Loading...
1998/01/06ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Lou Lopez COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bob Zemel CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau POLICE CHIEF: Randall Gaston POLICE CAPTAIN: Steve Sain POLICE SERGEANT: Joe Vargas POLICE INVESTIGATOR: Tom Engle CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick CIVIL ENGINEER - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Armas SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Fred Fix TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 1:10 p.m. on January 2, 1998 at the City Hall Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez called the workshop portion of the meeting of January 6, 1998 to order and welcomed those in attendance. City Manager, James Ruth. This is the appointed time for the workshop on Community Policing. Police Chief Gaston will introduce members of his staff who have been instrumental in effecting this program. 156: COMMUNITY POLICING - ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT: Police Chief, Randall Gaston. Four full years of the Community Policing Program have now been completed. This is an opportunity to bring the Council up to date on the program's accomplishments and what the future is. He introduced Captain Steve Sain, Captain of the Community Policing Unit who will open the presentation and subsequently Sgt. Joe Vargas, the Public Information Officer for the Department will give the balance of the presentation. Captain Steve Sain. He first referred to newspaper articles of the past several months reporting on the overall decrease in crime. Anaheim showed a dramatic reduction of 23% in Part I crimes for the first six months of 1997 compared to 1996. It is difficult to credit or identify any one single area as being responsible for this decrease. He then enumerated on some of the many contributing factors -- joint partnership with the Orange County District Attorney's Office, increased gang involvement by the Special Operations divisions, Community Services, Neighborhood Watch, community outreach, school programs, tougher sentencing laws, etc. Recognized as their cornerstone, however, is the Community Policing program. He then elaborated on the program and also showed a video of a feature done by Channel 9 on the City's Community Policing activities emphasizing the very positive/dramatic results of those activities in several target neighborhoods. Anaheim is the leading Southern California City in terms of a drop in crime rate. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 Mayor Daly entered the Council chamber (3:18). Captain Sain then introduced Sgt. Joe Vargas, one of the former participants in Community Policing and currently the Department's Public Information Officer. Sgt. Joe Vargas. He started his presentation with a quote in which he strongly believes, "The first thing to understand is that the public space--the sidewalk and street peace--of cities is not kept primarily by the police rather it is kept by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards established and enforced by the people themselves." Jane Jacobs. Community Policing is just as much the community policing itself as is the involvement of the Police. In his presentation, supplemented by slides, he briefed the majority of the material contained in the documentation submitted entitled, Anaheim Police Department - Community Policing Workshop - January 6, 1998 (made a part of the record). The first slide showed that Part I crimes (the more serious crimes) dropped dramatically since 1993 noting that they have not had a crime rate in Part I crimes that low since 1970. Anaheim had a decrease in these crimes of 23% compared to the national average of 6%. His extensive presentation covered statistics on calls for service (continual decrease from 1993 to November, 1997 - 213,932 to 165,894), additional details on the Part I crime decrease (per 100,000), the nine Community Policing Target Areas, techniques used (enforcement, community involvement, education and neighborhood improvement), community enforcement (tactics used), community involvement (groups involved), education (programs in place), neighborhood improvement (programs and organizations involved), statistics relative to decrease in crime in specific target areas as a result of Community Policing, plans for the future, and additional target areas. Sgt. Vargas concluded his presentation with his own quote, "Disorder is the catalyst of crime. If we can address our problems of disorder through collaborative problem solving efforts, in the end, we will bring diverse groups of people together striving for the common good." Captain Sain then introduced those members of Police Department staff instrumental in Community Policing and the success of the program as well as nothing the contributions of other City Departments involved in the "partnership". After further elaboration, he concluded by stating that the statistics demonstrate they are doing something right. The goal is to continue in this positive direction with both the community and staff working to improve quality of life issues in all neighborhoods within the City. Mayor Daly. The numbers speak for themselves and the Police Department is to be commended for bringing the best minds and resources together making the program such a success. The Council will look forward to hearing more results in the future. Questions and comments followed by Council Members McCracken and Tait after which Mayor Daly suggested with the amount of resources devoted to Community Policing, if while in these neighborhoods they notice land-use problems that exist, i.e., vacant lots, alleys that no longer make sense, etc., that any problem-solving ideas to improve these situations filter into the other departments and into management. He knows it is already happening but it should be encouraged to the greatest extent possible. Also, Council Member McCracken mentioned the renaming of Ana Drive which he feels would be positive. They should look for administrative ways to accommodate those requests. He again thanked Chief Gaston and his staff for the informative and detailed presentation. They look forward to receiving continuing comparative data. Probably the most frequently asked question of the Council, people want to know about crime and its relationship to property values. Being able to put it into context as they have is helpful to the Council. It is also helpful to know the story behind the statistics. City Attorney White. There is an additional item to be added to the Closed Session Agenda since the need to act arose after the agenda was posted. It is a Statutory Settlement Demand, Nunley vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case 77-23-97. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act to add the subject item (Item 4. on the Closed Session Agenda -see below) since the need to act arose after posting of the agenda. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was absent. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association, IBEW, and AMEA. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: one potential case. STATUTORY SETTLEMENT DEMAND - Name of case: Nunley vs. City of Anaheim - Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-23-97. RECESS CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ( 3:57 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. ( 5:45 p.m.) INVOCATION: Pastor Jimmy Gaston, State College Church of Christ, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Lou Lopez led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,174,093.46 for the period ending December 22, 1997, $1,512,676.61 for the period ending December 29, 1997 and $2,059,330.90 for the period ending January 5, 1998, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency meeting. (5:50 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:52 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Public input was received on Item A14 and C1. (see discussion under those items). MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of January 6, 1998. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A16: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-1, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A1. A2. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management. The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended: a. Claim submitted by Randy P. Kraege for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 25, 1997. b. Claim submitted by John Nielsen c/o Joseph P. Myers, Esq. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 19, 1997. c. Claim submitted by Linda C. Molson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 8, 1997. d. Claim submitted by Terence L. Byrne for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 24, 1997. e. Claim submitted by Patricia M. Goral for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 25, 1997. 156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime Statistical Report for the month of November, 1997. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held November 6, 1997. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting held November 13, 1997. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held November 13, 1997. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission meeting held December 3, 1997. A3. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 15588, and Subdivision Agreement with Kaufman and Broad; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. Tract No. 15588 is located at the north side of Cypress Street and the east side of Olive Street, and is filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 97-98-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 3955. A4. 158: Approving an Agreement for Right-of-Entry for property at 1844 South Haster Street and 102 Katella Avenue (R/W 5180-43 A&B and R/W 5180-44); and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement in connection with the Katella Avenue Smart Street and Beautification project. A5. 168: Renaming "Dogleg Road" to "Hotel Way" (located in the Anaheim Convention Center area). A6. 175: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $12,413 in favor of The Allison Company, for the Katella Avenue 16" Water Main Improvements project. A7. 160: Accepting the low bid of All Seasons Tire Co., Inc., in an amount not to exceed $134,665 for tires and tubes for a one year period beginning January, 1998; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise annual renewal options for an additional four years, in accordance with Bid #5738. A8. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to GCS Western Power and Equipment, in the amount of $40,272 for two Aesco trailer mounted message board signs and spare parts package for the Anaheim Resort Area. A9. 123: Authorizing the Finance Director or his designee to approve a non-disclosure, confidentiality and limited use agreement among the City of Anaheim, H.T.E., Inc., SCT Software & Resource Management Corporation, and Systems & Computer Technology Corporation; and approving similar confidentiality agreements with additional software vendors that may be required in the future to effect the agreement between the City and SCT. A10. 161: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING A REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA FOR STUDY PURPOSES. (WEST ANAHEIM PROJECT: REVISING THE REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA BOUNDARIES.) All. 114/139: Adopting the 1998 Legislative Program, and appointing two members of the City Council to the City of Anaheim Legislative Liaison Committee. (Continued from the meeting of December 16, 1997, Item A23.) Council Member Tait expressed his interest in being on the Legislative Liaison Committee; Council Member Zemel also expressed his interest in serving. Mayor Daly suggested a motion to that effect including approval of the 1998 Legislative Program. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the 1998 Legislative Program as submitted be adopted and that he and Council Member Tait be appointed as the two Council Members to the Legislative Liaison Committee. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 A12. 123: Approving Department of Transportation Utility Agreement Numbers 12-UT-216A and 12- UT-216B for Segment D Water Facilities, to relocate, replace and/or abandon facilities for the I-5 Freeway Widening Project. A13. 123: Approving Water Agency Response Network (WARN) 1996 Omnibus Mutual Aid Agreement; and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute related Agreements and to take any actions necessary to implement the Agreement. A14. 123: To consider approving the Amendment to Agreement with Spencer Sports Media, Inc., granting Spencer the exclusive right to sell the naming rights for the Convention Center, and to extend the term of the Agreement as it relates to the sale of advertising and naming rights at the Convention Center. Ron Bengoshea, 1751 S. Nutwood, Anaheim. As a native of Anaheim, he has seen Anaheim Stadium lose some of its significance with the recent name change as well as the Anaheim Arena which is now Arrowhead Pond. When the Anaheim Convention Center was built, it was a significant occurrence throughout the country in its concept and its unique design. Anaheim has always been a trend setter more than a follower. He would hate to see the City selling a part of its image piece by piece. Even though there is revenue to be gained, he is not sure that makes it right. He likes Anaheim being identified through the things it has built. He's proud to be a resident. He hopes this will be a good deal but would like to retain the City's identity and not start selling things off just for the dollars involved. Mayor Daly. To clarify this item, and he shares the concern expressed, this recommendation authorizes an agent of the City to bring proposals back to them but in no way commits any renaming or renames the facility. It simply launches a "shopping expedition" but does not necessarily bring it to a conclusion. Council Member Zemel. He brought the matter up at a Council Meeting during the negotiations with Disney on Anaheim Stadium. At the time, the City did not know how it was going to cover the $150 million dollar package for remodeling. He broached the issue asking what kind of money they could expect for the naming rights to help with the package. It has been a long process but it appears that the $150 million has been found and that budget has been filled as to how they are going to handle that, but he needs an answer. Before putting this out to bid, however, he needs a "ball park" figure as to how much it might be worth. He reiterated his two-fold request -- have they found $150 million, and is there a way to get a "ball park" figure without actually sending it out. City Manager Ruth. Relative to the latter, they have been working with Spencer Sports Media for a number of years. They have excellent national representation and have done a good job for the City. Their top person, with whom staff spoke, was reluctant to give a ball park figure. The point tonight was to give Spencer the authority to test the market -- maybe there is no market, but maybe there is. At that time, they would have to be able to put a value on it. Regarding the $150 million, the concerns at the Convention Center in terms of how to maximize revenues, it is the only convention center venue in the U.S. that actually supports itself through its revenues and they are very proud of that. Operating costs in the last several years have been reduced at least $1.5 million a year where previously they were subsidized. When they looked at the future as they began to see the need not just to expand the physical building but to acquire additional properties, they saw a great need for additional revenue. The bids for the expansion are in the process of being evaluated. It is expected the building will be taken care of through the bonds. For future expansion, acquisition of additional properties, and further improvements beyond this expansion, there is not a funding source. They felt it would help in terms of assuring the future relative to additional expansion being able to utilize some of these funds to acquire properties or to help with the operating expenses of the convention center itself. This is an enterprise operation. By policy, Council indicated in the past revenues generated by the facility stay with the facility. That money could be used for enhancements, improvements and future improvements. It could be used for a variety of issues but not seriously considered for the $150 million expansion. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 Mayor Daly. He has mixed feelings about moving forward at this time and believes additional information would be helpful. Management staff should always be looking for opportunities to bring in revenue. In this case, the challenge is to do so without diminishing in any way the traditional stature and image of the Anaheim Convention Center. He feels it may be premature to enter into an agreement with an agent at this time. Although the proposed agreement would merely authorize the agent to go out and solicit potential deals and bring those to the Council, he is afraid unless a majority of the Council is prepared to approve one of those deals, it may be a lot of unnecessary effort. He prefers to see staff "keep their oar in the water" in terms of the marketplace and potential deals and if those are potentially beneficial, that they bring the specifics back in the future. In the meantime, he would like staff to survey the Convention Center marketplace and provide an updated survey on what other properties are doing. In the world of convention centers, he is not aware that the trend of renaming has developed as thoroughly as in other areas. He feels they need more information and that staff also bring forward examples of how a renaming could happen that would not diminish the marketability of the Convention Center. Council Member McCracken. She would also like some input from the Board Members of the Community Center Authority. They could perhaps give some input on community feelings on this kind of proposal. Mayor Daly. He understands the leadership of the Visitor and Convention Bureau is comfortable with the proposal to knock on corporate doom. He also agrees with Council Member McCracken's suggestion. Council Member Tait. His point is a little stronger -- he feels certain things should not be sold. There is something about the Convention Center that just does not feel right having it named anything but the Anaheim Convention Center. It involves a lot of history and community pride. It is a public facility and to put a corporate name on it to him just does not seem right. Council Member Lopez. He agrees with Council Member Tait at least at this time. He would just as soon see it remain as is. Council Member Zemel. Although the City Manager makes several good points, he would like to know if the figure is $10 million, $20 million, $30 million or whatever. He feels it is pertinent and proper to mention this will be the first time the sale of the naming of a facility in the City could go directly to benefit the taxpayers. It is an opportunity to capitalize on this asset. He does not want to see it go entirely away. He Likes the Mayor's suggestion that it come back and perhaps there might be some compromise. He also favors the suggestion that they get input from the Community Center Authority. He would like to see, if there is a way, how much it is worth. Council Member Tait. Since more information is needed, perhaps the simplest way is to deny this recommendation at this time. Mayor Daly. His suggestion is to table the matter and ask staff to bring the Council more information relative to the marketplace and to see what other competing convention centers are doing, i.e., San Diego, San Francisco, Las Vegas, etc. Also, as suggested by Council Member McCracken, solicit the perspective of the members of the Community Center Authority. City Attorney White recommended a motion to either disapprove the item or remove it from the agenda and postponed indefinitely rather than tabled. Technically under Council rules, if a matter is tabled, it can only be removed. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to remove this item from the agenda at this time and postponed indefinitely. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 A15. A16. 123: Approving an Agreement with Ferrellgas, L.P. and the City of Anaheim to allow Ferrellgas, L.P. to sell propane gas at the Convention Center and to continue to pay the City a 15% commission for that privilege. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held December 2, 1997, December 9, 1997, and December 16, 1997. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-1 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-1 duly passed and adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. B1. ITEMS B1 - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 1997 DECISION DATE: DECEMBER 24, 1997 INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 8, 1998: 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 132, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5: OWNER: TOM HUMMELL, 1307 S. Courtright Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1307 South Courtri.qht Street. Property is 0.17 acre having a frontage 76 feet on the west side of Courtright Street, a maximum depth of 100 feet, and being located 110 feet south of the centerline of Lanerose Drive. Waiver of minimum front yard setback to construct a patio cover. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Adjustment No. 132 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-31). B2. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3980 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: BROOKHURST SHOPPING CORNER, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: GERALD T. UNTERKOETLER, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 2241 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 15.86 acre of land located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street and further described as 2241 West Ball Road. To permit on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: CUP NO. 3980 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-32). Approved Negative Declaration. END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 C1. 127: INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO REVIEW CAMPAIGN REFORM LAW: To consider the appointment of independent counsel to provide advice on Anaheim's Campaign Reform Law. The discussion was requested at the City Council Meeting of September 23, 1997, Item C2. (see minutes that date) and subsequently continued from the meetings of October 7, 1997, Item C1, October 21, 1997, Item C3, and November 18, 1997, Item C2 to this date. Shirley Grindie. She first reported that at 11:30 A.M. today, Judge Karlton issued his ruling on Proposition 208 on campaign finance reform. Not surprisingly, he has enjoined most of Proposition 208 with respect to contribution limits. He has instructed the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to go to the next court which would be the State Supreme Court and decide through that process which provisions in 208 are severable and which can be reformed and meet the constitutional requirements. He ruled that contribution limits in 208, not a local government, are unconstitutional. She has not had a chance yet to see the 43-page ruling. She understands it is on line as of 5:00 P.M. She would imagine this is coming primarily from the complaint of the Plaintiffs in the court case that contribution limits were too low at the state level to adequately get their campaign message out to the voters in California. The proponents of 208 - Californians for Political Reform Foundation and others will be filing an appeal of this decision probably within 10 days. They will ask the Appeals Court to stay this hold on 208 so that life can continue with some set of rules. This brings her to Item C1. Item C1. is contemplating having some outside counsel take a look at the Anaheim ordinance particularly with reference to contributions made to Independent Expenditure Committees. This is also in Proposition 208. She is positive that that is one of the provisions probably found unconstitutional for the time being. She would not want to see Anaheim or any local government spending any money on trying to parallel this effort to ultimately determine whether that provision is constitutional or not. Anaheim has an immediate issue at hand which she considers a flagrant violation of the provision in the Anaheim Ordinance. They have three choices -- carry forth the suit against the alleged violators, drop