2001/09/25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members: Frank Feldhaus, and Shirley McCracken.
Council Members Lucille Kring and Tom Tait entered Closed Session at a later time.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll
Schroeder, Public Works - City Engineer Gary Johnson, Assistant City Manager Tom Wood,
Code Enforcement Manager John Poole, Planning Director Joel Fick, Zoning Administrator
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Division Manager Greg Hastings and Principal Electric Systems
Designer Robert Templeton.
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on
September 21, 2001 at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards.
Mayor Daly called the regular meeting to order at 4:01 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the
Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None.
Mayor Daly moved to recess to Closed Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken.
Motion carried unanimously. Council Members Kring and Tait entered Closed Session at a later
time. The Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:02 P.M.
1. 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.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: Vista Media Group, Inc. v. City of Anaheim, et aI., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 00CC08157.
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: South Coast Cab Co., et al. v. City of Anaheim, et aI., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 80-03-59.
4. 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.
Facts and circumstances: proposed award of taxicab franchises based upon several
proposals submitted to the City; litigation has been threatened or may be filed against
the City concerning such franchises by an existing taxicab permit holder and/or certain
proposers which may not be awarded franchises.
_.."'.'""'.~..~"'..~;."'-
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 2
5. ANNUAL EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS:
Titles: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of September 25,2001, to order at 5:34 P.M. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Ed Bartel, Sunkist Baptist Church
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Feldhaus
PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS:
Presentations:
Recognizing the winners of the Flag Day Essay Contest.
Council Member Feldhaus said that an essay contest was established and the Children of
Anaheim Union High and Anaheim City School Districts, Magnolia Elementary District and
Saint Catherine's Military Academy participated in writing about what the flag meant to them.
The following students were winners: Muhijadin Ahmed, Alejandro Hinojosa, Alex Vasquez,
Luann Algoso, Marielle Bautista, Taylor Montgomery, Viet Nguyen, Hnoc Preciado, Aldena
Ratu, Pamela Anani, Nora Castro, Jasper Cruz, Sadiq Khanani, Monique Russel, Alyssa
Williams, Cassandra Wright and Henry Lu.
Recognizing Joe White for his 25 years of service on the Public Utilities Board.
Sharon McBride, daughter of Mr. White, accepted the certificate on behalf of the original Board
Member.
Recognizing Jennifer McElroy, member of the Case Batbusters team, on winning the Amateur
Softball Association's 16-and-under National Championship. Certificate of Recognition
accepted by Jennifer McElroy.
Recognitions to be presented at a later date were: Proclaiming October 1 - 5, 2001, as
Rideshare Week in Anaheim; Proclaiming October 2001 as National Breast Cancer Awareness
Month; Proclaiming October 2001 as Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF Month in Anaheim and
Recognizing Stan Sewell for his service on the Budget Advisory Commission
At 5:59 P.M., Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority meetings.
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting at 6:04 P.M.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
James Robert Reade, 100 West Midway Drive, Space 124, had various complaints about the
Police Department and asked for sensitivity training for officers at the Simon Wisenthal Center
and Museum of Tolerance on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles.
___~~c~c~__._~
iI "
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 3
Ben Karmelich, owner of the Lincoln Inn Motel, asked Council to rehear his case for the permit
on the Lincoln Inn Motel.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Karmelich and the other parties who wished to speak on the Lincoln Inn
item to wait until Council arrived at Item A26.
Michael Baker, Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Clubs in Anaheim, said he felt safe in
the City and commended the Police Department for their great job. He reported that on
September 24, 2001, the Boys and Girls Clubs signed up their 1 ,000 th member and they still
had three months to go to the end of the year.
Jeff Farano, 2300 E. Katella Avenue, representative of Yellow Cabs, said that Yellow Cab was
opposed to further continuances to the decision regarding taxi franchises. He said he believed
that the process had already been continued three times over the last four months to
accommodate the bankrupt American Livery as they attempted to obtain the financing required
for its reorganization plan. Over the past three months, he said, the bankruptcy court had
continued the decision on Ford Motor Company's request to repossess the vehicles. American
had tried to make weekly payments while trying unsuccessfully to locate financing and one of
the most important criteria of the RFP process was the financial stability of the applicant and the
financial ability to provide service. He asked that Council reconsider the score given to
American Livery in light of the financial condition of the company at the time of the application
submittal. He renewed California Yellow Cab's objection to the application of A-Taxi since they
had refused to provide audited financial statements as required by the RFP.
Art Castillo, 1431 West Chateau, expressed his concerns about the bookmobile and said that
there needed to be CDBG funds for a new one and on behalf of the Walnut Neighborhood
Council, he voiced his support of the monument sign for the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
Khoda o stowari spoke of an article which was printed in the August 31, 2001 Los Angeles
Times, Orange County section, regarding a gang raid by the Police Department and that the
Police Department was fully partnered with Immigration and Naturalization Service. Mr.
Ostowari said that as a resident and business owner, Amin David and/or Los Amigos had never
been elected or appointed to speak on behalf of the residents. He said he believed there were
many individuals in Orange County that worked hard on behalf of the whole community and they
worked in police departments, other government agencies, were residents and business owners
working hard together for the common goal of improvement of the community that they lived and
worked in. Mr. Ostowari said he felt that the opinions of those people printed in the papers
contributed to the misunderstanding that they were the community's representatives.
Jim Mossier, representative of U.S.A. Today, spoke regarding the adoption of an ordinance
pertaining to newsracks (Item A25). He asked that Council look at Section .0105 of the
ordinance which limited the number of newracks in one location to six. He said that U.S.A.
Today was only at six locations in the City and if there happened to be more than six racks at
that location it would be a detriment to the business. He asked that Code Enforcement look at
possibly having more than six at some locations.
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, seconded by
Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
_'......~_<".~..._C'" ""'''''''''''-
118
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 4
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A25: On motion by Mayor
Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Item A7 continued to October 23, 2001.
Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 2001 R-240 through 2001 R-243 and Ordinance Nos. 5779
through 5781 and Ordinance No. 5784 for adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Item A25
acted upon separately. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5782 for adoption. Roll call vote:
Ayes - 3: Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken and Feldhaus. Noes - 2: Council
Members Tait and Kring. Motion carried.
A1.
Reject certain claims filed against the City.
Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting of June 7, 2001; minutes
of the Public Library Board meeting of August 2, 2001; the Investment Portfolio Report
for August 2001 ; and the Police Department's Crime and Clearance Analysis Report for
August 2001.
105 117 A2.
,
156
161
150
174
174
170
158
176
A3. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Nobest, Inc., in the amount of
$138,563.10 for the Irving Place/Citron Street and Vermont Avenue/Hampshire Avenue
Neighborhood Improvement Projects and approve and authorize the Finance Director to
execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
A4. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Channel Islands Paving, Inc., in the
amount of $94,810 for the Pearson Park play area improvement project and approve
and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to
contract retentions.
A5. Authorize the Director of Public Works to accept grant funds from the State of California,
Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling, in the amount of $89,347, to fund
beverage container recycling education activities and increase revenues and
expenditures by $89,347.
A6. Authorize the Director of Public Works to accept matching grant funds from the County
of Orange Urban Water Runoff Grant Program, in the amount of $29,412, to upgrade
and repair an existing storm water pump station at the Katella Avenue Underpass and
increase revenues and expenditures by $29,412.
