2001/04/17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 17, 2001
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: Council Members: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members Shirley McCracken,
Tom Tait, Frank Feldhaus and Lucille Kring.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, Assistant City
Clerk Cynthia Daniel-Garcia, Bob Templeton, Public Utilities Department.
A copy of the agenda for the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted
on April 13, 2001 at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards.
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken called the regular meeting to order at 3:10 P.M. in the
Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard for the
purpose of a workshop on the Underground Conversion Proposed Five Year Plan,
Fiscal Years 2001/02 through 2005/06.
WORKSHOP:
City Manager Jim Ruth introduced the Bob Templeton, Public Utilities Department,
who presented the workshop presentation through a power point presentation dated
April 17, 2001, City of Anaheim Public Utilities Underground Conversion Proposed
Five Year Plan, Fiscal Years 2001/02 through 2005/06, as submitted to the Council
and City Clerk.
Council Member Feldhaus, speaking about the La Palma/Brookhurst intersection, said
he thought that would have been completed as part of the widening as part of the 1-5
improvements. He asked if the Utility Department would be undergrounding utilities as
well as Pacific Bell utilities and Mr. Templeton responded that it would be about four
years out before that happened and that the intersection widening was localized and
did not go back very far.
Council Member McCracken mentioned that a strip of Katella between the Pond and
State College still had a mass of wires that were overhead and she asked if that would
be in the underground plan. Mr. Templeton stated that was scheduled to be
completed between 2002 and 2005.
Council Member Kring asked that since some of the projects had been bumped up,
would the project be completed ahead of schedule since this was a 35 to 45 year
project and Mr. Templeton responded that they were on target.
Mayor Daly asked what the extent of Phase I was versus Phase II. Mr. Templeton
responded that Phase I was from Vermont to the 91 Freeway and Phase II was
Cerritos to Vermont. He said that the civil design had already started and construction
would begin in April 2002. Other corridor beautification would be pursued as part of
the project through the Public Works division, he said. Mayor Daly then requested a
report back on the possibilities of the State College corridor beautification.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 2
In response to Council Member Tait, Mr. Templeton stated that the total balance of the
underground fund was $7 million. Council Member Tait asked if the Utility had
considered suspending the program and using the funds for reserves this summer.
Public Utilities General Manager Edwards said that she had looked at the possibility
this year and she said that the majority of the energy purchases were currently made
and that this would throw off a long standing balance that the Utility Department had
tried to keep in balance. General Manager Edwards recommended proceeding with
the underground program and should circumstances alter and there was a dramatic
shift on the resource portfolio side, she would then go back and revisit all of the
programs.
In response to Council Member McCracken, Manager Edwards stated that if there was
a set of emergency circumstances, the Utility could use the fund balance and come
back and explain what the structure was. She said that under normal circumstances,
the fund would be protected. Investor owned utilities suspended those programs quite
a bit earlier as their financial situation deteriorated, she said.
In response to Mayor Daly, City Manager Ruth noted that there were no changes to
the consent calendar regarding this item and subsequently concluded the workshop.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White informed that there were no additions or deletions to the
Closed Session agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jim Adams, Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction, provided a
written statement regarding Closed Session Item 6, stating they were not in favor of
any additional funds paid to the contractor except for workers not receiving prevailing
wages. He suggested that a workshop be held between the City and affiliated unions
to develop a policy to define responsible bidder.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: South Coast Cab v City of Anaheim, Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 80-03-59.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of Case: Kord Group v. the Fieldstone Company, et aI.,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 76-32-58.
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: City of Anaheim v. JWM Family Enterprises, LP, et
AI., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 80-60-20.
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
"""'T"
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 3
Name of case: Vista Media Group, Inc. v. City of Anaheim. Et. AI.,
Orange County Superior Court Cases Nos. 81-40-50 and 00CC08157.
5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code.
One potential case involving facts and circumstances not yet known to
Potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.
6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to
Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code.
Claims for increased compensation by Sedcon Engineers Contractors,
Inc. relating to demolition and reconstruction of Fire Station NO.6.
7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8:
Property: 2250 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California
Agency negotiator: Elisa Stipkovich
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim, Glacier of Anaheim, Inc., and
Jillians
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of April 17, 2001 to order at 5:50 P.M.
and welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION:
Pastor John Paumier, Spirit Life Worship Center
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Tait
119
PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS:
Recognizing April 20 - 29, 2001, as National Dance Week. Presentation will be
scheduled at a later date.
Recognizing Alex Encheff, Former Choir Teacher Western High School.
Recognizing April 23-28, 2001, as National Record-A-Thon Week.
ADDITIONSIDELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jaime Martinez of Azusa spoke on being arrested by the Anaheim Police.
-~ -......---..--- ..
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 4
Linda Lee Grau, 24 Morning Dove, Irvine spoke on reducing the cost and size of
government. She also asked that South Coast Cab Company be permitted to keep
their current cab permits.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions,
seconded by Council Member Kring. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A49:
Council Member Feldhaus had a question regarding the current status of the Edison
right of way purchase at Maxwell Park.
City Manager Ruth said Edison had not come back to the City with a response as to
the lease amount.
Council Member Feldhaus expressed his concern about the possible loss of grant
funds for the park and City Manager Ruth said he understood the City had the grant
money for the development of the property. Mr. Ruth indicated that he was still
working with Edison on this issue and was waiting for a response.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Community Services, confirmed that the City had not had a
response from Edison due to the current negotiations with the State on the right-of-
ways and he noted that they were not sure when they could provide a response. He
stated that the City was not in jeopardy of losing the grant money. However, he
added, the money could only be spent on that right-of-way and no where else.
Council Member Feldhaus informed that he read that Edison was selling a lot of
property underneath their transmission lines and he wondered why the City was being
held up.
Mr. Ruth said staff would continue to pursue this with Edison.
Council Member Feldhaus asked Mr. Jarvi for an update on ideas for soccer fields.
Community Services Director Jarvi said he would include this item as part of the
presentation of the Capital Project budget for the coming year.
Council Member Feldhaus asked the status on the lease from the County for the Dad
Miller Golf Course.
Mr. Ruth said staff had recent conversations with the County and that they were not
making much progress. He explained that if the City did not receive a better response
from the County in the future they would return to Council to get new direction and
options for the property.
Mayor Daiy said the City needed to send a unified message to the County that the City
was impatient for a new agreement so they could secure the future of the Dad Miller
Golf Course.
-...........-....- --.-.-.,...---
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 5
Regarding Item A 13, Council Member Tait declared a potential conflict of interest,
noting his business has done some work for Pacific Bell.
On Item A31, Council Member Tait requested a one-week continuance. Mayor Daly
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the easement on Item A 13 was in perpetuity and
City Manager Ruth answered yes.
Mayor Daly moved to approve all items on the Consent Calendar except Item A31,
which would be continued until April 24, 2001. Motion seconded by Council Member
McCracken.
Mayor Daly requested that, as part of the approval of Item A 18, that there be a report
to the Council each year.
Council Member Feldhaus asked what was identified as petty cash.
William Sweeney, Director of Finance, answered that there were two different types of
accounts, one was a petty cash,less then $100, and change funds. He said the City
has several change funds used to make change for customers. Mr. Sweeney said he
had never heard of a change fund over $100, adding his department would be happy
to prepare a report every year for the Council. Mr. Sweeney reassured Council
Member Feldhaus that it was not a blank check.
Mayor Daly noted that the staff report read that the strictest of accounting procedures
would be enforced at all times and that regular reports of disbursements would be
required for review by the Finance Director or his delegate. He said the intent of his
request was that beyond that statement, it was a change in procedures.
Council Member Feldhaus said on Item A20, the destruction of records for the City
Attorney's office, Box 7 contained records regarding telecommunications work, and he
wondered if the City was entertaining any thoughts of re-establishing the
telecommunications committee.
City Attorney White answered that the documents were copies of documents that were
maintained in other departments on that subject. He said there was nothing in that box
that will be un-recoverable.
Roll call on adoption of the Consent Calendar, Ayes: 5 - Mayor Daly, Council Members
McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried. Council Member Tait
abstained on Item A13, Item A31 was continued one week and Item A18 was
amended.
118
A1.
Reject certain claims filed against the City.
105
173
A2.
Receive and file minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board Meeting
held January 5, 2001; minutes of the budget Advisory Commission meeting
held November 15, 2000; minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
February 1, 2001; minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting
~
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 6
held February 28, 2001; minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting
held January 25, 2001; minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing
Commission meetings held March 7, 2001 and March 21, 2001; a Notice of
Filing before the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Docket No. ER98-441-025); and correspondence from Southern
California Gas Company regarding Application No. 00-07-040 filed with the
California Public Utilities Commission.
175
A3. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Castillo Western Industrial
Constructors, in the amount of $47,000 for seismic upgrades for selected
facilities and approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign the Escrow
Agreement pertaining to contract retention's.
