relative to flying other flags, there are a limited number of flags that can be flown.
Council discussion followed relative to the possibility of flying other flags as well, at the conclusion of
which, Council Member Feldhaus stated he would first like to know which flags have been approved by
the government for flying on public properties.
It was determined by the Council to put action on the matter on hold until staff provides the information
requested; Council Member McCracken stated that was acceptable to her as long as it occurs before
dedication of the monument.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
C2.
City Attorney White stated that other than the previously announced item – appointing Roger Baker as
Chief of Police – there were no additional items to report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C3.
Council Member Kring :
She believes that flag etiquette provides that the American Flag be flown
higher than any other flag flown with it. That is not done outside of City Hall. She asked staff to look into
the matter.
Council Member Feldhaus :
He noted there is a proliferation of skateboarders especially at the center
in downtown Anaheim, the public parking garages, and outside City Hall. It seems that youngsters are
searching to find places to skateboard. The Council will recall one young man appeared before the
Council at a meeting and stated there was nowhere they can go to skateboard without being chased
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
AUGUST 24, 1999
away. He feels if the City could construct skateboard venues for the youngsters as other cities have
done, it would help.
Mayor Daly. He feels the idea is a good one and is supportive of the suggestion. The Council will look
forward to a report back from the City Manager on opportunities to create a skateboard park(s). Perhaps
there is more than one opportunity to do so.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of August 24, 1999 was adjourned
(9:37 P.M.).
The next scheduled Council Meeting is September 14, 1999.
SHERYLL SCHROEDER
CITY CLERK
28