A7. Approve and authorize the final map and Subdivision Agreement with D.R. Horton Los
Angeles Holding Company, Inc. for development and improvement on property located
at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon of Tract No. 16128
(Continued from the Council meeting of August 28, 2001, Item A3).
Unanimously continued to October 23, 2001, as requested by staff.
A8. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement for Right-of-
Entry for the property located at 1681 West Lincoln Avenue for the Lincoln
Avenue/Euclid Street Intersection Improvement Project.
A9. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-240 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways
--~_.--"'~_.&"""~..._~"--- .............-...
158
158
123
160
160
160
160
158
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 5
and service easements (Abandonment No. ABA2001-00041) (and setting a date and
time to consider the abandonment of an electrical utility easement located at 1400
Brasher Street).
A 10. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-241 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain real properties or interests therein (RIW 5400-09, City Deed No.1 0429 and RIW
5400-09, City Deed No.1 0430).
A 11. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-242 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting a deed to certain real property located at 847 S.
East Street and 1014 E. South Street (City Deed No. 10437).
A 12. Accept the low bid and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement
with Shield Security, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $336,783, for a period of one year
beginning October 1, 2001, with four one-year optional renewals for street sweeping
parking enforcement in accordance with Bid #6200 and authorize the Director of Public
Works to exercise renewal options.
A 13. Accept the bid of South Coast Lighting and Design, in the amount of $36,520, plus tax,
for two hundred and twenty steel banner arms and breakaway couplings in accordance
with Bid #6201 .
A14. Accept the low bid of Kalban, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,666,667, for the
replacement of residential sidewalks and access ramps in accordance with Bid #6204.
Council Member Kring noted that the bid for sidewalk repair had come in under budget and she
asked that the extra money be used to increase the amount of sidewalks that would be repaired
since there was a tremendous backlog.
Director of Public Works - City Engineer, Gary Johnson, stated that the budget was $1.6 million
plus and the bids did come in under what Public Works had expected based on previous bidding
history. The bid allowed Public Works to spend up to the budgeted amount and they could do
more sidewalks than originally anticipated if it was acceptable with the Council. He said if
Council went with the budgeted amount, Public Works could repair approximately 600,000
square feet.
A 15. Waive Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order to Zoll Medical Corporation, in the amount of $94,286.50, plus applicable taxes, for
seven cardiac monitor/defibrillators and seven battery support systems for the Fire
Department.
A 16. Authorize the issuance of a change order to Southwest Power, Inc. to increase the
amount of the purchase order by $86,211.74, thereby bringing the total not to exceed
amount of the purchase order to $139,000 (including tax) for the purchase of fuse
mountings, to be used by the Utilities Department on an as-required basis, for the period
ending July 31, 2002.
A 17. Determine that the property being offered as surplus by the Orange County Water
District for housing purposes, not be acquired by the City (2901 East South Street).
"""""",,_,,,',~c., ,.,-""'"'W"'" - "'""'~~c ~'....,...........
123
123
142
123
142
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 6
Council Member Kring said that she would like to see the City purchase the property and make
a small pocket park or dog park since the property did not have much access and had an
irregular shape.
Mayor Daly stated he agreed with Council Member Kring and asked for an analysis from staff
and said that it was an open space opportunity and the type of open space or park that it could
become would depend on its compatibility with the neighborhood.
In response to Mayor Daly, Assistant City Manager Wood reported that it was not a prime piece
of property to be used for park and or housing purposes.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member Kring, for staff to explore further opportunities
to use the property as a pocket park and report back to Council. Motion carried unanimously.
In response to Council Member Feldhaus, Assistant City Manager Wood said that there was a
45-day limit of time and that the Orange County Water District had not made a price offer and
was looking at the City to make an offer. Assistant City Manager Wood said that he did not
believe that the property was feasible for housing purposes but could have an appraiser look at
it for park purposes.
A 18. Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment No.3 to the
Professional Service Agreement by and between the City, Redevelopment Agency and
Willdan Associates to add civil and general engineering services to the existing contract
(in conjunction with Item NO.2 of the Redevelopment Agency).
A 19. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Welfare-to-Work Vendor
Agreement by and between the City and Casa Lorna College, Inc., with reimbursement
up to $150,000, to provide occupational skills training.
168
A20. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-243 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM rescinding Resolution No. 97R-228 pertaining to the renaming
of a portion of Citron Street to Village Way.
A21. ORDINANCE NO. 5785 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 6.11 to Title 6 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code implementing the California Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous
Material Management Regulatory Program Act by the City of Anaheim as the Certified
Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and repealing Chapters 6.10 and 6.90.
A22. Approve the renewal of the emergency medical transportation contract with CARE
Ambulance Service, Inc. for three additional years.
A23. ORDINANCE NO. 5779 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding new Section 11.04.005 to, and amending
Sections 11.04.070, 11.04.080, 11.04.090 and 11.04.095 of Chapter 11.04 of Title 11 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to trespass to City property (Introduced at Council
meeting of August 28, 2001, Item A 18. Continued from the Council special meeting of
September 18, 2001, Item A 16).
_"~'",~",~h' -.~~c____,,,,,,,,,~~,=,,,,,,'='.c,..m.,~._",,~,,",,,,.,,,,,,. n'''''''''_~"'''''''''_''"~~''"'''''''V'''''''''''''''''''~''~~'~~'=_''''
I.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 7
ORDINANCE NO. 5780 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Section 11.08.030 of Chapter 11.08
of Title 11 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages
in certain areas of Anaheim Stadium, Anaheim Arena, and Anaheim Convention Center
at certain times (Introduced at Council meeting of August 28, 2001, Item A 18.
Continued from the Council special meeting of September 18, 2001, Item A 16).
ORDINANCE NO. 5781 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Subsection .070 of Section 6.72.020
of Chapter 6.72 of Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Regulation of
Amplified Sound (Introduced at Council meeting of August 28, 2001, Item A 18.
Continued from the Council special meeting of September 18, 2001, Item A 16).
142
A24. ORDINANCE NO. 5784 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending various Code sections of Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to zoning (fences, walls, hedges and berms; freeway-oriented
signs and self-service laundries) (Introduced at the Council special meeting of
September 18, 2001, Item A 10).
142
A25. ORDINANCE NO. 5782 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 4.82 of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to Newsracks on Public Rights-ot-Way (Introduced at Council meeting of
August 28, 2001, Item A 19. Continued trom the Council special meeting of September
18,2001, Item A11).
Council Member Tait asked why the number of newsracks was limited to six.
Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Poole, stated that there were several reasons staff
recommended newsracks be limited to six. He said that the City had been engaged in cleaning
up the thoroughfares and newsracks were a constant problem to keep clean. He added that
since the City had become more dense, there were not many locations that could accommodate
more than six newsracks where they would not present a pedestrian or safety concern.
Council Member Tait said that maybe the number of newsracks should be defined by the space
available rather than limiting the number of newsracks. He said he thought that it was good to
clean up the newsracks and make them more visually appealing but he was not comfortable
about limiting the number.