175
A4. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, KTI, Inc., in the amount of
$167,000 for construction of dead-end water main blowoffs and approve and
authorize the Finance Director to sign the Escrow Agreement pertaining to
contract retentions.
167
A5. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R.J. Noble, in the amount
of $213,122 for Harbor Boulevard/Chapman Avenue Intersection
Improvements and approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign the
Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
169
A6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Sequel Contractors, Inc.,
in the amount of $633,551 for Katella IliA Improvement and Beautification
Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Avenue to Manchester Avenue and approve and
authorize the Finance Director to sign the Escrow Agreement pertaining to
contract retentions.
106
A7. Authorize the amendment to the FY 2000/01 Public Works Operating budget by
$2,960,000 to accurately reflect the current level of participation and activity in
the sanitation fund (590) and the Anaheim Resort-Disney managed fund (456).
158
A8. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement for
acquisition of real surplus property and a grant deed for sale of real property
located at 1931 East Rosewood Avenue.
158
A9. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement for
Right-of-Entry for 213-313 Katella Way (R/W 5180-41) in connection with the
Katella Avenue Smart Street Project.
158
A 10. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement for
Right-of-Entry on property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,
approximately 222 feet west of Euclid Street, (RIW 5362-12) in connection with
the Lincoln Avenue/Euclid Street Intersection Improvements.
158
A 11. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement for
Right-of-Entry Property located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Euclid Street (R/W 5362-2A) in connection with the Lincoln Avenue/Euclid
Street Intersection Improvements.
123
158
123
158
160
117
158
113
123
~
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 7
A 12. Approve Agency-State Agreement for the federal Aid Projects No. 12-5055,
Program Supplement No. M081, for the Lincoln Avenue Street Improvement
Project from Dale Street to Beach Boulevard.
A 13. Approve the Grant Easement to Pacific Bell for underground communication
facilities within City-owned property at the Sportstown entrance on State
College Boulevard (R/W 5603).
A14. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the first
amendment to the design services agreement with ASL Consulting Engineers,
for an additional amount of $50,000 for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corridor Soundwall Project.
A 15. Approve the second-year option to the Agreement between Orange County
Striping Service, Inc., for striping maintenance services at a no cost increase.
A16. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-76 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real
properties or interests therein to the City. (City Deeds 10379-10380.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-77 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real
properties or interests therein to the City. (City Deeds 10375-10376.)
RESOLUTION NO. 200'1 R-78 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real
properties or interests therein to the City. (City Deeds 10383-10388.)
A17. Authorize the issuance of a change order to G.E. Packaged Power, Inc., to
increase the amount of the purchase order by $15,250, for a total amount of
$294,155 for the emergency repair of the combustion turbine generator.
A18. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-79 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the City Treasurer to delegate custody of
City funds to City Departments for day-to-day cash requirements and
authorizing the disbursements of such funds by City Departments under the
regulation of the Director of Finance.
A19. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-80 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing certain City employees to act as
representatives of the city for the acquisition of Federal surplus personal
property from the California State Agency for Surplus Property and authorizing
the City Manager to execute the necessary documents relating thereto.
A20. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-81 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records
more than two years old (City Attorney's Office).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 8
139
A21. Approve and recommended position to oppose and seek amendments relating
to SB 910 (Dunn) regarding the Housing Element and fines, penalties and
litigation and communicate this position to the appropriate representatives in
Sacramento.
123
A22. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-82 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM requesting the Orange County Board of Supervisors
commence the extension process of John Wayne Airports Settlement
Agreement to assure continuation of current operation restrictions.
123
A23. Approve an Agreement between the City and the Anaheim Cinco de Mayo
Fiesta Committee for the 30th Annual Cinco de Mayo Fiesta at La Palma Park
on May 5 and 6, 2001.
150
A24. Accept a monetary donation of $1 ,960 from TOMRA Pacific, Inc., which will
fund the planting of 20, 24-inch box trees in Walnut Grove Park and amend the
FY 00/01 budget by increasing revenue account 235-213-4776-2039 and
expenditure account 235-213-4776-9505 by $1 ,960.
123
A25. Approve that certain Lease by and between the City and Robert G. Jones for
equestrian use - Rancho Del Rio Stables, and authorize the City Manager to
execute the lease on behalf of the City.
105
A26. Appoint June Kuehn to the Anaheim Workforce Investment Board (WIB) for a
four-year term expiring June 30, 2005 as the representative of the State
Department of Rehabilitation.
177
A27. Approve and amendment to the Community Development Department Fiscal
Year 2000-2001 Budget by increasing revenue and expenditure appropriations
by $1 ,063,000, to administer 1,354 additional housing units under the Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher Program.
179
A28. ORDINANCE NO. 5759 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No, 89-
90-58 located in Areas 1 (7 acres with 660 foot frontage on east side of Loara
Street, measured north from the south City limits) and 2 (4.6 acres with 330
foot frontage on the east side of Euclid Street, located approximately 190 feet
south of Cindy Lane) from the RM-1200 zone to the RM-3000 zone.
(Introduced at the meeting of March 27, 2001, Item A19.)
102
A29. Approve an expenditure of $31,020 for Anaheim's share of a North Orange
County animal care services implementation and planning study to be
performed by Hughes, Perry and Associates.
179
A30. ORDINANCE NO. 5761 (INTRODUCTION) AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving Specific Plan No. 94-1, amending Ordinance No.
5517, as previously amended and amending Section 18.110.110 of Chapter
18.110 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Development Area
6 (asphalt and concrete processing facilities).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 9
ORDINANCE NO. 5762 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No.
99-00-15 (3) located at 1460 South Douglass Road from the CO zone to the
CO (SE) zone.
123 A31. Approve and Agreement with the Center for Demographic Research at
California State University Fullerton, in an amount not to exceed $39,150 for
the preparation of a Demographic Profile for the City along with analysis and
projections to the year 2010 based on Census 2000 results.
153 A32. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-83 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2001R-60 nunc pro tunc
(regarding Article 17, Appendix "A" of the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, General Unit adopted
on March 6, 2001.)
A33. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-84 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
153 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the City
of Anaheim and the Anaheim Police Association (amending certain sections of
Article 60 - Post Retirement Medical Benefits).
106 A34. Increase expenditure appropriations by $960,000 in the FY 2000/01 Employee
Benefits Fund budget.
A35. Amend the Police Department's FY 2000/01 budget by increasing revenues
156 and expenditures in the amount of $716,098 in connection with the
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund.
123 A36. Approve and authorize the Chef of Police to execute an agreement with
Gartner Consulting, in an amount not to exceed $264,653, for consulting
services to replace the Police Department's Computer-Aided Dispatch/Records
Management System (CAD/RMS).
156 A37. Authorize the transfer of ownership of retired police canine "Fanto" to his
former handler, Officer Eric Raymond.
156 A38. Authorize the transfer of ownership of retired police canine "Baron" to his
former handler, Officer Brian McElhaney.
175 A39. Approve an increase in budgeted electric revenues of $44,496,000 and an
increase in budgeted power costs appropriations of $51 ,331 ,000 in the Public
Utilities Department budget for FY 2000/01 in the Electric Fund (525).
123 MO. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manage to execute a
Consulting Services Agreement between the City and RAND for the
preparation of an Energy Resources Investment Portfolio at a cost not to
exceed $82,500.
123 M1. Waive Council Policy 401 and approve and authorize the Public Utilities
General Manager to execute an Agreement with Independent Energy
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 10
Consultants, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, for consulting services to
assist the City with Integrated Resources and System Planning projects.
175
A42. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-85 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the rates, rules and regulations for the sale
and distribution of electricity as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and most
recently amended by Resolution No. 2001 R-61. (Authorizes the Public Utilities
General Manager to revise Rule 26 of the Electric Rates, Rules and
Regulations and to provide a ten percent electric discount with the
implementation of the "Energy Discount for Income-Qualified Senior or Long-
term Disabled Customers Program.)
175
A43. Approve the proposed five-year Electric Underground Conversion Plan for
Fiscal Years 2002/02 through 2005/06 at an estimated capital cost of $52.9
million.
179
A44. ORDINANCE NO. 5763 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 99-00-11 located at 511 North Brookhurst
Street from the RS-A-43-000 zone to the CL zone,
179
A45. ORDINANCE NO. 5764 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 2000-00040 located at 131 South Harding
Avenue from the RS-7200 zone to the RS-5000 zone.
114
A46. Approve minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held March 20, 2001
and March 27, 2001.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
5:00 P.M. Public HearinQ:
149
A47. AMENDMENT TO RESIDENT ONLY PERMIT PARKING AREA NO.11: To
consider the amendment of Resolution No. 2001 R-52 amending Permit Parking
Area No. 11 to add the north and south side of Keys Lane from Velare Street to
the end of the cul-de-sac.
John Lower, Traffic Manger, provided the staff report.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Ralph Lewis, 702 S. Velare Street, explained the large amount of trash he picked up
on a daily basis. He said there were also a lot of cars left parked on the street. He
indicated that since the permit parking was approved on Keys Lane, things had
improved.