the suit, or hold it in abeyance until matters are decided at the higher court level. She would hope for the third option but above all urged them not to spend any more money for attorneys to look into something that other attorneys are looking into not at the City's expense. She is not grossly unhappy that the ruling went the way it did even though she supported 208. As she got into it, she realized at the State level it was going to create a tremendous problem with independent expenditure campaigns. She reminded them of the Anaheim ordinance as well as the County ordinance and other cities and they are still in effect unless action has been taken otherwise. She thanked the Council for listening. Council Member Zemel. When they discuss the issue, he will be asking that this item be taken off calendar but does not know if the Council will do so. They have been continuing it on an ongoing basis waiting for a decision on Proposition 208. Later in the meeting when the matter was discussed, Council Member Zemel noted that this item (C1.) was continued several times pending the outcome of the Judge's decision on 208. Rather than keep continuing the item, he is going to move that it be taken off calendar and any Council Member can put it back on at any point in the future. City Attorney White suggested that a similar motion be made on this item as on Item A14. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that consideration of the appointment of an independent counsel to provide advice on Anaheim's Campaign Reform Law be removed from the agenda at this time and postponed indefinitely. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 D1. 176: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 97-9A: In accordance with application filed by California Department of Transportation, District 12, 2501 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 92705., a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain easement for a portion of Hampshire Avenue at West Street, and waiving the required fees and cost for abandonment No. 97-9A. pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-230 duly published in the North Orange County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated November 19, 1997 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. City Clerk Sohl announced that a request has been received from the Director of Public Works, Gary Johnson, that due to the fact that Caltrans has not completed necessary acquisition on an adjacent parcel, that this item not be considered this evening, but removed from the agenda and it will be brought back to the Council in the future. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that this item be removed from the agenda at this time at the request of staff and postponed indefinitely. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. D2. 176: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 97-10A: In accordance with application filed by California Department of Transportation, District 12, 2501 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 92705. , a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain easement for portion of Lewis Street north of Pacifico, and waiving the required fees and cost pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-231 duly published in the North Orange County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated November 17, 1997 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works Department. This abandonment has been requested by Caltrans and is a portion of Lewis Street north of Gene Autry Way. It is in conjunction with the I-5 widening. There will be replacement roads for that area. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Lopez the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from requirements to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-2 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 98R-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF THE ACCESS RIGHTS (ABANDONMENT NO. 97-10A) Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-2 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-2 duly passed and adopted. 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 D3. 176: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 97-11A: In accordance with application filed by California Department of Transportation, District 2, 2501 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, Ca. 92705, a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain easement for portion of Katella Ave., between Haster Street and Manchester Ave. and waiving the required fees and cost pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-232 duly published in the North Orange County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated November 17, 1997 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works. This involves the realignment of Katella Avenue for the freeway widening. These abandonment's will not be finalized until the abandonment's are completed and new replacement roads provided. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from requirements to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-3 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 98R-3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF THE ACCESS RIGHTS (ABANDONMENT NO. 97-11A) Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-3 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-3 duly passed and adopted. D4. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3976 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Alexandru and Mihaela Bauer, 1861 W. Chalet Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1861 West Chalet Avenue. Property is 0.26 acre located on the north side of Chalet Avenue, 360 feet east of the centerline of Nutwood Street. To permit a board and care facility for up to 10 people in an existing 2,400 square foot single- family dwelling with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3976 GRANTED, IN PART (for eight people), and for a period of one year - to expire 11/10/98 (PC97-163) (5 yes votes, 1 no votes, and 1 absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by Howard Secof, Attorney, 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 5070, Los Angeles, Ca. 90017-3501 on behalf of area residents. Informational item at the meeting of December 2, 1997, (B4). PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - December 25, 1997. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 19, 1997. Posting of property - December 23, 1997. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 10, 1997. Mayor Daly. This item went before the Planning Commission who granted the permit for a period of one year for a board and care facility. Staff recommended denial. He thereupon asked to hear from staff before opening the Public Hearing. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. This is a State licensed facility which has been operating for over two years as a board and care facility for six persons. Under State law, the City is restricted from regulating facilities with six or less persons. The applicant has requested an increase from six to ten. The house contains 2400 sq. ft., six bedrooms, four baths. The Commission approved the permit for a maximum of eight residents for one year and a parking waiver. Six parking spaces are required and the site contains four. Several neighborhood residents voiced concern about parking at the Planning Commission meeting due to the close proximity to Modjeska Park. The applicant noted that residents do not drive and there are one to two staff persons at any one time. He and his family will be leaving the residence creating sufficient parking. He explained further for the Mayor that the applicant indicated at the Planning Commission meeting, that there would actually be less automobiles on the property once he and his family vacate the property and in their place the residents staying there would have no automobiles. He confirmed, staff stands by its recommendation based on the traffic generated. There was a traffic study indicating there would not be sufficient parking. Answering additional questions, Mr. Hastings reported/confirmed that the applicant indicated there would be no more than two staff persons at a time on the property and that the residents would not have any automobiles. Visitors would be allowed and also any other staff needed to be brought in for the care of the residents. John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. A Letter of Operation was submitted indicating there would be two vehicles for the employees and that there would also be guests. However, in this operator's experience as stated in the letter, there would be no more than two visitors at a time. Staff did not recommend approval of parking as presented. Council Member Lopez. There will be visitors as well as other vehicles and probably on weekends, many vehicles; John Lower. That was staff's concern. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing, outlined the procedure, and invited either the property owner or a representative to speak. Alex Bauer, operator of the facility. The facility has been operating for more than two years and in those two years, with six people, nobody noticed it was a board and care facility. When his family leaves the home, it will eliminate five cars so basically the house will be empty of cars. Occasionally, family members visit the residents of the facility, but more than two at one time is unusual. Some of the resident's families live in Sacramento or out of the City and come only on certain holidays three or four times a year. Basically, nothing will be changed with eight residents except the quality of care can be improved. 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 Mr. Bauer continued that since they have left, two big rooms are vacant which they can use for residents. The financial means of the people who are residents is small and with eight people, the facility will be on the positive side financially. He had requested 10 residents but eight is better. The quality of care is high. There is 24-hr. staff on duty and medical care is provided for the residents. There is not that much traffic during the week. The doctor comes once a month. Some of the residents are involved in outside programs two or three times a week. He then refuted statements previously made and submitted by residents living in the area. It is not a majority of neighbors who are in opposition, his is not a nursing home business, there is a big difference between a nursing home and board and care facility, it is very close to living a normal life, two, three or four more cars compared to the hundreds of cars which come to Modjeska Park will not make a difference, to his knowledge, the ambulance never came with the siren on, the house is completely quiet, he and his family moved because they needed more space and not because they did not want to live in the area. In concluding, he submitted pictures of the house, some of the residents, and also photos showing the residents participating in their daily activities. Public Comments- In Favor: Tillie Rivera, 17292 Euclid. She works for Mr. Bauer. The house is quiet and the only time people come to take the residents is on holidays or when they go to their homes. For the people who live there, it is like their own home and they live as other people do in their homes. The residents love the home and she loves it too. Public Comments - In Opposition: Howard Secof, Attorney, 707 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles. He knows this street very well. In 1959 along with his parents he moved into that house. He went through the schools in the area and also knows the area very well. There is a lot of opposition and a petition signed by 17 families was submitted at the Planning Commission. In the listing of his clients, 15 are located on the subject street, the 1800 block of W. Chalet. If parking, noise and all the problems his clients are concerned about don't exist, why are they present tonight. (Approximately 20 residents were present). There is inadequate parking. The petitioner cannot tell them if there will be one, two or three cars, there are no limitations on the number of visitors and they do not know whether any of his residents are able to have a car or not. This is a commercial enterprise in a residential neighborhood. There is a lack of any compelling reason to disregard the staff report, i.e., is there a shortage of such care homes in the City, is there a shortage of any other facilities that could serve in that manner. His clients are not opposed to nursing care or home care but want to know the compelling reason to grant a variance. This is a very quiet, low density neighborhood surrounded by low density. Before concluding, Mr. Secof addressed additional issues of concern to the residents specifically parking, traffic, that the City and residents are being asked to subsidize the business whereas if he obtained a commercial property that would not be the case, quality of life issues living next to a commercial care facility, disturbances from ambulances, fire trucks, etc. Looking at the depth of opposition from long-time residents, he believes the Council in all good faith needs to find with the staff report and deny the permit. Mayor Daly noted that the Council has a list of the persons who signed in opposition and are mindful of those present tonight. City Attorney, Jack White. Council has received the staff report, the copy of the Planning Commission resolution, and the correspondence dated November 26, 1997 from Mr. Secof which goes into detail about many of the concerns of the neighborhood. It is not necessary to be reiterated. Those are in the record, are part of the record of the hearing, and will be received into evidence of this hearing. Mayor Daly. Mr. Bauer will now have the opportunity to respond. Summation/Rebuttal by Applicant: Alex Bauer. He responded/rebutted to the concerns expressed. He also noted that he did not refuse to provide adequate parking. He can make very different plans to have a parking lot. He already has approved plans. He feels if he does any modification, it will look different from all the houses. It will then look like a nursing home. He does not want it and does not believe his neighbors want it. He does not feel he needs more parking space and he does not want to modify the 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 face of the house. He reiterated, it is not a nursing home but a board and care facility. The pictures show what it is. The residents are normal elderly people that do gardening, enjoy their birthdays, the back yard, or Modjeska Park. He has also provided recreational facilities in the form of two big porches which creates a lot of recreation space for the residents in the summer. In concluding, he submitted a statement containing the points of his rebuttal. City Attorney White. The photographs and hand-written statement will be a part of the record. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. He also asked staff to address the statement made relative to a modification and redesign and if that could be done without a discretionary permit. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The maximum number of residents they could have without the requested permit or some other permit is six. Any building permits would have to be in conformance with all building and zoning codes. Council Member Tait asked staff to further elaborate relative to the inadequate parking. John Lower. Eight residents would require six parking spaces. At the time the letter was submitted, 10 residents were being considered which would require eight spaces. The house has two spaces inside the garage and two in the driveway. The Letter of Operation says at any one time there will be two cars for staff and that in his (Bauer's) experience, there would not be more than two visitors at any time occupying a total of four spaces. Because code requires additional spaces and because of the concern that guests of the 8 to 10 people would be visiting and need a place to park, that was a major concern. Finally in his letter, Mr. Bauer indicates Modjeska Park, which has a big parking lot, can be used by visitors. That is not the intent of a City park parking lot. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council does hereby approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject project and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code on the basis that the Planning Commission/City Council has considered the proposal with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Monitoring Program, together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 98R-4 for adoption, incorporating the findings/reasons contained in the staff report. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 98R-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3976. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-4 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-4 duly passed and adopted. 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 D5. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3949 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 21: OWNER: SUMANBHAI N. PATEL AND NIRMALABEN S. PATEL, 426 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard - Pacific Inn Motel. Property is 0.36 acre located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 408 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. To retain a 23-unit motel. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3949 DENIED (PC97-137) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by the owner, Sumanbhai N. Patel and Nimalaben S. Patel dba Pacific Inn Motel 426 South Beach Blvd., Anaheim, Ca. 92804. Informational item at the meeting of October 21, 1997, Item B2. Owners request a hearing before a Hearing Officer at the meeting of November 18, 1997, Item D5. New Attorneys Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP, requested that this item return to City Council for a public hearing. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - December 25, 1997. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 15, 1997. Posting of property - December 17, 1997. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1997. City Attorney White. Prior to commencing the hearing, the Council has a large number of documents previously received and in front of the Council. Much of the information came from the owner's prior attorney, Had Lal, which were received at or prior to the November 18, 1997 original hearing date. Since then, in addition to the previous documentation, is staff report of September 29, 1997 and the Planning Commission Resolution (PC97-137) together with correspondence from the law firm of Chevalier, Allen and Lichman dated December 29, 1997 which is a lengthy analysis of the applicant's position as to why a permit should be granted. Also, a December 15, 1997 letter has been received by the Council addressed to his (White's) attention relating to the cancellation of the Administrative Hearing and letter dated December 26, 1997 from the PateIs indicating that there has been a change in the lessee of the property and that there will be a new manager and requesting that prior CUP 1978 be terminated. All of those have been received. His understanding is that a member of his staff previously talked to Ms. Lichman about the conduct of this hearing. She understands the process before the Council is a rather more abbreviated process than normally occurs in front of a Hearing Officer and has agreed to abide by the normal Council process in regard to Public Hearings.. Mayor Daly called for a seven-minute recess before the start of the Public Hearing; by general Council consent, the Council Meeting was recessed for seven minutes (7:15 p.m.). After Recess: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (7:25 p.m.). Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff. The following staff members spoke and their comments summarized: John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He gave a brief history of the property to amplify the efforts City staff has taken over the years to bring the property into compliance especially during the period 1992 to present when the PateIs took possession of the property. At that time, Code Enforcement started getting complaints about sub-standard housing and criminal activity. On May 15, 1995 at staff's request, the Planning Commission set a Public Hearing date for modification or termination of the 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 Conditional Use Permit. He relayed the activities that took place relative to the CUP and the decisions made by the Planning Commission and the subsequent referral of the matter to a Hearing Officer. On June 4, 1996, the Council received the Hearing Officer's recommendation, part of the recommendation being that the CUP be valid until December 18, 1996. On June 18, 1996, the Council adopted a resolution approving the Hearing Officer's recommendation with the CUP to expire on December 18, 1996. Staff did not get a renewal application from the PateIs and started notifying them by letter and in person beginning January 2, 1997. After several meetings with them and staff, they did file an application for a new CUP on May 22, 1997. The application was not complete and staff worked with them until September 29, 1997 when their application was heard by the Planning Commission. The matter was continued until October 21, 1997 when the CUP was denied. It was appealed to the City Council and a Public Hearing scheduled on November 18, 1997. The applicant requested that the matter be heard instead by a Hearing Officer which was scheduled on December 18, 1997. The owner subsequently requested that the hearing not be held by a Hearing Officer and, therefore, is back before the Council for a hearing tonight. Recently, Code Enforcement staff has inspected the property. He has distributed to the Council and Mr. Patel's Attorney pictures of an inspection that was conducted last Friday (January 2, 1998) showing what was found. The motel is primarily being operated as efficiency type apartments as evidenced by the pictures. The smoke detectors are disconnected, the reason being so that when tenants cook in the rooms, the detectors will not activate. Using the motel for permanent occupancy presents real health and safety concerns. In the documentation, they indicated they would evict permanent tenants by January 5, 1998 but they have not done so. Staff has even given them another opportunity to abate the situation but they still have not done so. He will now defer to the Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Fred Fix who will report what he found in his inspection on Friday and then subsequently Investigator, Tom Engle will speak. Fred Fix, Senior Code Enforcement Officer. He has been conducting inspections at Pacific Inn since December 18, 1996. He then briefed his findings in his January 2, 1998 inspection of the premises documented by photographs with remarks elaborating on the findings which were depicted in the photographs. (See document - Page 1 through 12 - Date of Photos - 1-2-98, Address: 426 S. Beach Blvd. - various rooms - #111 through #232 and room #23 - made a part of the record). Some of the conditions found: refrigerator, microwave and crockpot in bedroom; electric frying pan and/or refrigerator, dishes, microwave adjacent to or beside bathroom sink; exposed electrical wires on bedroom wall; disconnected smoke detectors; food stored in rooms; inoperable vehicle in parking lot, etc. Further, individuals have lived at the motel for periods of several months to over two years. Rooms are cluttered with personal belongings and there is no evidence they are being cleaned on a daily basis by maids. Tom Engle, Investigator, Police Department. At the last meeting (see minutes of November 18, 1997) he gave an overview of the activities taking place at Pacific Inn. The Police Department has not changed its opinion relative to the operation. Since April, 1992, the business has been a continuing Police problem and they have never had the cooperation of the owners or management which has gone as far as to hide wanted persons and trying to stop the Police from taking people into custody. Known drug dealers are living on the property. Over the years, there have been numerous arrests for prostitution at the location both inside and out front. They believe that the eviction notices that will be handed out will be evicting tenants from one room to the room next door. That is what happens at the motel. He confirmed for Council Member Zemel that they do have a record of that and also clarified/answered other questions posed by him (Zemel) relative to Police activities at the location. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and outlined the usual procedures to be followed asking first to hear from the applicant or the applicant's representative. City Attorney White. Before the applicant or representative comes forward, he noted that reference was made to 12 pages of photographs taken by Mr. Fix on January 2, 1998. Those have been provided to each of the Council Members and applicant's attorney. In addition, three large blow-up photographs of 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 the motel facility are in front of the dais facing the Council. All of these documents will be made a part of the record. He confirmed for the Mayor that the 14-page letter with attachments dated December 29, 1997 from Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D., Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP, Attorneys for Rakesh Patel and Pacific Inn Motel was already made a part of the record and all comments contained therein are in front of the Council. The applicant or attorney has an opportunity to elaborate on that submittal tonight but need not and would be encouraged not to repeat what has been set forth in the written documentation. Barbara Lichman, Managing Partner, Chevalier, Allen & Lichman. (Comments summarized - also see 14-page letter dated December 29, 1997 addressing the issues in detail). She represents Pacific Inn Motel leased and managed by Rakesh Patel. The appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission is made on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to support the finding that the continued operation of the Pacific Inn will result in a detrimental impact to the people of Anaheim and their health and safety. She emphasized "substantial evidence" as opposed to innuendo. She understands this is not a forum in which the rules of evidence apply. If it were, they would have some evidentiary problems with the items offered by staff and she will attempt to address those problems tonight. The second ground, even if such conditions existed in the past which they acknowledge at some point in time they did, they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Thirdly, even if that were not true, overriding questions now exist which warrant the granting of CUP 3949, specifically the incumbency of a new manager rendering all prior problems moot and irrelevant. Other points covered in her presentation: They are not entirely clear whether or not the conditions of CUP 1978 are legally enforceable, but they intend to comply; there is no evidence sufficient to warrant the denial of the CUP given the "draconian" results of that denial. Relative to the issues addressed by the Planning Commission (1) code violations, (2) purported criminal activity, (3) issue of incompetent or intransigent management, she briefed how they intend to or have remedied each concern. After addressing the first two issues in detail, she stated the bottom line is there is no evidence, the applicable word for both the Council and the Planning Commission is evidence -- not allegation or innuendo -- but evidence relating to code enforcement and criminal activity. She reiterated, there is no evidence. Relative to the issue of management, there have been some allegations by both Police and Code Enforcement that previous management refused to make changes. That may be true although Code Enforcement found all changes made in August, 1997. This is new management which never has been linked to any criminal activity. In the Police memorandum of September 16, 1997, the new manager is accused of crimes; however, she stated that accusation is demonstrably and patently false. She feels that the Police know that and when given the opportunity, they will acknowledge the fact that Rakesh Patel has never been involved in any crime, let alone any of the crimes alleged to have occurred at the Pacific Inn. It is a completely new and clean slate with a manager who has experience in the management of motels who wants to comply and has taken demonstrable steps to complete compliance. Mr. Patel also wants to install a TV security system so that the Police can see, every day of the week, what goes on at the Pacific Inn and who is doing it. Ms. Lichman concluded that the motel is the life of a number of people -- the owner, the manager of the property, and some of the people who stay there like the Pediatric Aids Foundation. If the Council makes their decision based on the evidence they have today, she believes they will not only be violating the legal rules, but will also be taking all the economic value of the property and rendering these people's livelihood a nullity. She asked that they think carefully before they do this to a completely new man who has never committed the infractions imputed to previous management. Council Member Zemel noted that the owner is the same; Ms. Lichman. The owner of the property has leased it and has moved out. The owner is the same, but not the same manager. It is a different person and different issue. She reiterated, it is the same owner. Edward Monsanto, Tactical Response. He provides security for various hotels -- Roadway Inn, Covered Wagon, Best Budget, etc. He can say that Pacific Inn is one of the cleanest motels he has worked at. He is in shock to listen to some of the accusations that the motel is about to crumble. He has been providing security for the motel for over two years and there have been no problems of criminal activity that he has encountered. They are there four days a week and at one time seven days a week. It would be a disservice to the City to completely take the motel out of service. It is one of the better hotels in the City. If they could see it they would change their minds. 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 Public Comments - In Opposition: Leonard Lahtinen, 2731 W. Savoy, Anaheim. There are several residents present from West Anaheim who for the last several years have been directing their efforts to improving their section of the City. This particular motel has been a constant problem as reported by Code Enforcement and the Police. Listening to the applicant's attorney(s), he wonders how much time they have spent on Beach Blvd. and West Anaheim to appreciate the problems this facility has posed for over five years. As Council Member Zemel pointed out, there is no change in ownership resulting in the same types of problems. For anyone to say it is one of the better hotels/motels in Anaheim is an insult to the industry in the City. As residents of West Anaheim, and there are thousands who have a livelihood they are trying to protect, they want their part of the City to be safe as well as to have productive businesses, not those that are going to detract from or drain City services and resources through the effort that has been expended. There is no reason why this business should be allowed to continue to operate in West Anaheim. Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim - Chairperson of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) made up of 11 Neighborhood Watch groups plus other interested citizens. They have been following Pacific Inn for two years and every time regulations are imposed on them, they do not follow any of them. The Police spend up to 95% of their time at badly run hotels. Their property values (West Anaheim) fell by 32% compared to 17.45% in the City. A lot of West Anaheim citizens have lost money and lost their businesses because of the activity on Beach Blvd. The citizens of West Anaheim are very angry. She wonders whether the new manager or lessee is a relative of the owner. If so, no changes will be made. She does not think the owner is interested in making any changes but it will be "business as usual" and the residents of West Anaheim are tired of it. Phyllis Greenberg, Chairperson of BBCC (Better Businesses and Concerned Citizens) in West Anaheim. She is speaking as a voice of a very close neighbor of Pacific Inn. It was stated there was no proof of criminal activity when it is actually on the record. She then relayed an incident where her home was burglarized and in the final analysis the burglar was found at Pacific Inn with the things taken from her house. She does not think there is anyone who has lived in West Anaheim