In response to Council Member Kring, Code Enforcement Manager Poole said that under the
current process, those that already had permits would have an opportunity to have those
locations. He said that if there were more requests for newsracks than locations, the Code had
a provision that there would be a lottery for those spots that could be done. Manager Poole said
that the representative of U.S.A. Today was invited, along with all other current vendors, to a
meeting to express concerns about the ordinance and he was not able to make it. The
ordinance would enhance public safety and the appearance of the thoroughfares and it should
not be restrictive.
Council member Tait voiced his concerns that there may not be enough availability of certain
news papers.
--"""~-",,~,,,,'~-'~~"--'~-'"'-'-"-
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 8
In response to Council Member Feldhaus, Manager Poole reminded Council that before the
current ordinance went into effect, there was no control and there were 35 to 40 newsracks on
the public right of way which fell out onto the highway and he said that the limit of six was
reasonable. He said that if anyone wanted a newspaper, most of them were sold on private
property. He added that Code Enforcement was trying to improve the aesthetics and public
safety.
City Manager Ruth stated that the ordinance could be brought back to Council for modification if
necessary and a trial and error period would be very appropriate with the ordinance. He said
that staff believed that the standards were acceptable for the community and what staff was
trying to achieve. He said that staff would be under seige by the proponents to modify the
standards if there was not a limit.
City Attorney White said that the ordinance had been successfully implemented in other
communities. He said that the number of six newsracks was for six within 200-feet. He said
that the ordinance was in compliance with the law. He referred to the meeting that took place
with representatives from the news papers in the City and U.S.A. did not express any concerns
about the ordinance at that time. He recommended that Council proceed with the ordinance as
it was written and if there were any problems with the ordinance, it could be modified and
brought back to Council.
A representative of U.S.A. Today addressed Council and said that he was present at the
June 2, 2001 meeting about the ordinance and had expressed the same opinion he expressed
under public comments. He said that U.S.A. Today did not want to be an eyesore and
explained that racks could not be placed anywhere. He explained that many of the areas that
racks were being place in were red zones or no stopping zones and he believed that there
would be no reason to block having eight racks there.
Mayor Daly suggested that City Manager compile a report if the ordinance was adopted as to
anyone who would like to have a permit and had not been able to get one and report back to
Council any problems or appeals to the ordinance.
Mayor Daly moved approval of Ordinance No. 5782.
ORDINANCE NO. 5782 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 4.82 OF TITLE 4 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NEWSRACKS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-
WAY (INTRODUCED AT COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28,2001, ITEM A19.
CONTINUED FROM TH~ COUNCIL SP~CIAL M~~TING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2001,
ITEMA11 ).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 3, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken and
Feldhaus. Noes - 2, Council Members Tait and Kring. Motion carried.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
_.....,.,.~--~-~~.""- .~~. ......
179
Ii ..
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 9
A26. Request for rehearing by Frank Weiser, Esq., on behalf of Ben Karmelich regarding
denying the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No.1 043 (Resolution No. 2001 R-
220). (Continued from the Council special meeting of September 18, 2001, Item A24).
Ben Karmelich explained to Council that since he had taken over the property two years ago,
there had been over 1 ,200 code violations being corrected and a sharp decrease in the number
of calls for police service. He said that the property had been re-Iandscaped and the parking lot
repaved and he listed many other improvements that had been made to the Lincoln Inn. At the
last arbitration hearing, he noted, a Code Enforcement Officer acknowledged that there were no
code violations in any of the rooms at that time. He said that of all the calls for service that
came from the Lincoln Inn, the police admitted at the arbitration hearing that half of the calls
were not crime related. Motels usually do attract some problem people, but the advantage of
the motel was that Mr. Karmelich could remove them if there was a problem. He added that an
apartment owner would not have the power Mr. Karmelich had to get rid of the problem and he
could pick and choose who stayed and who did not. He said that if he kicked everyone out
every 30-days, he would loose his best guests and only the riff-raff would remain. He said that
most people stayed at his hotel on the average of six months to one year and they were trying
to get out on their own when it took time. He said he felt that this was discrimination since this
was not a luxury hotel. He asked if the City wanted to see hundreds of citizens with belongings
in shopping carts walking up and down the street looking for a place to stay. He said he paid
over $100,000 a year in transient tax. He asked Council to reconsider their decision.
Frank Weiser, on behalf of Lincoln Inn, said that this was an important land use decision and 50
many people were affected at the Lincoln Inn. He said that the due process principles were
neglected in this case and that he was entitled to constitutionally minimum due process notice.
Mr. Weiser said he and Mr. Karmelich never received notice and tenants never received notice.
Mr. Weiser stated that it was placed on the consent calendar and it had started out as a public
hearing and it involved constitutionally protected interests. Mr. Weiser said he, Mr. Karmelich
and the tenants were entitled to notice before the decision became final. He said that it started
out as a public hearing and then it went to Mr. Kaleta to make recommendations on the
evidentiary findings only and he believed that there should have been an open debate. He
believed that the case law was clear that procedural due process was violated, no matter what
the outcome had been, even if Council would have voted to not allow the permit to be renewed.
Tim Mattio, Pastor of Calvary Christian Fellowship, stated he held services at the Lincoln Inn
and that Mr. Karmelich provided his facilities and supported all the activities and Bible studies.
He said that the Lincoln Inn was a community with about 150 people and by forcing the people
out there was a problem with children having to change schools, even if they went to school.
He said that the people in the Lincoln Inn were striving to get ahead and he said that he was a
resident there. Whenever there was a problem, he said, Mr. Karmelich made them leave. How
many communities, he asked, were as close as the Lincoln Inn where everyone looked after the
children or other people's needs.
A resident of the Lincoln Inn said that she had recently come into a misfortune and was in
between apartments and relocating. She said that she had a baby there three years ago and
Mr. Karmelich did a lot of good work for the tenants. She was working with the Church to
establish family, community living. If that was taken away from these people it would create
homelessness which would create more crime because people were on the streets. She asked
the Council to reconsider.
Iii
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 10
Gabriella Cortez noted she worked at the Lincoln Inn for almost two years and she had been
living in the Lincoln Inn for two months and had been living in a garage with her brother in law
and they did not have any restroom or kitchen there. She moved to the Lincoln Inn and was
living with her mother and sharing the apartment with other family members and she said that it
was very hard to get an apartment right now. She was a single mother with a six-day a week
job and two children so it was hard for her. She said that the Lincoln Inn was safe and it was a
very good place to live and that people were helpful. She said that she was not there forever
and that she was planning on getting ahead.
Judith Ann Gollette, representative of the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development group,
said that WAND supported the City standards for housing. She said that WAND was trying to
protect the people of Lincoln Inn. Inspections were activated with notification of certain room
numbers prior to Code Enforcement going there, she said. She said that WAND had been
informed that electrical appliances and extra equipment was being stored in the storage room
prior to the Code Enforcement inspections. WAND was also informed that rent would be given
in exchange for positive testimony on behalf of the Lincoln Inn and that social services by non-
profit organization had declined due to their failure to succeed with move-outs. WAND was
notified that 109 children resided there last spring with only 29 students in school. She said that
rent was $138 week which averaged $797 per month with additional transient occupancy tax of
$119 per month and totaled $916 on certain months and there were no kitchens provided. She
said that this was a motel that had a conditional use permit to operate as such and the owner
should get permits as transition housing. She said that it was not being taken away from the
people who live there but allowed a business to run as it was permitted safely for the residents.