Tracy Fullman, 2525 West Clearbrook Lane, thanked Council and staff for the time and
effort regarding the permit parking and she indicated the improvement to the
neighborhood attributed to the permit parking.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 11
No further testimony, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001 R-86 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-86 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2001 R-52 to amend Permit Parking
Area No. 11 to add Keys Lane thereto as a "Permit Parking Only" street.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5: Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Feldhaus,
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
173
A48. ORDINANCE NO. 5765 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adding a new Chapter 4.73 to Title 4 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to taxicab franchises.
Mayor Daly requested John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager, present the staff
report.
John Poole said this was the culmination of about two years of work, which the two taxi
committee's, the consultant and the City staff had completed to bring the franchise
program to the City. He gave a presentation, explaining the reason staff was
recommending franchising was to achieve the goal to meet the growing taxi service
needs of the community, to raise the bar for service quality and to establish a method
for future permit evaluation and issuance. He said there had been some discussion
between franchising vs. permit processes. He said a franchise system was City
controlled, where the permit system was applicant controlled. With a franchise, he
informed, the City would have individualized competitive performance standards, with
a permit system there was no incentive to exceed minimum standards. With a
franchise system, the City selected the most qualified operators, with a permit system,
any company that met the minimum requirements and there was no comparison of
operator qualifications. He said the franchise process allowed for the City to raise the
bar and the permit system was reactive review of each application.
Mr. Poole provided the history, noting that in August of 2000, Council gave staff the go
ahead to release the request for proposal for taxi service in the City. On September
20, the RFP's were released; proposals were due on October 30. During the months
of November through January, he explained, the Selection Committee evaluated and
reviewed the proposals and visited the sites of each of the companies that made
proposals.
Mr. Poole explained that the staff's request for April 17, 2001 was to receive the report
and recommendations, to adopt a resolution of intent to grant franchises and set a
public hearing date. Also to introduce the franchise procedural ordinance, which would
adopt a new Chapter 4.73, rendering Chapter 4.72 inoperative, except as to any
continuing permits. He informed that staff would request Council adoption of the
franchise procedural ordinance on April 24, 2001. On April 27, 2001, the City Clerk
would pUblish a notice of a public hearing and on May 24, 2001, the franchise
-..,..-
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 12
procedural ordinance would become effective. On June 5, 2001, Council would
conduct public hearings on the three recommended franchises and there would be
introduction of ordinances awarding the franchises to those selected, if any. An
ordinance would be introduced amending Chapter 4.72 and an ordinance terminating
the current taxi permit moratorium. On June 12 he explained, Council could adopt the
ordinance amending Chapter 4.72 and an ordinance awarding the franchises, and
adopt an ordinance terminating the moratorium. On July 11 all ordinances would
become effective.
Mr. Poole reviewed the evaluation criteria and scoring which the Selection Committee
used. He noted that 25% was for proposer experience; number of years operating a
taxicab service, experience of senior management, safety and driving records and
OCTAP permits. Twenty percent was for financial viability; audited balance sheet and
income statements, financial standing, pending litigation, bankruptcy filings, projected
5-year cash flow analysis and projected operating expenses.
Mr. Poole said that staff did ask in the RFP for audited financial statements. Two of
the providers only submitted certified statements. There was much discussion in the
Committee and the Committee decided to accept the certified information and evaluate
that, however, both companies that submitted certified information were rated lower on
the scoring system.
He continued with the evaluation criteria and scoring noting that 25% for proposed
quality of service; proposed use of standard, use of temporary permits, start up
schedule, vehicle age and condition, number of wheelchair accessible vehicles, driver
standards, credit card payment policy and complaint responsiveness.
He explained that 25% was for the ability to perform to proposed standards; dispatch
system and procedures, Resort Area service control procedures, staffing levels, driver
and employee experience, hiring and training procedures, customer complaint
procedures, maintenance, administrative and dispatch facilities, vehicle purchase plan,
vehicle maintenance and trip dispatch reports.
Five percent was rated for clean fuels and proposed fleet mix including clean fuel
vehicles.
He reported that based on the evaluation criteria the committee recommended:
Yellow Cab of Northern Orange County, 93 points out of a possible 100.
American Livery, Inc. dba American Taxi, 77.75 points out of a possible 100.
A White and Yellow Cab, Inc. dba A Taxi Cab, 73.50 points out of a possible 100.
Cabco, Inc. dba California Yellow Cab, 70.75 points out of a possible 100.
XITOA, Inc. dba AM-PM Taxi, 44.50 points out of a possible 100.
The Committee recommended franchisees:
Yellow Cab Co. of Northern Orange Co., 130 vehicles and 30 temporary permits.
American Livery Inc. (American Taxi), 50 vehicles and 30 temporary permits.
A White and Yellow, Inc. (A Taxi Cab), 50 vehicles and 30 temporary permits.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 13
Mr. Poole said each of the proposals were evaluated and Yellow Cab was found to
have an extensive corporate and management experience, financially viable for
expansion, automated dispatch, no GPS, competitive response times, highly
experienced drivers, complies with 7-year/5 year vehicle age requirement and achieve
ULEV fleet.
American Livery Inc. (American Taxi) was found to have experienced management
team, impressive start up at John Wayne Airport, the committee found that the
information that was supplied to them, which was about 1 year old, that they were
financially viable but noted for Council's information that the City was recently notified
that they had filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11, reorganization of debts. He said staff
would be examining that going towards the hearing on this matter. They also had
automated dispatch, now adding GPS, competitive response times, experienced
drivers, vehicles less than 2 years old and all new ULEV fleet.
A White and Yellow Inc. (A Taxi Cab) had 14 years experience in Anaheim;
experienced senior management, financially viable to continue current operations,
installing automated dispatch-using GPS, competitive response times, experienced
drivers, vehicles up to 5 years of age, LEV and some ULEV.
Cabco, Inc. (California Yellow Cab) had strong corporate and management
experience, financially viable, upgraded to automated dispatch with GPS, good
response times, inexperienced drivers, buy new vehicles, replace after 5 years, would
buy new ULEV vehicles.
XITOA, Inc, (AM-PM Taxi) had start-up in Orange County, mixed levels of experience
by management, dependent on San Gabriel Transit for financial capability, automated
dispatching with GPS, good response times, would recruit new drivers, vehicles up to
5 years of age, 10% "alternatively fueled".
Mr. Poole said the citizens and visitors of the City would derive the following benefits of
franchise issuance: improved service levels; 90% of calls picked up within 20 minutes,
90 temporary cabs for peaks, automated dispatch, most with GPS. Newer vehicles,
cleaner burning fuels, competitive process; choose most-capable operators.
Regulatory process; individualized accountability, City controls process for future
operators.
Code Enforcement Manager Poole said it had been a lengthy process and staff
appreciated the cooperation from the industry and the citizens that have been involved
in the business community.
Council Member Kring asked about the two companies that provided certified audits,
noting that they were accepted but were rated lower. She asked if that was not an
unfair parameter considering that one of things that was required was an audited
financial statement. She also asked if staff thought it was inappropriate for them, since
it was going to be considered non-responsive if they did not give an actual audited
financial, and yet they were ultimately accepted.
Mr. Poole responded that it was a decision that the Committee considered and
discussed what they felt the financial report from A Taxi was a certified report prepared
m..._.....~ __---.,..-
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 14
by a CPA, they also weighed the fact that that company had also been a successful
service provider in Anaheim for a number of years. He also said that they did rate both
companies that did that, the lowest on their financial capability but they did not feel that
it was appropriate to outright reject them because staff was able to get information
from the certified audits that they felt was sufficient.
Council Member Kring asked what the difference was between a certified audit and a
financial document that was audited, what the definition of a certified audit was.
Mr. Poole answered that an audit that was the highest level was what the City required
because the audited financial statement had to be done independently, and it had
more credibility than a certified audit. He noted it was not as good as what staff asked
for but staff felt it was something that was workable and they did not feel it was
necessary to disqualify them for that.
Council Member Kring said that it seemed that there were two sets of rules for three
companies that followed the rules and two companies that did not. She felt like it was
not an even playing field for all five competitors.
Mr. Poole responded that was why the Committee rated them lower and there were
other exceptions made, like additional time that was given to make their proposal. He
said it was not a perfect process but staff tried to do the right thing. Council Member
Kring said the extension of time was given to all 5 competitors and Mr. Poole said that
was correct.
Regarding the recommendation to deny the franchise applications of the other
applicants, Mayor Daly asked City Attorney White if it was presumptuous considering
that the hearings on the proposed award of franchise had not yet been scheduled.
Mr. White replied that putting it on the agenda the way it was worded, would be that
taking an action with regard to all five proposals at the same time. He went on to say
that if Council denied the remaining two proposals that were not set for hearing,
assuming that was what Council would do this date, that it would be without prejudice
to re-consider either or both those applications in the event that Council did not award
all of the franchises after the public hearings. He explained, for example, if Council set
hearings on three of the applications for franchises and denied the other two and then
after the public hearing they determine that they only wish to award two of the
franchises to the three that they set hearings on, they certainly, at that point, could go
back and set a hearing for either or both the proposals that were rejected, since it was
not meant to be prejudicial to reconsider those proposals later If need be.
