Loading...
2000/02/01ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Sheryll Schroeder ASST. CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole EXEC. DIRECTOR COMM. DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich ANAHEIM POLICE DEPT.: Sgt. Russ Sutter A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:55 p.m. on January 28, 2000 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing all items as shown herein. The Workshop scheduled for 3:00 P.M. on Direct Access was not held this date and is rescheduled to Tuesday, February 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to Closed Session items. PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existincl Liticlation: Name of Case: Vista Royale Homeowners Assn. v. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone Company, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74 (and related cases)· CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existincl Liticlation: Name of Case: In the Matter of David Hauk vs. City of Anaheim, United States District Court Case No. SA CV 99-711 DOC (ANx). CONFERECE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6: Agency designated representative: David Hill ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Name of employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters' Association and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 47. 4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6: Agency designated representative: David Hill Unrepresented employees: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer. Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. (3:05 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of February 1,2000 to order at 6:07 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Pastor Bryan Crow, of the Garden Church gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Lucille Kring led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,721,476.34 for the period ending January 31,2000 in accordance with the 1999-2000 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Anaheim Housing Authority meeting. (6:09 p.m.). Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting. (6:13 p.m.). ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Bruce Bottolfson, President, Anaheim Police Association. He is present to speak on the Police Wellness Incentive Program. (See minutes of January 11,200, Item A26, where the issue was discussed and then continued from January 25, 2000, Item A15. (no discussion) to February 8, 2000). He explained, over the last four contracts, they have had a provision to implement some type of wellness-fitness plan since the City disbanded the Police (annual) physical. He then gave an historical overview of the situation to the present time noting that a wellness-fitness program was to start in January 2000. It is a contractual program put together as a benefit for the employee and the maximum 12 hours off incentive for sworn Police, they believe, is the right plan. Plans in place in other cities offer hours far in excess of 12. They are looking at keeping people alive. Whatever time off they get from the program would go into their paid leave. They have spent a lot of time working on the plan, it is a contractual issue, it is not a gift but something they have worked on and negotiated for. It will be a solid and beneficial program for their employees, 220 of which are signed up even now. Mayor Daly. He thanked Mr. Bottolfson noting that the background information provided is helpful to the Council. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Jimmy Gaston, 2110 E. Virginia Ave., Anaheim (Preacher/Pastor, Church of Christ at 311 N. State College Blvd.). He read from and subsequently submitted a prepared statement portions of which are as follows: "As part of the Anaheim Religious Community Council, I was invited over a year ago to become part of the Anaheim Collaboration to assist Motel Families. This Collaboration consists of 30 or more individuals, agencies and organizations that bring their resources to bear on the plight and resulting needs of some of our fellow Anaheim residents who are living in motels. Much attention has been given to the poor living conditions of some of these folks. Much has been done by our Police Department, Code Enforcement and volunteer agencies to make the environment in some of our motels more conducive to healthy living .... However, it came to our attention today that some motel owners have not complied with the rules, the requirements in their Conditional Use Permit. The result of cracking down on these motel owners and insisting that their occupants be treated as motel guests and not as permanent apartment dwellers or clients in a homeless shelter, is leading to the displacement of some 70 families within the next three weeks just from the Seville, now Lincoln Inn." (See minutes of the Council Meeting of January 25, 2000, Item D5. - re: revocation or modification of CUP 1043 - Seville Inn, now the Lincoln Inn). The rest of his statement dealt with the plight of these families, the need for alternative housing, and mostly the problem that will occur if these families are evicted from the motel(s) due to the imposition of the 30-day occupancy limit. Mr. Gaston continued that to help solve the problem, the Collaboration suggested the following: (full text in prepared statement) - (1) direct/demand the City's Housing Authority give their full cooperation in helping the families to find suitable housing now and further that they cooperate with the Collaborative and remain in communication with it, (2) direct that any studies or work done on the issue include the Collaborative as part of its decision making and incorporation process, (3) direct the City Manager and his staff to do what needs to be done to approve and find a