She said that the Council was here to protect them and so was WAND.
Mayor Daly said that it would not be productive to conduct additional hearings on this property
and he moved to deny the request for rehearing, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus.
Council Member Tait asked if the notice was sent out to the owner or any of the tenants.
City Attorney, Jack White, stated that the Council had referred the matter to a hearing officer.
He explained that Council sent cases to a hearing officer when they were lengthy and complex
in order to assure that everyone had an opportunity to adequately get their comments in the
public record on which the decision would be based by the Council. The Council itself did not
conduct the public hearing, he said, and notice was given of the public hearing that was
conducted by Victor Kaleta who served as the hearing officer. Attorney White said that anyone
who wished to present evidence had the opportunity and should have presented that evidence
and any arguments at that public hearing. He said that the transcript was made of the public
hearing and was presented in the Council Chamber. The information had been presented to the
Council at the time the Council made its decision. He was concerned about Mr. Weiser's
comment that he did not have notice that this was on the Council agenda when the Council
actually took the evidence and voted on the denial of the permit. In fact, said Mr. White, a
member of his staff, Mark Gordon, had spoken on the telephone to Mr. Weiser who had asked
that this item not be placed on a Council agenda on a particular date because he would not be
available and asked that it be on the date that it ultimately was on the agenda. Attorney White
said that Mr. Gordon said that he would have to check to see if that could be done, he checked,
called Mr. Weiser back, who was not there, but left a message on his answering machine
confirming that the decision would be on the Council agenda on the date that Council acted.
That, under the Code, was the only type of notice that would have been required, he added.
This was on the consent calendar because there was no evidence to be taken. The Code was
II "
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 11
very clear and said that the decision of the Council shall be based upon the administrative
record prepared by the Hearing Officer. That is precisely what happened in not only this case
but every other case that Council referred to a hearing officer, he said. Regardless who had
been present at that meeting, the testimony and the evidence on which the decision was made,
still had to be in the transcript that was made in front of the Hearing Officer. Attorney White did
not believe that there was an adequate basis stated for a rehearing based upon those grounds.
He said that when the item was on the consent calendar, the hearing had been closed and there
was no additional evidence to be taken. It was in accordance with what the Code required and
what the standard practice was with regard to hearings that were referred to hearing officers.
Council Member Tait said that there were due process questions and he said he thought if the
City was ready to close down a motel with 117 tenants they should be given the right to notice
that this was about to happen to them. He said that they did not show up because they were
not given notice. He said at the very least, the owner and tenants of Lincoln Inn and that
community should have the right to come to Council and state their opinion and then Council
could make its decision. He said that he knew staff gave a lot of testimony and there were
things said that it was the worst hotel in town and he strongly disagreed with that. He said if the
owner and the tenants were here to testify or give notice, they could have responded to that.
He believed that at the very least, the people should be given the opportunity to be heard.
Council Member McCracken said that this conditional use permit for a motel at this point had
been denied. She noted that Mr. Karmelich had improved things and she was still not sure if
Mr. Karmelich was asking for a permit for a motel or a church or apartment house. She asked
what his alternatives would be if he did not have another hearing.
City Attorney White said that there were several alternatives and one would be that Mr.
Karmelich could apply for another permit and start in front of the Planning Commission and the
City did not have a time limit to wait after a denial like some cities did. Mr. Karmelich could also
bring an action in court, he said, to challenge the decision of the Council seeking a writ of
mandate to determine whether or not the decision of the Council was supported by the
evidence. City Attorney White said another option Mr. Karmelich had was to comply with the
decision that the Council made in this case.
Council Member Feldhaus said that Mr. Karmelich had taken over the motel after the party that
he sold it to defaulted on payments which necessitated him taking it back. He said that Code
Enforcement staff had been bringing pictures to Council that showed dangerous living problems.
There were pictures of stretched extension cords laying across the rooms and bathtubs with
water and it was a generally run-down situation. He said that Mr. Karmelich was putting
$600,000 in the motel but he refused to comply with the City ordinance that if he was going to
operate as a motel, it was a transient, temporary facility. Mr. Karmelich wanted to let families
live there which was admirable, he said, but he must change the usage of the property to
comply with codes and Mr. Karmelich refused to do that. Mr. Karmelich had been to a hearing
officer who, in his judgement, felt that Mr. Karmelich had to comply. Council Member Feldhaus
said that no one wanted to kick anyone out in the street but there were rules and regulations
and if there were unsafe conditions still there, those would need to be corrected so that a very
bad situation did not arise.
Council Member Kring said that from what she understood from Code Enforcement, Mr.
Karmelich had cleaned up the property. She said that none of the people wanted to live in that
type of motel if they had an option but they were trying to get back on their feet and she
_,~<~,_~~."",~"c
I"
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 12
believed that bad things happened to good people. She said that the people did work and had
low paying jobs and it took a long time to collect enough money to get first and last month's rent.
She said that a lot of landlords would not take a chance on people who had bad track records or
financial difficulties. Even if there were available apartments, there was a vacancy factor that
was less than one percent. Council Member Kring said that this was not the best of places but
the people there had a community family, a bookmobile and she did not believe that they
wanted to turn into a church, but having a pastor there allowed them some type of Christianity.
She said that there were 117 lives at stake and if the City put them out in 30 days, there was no
place to put them. She added that this had come to the Council in January of 1999 and there
had been countless meetings about it. She said that there was a problem with 2,000 people
living in hotels, no vacancy factor, no building of affordable housing and she had spoken to
developers and asked them to come into the City and they could not because of the land cost.
Housing had informed Council last week that they had sent out requests for qualifications to
developers so that in the near future, there may be affordable housing. There were groups of
people that swapped hotels every 30-days and she said that perhaps Mr. Karmelich needed to
turn the motel into an apartment complex. She said that 117 of the small places could not be
turned into 117 two-bedroom apartments. She asked if the residents would accept that type of
density in that area. There would be parking problems and parking waivers would be needed,
she said, and there were a whole plethera of problems inherent in that. She said she believed
that the City should work with Mr. Karmelich on that. She said that the 117 people should stay
there and the bad ones should be thrown out and give the people the ability to gain the money
that they need. She wants mixed uses to be built where there would be low, moderate and high
income all in one community, it could be for lease or sale, she said.
Council Member Tait said that he read the transcripts and had walked through the site and
talked to the tenants, went into their rooms and this was not a lousy place. He said in the
transcript, the Lincoln Inn was being shut down for four reasons. He said that one was because
they would not enforce the City's 30-day provision; the second was that there were microwaves
in the kitchenettes so mothers could heat baby bottles and so people did not have to buy fast
food; third there was not maid service in every unit and fourth there were exterior Code
violations which was a parking lot that needed to be re-paved. Council Member Tait said that
the hearing officer said there were no interior Code violations. These were not safety issues, he
said and should not be conditions of approval. City staff and Code Enforcement had the owner
fix the motel up and the people should be allowed to stay there. He asked Council to grant the
rehearing and he felt that it would be inhumane to shut the motel down.
Mayor Daly said that no city in Orange County had come close to supplying affordable housing
citywide as Anaheim did and he stated that there had been a motion and second to deny the
request for rehearing.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 3, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken and Feldhaus.