Mayor Daly asked if under that scenario, the Council would be limiting itself to three or
fewer franchisees. He said the Council may prefer to make that decision following the
conduct of the public hearings and asked if it was his recommendation to deny the
franchise applications of the other applicants because his point was it did not limit what
could be done in the future but it did affect the timing of what could be done in the
future.
Mr. White responded that he thought there were multiple ways procedurally that
Council could proceed at this point, one of which was what he just outlined. The other,
. .-,--
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 15
he noted, would be the Council would have the option to set more than three
applications for hearing with the understanding that they were going to be limited in the
number of franchises granted and the number of cabs that are award under those
franchises by the limits that are set in the procedural ordinance. He went on to say
that there was nothing to prevent Council from actually setting a hearing on more than
three of the proposals.
Mayor Daly explained that this was not a public hearing but that citizens had a right to
speak to this subject if they choose, with the reminder and proviso that there would be
a public hearing on the subject in the month of June, assuming the ordinance moved
forward.
Jeff Farano, 2300 E. Katella, commented on Council Member Kring's remarks
regarding the certification. He said he wished to formulate his comment in the form of
protest as to the acceptance of A TaxiCab as recommended by the Evaluation
Committee. He said that Section 4, paragraph 2 of the RFP stated that there should
be audited financial statements submitted, there were no exceptions to that; there
were no other descriptions to that, it said it shall be audited. Mr. Farano said Mr. Poole
described that they were certified financial statements. He said he had reviewed the
proposals submitted by A Taxi Cab and did not find letters or comments by an
accountant or CPA that said that those financial statements were certified. He noted
there was a financial statement submitted with a description as part of the proposal not
signed by an accountant or CPA which says" certified". The other financial statements
said reviewed and are signed by an accountant, he informed. He explained there were
three forms of financial statements; compiled, reviewed and audited and he added that
he did not know of a definition and did not see any kind of a definition in the proposal
to define what the City meant by certified. He felt the evaluation relied on a proposal
statement calling it certified and he said he did not believe that it was certified, noting
he did not know what certified was. The fact that the company did not submit audited
financial statements when they were specifically requested to do so, in his mind he
said, raised additional concern about the reliability and stability of that applicant. He
said he did not believe they had the ability or wanted to submit audited financial
statements.
Another problem in accepting the incomplete proposal, continued Mr. Farano, was that
it resulted in an inherently unfair process. What was required in a proposal must be
required of all proposals, he noted and all of the proposals, except for the two that did
not provide the certified statements, provided audited financial statements and
because two companies did not submit the audited financial statements that was an
inherent fault and problem with the proposal and he thought, under the rules of the
RFP, that they were considered incomplete. He said the unfairness of the process
was magnified by the fact that his client, California Yellow Cab, asked for clarifications
of the requirements for financial statements in the month of September before the
proposal was to be submitted. He said they were told, in writing by a member of the
Code Enforcement Division, that "the terms are self-explanatory, failure to furnish the
documentation or information required by the RFP will result in the incomplete RFP",
adding they were told that before they submitted the RFP. Based on this response, he
continued, California Yellow Cab took the time and spent the money to provide the
audited statements. He added that A Taxi Cab had plenty of opportunity, the
procedure had been going on for two years and the audited financial statements had
-..,_.__..~~~.,.._.. ..--...--.---- ---'.----. _.~.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 16
been discussed in the ad hoc committee for two years and they knew it was going to
be requested. He noted, on the other hand, A Taxi Cab never requested the Council
to consider granting exception to this requirement or to grant them more time to
prepare the audited financial statement, they simply ignored the requirement. He
expressed that it would be an insult to the entire process for the City to simply ignore
the applicants to submit whatever they wanted and ignore this requirement and by
permitting one proposal to ignore this requirement, while at the same time, threatening
others to disqualify them if they do not submit the proper information was an inherently
unfair process and subjected the entire process to question. He finalized; saying the
decision on whether the proposal should be considered for franchise rested on
Council, not an evaluation committee. The Evaluation Committee was charged with
evaluating the information and reporting their findings to Council. The Evaluation
Committee had informed Council in the report that A Taxi Cab did not submit audited
financial statements. The fact that the Committee went on to evaluate the proposal did
not, in any way, prohibit Council from rejecting that proposal. He said the opportunity
to consider whether the proposal was complete was for Council's decision, once they
deemed a proposal incomplete that proposal must be denied, he said.
Larry Slagel, 1619 E. Lincoln, said there were some circumstances that needed to be
considered, at the very end of the report and the financial condition of all of the
applicants, all of the companies showed a loss in the last three years of operation. He
felt it was important to point out that the number of taxicabs that were allowed to
service the City would be fundamental in the type of service that the City had the next
three or four years. As the City grew, he said, they needed to give consideration to the
demand and the responses. The ability to provide the higher level of service that the
franchise process called for was dependent on how the total number was interpreted.
He noted a recent lawsuit conclusion that dictated additional permits and he said he
hoped that they were considered in the final mix when the numbers were determined.
Maryann Cazzell, 2230 W. Chapman, Orange, said she represented South Coast Cab
and said everyone knew what South Coast Cab thought about the franchise. She said
it was thought from day one that it was a pretext to try and deny the privilege of
operating in the City. She explained that South Coast Cab was not the only person or
party that was looking at what was going on in the proceedings, nor were the other
taxicab companies. The California Court of Appeal, she noted, was now monitoring
closely what was going on as a matter of fact, arguably they gave additional time to file
additional briefs to see what happened this date. She said she did not know if the
Council was aware but the Court of Appeals resurrected other claims that South Coast
Cab had against the City and said that now South Coast Cab would go forth with other
claims, such as anti-trust claims and claims for breech of fiduciary duty. The City
could be subject to large monetary demands, she informed, and added that it never
had to get to this point. She wondered if the three recommended companies, Yellow
Cab, A Taxi Cab and American Cab, realized the full impact of the ordinance
4.73.090.010, which required them to indemnify the City for any claims arising at all
out of operating under the franchise. She said perhaps the City had this particular part
put in so it could be indemnified from the losses that would result should the franchise
go through as ordered. She finalized by saying that she thought there was now
enough taxicab permits in the City and that the recommendation should be denied.
---r- ' .-.---
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 17
Phillip Anthony, representing A Taxi Cab, said based on earlier remarks of Council
Member Kring and Mr. Farano questioning the audited financials, asked for more time
to present a full case on why audited financials were not the beginning and end of the
world, that it was a technicality that was required by certain publicly traded companies.
He said many large companies, long enduring companies, did not routinely do audited
financial statements and if that was going to be a concern he would like to have a little
more time to present a full case of why that was not a reason to disqualify a firm. He
explained, as Mr. Poole reported it, it was certainly reasonable to deduct points for not
complying with that technicality, but here was a firm that served the community
continuously for 14 plus years and obviously was a real company with real financial
strength.
Mayor Daly informed that there would be public hearings scheduled in the month of
June if the ordinance that was recommended was approved. He noted that on page 1
of the proposed ordinance, there was a proposed finding which said there currently
existed within the City up to three franchise taxi cab providers to operate 230 taxicabs
which needs would increase to 260 cabs and four taxi cab providers in the year 2002.
He asked, if Council approved the ordinance with that language, was the Council
bound by that number of permits in the year 2002.
City Attorney White answered no; the number of cabs actually would decrease under
the proposed ordinance. He explained that currently the City had 282 permitted taxi
cabs under the permit system. If Council granted 230 cabs under the franchise system
to three companies, for example since staff did not know who was going to get the
franchises, two of which hold permits already, then the City had one company that did
not apply for a franchise that held a permit, the ordinance, as proposed, allowed them
to operate under their current permit for one year, at which time the number of taxis
would be decreased to 30, which was the number necessary to serve the entire City.
Then the City would have the fourth provider and the 260 number, it would not be by
the Council authorizing a new franchise and it would be as operation of the grandfather
provision, he explained.
Mayor Daly asked for clarification of the intent of the language, did that bind future
Councils in any way to take any acts based on the theoretical target of 260.
Mr. White answered that it would not. He also said that the process that was
envisioned in the ordinance was that once you award the initial franchises for whatever
number that was and how many franchisees there were, that then the franchise
process would be in essence closed until the Council determined, based upon
standards that were being added into the ordinance, that there was a need for
additional taxis, at which time you would have to open the process and then go out
and solicit new proposals for additional franchises or from current franchisees to
operate additional taxicabs.
Mayor Daly asked If it would happen based on standards and based in the future on
complete discretion of the Council, not based on the 260 target mentioned in the
ordinance. He also asked what was the thinking behind putting the language in the
ordinance.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 18
City Attorney White answered that on the 260 number, the thinking was that on the
report from the independent taxi consultant, that it was his belief that there was going
to be a need a year from now for 260 taxis. He also said that it was trying to mesh that
report with the factual scenario the City had to deal with now, which was they had a
company that had a permit that they knew was not going to be awarded a franchise
because, as they had heard tonight, it did not want a franchise and had not applied for
a franchise. He also said it was trying to work those two things together and that was
how they came up with the 260 number in the ordinance, because of the need that the
reports said would be in existence in 2002 plus the 230 that the Council will award and
the 30 that will be grandfathered into South Coast.