near the Beach Blvd. corridor who cannot tell the difference between the motels operating under decency and those that are not. This is a blight on their community. After giving additional testimony, she stated she would like the Council to take action especially when someone does things over and over again and refuses to make amends. At this time, a Mr. Hatshad Mody asked to speak as a private citizen and representing an organization which represents Indian interests in the United States. Although there are certain problems existing on the property, they are problems that can probably be found with any property that might be inspected. He has stayed at the Hyatt Regency recently and has seen some of the problems in their bathrooms as well. There are always day-to-day problems. Indian people come to this country, work hard and with integrity to prove themselves. Also for the last three months, he has been observing Beach Boulevard himself. He rented at Pacific Inn. He stayed outside to watch and never saw one Police car going by the area. Mayor Daly stated this is the time for a summation by the applicant. Barbara Lichman. One of the witnesses said this was a last-minute resolve. She emphasized, this is a first-minute resolve since this is a new person with new ideals, new habits, new training and a resolve to get this situation cleaned up but not at the sacrifice of his livelihood and those who depend on him. They should look twice at the first minute resolve and think about the correction of those mistakes. It appears to her that the situation on Beach Boulevard is attributable to a change in demographics. It was said by a witness it was not until 1992 that she began to see strange things going on at Pacific Inn but the business was there before. The speaker linked the robbery that occurred to someone living at Pacific Inn; however, criminals live all over the place. Faulty wiring at Pacific Inn has no relationship to the fact that her home was burglarized. It does not mean it should not continue to desire to operate and improve its operations. Changes need to be made and the City is on the road to doing that through Redevelopment. Security is provided four days a week even though they do not operate under the constraints of the CUP which requires it. It is an expensive proposition, but it is done voluntarily and the business now voluntarily submits it will provide security cameras with evidence in addition to the security they already have. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 In conclusion, what they are doing by attempting to deny this use permit is putting the Pacific Inn between a rock and a hard place. It cannot get a CUP without a new owner but it cannot get a new owner without a CUP. If what they want is a new owner, what the Council needs to do is grant a CUP for six months conditioned upon the attempt to sell. If there is no successful sale and they feel the same way at the end of that time and conditions are the same and attributable to the management, at that point, the Council would be justified; however, at this point, not giving them the opportunity to try and sell takes away all economically viable economic use of that property. Council Member Zemel asked if the motel was for sale; Ms. Lichman answered it is going to be if they can get a CUP. They are leasing it. She then answered a line of questioning posed by Council Member Zemel: She prepared the lease agreement, her firm represents Rakesh Patel . The lessee, Rakesh Patel, is represented by her, the lessor, Sumanbhai Patel is not. She represents Rakesh Patel, the lessee. Rakesh Patel is the son of Sumanbhai Patel, the new management company is the lessee, the lessee is the son of the existing owner. Council Member Zemel. This is an interfamily lease and Ms. Lichman wants them to believe this is new and different. Ms. Lichman answered that she not only wants them to believe it, but is representing it to them in a public forum. Council Member McCracken. If they were to grant a CUP for six months, she asked a time estimate in which her client can take care of the evictions and the removal of all of the additional appliances which make it an Inn for residents instead of a motel. Her issue is public safety. Ms. Lichman. Evictions are governed by the law relating to evictions. They sent a letter out about eight or nine days ago. There is a 30-day waiting period. They have already contacted the Marshal. There is only one tenant refusing to go voluntarily. It would be another three weeks or so. Those leaving voluntarily will be immediately but for the recalcitrant, another three weeks. Council Member Tait. At the last hearing (see minutes of 11/18/97) the applicant or applicant's attorney requested the matter be heard before a Hearing Officer. He asked why that was not pursued. Ms. Lichman stated they were retained about one and a half weeks before the date of the hearing scheduled before the Hearing Officer. They were aware once they get a hearing, they are limited to the record created at that hearing. They did not feel they could do their client justice in that period. They asked the City Attorney for a continuance of that hearing but he correctly deferred to the City Council and said they had set a 30-day deadline. They also wanted to complete the transition to the new management which could not have been completed by the time of that hearing. They did not want to short change their client and create a record without complete knowledge of fact. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion By Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council determined that the proposed activity fall within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 21, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 98R-5 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3949 including incorporation of the findings and the reasons for the denial as set forth in Paragraphs 19 and 20 on Pg. 4 of the September 29, 1997 Staff Report to the Planning Commission as recommended by the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book. 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98R-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3949. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated he believes the Police Department and Code Enforcement staff have compiled a serious record of violations on Pacific Inn. They have also heard from West Anaheim property owners who have experienced these violations and problems and, in some cases, first hand. He is convinced they should deny the appeal. Further, the Planning Commission upon whom they rely for advice on land use and planning matters unanimously voted to deny the CUP as well. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution to deny CUP 3949. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-5 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-5 duly passed and adopted. C2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report. C3. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member McCracken. She announced one of the noted women leaders of the community, Thelma Jordan, passed away. She had been President of the Ebell Club in the 1940's, active in the Women's Division of the Chamber of Commerce, and the first woman in Anaheim history to run for Council, among other accomplishments. She is an individual who will be missed. Mayor Daly. He highlighted the remarkable numbers presented to the Council on crime statistics by the Police Department at the afternoon Workshop session where the topic was Community Policing. There have been dramatic improvements in those neighborhoods where the Police Department is focused with special efforts focused to involve the community in fighting crime. He again thanked the City Manager and all the departments who have worked with the Police to bring about the great results. Now expectations have been raised and they look forward to even more positive results. It cannot be said enough what an excellent job the Police Department is doing to turn around problem neighborhoods. 20 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1998 ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of January 6, 1998 was adjourned. (8:35 P.M.) LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 21