Noes - 2, Council Members Tait and Kring. Motion carried.
106 A27. Consider additions and/or deletions to the budget for the fiscal year 2001/2002
(Requested by Mayor Daly at the Council meeting of August 7, 2001. Continued from
Council meeting of August 21, 2001, Item A33, August 28, 2001, Item A25, and special
meeting of September 18, 2001, Item A23).
In response to Mayor Daly, City Manager Ruth noted he had put a freeze on any travel outside
the City and outside the State. He noted that City Manager's Office was going through each
~'<,.,,~"-~
Ii "
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 13
department and looking at the proposed travel plans and would come back to Council with a
report next week.
Mayor Daly directed the City Clerk to leave the item on the agenda and that it be called
additions or deletions to the fiscal year budget until further direction.
Mayor Daly was concerned that capital projects and Council priorities not be lost in any
administrative decisions that were made and that Council be given adequate notice. He asked
for hard dollar figures. He also asked that budget hearings be scheduled for May instead of
June to give Council adequate time to work through the budget and he asked that the City
Manager bring back a schedule for May.
Council Member Tait was in support of having budget hearings in May.
A28. To consider the grant of up to three non-exclusive franchises for the purpose of
173 operating taxicab services in the City pursuant to City Charter Section 1401 and
Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.73.
A. Approve the application of Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County for a
non-exclusive franchise for the operation of 130 taxicabs and temporary permits for up to
30 additional taxicabs pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the applicant's
proposal (Continued from Council Meetings of April 17, 2001, Item A48, June 12, 2001 ,
Item C1; July 10, 2001, Item C1; July 24, 2001, Item A30; and August 7, 2001, Item
A24).
MOTION
CEQA FINDING: Categorically Exempt, Class 1.
MOTION Overruling all protests and directing the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance awarding a taxicab franchise to Yellow Cab Company of Northern
Orange County; or, in the alternative, denying the award of a taxicab franchise to the
applicant.
B. Approve the application of American Livery, Inc. dbaAmerican Taxi for a non-
exclusive franchise for the operation of 50 taxicabs and temporary permits for up to 30
additional taxicabs pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the applicant's
proposal (Continued from Council Meetings of April 17, 2001, Item A48, June 12, 2001,
Item C1; July 10, 2001, Item C1; July 24, 2001, It9m A30; and August 7, 2001, Item
A24).
MOTION
CEQA FINDING: Categorically Exempt, Class 1.
MOTION Overruling all protests and directing the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance awarding a taxicab franchise to American Livery, Inc. dba
American Taxi; or, in the alternative, denying the award of a taxicab franchise to the
applicant.
C. Approve the application of A White and Yellow Cab dba A Taxi Cab for a non-
exclusive franchise for the operation of 50 taxicabs and temporary permits for up to 30
additional taxicabs pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the applicant's
proposal (Continued from Council Meetings of April 17, 2001, Item A48, June 12, 2001 ,
","",,~.c'",,'~"H"~," .c ........_"~___.""_.,_'"'...,~...._
179
I...
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 14
Item C1; July 10, 2001, Item C1; July 24, 2001, Item A30; and August 7, 2001, Item
A24).
MOTION
CEQA FINDING: Categorically Exempt, Class 1.
MOTION Overruling all protests and directing the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance awarding a taxicab franchise to A White and Yellow Cab dba A
Taxi Cab; or, in the alternative, denying the award of a taxicab franchise to the applicant.
D. Approve the application of Cabco, Inc. dba California Yellow Cab for a non-exclusive
franchise for the operation of 50 taxicabs and temporary permits for up to 30 additional
taxicabs pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the applicant's proposal
(Continued from Council Meetings of April 17, 2001, Item A48, June 12, 2001, Item C1;
July 10, 2001, Item C1; July 24, 2001, Item A30; and August 7, 2001, Item A24).
MOTION
CEQA FINDING: Categorically Exempt, Class 1.
MOTION Overruling all protests and directing the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance awarding a taxicab franchise to Cabco, Inc. dba California Yellow
Cab; or, in the alternative, denying the award of a taxicab franchise to the applicant.
City Attorney White stated that the public hearings required by the Charter and the Grant of
Franchises were conducted by the Council in June. After closing the public hearings, he said,
Council continued any decision on the award of the franchises to a later date and subsequently
had continued the decision to obtain input on a voluntary petition in bankruptcy that had been
filed by American Livery, Inc., which was recommended for a franchise. He said that one of the
criteria by which the request for proposals would be judged on by twenty percent was related to
financial stability and eighty percent related to other criteria. He said that it was important to
follow the outcome of that bankruptcy proceeding to determine whether American continued to
be a viable company and an applicant for franchise and whether any change should be made in
scoring of their application due to bankruptcy filing. The item was in bankruptcy court yesterday
and was again continued to October 24, 2001 , where the judge would consider the
reorganization plan. The owner of American Livery had been in New York on September 11,
2001 attempting to arrange financing to secure the continued financial operation of the company
and due to the tragic events in New York, was unable to accomplish that goal, he said. The
judge continued the matter for thirty days and terminated the automatic stay and provided that
additional payments be made to Ford Motor Company within the next two weeks totaling
approximately $132,000 to avoid any potential foreclosure on the taxicabs. He recommended
that Council continue the item to the November 6, 2001 meeting.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, to continue the granting of
franchises for taxicab service to November 6, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
Item B1 From Zonina Administrator Meetina of Seotember 6. 2001: (No action by City
Council required unless expressly indicated. Council may consider and act upon such matters
at its discretion. Items requiring a public hearing may be set for hearing at a later date upon the
request of any two Council members.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 28, 2001:
81.
VARIANCE NO. 2001-04449 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
179
I..
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 15
OWNER: Peralta Hills LLC, Attn: Brian Kerr, 34 Balboa Coves
Newport Beach, CA 92633
LOCATION: 194 South Lakeview Avenue. Property is 6.16 acres located on the
north side of Lakeview Avenue, having a maximum depth of 745 feet, and located 130
feet east of the centerline of Cerro Vista Drive.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct five 2-story, single-family residences in
the RS-HS-43,000(SC)(Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay)
Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2001-04449 approved (ZA2001-34).
Negative Declaration approved.
In response to Council Member Feldhaus, Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti, said that the
closest property owners indicated that they had seen the plans and they were satisfied with the
specific proposal.
Planning Director Fick said that up to the ten percent level the item could have been processed
as an administrative adjustment without having a variance and it was a thirteen percent and that
was why the Zoning Administrator heard a variance application on this case. He said that there
was grading and terrain on the site that affected the house sizes and house higher up on the hill
was lower in height and he believed that it was not a siting issue.
In response to Council Member McCracken, Director Fick said that the findings the Zoning
Administrator talked about that there were rotundas that were architectural features and
projections that affect the project and were needed to balance the design.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
C1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3124
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1:
OWNER: Sanderson Jay Ray, Attn: Lisa Lovely
2699 White Road, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92614
AGENT: Bart Rainone, 3364 East La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 2.79 acres with
a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of Riverside Freeway, accessed by 32-foot wide
access easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located 1 ,240 feet east of the
centerline of Shepard Street (Concourse Bowling Alley).