Mayor Daly suggested that the proposed ordinance be introduced, adding that it would
be back on the next agenda for a second and final reading, and then it would go into
effect 30 days after that if the Council approved it. Mayor Daly said, regarding the
resolutions which scheduled public hearings to award franchises, because of some of
the uncertainties regarding some of the issues that had been raised that evening, he
suggested that Council schedule four hearings in the month of June. He said the four
hearings would include the three recommended by staff and a fourth firm in the
rankings, which was CABCO, to the group of potential franchisees. Mayor Daly
requested the public hearing date be June 12, 2001.
Council Member Kring asked for clarification on the franchise fees, noting that in the
ordinance it did not say that the City was going to have them deposit money but in the
subsequent supplemental information it said that the companies that would be
awarded franchises would have to deposit money and then the City would actually pay
the quarterly franchise fee.
Mr. White answered; saying the amount of the fee would need to be adopted by the
Council, if the ordinance was adopted. He explained that after it was adopted, staff
would bring back the recommended fees for consideration.
Council Member Kring read from page 13, "the first payment shall be due and payable
within 30 days of the effective date of the franchise and there after quarterly payments
shall be due 15 days after the end of the three months."
City Attorney White said that Section 4.73.130, subsection.030, said the Director shall
require franchisee to establish and maintain a deposit to be held, and the amount of
that deposit shall be established by resolution of the Council pursuant to .010 of that
section.
Council Member Kring asked if that was typical to ask them to front the money.
Mr. White answered that he thought it was done both ways, possibly Mr. Poole or Mr.
Schaller could comment on that, based on their experience.
Mr. Schaller said that he had seen where the franchisee needed to come up with the
deposit, sometimes even with the application in response to the RFP. He then said it
was essentially to make clear that the money was there and would be forthcoming. He
continued, saying the City Attorney said that he thought the other thing that Council
could consider was that at the time staff presented the resolution, to establish
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 19
whatever the amounts would be, the Council had the discretion to set the amount at
$0.00 should they decide they did not want to actually have a pre-paid deposit but
rather a pay as you go fee. He added that Mr. Poole said that he thought the fees that
they were recommending were very minimal. He also said that what they had always
strived to do was not to make a profit but just cover the cost of enforcement, estimating
at something like $100.00 per vehicle for the annual fee for the franchise.
Council Member Kring asked if that was for the annual fee and Mr. Poole answered
yes.
Council Member Kring mentioned that the franchise called for no advertising, no A-
frames on top, but some of the companies were going to be operating in other cities
that allowed advertising, and she wondered how that was going to be handled.
Mr. Poole answered Council Member Kring saying that staff was charged with raising
the bar and there had been much discussion on this topic. He also said that in the
past there had been objectionable advertising and staff discussed that that particular
type of advertising could not be regulated so the staff recommendation continued to be
that the signage be prohibited on the vehicles. He went on to say that what he
understood from the proposals, the cabs that were going to operate in the City would
be primarily stationed in Anaheim. He said that staff would be reasonable in
enforcement if a company happened to have a vehicle that was in use occasionally.
Mayor Daly said the ordinance has been introduced and will be on the next agenda
and offered the package of four resolutions, which he suggested Council vote on in
one motion. He said the four resolutions would schedule hearings on June 12,2001
for the top four ranked firms by the Evaluation Committee. He also stated the four
companies were Yellow Cab of North Orange County, American Taxi, A Taxi Cab and
California Yellow Cab. Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney if there were any
procedural issues at this time.
Mr. White responded that he wanted to make it clear that although the Council was
voting on four resolutions relating to four franchises, that the ordinance introduced
provided for a maximum of 230 cabs and a maximum of 3 franchises being awarded.
He said that by introducing four or having a hearing on four separate proposals was
not to be an indication that the City would grant four franchises, in fact, he noted the
City would only be granting a maximum of three of the four.
Mayor Daly asked if it was up to three and Mr. White answered up to three, the way
the ordinance was worded.
Council Member Kring asked if Council could amend that to say a possibility of up to
four to give them flexibility.
Mr. White answered by saying that the information that Council was working from now
and the findings that were in the ordinance say that there was a need for up to 230
franchise taxi cabs and he thought that if Council wanted to divert from that it would
have to be based on some evidence that he was not sure staff had yet.
--....... '--'---"-""'""."""""
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 20
Council Member Kring said she was not saying to change the number of the cabs, just
change the possibility of the number of franchises.
City Attorney White said the only problem with that was that all along in the RFP
process it was indicated that during that process the Council would be awarding a
maximum of three and if the City started diverting from the rules that were established
he had a concern in that regard.
Mayor Daly said he agreed with the City Attorney's points and that his proposals were
consistent with the process today including the staff report and the Evaluation
Committee.
Council Member Tait said that before he voted no he was concerned with going
forward with the franchise process altogether in light of the Court of Appeals decision.
He said he thought the City should put a hold on the process and continue with the
current permit system.
Council Member Feldhaus said he subscribed to the concerns raised by Council
Member Tait, but from what he had explained to him, it was not cast in concrete and it
could be changed later if Council deem to do so.
ORDINANCE NO. 5765 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adding a new Chapter 4.73 to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to taxicab franchises.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-87 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to grant a non-exclusive franchise to Yellow Cab
Company of Northern Orange County for the purpose of operating taxicab service in
the City of Anaheim; stating the terms and conditions upon which it is proposed to
grant the franchise; and establishing the date, hour and place when and where any
persons having any interest therein or any objection thereto may appear and be heard
thereon. (Public hearing date: June 12, 2001 at 6:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-88 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to grant a non-exclusive franchise to American
livery, Inc. DAB American Taxi for the purpose of operating taxicab service in the City
of Anaheim; stating the terms and conditions upon which it is proposed to grant the
franchise and establishing the date, hour and place when and where any persons
having any interest therein or any objection thereto may appear and be heard thereon.
(Public hearing date: June 12, 2001 at 6:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-89 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to grant a non-exclusive franchise to A White and
Yellow Cab DBA A Taxi Cab for the purpose of operating taxicab service in the City of
Anaheim; stating the terms and conditions upon which it is proposed to grant the
franchise; and establishing the date, hour and place when and where any persons
having any interest therein or any objection thereto may appear and be heard thereon.
(Public hearing date: June 12, 2001 at 6:00 P.M.)
- --,-.,. --~,.'_._~~
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 21
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-90 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to grant a non-exclusive franchise to CABCO, Inc.
DBA California Yellow Cab for the purpose of operating taxicab service in the City of
Anaheim; stating the terms and conditions upon which it is proposed to grant the
franchise; and establishing the date, hour and place when and where any persons
having any interest therein or any objection thereto may appear and be heard thereon.
(Public hearing date: June 12, 2001 at 6:00 P.M.)
Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Kring, Feldhaus.
Noes - 1; Council Member Tait. Motion carried.
181
A49. Mayor Daly's requests for a report on the preservation of the orange grove near
the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Santa Ana Street.
Mayor Daly thanked City Manager Ruth and staff for responding on the prospect of the
City taking steps to preserve the parcel on Orange Street, which had been identified as
the last remaining orange grove in the City. He said that given that historical
significance, as well as the City's need for beautification and greenery, he felt the City
needed to seize the opportunity and pursue it. He said the staff report identified the
opportunity and the funding that would be required and he said he was hoping for
some grant funds for historical preservation and that perhaps the City could enlist the
support of state and federal government. He noted one of the questions was the
status of the southeast corner of Santa Ana Street and Harbor Boulevard, adjacent to
the orange grove. He explained that he wanted to not only preserve the orange grove
but also that corner as a compliment to the orange grove.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Community Services, said the orange grove itself was not for
sale right now, according to the owners, as current as December 1999, but that they
could be approached again. Mr. Jarvi went on to say that the vacant lot on Harbor
apparently went into escrow this week for $895,000, so that may not be available to
the City unless the owner was interested in reselling the property to the City. He said
that as far as funding availability, staff checked with the State Preservation Office.
There was $10 million available, however the site must be on the California Historic
Register and nomination must be prepared and submitted to the State Historic
Preservation Office in the next several months for consideration in August by the State
Historic Resource Board. Mr. Jarvi then said that once it was designated, if it is
considered appropriate for that designation, then the City could apply for one of the
grants. He said that the cost of both sites would be around $1.9 million, which would
be a sizable amount of the $10 million available. Mr. Jarvi said his staff did check with
Assemblyman Correa's office that had indicated a willingness to support the City on
this project and they indicated that they had no immediate thoughts in terms of funding
for this project, but just wanted to express concern and support for the general effort.
He requested direction from Council in terms of what they would like to do with the
site, since staff was in the process of formulating their capital budget for the next two
fiscal years.