To modify the operational conditions for an existing bowling alley to permit live
entertainment and a cover charge for promotional events as an accessory use to the
existing bowling alley.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Proposed modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3124 denied (PC2001-101) (4 yes
votes, Commissioners Bristol, Eastman, Koos and Vanderbilt, Commissioners Boydstun
and Arnold voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent).
Public hearing scheduled September 25, 2001.
Informational item at the meeting of August 21, 2001. Review of the Planning
Commission's decision requested by Agent, Bart Rainone and Council Members Kring
and Tait).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 16
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to continue Item C1 to
October 23, 2001 , as requested by the agent. Motion carried unanimously.
179
C2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00047
VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432 (REVISED)
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-211 (REVISED)
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Donald Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia Street, Suite #0, Orange, CA 92867
LOCATION: 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. Property is approximately 0.43 acres
with a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, located 100 feet
east of the centerline of Della Lane.
Reclassification No. 2001-00047: Request approval of Reclassification to reclassify
this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RS-7200
(Residential, Single-Family) Zone.
Variance No. 2001-04432 (revised): Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth, (b) minimum lot
size (DELETED), (c) minimum lot width (DELETED), (d) orientation of residential
structures, and (e) required lot frontage adjacent to a public or private street.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211 (revised): To establish a 2-lot, single-family
residential subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 2001-00047 recommended for approval at the Planning
Commission meeting of September 10, 2001 (6 yes votes, Commissioner Bristol
abstained). [Denied previous Reclassification No. 2001-00047 (PC2001-75) (5 yes
votes, 1 no vote, Commissioner Bristol absent]
Recommended approval of revised waivers (a), (d) and (e) of Variance No. 2001-04432
and recommended denial of waivers (b) and (c). [Denied previous Variance No. 2001-
04432 (PC2001-76)]
Recommended approval of revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211. (Denied
previous Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211).
Negative Declaration approved.
Public hearing continued from Council meetings of July 24, 2001, Item C3 and August
21, 2001, Item C1).
Council Member Kring declared a conflict and proceeded to leave the Council Chamber.
Zoning Division Manager, Greg Hastings, gave a staff report and said that the project was
initially a three-lot subdivision and the applicant submitted a revised plan to Planning
Commission showing two lots. Planning Commission reviewed the revised plan and
recommended approval of the two-lot subdivision. The waivers pertaining to minimum lot size
and width were no longer needed, he said and there were three waivers remaining. The first
waiver, he said, was minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway; the second waiver was
orientation of the front residence in relation to the street and the third waiver was having the
back lot take access by way of a driveway easement rather than a private or public street. Staff
supported all of the waivers and recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions
contained in the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission staff report.
~,.,~_c,,_'~~.~~_.~.~ _ ......_
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 17
Mayor Daly asked how many waivers were approved and how many homes on the street had a
similar orientation to this one and Mr. Hastings said all three waivers were approved and all of
the homes on that side of Orangewood did front onto Orangewood. The existing home would
be removed and a new home would be constructed siding onto Orangewood rather than
backing on which Code would normally require for a tract of homes. Mayor Daly asked if the
two new homes would face in different directions from all the existing homes on Orangewood
and Manager Hastings stated that the front house on Orangewood would face sideways and
most of the other homes face front. The back house, he said, would face Orangewood and he
offered the Council a view of the parcel map and floor plan of the homes.
In response to Mayor Daly, Planning Director, Joel Fick, said that the lot sizes would exceed the
minimum lot sizes within the RS-7200 zone and he would provide more information for the
Council. The front house would side onto Orangewood Avenue, he said, and these were
concept plans of what could be constructed on the lot to demonstrate that all of the setbacks
could be met. Director Fick said that the front door could face either the drive or back to
Orangewood Avenue, depending on what the final design would be on the rear home. The front
home sided on Orangewood Avenue. The house sizes that were plotted were identical and the
lot size of the front house was 7,200 square feet, he said, and the rear lot would be 11,561
square feet, which would be a very large lot in comparison to the other lots in the area.
Mayor Daly asked about the front house facing sideways and Director Fick said that the Code
would require a house to rear onto the street. He said that this was an in-fill lot and not a tract
situation and there were several larger lots along Orangewood Avenue that were remnant lots
from the other tract housing. Director Fick said that Planning was comfortable to how it looked
from the street; however, the final house plans were not yet designed. He said that if Council
felt that the house should front on Orangewood Avenue based upon the way the advertisement
was made, there could be a requirement that the house, like the others, front onto Orangewood.
Director Fick said that by having the house side-on as proposed by the applicant, it allowed for
one drive way so that both lots could take access from the one drive location.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Don Skjerven, 1020 Batavia Street, Orange, said that he was here for three houses which met
almost all the requirements except for lot size, which was met now. He said that he had met all
the off-sets and the elevation seen was the elevation that faced Orangewood Avenue and it
sided on in the respect that the garage was off on the private street. The houses were both
drawn identical to verify that he needed the off-sets and he said he would vary the houses and
vary the elevations. He said he believed that he had met and resolved Planning's questions
and that the project design was adequate and related to the area.
In response to Council Member McCracken, Director Fick said that the project drawings were
not required to go back to Planning Commission but could go back if Council should desire.
Barbara Sellek, 2080 Della Lane, said her home was due north of the proposed project. She
said that she favored the plan and development needed to be in that lot and would be an asset.
The lot was almost one half acre and would support two homes nicely. She had been present
to oppose the three houses that were projected and she was present to support the revised
project.
_=--"""''''''~,.~'''c ,~,~" 0" .".
I.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 18
Chelair Nokes, resident on the southeast corner of Orangewood and Della Lane, stated that she
was next door on the west side of the proposed development. She said that it was her
understanding that both houses would be facing east. She would like to have the matter settled
before the decision was made because of the negative impact on her property. She said she
believed that the development plan proposed by Mr. Skjerven did not maintain the integrity of
the zoning and continuity of land use within the neighborhood. She said that the proposed
development placed both two-story houses only ten feet away from her east property line. The
rear yard of the first house would be seven feet away from her bedroom window. The increase
in noise level from both rear yards and houses would impact her privacy and add stress to her
daily living, she said. Mr. Skjerven had not submitted plans to landscape the wall of his
subdivision except the wall along the east property of the line next to the access driveway, she
said. Her property was eight inches east of the retaining wall and part of the footing for the wall
was under the eight inches by 200 feet on the east-side of the wall. Her retaining wall was not
strong enough to support the weight of a five-foot high wall, she reported. She asked that if
Council should approve the subdivision, and she hoped that they did not, that the orientation of
the second house was determined. She requested that if the proposal was approved, Mr.
Skjerven should build a seven to eight foot high wall along the west side of his property that
would run from the front of her garage back to the end of her property. The wall was necessary
as a sound barrier, she said, and to keep people from coming from the subdivision over into her
back yard. She said that the wall would be six feet high on her property because the ground
level was above his and she asked once again that the orientation of the second house be
determined before doing anything.
Mayor Daly asked Mrs. Nokes if her understanding of the direction of the two homes was that
they were both facing east. She indicated she would like to have the homes facing the street as
other homes in the neighborhood were.