Mayor Daly asked if there was any prospect of County involvement in the project.
.---....----...-'..--- ---.--...--..-...- ,--- -_.._-~
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 22
Mr. Jarvi answered that he was not familiar with that and would follow up with the
County.
Mayor Daly suggested that staff pursue with the property owners their interest in
selling to the City and in preserving the properties. He said he would like staff to
develop some funding support like private philanthropists or other sources of
partnership.
Council Member Tait agreed that he would support staff on finding out what it would
cost for the property and he supported this project.
The Mayor said he had received a couple of letters from residents in the
neighborhood, from the Anaheim Historical Society and Anaheim Beautiful, all in
support of the project.
Mayor Daly asked for comments from the Public.
Jim Coloson, 601 South Clementine, Chairman of the California Square Neighborhood
Association spoke in support of the project.
Megan Shigo, 626 North Clementine, Community Development Block Grant
Representative for the Colony, spoke in support of this project.
Bill O'Brien, 610 North Lemon Street, spoke in support of the project.
Barbara Gonzalez, 330 South Ohio Street, spoke in support of this project and handed
out brochures from a park in Riverside that recognized the citrus industry.
Marsha Garten, 521 North Lemon Street, spoke in support of this project and asked
what the zoning was on the vacant land.
Planning Director, Joel Fick, said he believed it was RM2400.
Ms. Garten asked what the size of the property was and Mr. Fick answered that the
immediate corner was zoned CO and the agricultural lot was RM2400, the primary use
for the land was office use.
David Hellen, 515 North Vine Street, spoke in favor of this project.
Council Member McCracken said she did not want to be negative but she had worked
with the Mother Colony House and they barely had one vine that was surviving with
tender loving care. She said that one of her concerns was a quick decline of the trees,
that the soil destroyed the grapes and a lot of the orange groves too. She felt the City
had to balance that and be sure that this was a viable project because the City could
find themselves in a situation where there was millions of dollars spent and could not
make it survive.
Mayor Daly made a motion to have staff aggressively pursue the opportunities to
preserve the orange grove and the adjacent corner. Roll call: Ayes - 5. Noes - O.
Motion carried unanimously.
.,...
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 23
155
Items B1 throuqh B10 From Planninq Commission Meetinq of March 26. 2001:
(No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public
hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 17, 2001:
B1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00386
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
CITY-INITIATED: Anaheim Housing Authority, Attn: Bertha Chavoya,
Housing Manager, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
City-initiated amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to
consider an update of citywide housing needs, goals, policies, and programs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval and adoption of the amendment to the Housing
Element to the City Council (PC2001-33) (7 yes votes).
Mayor Daly moved that the public hearing for Item B1 be scheduled for May 1, 2001.
Motion seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried.
179
B2. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04426CATEGORICALL Y EXEMPT.CLASS 26:
OWNER: City of Anaheim, Housing Authority, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201
South Anaheim Boulevard #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Anaheim Revitalization Partners, Attn: Frank Cardone, 18201 Von
Karman Boulevard #400, Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 1330 -1338 West Lynne Avenue. 1545 -1633 and 1528-
1634 South Michelle Drive, 1529 - 1633 and 1528 - 1634 South Jeffrey
Drive. and 1603. 1607 and 1633 South Walnut Drive lexcludinq 1607-1613
South Michelle Drive and 1618 - 1630 South Jeffrey Drivel. Property is
approximately 14.8 acres generally bounded by Lynne Avenue to the north,
Walnut Street to the east, Audre Drive to the south, and Hampstead Street to
the west.
Waiver of (a) maximum fence height, and (b) minimum structural setback to
permit the construction of a new community center building at 1330 - 1338
West Lynne Avenue in conjunction with a City of Anaheim Housing Authority
initiated multiple-family residential rehabilitation project which is currently
under construction.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 2001-04426 granted (PC2001-34) (7 yes votes).
179
B3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4006
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Erdtsieck Family Limited Partnership, 625 North Main Street,
Orange, CA 92868
AGENT: Fred Erdtsieck, 625 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92868
North Red Gum Street. Property is approximately 1.85 acres located on the
east side of Red Gum Street, 390 feet south of the centerline of La Jolla
Street.
_............. _>T__ __._._"
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 24
Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of to a time limitation (approved on March 2,1998, to expire on
March 2, 2001) to retain a large equipment rental yard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP No. 4006 (PC2001-35) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
179
B4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2681
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Rewcon One Inc. aka Robshan, Inc., Attn: Christine M. Roche,
Secretary, 3210 Beltline Road #140, Dallas, TX 75234
AGENT: Bryan Kahng, 480 North Glassell Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 480 North Glassell Street. Property is approximately 0.59 acre
located on the southeast corner at Glassell Street and Frontera Street (Press
Box Sports Bar and Grill). Request reinstatement of this permit which
currently contains a time limitation (reinstated on March 12, 1999 to expire on
March 29, 2001) to retain a previously approved restaurant with sales of
alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption with three billiard tables
and to add public entertainment (cover charge).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 2681 for one year to expire March 26,
2002 (PC2001-36) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
179
B5. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 Ib) (3)
CODE AMENDMENT NO. ZCA2001-00007 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND
PORTIONS OF TITLE 4 AND TITLE 18 RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS
FOR FREEWAY - ORIENTED SIGNS
SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. SPN2001-00003 - TO AMEND
THE NORTHEAST AREA - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 RELATING TO
REQUIREMTNS FOR FREEWAY - ORIENTED SIGNS: City initiated request
to amend various Chapters of Title 4 and Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to the requirements for freeway - oriented signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended adoption to City Council (5 yes votes and Commissioners
Bostwick and Boydstun voted no.)
ORDINANCE NO. 5766 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending portions of Title 4 and Title 18 relating to
requirements for freeway - oriented signs.
ORDINANCE NO. 5767 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving Specific Plan Adjustment No.7 to the Northeast
Area Specific Plan No. 94-1, amending Ordinance No. 5517, as previously
amended, and amending various Sections of Chapter 18.110 of Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code relating to freeway - oriented signs.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 25
Council Member Feldhaus said he wanted to make sure there was room for
exceptions.
Mayor Daly said suggested that the ordinance be introduced this week and that the
second reading be continued for a couple of extra weeks to give Council a chance to
meet with staff. Both ordinances would return to the May 1, 2001 agenda for
adoption.
179
B6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400
CATAGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1:
REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS:
Anaheim Marketplace, Attn: Pamela Marcum, 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and approval of final landscape plans
for and indoor swap meet. Property is located at 1440 South Anaheim
Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final landscape plans for CUP No. 3400 (6 yes votes,
Commissioner
Bostwick abstained).
179
B7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 320 (PREV. CERTIFIED)
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 120
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ACTION TAKEN REGARDING
FINAL SIGN PLANS FOR THE STADIUM GATEWAY OFFICE BUILDING:
CM&D Construction Management & Development, Inc.,
Attn: Daniel Bray, 8929 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 306, Los Angeles,
CA 90045. Summit Commercial Properties, Inc., Attn: Chris Black, 1970 East
Grand Avenue, Suite 300, EI Segundo, CA 90248, requests clarification of
action taken regarding Final sigh Plans for the Stadium Gateway office
building. Property is located at 1900 South State College Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved the modification to item 1 of the Planning Commission action taken
on March 12, 2001, regarding Final Sign Plans to the Stadium Gateway Sign
Program (7 yes votes). EIR No. 320 previously certified.
179
B8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4155 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION-
REVIEW OF ELEVATION PLANS: Devtech, Inc., 1812 Fairfield Drive,
Fullerton, Ca 92833 and WCDS, Inc., 1820 E. First Street, Suite #550, Santa
Ana, CA 92705, requests review of elevation plans for a commercial retail
center including a drug store with drive - through lane. Property is located at
500-528 South Beach Boulevard (Sav-On Drug Store).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved elevation plans for CUP No. 4155 (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Mayor Daly asked if the final designs for the Sav-On Drug on Beach Blvd were in
keeping with the City's objectives to improve the appearance of Beach Blvd. Joel
Fick answered that it was, it had even been enhanced from the original plans.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 26
179
B9. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04406 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REQUEST
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: D.R. Horton, AUn: Cheryl
Thompson, 119 North Maple Street, Suite A, Corona, CA 92880, requests
review of elevation plans for a 92-lot, detached single family sub division.
Property is located at 8200 East La Palma Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final plans for Variance No. 2000-04406 (6 yes votes,
Commissioner Bostwick abstained).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
179
B10. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (bH31
THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1
SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO.4: Walt Disney Imagineering,
Attn: John Graves, 888 S. Disneyland Drive, 4th Floor, Anaheim, CA 92802,
requests a Specific Plan Adjustment to consider modifications to the
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Zoning and Development
Standards (Chapter 18.78 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) pertaining to
informational and directional signage visible from the Magic Way public right-
of-way. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area, which is located within
The Anaheim Resort ™ in the City of Anaheim, encompasses approximately
490 acres and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa
Ana Freeway (1-5) between Ball Road and Katella Avenue (with
approximately 24.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue) and east of Walnut
Street. Magic Way is located south of Ball Road, between Walnut Street and
Disneyland Drive.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Requested the City Attorney's Office prepare an ordinance for City Council
and recommended that City Council adopt Adjustment NO.4 to The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (7 yes votes).