Director Fick said that with regard to the design and orientation of the homes, the Council could
condition or the applicant could propose, and subsequently a condition could be enacted, that
specified the exact placement in terms of the front door facing one or both of the homes. He
said that a condition that was suggested earlier, was that the site plan would go back to the
Planning Commission to demonstrate what the final design plan was so that it showed as being
compatible with other homes in the neighborhood.
Mayor Daly asked if that would include addressing the wall issue that Mrs. Nokes brought up or
if the Council should provide direction on the issue. Planning Director Fick said that he believed
that Council would have to providQ difQction bQcause there would be no requirement for a block
wall since it was residential abutting residential. He said that this would be a question to direct
to the applicant of what his intention was for the construction. Mr. Fick said that based upon the
elevation difference a wall could be constructed that was six feet from the highest elevation and
it wasn't the problem and the wall would not be required unless imposed in conjunction with the
subdivision approval.
In response to Mayor Daly, Director Fick said that the site plan would go back to Planning
Commission for final approval and would be subject to review and approval by the Council.
Mayor Daly requested that Planning Commission review the final site plan so that the neighbors
had a chance to look at all the details of the project and be subject to review and approval by
the Council. Mayor Daly asked that the wall be addressed by staff and a recommendation
made to the Planning Commission.
I io
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 19
Council Member Feldhaus asked about water drainage. Mrs. Nokes said that the curb was high
enough that the water did not get in and it went down the curb. Before the curb was built, it all
drained toward the back of the property, she said. There was a drainage channel that went
under her back yard and the street and underneath the house on the west side of Della and
emptied in the driveway that lead to the apartments on the corner of Orangewood Avenue and
Euclid Street and that drainage pipe was ten feet from her rear wall and it was put in to drain the
property. Mrs. Nokes was concerned about the grading and the drainage towards the rear of
the property as well as her privacy.
Planning Director Fick pointed out that since the Code did not require a block wall be
constructed from residential next to residential, it would require an attachment or a condition
requiring the wall to be there and then the Planning Commission could deal with the design of
the wall, or materials and landscaping.
Ron Kring, 1619 West Lorane Way, said that an attractive feature of the project was the 7,200
square foot rear yard on the back piece of property. He said that the property owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Nokes appeared to be one of the two most heavily impacted properties by this project. He
said that the property to the east would also be impacted and those property owners were not
present for the hearing. Mr. Kring was concerned that all of the homes had the appearance of
fronting onto Orangewood. He said that if the front piece of property had an appearance of
siding on Orangewood it would be the only piece of property that looked out of character. He
said that whether that was the functional entrance to the residence or not, did not make any
difference to him. If Council approved the project, he asked for the condition to see what the
front elevation looked like as well as some of the other requirements that Council had already
discussed.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Kring that if the front house had a front door that was facing east, if that
would be acceptable as long as the side elevation was acceptable. Mr. Kring asked that the
elevation facing Orangewood Avenue should appear as a residential front entrance even if that
was not the front.
The applicant, Donald Skjerven, stated that this house was designed so that there was 35-feet
to the front door from the easement where a lot of houses on Orangewood Avenue were 15-feet
from the curb to front door and he said that this was an improvement. He said that on these in-
fills, it was a joint effort between the people who benefit from the wall and he had no objection to
building a block wall if it benefited Mrs. Nokes as much as it benefited Mr. Skjerven and the cost
was shared and whatever other neighbor wanted to do that. According to Mr. Skjerven, the
Code said that a wood fence or no fence so he would be in agreement with that. When the
three lots were proposed initially, Mr. Skjerven backed up against Mrs. Nokes and all the front
doors faced a private street to the east. The only thing that was wrong was that the lot was
6,200 square feet instead of 7,200 square feet, he said. There were a lot of lots in the area that
were less that 7,200 square feet, he said. He had worked close with Planning on the two
proposed lots and he said he believed that this was a good project. Mr. Skjerven said that there
used to be a lot of water that flowed into the two properties to the east since they both sloped
south and so did the proposed lot. He lost 25 feet of the front of the yards for the new storm
drain and widening at Orangewood Avenue and that restricted the three-lot subdivision that he
had proposed. He said that there had not been any great water flowing into the properties since
that storm drain had been installed. He said that with regard to the front doors facing
Orangewood Avenue, they were drawn on the elevation right now to face north. He said that
they could be off set to face the east because there was a two-car garage there that could be
I"
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 20
set back and face the doors east. Mrs. Nokes would still have side yards facing her property, he
said. There was ten feet from Mr. Skjerven's side yard to the property line and her house was
eight feet from the property line so there was eighteen feet between the two houses and that
was an improvement of almost double of what was required.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. He moved to direct staff to make a recommendation
regarding the elevation difference between the properties and the need for a wall.
City Attorney White said that the Council could act upon the items tonight, adding conditions,
one of which would be to have the Planning Commission review final elevations and then
Council would get that back as a report and recommendation item and have a chance to review
the item. With regard to the wall, he said, the Council should be in a position to make a
requirement that there be a wall or to continue this and refer it back to the Planning Commission
for another recommendation as to whether there should be a wall.
Mayor Daly said that the Planning Commission should look at the site plan, design and details
of the wall and elevation. It would be subject to review as would any Planning Commission
ite m.
Planning Director Fick said that the Planning Commission would review the final design plans
for the homes and the project and the design plans would include fencing plans proposed by the
developer along the west property line. The applicant was trying to demonstrate that there
could be quality homes with setbacks constructed without having design plans available. He
said that there was discussion about the houses on Orangewood Avenue facing north and he
agreed that the other homes did face Orangewood. Design-wise, he said, that would be the
optimum alternative in terms of design and he said that he believed that this conflicted with Mrs.
Nokes' request that both homes face east. He said that he would have staff and Planning
Commission sort that out and if Council had a particular viewpoint, that would also need to be
addressed.
Mayor Daly asked to have the language of the Planning Director included in the approval of the
concept of the two home project with details to be reviewed by the Planning Commission,
subject to final review by the Council.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to approve the CEQA finding of
Negative Declaration.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 2001 R-244 and 2001 R-245 for approval incorporating the
language of Planning Director.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-244 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE
BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (RECLASSIFICATION NO.
2001-00047.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-245 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432.
~~-,~~ .,"~..,... .~""~-...,.'~--"'~"',".~"'=' """~'-"""""'"~ '" .'" --"_.*.........,..._"-"'"..,._,'+..-"~-'..........-,-~~. ."
179
Ii
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 21
Roll call vote: Ayes - 4, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, and Tait.
Noes - O. Abstain - 1, Council Member Kring. Motion carried.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to approve Tentative Parcel Map
No. 2000-211 with the following Planning Commission conditions. Motion carried, Council
Member Kring abstained.
1. That the sewer deficiency fee for the Remaining Central City Area shall be paid.
2. That the legal property owner shall furnish a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved
by the City Attorney, to the City of Anaheim agreeing to complete the public
improvements required as conditions of the map at the legal property owner's expense.
Said agreement shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall
then be recorded concurrently with the final parcel map.
3. That a maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and
approved by the City Attorney's Office. The agreement shall include provisions for the
maintenance of private facilities (including the private driveway easement and perimeter
wall at the north property line); and that a maintenance exhibit shall be included as part
of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
4. That a sixteen-foot private access easement shall be reserved on the final parcel map
for the benefit of each parcel established by this map and for public utilities.
5. That both lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division.
6. That the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211 is granted subject to the
approval and finalization of Reclassification No. 2001-00047 and approval of Variance
No. 2001-04432.
7. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities
easement to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said easement shall be
submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical services.
8. That prior to final parcel map approval, Conditional Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, above-
mentioned, shall be complied with.
9. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the
extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or
findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable or
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
C3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04363
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Helen Goldman, Harvey Tepper, Robert and Renee Tepper Attn: Robert
Tepper, 19500 Merridy Street, Northridge, CA 91324
AGENT: The Consulting Group, Inc. Attn: Dayna Aguirre,
18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite #870, Irvine, CA 92612
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 22
LOCATION: 3440 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.2 acres located
south of the southeast corner of Knott Street and Lincoln Avenue.
To permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363 granted for five years to expire on July 2, 2006
(PC2001-90) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration approved.
(Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council
Member McCracken. Public hearing continued from Council meeting of August 21,
2001, Item C3.)
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to approve the request by the
agent for a continuance to October 2, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
C4.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2001-160. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 15:
OWNER: The Best Union LLC, Attn: Sandy Lee
1300 East KatellaAvenue, Orange, CA 92867
LOCATION: 2381-2385 West Lincoln Avenue (Granada Inn). Property is 1.8 acres
located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street.
To establish a 2-lot, commercial subdivision in the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-160 approved (ZA2001-27).
(Informational item at the meeting of August 7, 2001, Item 814. Review of the Planning
Commission's decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken).
170
Planning Director Fick stated that staff recommended approval on the item. He said that
Condition No.1 0 required the covenant to be recorded against the property, that deals with
reciprocal access and parking, required that the entire complex be managed and maintained as
one integrated parcel for architectural control, land use and maintenance. He added that this
was a typical condition on a financing issue like this that had been imposed and based upon
that condition being in place, he said that Planning Department was comfortable.
In response to Mayor Daly, Director Fick said that the City Attorney's Office assisted in draft and
review of the contract. He said that the restaurant and the Granada Inn would be architecturally
compatible as a unit. There was the potential for two owners, he said. Director Fick said that
staff had not been adverse to that happening as long as the covenants were in place that City
Attorney's Office felt required that control. He said in some of those cases, the City had more
control than as present and the covenants were enforceable.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
A representative of Mrs. Lee was present on behalf of The Best Union LLC. She said that The
Best Union LLC did not intend to do any new construction and no commercial transitions for
now. She said that they wanted to subdivide the parcel into two and that they agreed to the
conditions.
Judith Ann Gollette, representative of West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Group, said
that the site had the possibility of changing into another Lincoln Inn, the hotel and motel were
finding more and more police calls, transient living, children running up and down the halls and
not going to school. She was concerned that if the property was subdivided and the conditions
_"'_'k""~...",..~, '7__" ',~~
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 23
were not strong enough, there would be loss of control of it. She asked that Council take into
consideration her comments when looking at the covenants, conditions and restrictions on the
property.
Council Member McCracken expressed concerns because the City had been trying to
consolidate properties along Lincoln Avenue and this was a subdivision. She was concerned
about the parking and she asked how strong the covenants could be. She said that there were
shopping centers that had two to three separate owners and it was hard to maintain. She
added that she had reservations about keeping up the maintenance.
Planning Director Fick said that some of the centers had been problematic and some of those
were subdivided many years ago without any of these integrated conditions and that was what
lead to the working with the City Attorney's Office staff to prepare integrated conditions that
insure common maintenance and upgrading, traffic and parking. He said that the City had more
control in terms of the requirements that were enacted than those that presently exist without
anything at all.
In response to Mayor Daly, City Attorney White said that the mechanism that the City had was
enforcement through a civil process to get declaratory relief and an injunction to require
whatever compatibility or maintenance was necessary. It would be a civil action that would
involve time and expense but would give a tool that did not now exist even though it was under
one ownership.
Planning Director Fick said that the Community Development Department was not opposed to
this item with the proposed controls.
Representative of Best Union LLC stated that she was present to obtain a subdivision and she
asked to have the flexibility to the lender to buy the property and he had been taking care of the
restaurant. She said that he had been doing a lot of improvements and that was why Best
Union LLC wanted to give him that flexibility.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Council Member Tait said that sometimes it made sense to subdivide the property to get more
investment. He said that he believed that with the conditions that staff recommended he would
not have to worry about the downside and he stated his support of the subdivision.
Mayor Daly stated that small lots on Lincoln Avenue were not in the City's best interest.
Council Member Kring moved, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, to approve the CEQA
Finding of Categorically Exempt, Class 15. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Kring moved, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, to approve Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2001-160 with all the findings in the staff report and conditions imposed by the
Zoning Administrator. Ayes - 4, Council Members Kring, Feldhaus, McCracken and Tail. Noes
- 1, Mayor Daly. Motion carried.
_C._b_"'.__............-..~'~~~" '"'~"__..~."""*~'<.,~_.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 24
C5. PUBLIC HEARING - CREATION OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 43: To consider
175 the approval of the creation of Underground District No. 43 (La Palma Avenuef\Nest
Street) in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to Underground Utilities.
Bob Templeton, Principal Electric Systems Designer, Public Utilities, stated that no written or
oral comments had been received from the public on the project.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001 R-246 for approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-246 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 43 (LA PALMA
A VENUEf\NEST STREET).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
175
C6. PUBLIC HEARING - CREATION OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 44: To consider
the approval of the creation of Underground District No. 44 (Broadway/Magnolia Phase
I) in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to Underground Utilities.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001 R-247 for approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-247 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 44
(BROADWAY/MAGNOLIA PHASE I).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions: None.
Council Communications:
Mayor Daly announced that a memorial service would be held on September 28, 2001, from
5:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. at the Pearson Park Amphitheater.
Council Member Tait asked that everyone keep the families and victims of the World Trade
Center in their prayers and he noted that he was proud of the way the City handled the events
of September 11, 2001.
Council Member McCracken thanked the volunteer committee for flag-day and all volunteers for
other special events and for making a difference.
~H~_C ... '..... '".,................ ..~,.., .... .............-.....-~~.=...=.=', ....,
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
PAGE 25
Council Member Kring asked that everyone who attends the memorial service at Pearson Park
on Friday bring a candle to light. She mentioned that the six Anaheim Firefighters would be
going to New York to assist in the efforts at the World Trade Center site. She thanked everyone
that attended the Race for the Cure, held September 23, 2001.
Council Member Feldhaus announced that the annual Halloween Festival and Parade is
October 27, 2001 and starts at 8:00 a.m. with a pancake breakfast and other activities
throughout the day.
Mayor Daly announced that September 26, 2001, the Regional Water Quality Board would
consider tough requirements that would affect property owners in the City. He asked the City
Manager to make recommendations on what the City should be doing with the new standards.
He also requested that the City Manager check into the day laborer situation at the Home Depot
on Brookhurst Street and report back on what the Police Department could and could not do
and he asked for a recommendation to the Council.
Adjournment:
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Daly adjourned the
meeting at 9:18 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
~
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
- -". '-'~'-_'''4_''''''...~'''''_'"=-"_' .~