Items B11 throuah B13 From Zonina Administrator Meetina of April 5. 2001:
(No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public
hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 19, 2001 except as noted:
179
B11. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER NO. 2001-00012
CATAGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 4:
OWNER: OCTO, Attn: Susan Lundgren, 3472 Montair Avenue,
Long Beach, CA 90808.
LOCATION: 1501 -1551 South Douglass Road: Property is 7.3 acres, having
a frontage of 1,560 feet on the west side of Douglass Road, located 690 feet
north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Request for a Special
Circumstances Waiver to permit a one-day special event permit for an
automobile show on a commercial parking lot in the ML (Limited Industrial)
zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved Special Circumstances Waiver No. 2001-00012 for a one-day event
to be held on June 9, 2001.
-...- -.., ~.,-. -~." --,.~
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 27
179
B12. VARIANCE NO. 4353
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 98-245
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: ANACAL ENGINEERING CO., Attn: Wayne Jolley,
1900 E. La Palma Ave., Suite 202, Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: 8205 E. Santa Ana Canvon Road:
Parcel 1 : Property, a 2.65 acre irregularly-shaped parcel with a frontage of
65 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, has a maximum depth
of 478 feet and is located 850 feet west of the centerline of Weir Canyon
Road.
Parcel 2: Property, a 0.83 acre irregularly-shaped parcel with no frontage on
a street, has a maximum depth of 320 feet and is located 285 feet west of the
centerline of Weir Canyon Road and 210 feet north of Santa Ana Canyon
Road.
Request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval to establish a 2-lot commercial subdivision with waiver of minimum
lot frontage abutting a public or private street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
No action taken on Variance No. 4353.
Approved extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-245 from March
18,2001 to March 18, 2002.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
179
B13. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04425
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT- CLASS 1:
OWNER: Hamid Zanjani, 419 South Windmill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 419 South Windmill Lane: Property is 0.40 acre located at the
terminus of Windmill Lane with frontages of 41 feet on the west side of
Windmill Lane, 61 feet on the south side of Rocky Point Road, and 196 feet
on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road. Waiver of minimum side yard setback
(6 feet required; 2 feet proposed) to construct an addition onto the side of an
existing two-story single-family residence in the RS-HS-10, 000 (SC)
(Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved waiver of a three-foot setback for Variance No. 2001-04425 as
shown on revised plans. This variance has a 15-day appeal period that ends
April 24, 2001.
Items 814 throuoh 815 From Plan nino Commission Meetino of April 9. 2001:
(No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public
hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 19, 2001:
B14. RECLASSIFICATION 2001-00046
179 VARIANCE NO. 2001-04431
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-233
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Bruce H. Dohrman and Shelly R. Dohrman, 711 East Imperial
Highway, suite #200, Brea, CA 92821
_~___~ __'_m'_._.__,_..,_.._~
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 28
LOCATION: 1253 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately
0.77 acres located 650 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive.
Mayor Daly said he was concerned about the variance approved by the Planning
Commission on the setbacks from State College Blvd.
Planning Director Fick said that years ago it was specifically laid out or designed for
that continuation and that he thought the variances were reasonable and would result
in continual, compatible development.
Mayor Daly said his concern was heightened because of the widening of State College
Blvd. because it was a freeway exchange and did not want two-story houses right up
against the sidewalk and the busy interchange.
Greg Hastings, Planning Department, said there was an existing house that would
remain along State College Blvd. and the homes that would be built would be built into
this single family neighborhood on almost identical sized lots that were existing.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM:
179
B15. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3)
ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2
SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO.4
Walt Disney Imagineering, AUn: John Graves, 888 S. Disneyland Drive, 4th
Floor, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests a Specific Plan Adjustment to consider
modifications to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and
Development Standards (Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code)
pertaining to temporary parking requirements. The Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan Area, which is located within The Anaheim Resort™ in the City of
Anaheim, encompasses approximately 550 acres and is generally located
adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) between the
Disneyland Drive off ramp and Orangewood Avenue, with a portion located
north of the 1-5/Harbor Boulevard interchange.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Requested City Attorney's Office to prepare an ordinance pertaining to
Adjustment No.4 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 and
recommended adoption of said Ordinance to the City Council (7 yes votes).
6:00 P.M. Public HearinQs:
121
C1. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a resolution finding and determining the
public interest and necessity to require condemnation of certain real property
located at 1695 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW 5362-02) for purposes of
conducting roadway improvement in connection with the Lincoln Avenue
Avenue/Euclid Street intersection project and authorize legal counsel for the
City to proceed with said condemnation action.
......,... ~" ...--.....--..-..--.-.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 29
121
C2. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a resolution finding and determining the
public interest and necessity to require condemnation of certain real property
located at 1681 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW 5362-03) for purposes of
conducting roadway improvement in connection with the Lincoln Avenue
Avenue/Euclid Street intersection project and authorize legal counsel for the
City to proceed with said condemnation action.
121
C3. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a resolution finding and determining the
public interest and necessity to require condemnation of certain real property
located at 1687 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW 5362-4) for purposes of
conducting roadway improvement in connection with the Lincoln Avenue
Avenue/Euclid Street intersection project and authorize legal counsel for the
City to proceed with said condemnation action.
121
C4. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a resolution finding and determining the
public interest and necessity to require condemnation of certain real property
located at 120 South Euclid Street and 1676 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW
5362-6 & 9) for purposes of conducting roadway improvement in connection
with the Lincoln Avenue Avenue/Euclid Street intersection project and
authorize legal counsel for the City to proceed with said condemnation action.
121
C5. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a resolution finding and determining the
public interest and necessity to require condemnation of certain real property
located at 1680 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW 5362-7) for purposes of
conducting roadway improvement in connection with the Lincoln Avenue
Avenue/Euclid Street intersection project and authorize legal counsel for the
City to proceed with said condemnation action.
121
C6. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a resolution finding and determining the
public interest and necessity to require condemnation of certain real property
located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (RIW
5362-11) for purposes of conducting roadway improvement in connection with
the Lincoln Avenue Avenue/Euclid Street intersection project and authorize
legal counsel for the City to proceed with said condemnation action.
Mayor Daly said that the City Attorney had advised that it was acceptable to combine
Item C1 through C6. He explained that this was the time for the public hearing on the
proposed acquisition by imminent domain of property interests in seven separate
parcelS of property for the Euclid Street Improvement and Widening Project. He noted
the properties involved were identified in Agenda items C1 through C6 and the
interests which were proposed to be acquired were described in the resolutions
attached to the staff report for each proposed acquisition.
-or-
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 30
Natalie Meeks, Public Works, told the Council that the resolutions offered the
acquisition of right of way necessary for construction of the Euclid St. and Lincoln Ave.
intersection improvement project. She went on to say that this project was part of the
City's circulation element and had been reviewed, including an approved negative
declaration. She said funding for the project was primarily through OCTA grant
funding with some matching funds from City transportation funds. She noted that
implementation of the improvements would increase the capacity for the street,
improve intersection operations and joint improvements made by CalTrans as part of
the 1-5 Freeway widening project. She said the project had been designed to retain
the approximate centerline of the roadways while matching existing improvements and
providing the additional turning lanes necessary for intersection operations. She went
on to say that acquisition offers had been made and the City's acquisition consultant
had been in negotiations with the property owners. However to this date, she
explained, staff had been unable to obtain executed acquisition agreements for the
parcels. Staff recommended adoption of the resolutions of necessity to insure that the
City obtained legal possession of the property in time for the scheduled construction.
She indicated that Rutan and Tucker had a conflict of interest on C4 so they would not
be representing that property.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing for Items C1 through C6. He said that he would
take testimony from the owner of record, or a designated representative, for each of
the properties. Testimony should be limited to the following five issues only; (1)
whether the public interest and necessity require the project; (2) whether the project
was planned and located in a manner that would be most compatible with the greatest
public good and least private injury; (3) whether the property sought to be acquired
was necessary for the project; (4) whether the offer required by Government Code
Section 7267.2 had been made to the owner or owners of record and (5) whether the
City had met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection
with the property. He then invited owner or representatives for the properties to
address Council.
Hearing no testimony on Items C1 through C6, he closed the public hearings.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 2001 R-91, 2001 R-92, 2001 R-93, 2001-94, 2001 R-
95 and 2001 R-96 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-91 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining, following a public hearing, the public
interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of
certain real property at 1695 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW 5362-02).
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining, following a public hearing, the public
interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of
certain real property at 1681 West Lincoln Avenue (R/W 5362-03).
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-93 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining, following a public hearing, the public
interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of
certain real property at 1687 West Lincoln Avenue (R/W 5362-4).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 31
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-94 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining, following a public hearing, the public
interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of
certain real property at 120 South Euclid Street and 1676 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW
5362-6 & 9).
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-95 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining, following a public hearing, the public
interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of
certain real property at 1680 West Lincoln Avenue (RIW 5362-7).
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-96 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining, following a public hearing, the public
interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of
certain real property at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (RIW
5362-11).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Feldhaus,
Kring. Noes: - O. Motion carried.
179
C7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3790
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT- CLASS 21:
OWNER: Bobby and Toni Gilbert, 17300 17'h Street, Tustin, CA 92780-1955
LOCATION: 1514 West Broadway. Property is 1.05 acres located at the
southwest corner of Broadway and Adams Street (B and J's Tree Service).
City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division) request for the modification or
revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 (to permit a tree service
contractor's storage yard with a modular office building with waivers of
required screening of outdoor uses and minimum yard area abutting a local
street).
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 approved with modifications to expire July 3,
2001 (PC20001-3) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Arnold absent). Informational
item at the meeting of January 23,2001, Item B1. Letter of appeal submitted
by Stephen Sheldon, Sheldon Associates. Public hearing continued from the
meeting of February 27, 2001, as requested by Sheldon & Associates.
Greg Hastings, Planning Department, explained that the CUP had been approved in
1995 and in January of 2001, at the request of Code Enforcement, the Planning
Commission modified the conditions on the CUP, which also included a condition for a
six-month expiration. He said the property owner appealed the Commission's decision
based on their concerns over the modified conditions. He explained that staff had met
with the owner and the owner brought back revised conditions as well as a revised site
plan to the Planning Commission for review. At the Planning Commission's April 9th
meeting, recommended approval of six revised conditions, which were contained in the
staff memo dated April 17'h He noted the six conditions were acceptable to both staff
and the property owner.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 32
Council Member Kring asked why the CUP was only granted for a six-month extension
and Mr. Hastings answered that because Code Enforcement had initially had concerns
and Planning was satisfied that they had been met. The owner would probably return
for a longer period, he noted. He suggested that the six months start from this date,
April 17, 2001.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Steve Shelton, Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, said they were in agreement with the
conditions of approval.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA findings, Categorically Exempt, Class 21,
seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly moved to approve Resolution No. 2001 R-98 consistent with the memo
from the Planning Department dated April 17, 2001, seconded by Council Member
McCracken.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-98 A RESOLLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to the conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 and amending Resolution No. PC95-120 accordingly.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Kring,
Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carried.
176
C8. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 2000-25:
To consider abandoning a portion of Sequoia Street right of way, seven feet
in width, lying adjacent to property located at 2200 Sequoia Street.
At its meeting, March 6, 2001, Item A2, the Anaheim City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2001 R-55 declaring its intention to vacate certain public
streets, highways and service easements and setting a date and time to
consider the abandonment of a portion of Sequoia Street right of way, seven
feet in width, lying adjacent to property located at 2200 Sequoia Street.
REQUESTED BY: David R. Jackson & Stacy A. Jackson, 7975 Weirick Road,
Corona, CA 92883.
Natalie Meeks presented the staff report noting that the property was dedicated a
number of years ago by the current property owner in anticipation of the City's ultimate
street right of way. Based on the improvements installed by CalTrans for the
Brookhurst overpass, the City had determined that they would no longer need the
required right of way and proposed the abandonment of a portion of the unnecessary
right of way.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, he closed the
hearing.
......,..
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 33
Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA finding, Categorically Exempt, Class 5,
seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001R-97.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-97 A RESOLLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Abandonment No. 2000-25
Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Daly, Council Member McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait,
Kring. Noes: - O. Motion carried.
Mayor Daly moved to approve the quitclaim of the City's right, title, and interest in the
abandoned area to the applicant, seconded by Council Member Kring. Motion carried
unanimously.
170 C9. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14429
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Edand Linda Stern; Gary F. and Donna Lee Lyons; Fred and Lorio
Glastetter, Christa Glastetter; A.C. Plastering, Inc.; Gemini Plastering Co.
Inc.; 617 South Brichleaf Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: Henning Way, LLC, Attn: Thom Falcon, 1124 Main Street, Suite D,
Irvine, CA 92614
LOCATION: 300 block of Henninq Way. Property is approximately 8.4 acres
located on the west side of Henning Way, 350 feet southwest of the centerline
of Quintana Drive.
Request appeal of the Planning Commission's action regarding a proposed
six-lot single-family residential subdivision. (Readvertised)
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Amended conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 14429.
Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved.
Greg Hastings presented the staff report, reporting that the issues had been resolved.
On December 4, 2000, Planning Commission approved the Tentative Tract Map for
five homes and an open space lot, along with removal of 28 specimen trees. On
March 6, 2001 following an appeal by a homeowner, Council sustained the
Commission's approval of the tree removal permit portion and on February 26, 2001,
at the applicant's request; Planning Commission modified the conditions of the tract
map. He said the applicant then appealed the Commission's decision of the tract
conditions which was being considered by Council this date. At issue was a concern
that the applicant had a condition restricting the open space lot of the tract and the
issue had now been resolved by the applicant agreeing to combine the open space lot
with one of the proposed residentiai lots, therefore the open space lot would not exist.
He said the wording was contained in a memo to Council dated April 17, 2001. He
said both staff and the applicant were satisfied with the alternative and recommended
that Council sustain the Commission's approval of revised conditions and amend
Condition No. 20 as shown in the memo.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
-r-'
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 34
George Douvas, 280 S. Via Montanero, said he owned the lot which overlooked the
canyon where the five homes would be built. He said he purchased the home based
on the location and the view of the canyon floor where the homes would be built. He
explained the beauty and wildlife in the canyon and how the development would
impact the area and the value of his property. He said he understood he probably
should have voiced his opinion earlier and that he should have checked the zoning of
the parcel before he purchased his home.
Mayor Daly explained the General Plan had been in existence for about 25 years, the
property had been zoned for residential development for a number of years. He said
the City was aggressively approving open space opportunities in the Hills area.
Gerald Bushore, Box 18581, Anaheim, said he thought the issues were resolved on
the east and west side but asked to reserve time if other discussions took place
regarding the open lot. Regarding the open space, he said if it could be left as open
space it could correct the problems that were done on Tract 11600. He said when he
was on the Planning Commission, he remembered saying that lot 9 would be
unbuildable because it was too steep. He said to this date, the real estate brokers
keep attempting to sell the property and no one can develop it. He said he did not
want additional lots to be created that were unbuildable.
Hearing nothing further, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA findings, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly moved to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 14429, as recommended by
Planning staff, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried
unanimously.
Report on Closed Session Actions:
City Attorney said the City Council approved a stipulation for settlement in the eminent
domain case of the City of Anaheim vs. JWM Family Enterprises, Orange County
Superior Case number 806020, the vote was all ayes.
-r
.._,--"...,-~,--
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 35
Council Communications:
Council Member Tait said the Pond had another large used car sale over the weekend.
He said it had been discussed in the past and he was wondering what the City's policy
was and wondered if staff would like to give a report on this. He said he was
concerned about the fairness to the City's regular car dealers. They were selling cars
at wholesale prices and they did not have the overhead burden of developing their lots
and landscaping requirements and he questioned the fairness of allowing the Pond to
do that.
Assistant City Manager Dave Morgan said staff would be happy to give him a report on
this, he believed that there were a certain number of events that were allowed,
however, he said he would get the latest details on this.
Mayor Daly remembered previous discussions on this subject and direction to limit the
number and to phase these out, adding that there may be some contractual
requirements.
Council Member Tait said that actually it was on the parcel that the City owned on the
corner and as a City, he did not want to be in the used car business.
Mayor Daly said that as a follow-up one of the items on the B agenda was a Zoning
Administrator approval of an auto show on the Douglass Street property, to the north
of the old Tejos partners property. He said it did not appear to be a used car sale, it
appeared to be a genuine auto show by a group showing classic cars and he asked if
that was true.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, said that was true and that they put this show on for a five
hour period, charged a nominal fee and donated a great portion of the proceeds to an
Orange County Battered Women's Shelter. He said it was not an auto sales just a
display of classic cars.
Council Member Tait said that the Council had talked about it before and that Council
was in agreement that they were bothered by the fundamental unfairness to existing
Anaheim businesses.
Council Member McCracken said unless the dealers in the City were part of that,
adding that in many cities local dealers participate in the program. She said she did
not know if that was true in Anaheim, it was an opportunity for them because they got
many more people to look at their used cars as well and in some cases it was a major
sales tax revenue because they were being sold in Anaheim, even the dealers coming
from outside Anaheim to sell their vehicles.
Council Member Kring reminded everyone that April was Earthquake Awareness
Month and urged everyone to review his or her safety procedures.
- , -..,..-
--....,..--.---&.-..""
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 17, 2001
PAGE 36
Adjournment:
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Daly
adjourned the meeting at 8:29 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
~e::~
City Clerk
-... --'~"--"-'-""--'-""