place for Hope Harbor (a project developed under the Orange County Rescue Mission) which is a 140-bed facility which would provide housing and training for employment for families in need. Mayor Daly asked Pastor Gaston to make the statement available to the City Manager. He is going to suggest two things with Council concurrence - relative to the immediately pressing need, i.e., the imminent dislocation of some of the affected families, to ask the City Manager to direct Housing Authority staff to do what Mr. Gaston suggested, work in cooperation with the Collaboration and keep the group apprised of anything the City can do to assist and subsequently report back to the Council. Secondly, on the longer-term items, including the Orange County Rescue Mission proposal, to also ask the City Manager to report back on status/progress of those issues. Linda Dunlap, 12020 Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, Executive Director of Project Dignity. Her field work in the past year has been at the Lincoln Inn (formerly Seville). Everyone, including herself, received a shock last Tuesday about what is going to happen to the families living at the motel (who will have to leave after 30 days). She thanked the Council for their direction in asking that Housing work with them (the Collaboration) relative to housing for the people who will be displaced. Wally Gonzales, 12152 Trask, Garden Grove, Project Dignity. Their organization provides services to about 12 motels. She is speaking on behalf of the owners who are doing a good job. She is also speaking on behalf of the families living at the motels. She then explained the hardships caused when a family is required to move every 28 or 30 days and the desparation involved. She thanked the Council for what they are going to do to help. Josie Montoya, 213 N. Helena, Anaheim. She read letter dated February 1, 2000 (submitted just before the meeting and made a part of the record - see United Neighborhoods/LULAC 3016 - February 1, 2000 - signed by Josie Montoya and Francisco Ceja). The concern expressed in the letter revolved around a benefit car wash that was held by the residents of the Jeffrey-Lynne neighborhood on Saturday, January 29 to show/give support to the family of Francisco Meza, a 10-year old boy recently murdered in an Anaheim apartment. However, "Their plans were squashed before they could put them in action. As ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 they were ready to begin, Code Enforcement Officer Doreen Sale arrived and ordered them to stop or be fined." Ms. Sale informed them the car wash was in violation of the Clean Water Act. It seemed to the residents this was "selective enforcement". The residents were not trespassing and the water was being provided by a neighbor and not the City. They are objecting to the treatment of the residents, they feel an apology is in order, and also request that the Council order an investigation of the citation given as well as Ms. Sale's conduct. Mayor Daly. He will ask the City Manager to report back to the Council as to his evaluation and analysis of what took place and if there was any wrong doing or misinterpretation of the law. Council Member Tait. If it is true that a community car wash cannot take place because of the Federal Clean Water Act that is absurd; Council Member McCracken. She is concerned because she is involved with a number of high school groups that have car washes on an ongoing basis. Francisco Ceja, 1303 W. Lynne, Anaheim. He posed questions to the Council to which he did not expect an answer at this time and supposed they would never be answered. What makes people from Jeffrey- Lynne different from the rest of Anaheim - why the residents cannot use their garages to store household items - why they cannot walk freely down the street without being stopped by a Police Officer - why they cannot park their cam on their street without limitations - why they cannot have a benefit car wash while there are so many car washes every week around Anaheim. He also questioned if this was selective law enforcement targeting one neighborhood and if Anaheim was ready to handle an eventual law suit because of the mishandling of a Federal Law by municipal law enforcement. A Police Officer who wants to enforce immigration law should be looking for a job with INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). Mayor Daly. They will be asking the City Manager to report back to the Council. This is the first the Council has heard of this incident. Linda Lee Grau, 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. No "blight rail." Reduce the size and cost of government. Give Savis Roditis his 100 cabs. Do what Rev. Wiley Drake is trying to do in Buena Park. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. James Abbott, 836 N. Richmond, Fullerton, applicant for CUP 4167 spoke at this time relative to Item D4. He asked if the Council would approve a 30-day continuance of the hearing since he found out today that the City Attorney wrote a letter to the Council saying if they voted for this, it would be illegal. Mayor Daly. Normally when items are scheduled for a Public Hearing, they ask that all comments be held until they arrive at the Public Hearing on the agenda since they are scheduled at a time specific (6:00 P.M. or thereafter). He asked to hear from the City Attorney; City Attorney White stated that the Council has the discretion to handle the item at this time since it is past 6:00 P.M. Anyone present on that item should have the opportunity to be heard. Mayor Daly asked Mr. Abbott to summarize any other reasons why he is requesting a continuance; Mr. Abbott stated so he can absorb the information he found out today that a no vote would be illegal. Mayor Daly asked if anyone else was present relative to Item D4, the Public Hearing on CUP4167; there were none. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue the Public Hearing on CUP 4167, Item D4., to Tuesday, March 7, 2000. Council Member Kring seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Public input was received on Item D4 (see discussion under that item). ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of February 1, 2000. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A7: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 2000R-16 and 2000R-17, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. AI. 156: Receive and file the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis for the month of December, 1999. 128: Receive and file the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by the Finance Director for five months ended November 30, 1999. A2. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-16 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service easements, and to set a date and time to consider abandoning that certain easement for hiking and equestrian purposes extending westerly from Ramsgate Drive and located on property commonly known as 357 Ramsgate Drive (ABANDONMENT NO. 98-18A). (Suggested public hearing date: March 7, 2000) A3. 140: Authorize the Community Services Department to accept two grants for the Anaheim Public Libraries in the amount of $65,950 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and increase the Community Services Department's Library Services Division budget in the amount of $65,950 for both revenue and expenditure in Fund 771 for FY 1999/2000. Council Member Kring. She complimented Chris Jarvi, Community Services Director and his staff for pursuing the subject grant and for being successful; Mayor Daly noted that Anaheim's original library building (corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard) was built with funds from the Andrew Carnegie Trust and now the library is being assisted by businessman Bill Gates through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A4. A5. A6. AT. 150: Approve a partial fee waiver for the Buttons and Bows Square Dance Club of Anaheim for a benefit event to be held at the Brookhurst Community Center on Sunday, March 12, 2000. 185: Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Walt Disney World Company, that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 96-01 for the 1998-1999 review period for the Disneyland Resort project. 168: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-17 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM changing the name of a portion of Romneya Drive to Anaheim Shores Drive. (That portion of Romneya Drive between La Palma Avenue and Coronet Avenue.) 123: Approve the Energy Star License Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy and the City to create a partnership to educate consumers about ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 high-efficiency Energy Star products that save energy, lead to reductions in combustion-related air pollution, and reduce consumer energy bills. 123: Approve Letter Agreement No. 26548 with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to provide funding from MWD for a maximum of 750 high efficiency washing machine rebates for a total funding amount not to exceed $26,250. 123: Approve an amendment to an Agreement with Xenergy, Inc., in the amount of $37,488, to provide administrative services for the Home Appliance Incentive Program. 123: Authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, on behalf of the City, to implement the Home Appliance Incentive Program and to execute the above referenced Agreements and the amendment and related documents and take such actions as are necessary to implement said Agreements and the amendment. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 2000R-16 and 2000R-17, for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 2000R-16 and 2000R-17, duly passed and adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. ITEMS B1 - B3 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2000 - INFORMATION ONLY, APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 4, 2000: B1. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 182 and CEQA EXEMPT (SECTION 15061 (b)(3)}: OWNER: Lee Nguyen, 946 S. Emerald Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. LOCATION: 946 South Emerald Street. Property is 0.39 acre having a frontage of 98 feet on the east side of Emerald Street, a maximum depth of 113 feet and located 222 feet east of the centerline of Agate Street. Waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet permitted; 6 feet proposed) to permit and retain a combination (6 foot high ) wrought-iron/block wall fence within the required front yard setback of a single family residence in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single -Family) zone. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 182 (ZA DECISION NO. 2000-04). Mayor Daly posed questions relative to the rationale in approving the waiver of fence height and the concern that this action might set a precedent which; the questions were answered by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator; Ms. Santalahti explained that the length of the frontage had nothing to do with the decision but rather the curvature and the line-of-sight issue to the driveways. She does not view it as precedent setting. Mayor Daly asked that she be vigilant relative to such requests. He does not want to start setting a precedent. He did receive phone calls regarding this request. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 B2. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 183, and CEQA EXEMPT (SECTION 15061 (b)(3)}: OWNER: Manuel Lopez, 1144 North Medford Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1144 North Medford Street. Property is 0.12 acre located at the northeast corner of Glen Drive and Medford Street. Waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet high permitted; 6 feet high proposed) to construct a 6- foot high block wall in the side yard of a single-family residence located on a reverse corner lot in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 183 (ZA DECISION NO. 2000-05). B3. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 184, and CEQA EXEMPT (SECTION 15061 (b)(3)}: OWNER: Syed H. Khandaker, 202 South Ash Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Amirul and Kamrun Islam, 202 South Ash Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 202 South Ash Street. Property is 0.14 acre located at the southeast corner of Ash Street and Lincoln Avenue. Waiver of minimum sideyard setback (5 feet required; 4 feet 6 inches proposed) to construct a 385 sq.ft. rear addition to an existing single-family residence in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single- Family) zone. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 184 (ZA DECISION NO. 2000-06). D1. END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS. 179: PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1322, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Sidney E. Bickel Trust, 5585-B Via Dicha, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 AGENT: Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 Sam Governale, 633 S. East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 633 South East Street. Property is 1.9 acre located on the west side of East Street, 182 feet north of the centerline of South Street (Quartz Dealer Direct). To permit and retain an automobile wholesale and retail auction facility. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 1322 APPROVED for one additional year (PC99-201) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Koos voted no). Approved Negative Declaration Informational item at the meeting of December 14, 1999, Item B4. Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, Sam Governale. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News: January 20, 2000 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 20, 2000 Posting of property: January 21,2000 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 22, 1999 relating to the request to retain an unpermitted automobile wholesale and retail auction facility. The Planning Commission in their Resolution PC99-201 approved the request for one year and added new conditions to the permit (8 through 27). The applicant appealed the decision noting ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 that conditions 8, 9, 11, 13, and 20 were unreasonable. Staff continues to recommend denial on the basis that the business should be operating on a larger property and not adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Council Member McCracken noted in the background material there is off-site parking for the business at CHOC located in the shopping center at 1215 East Lincoln Avenue (approximately one mile away). She asked how much parking the center had available for other uses and is there an agreement relative to the subject parking arrangement. Greg Hastings. There is excess parking by code - 206 spaces are required on that site and there are an additional 33 spaces in excess of code requirements. Applicant's Statement: Michael Murphy, Attorney representing the appellant, Sam Governale, the lessee of the premises. Their principal concern is the one-year time limitation. If that one-year limitation is sustained, then they have a problem with the reasonableness of several of the other conditions imposed. He referred to letter dated December 16, 1999 from J.M. Graham & Associates (previously made a part of the record) wherein Mr. John Graham outlined the time frame necessary for moving/relocating a facility such as an auto auction which, in his final analysis, he determined would take approximately two years. Mr. Murphy then gave the historical background of the business noting that it provides a valuable service to the merchants, dealers, banks and businessmen in Anaheim. It is a successful business and one that deserves to continue. They submitted a letter signed by 70 of the dealers urging the City to keep them in business. They are asking for enough time to relocate. An extension of the Conditional Use Permit from one to two years should give them adequate time. He also addressed the problems/concerns raised relative to the business especially revolving around parking in residential areas noting that procedures have been instituted that have eliminated or guarantee there will be no parking in residential areas. At the urging of Mayor Daly asking that he summarize the changes to the conditions he (Murphy) is seeking, Mr. Murphy reiterated that all other conditions would be acceptable if the one condition, an extension from one year to two years, was granted. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from those present in support of the project; there being none, he asked to hear from those in opposition. Marilyn Helm, 700 S. East Street, Anaheim, opposite the Quartz facility. She first submitted two letters - one from Claire Chainbless dated 2/1/00 asking that the Planning Commission's decision for a one-year time limit be upheld and also that the business has outgrown the facility and another from Betty Shoenet dated 2/1/00 regarding the disruption of vehicles loading and unloading in the alley, also asking that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision of one year. Speaking for herself, Ms. Helm expressed her concern relative to car carriers off-loading cars outside her door at 6:00 a.m. as well as at 1:30 and 2:30 a.m. The business has outgrown the facility and it is disruptive to and changes the "flavor" of the surrounding residential area. John Moresca, 1933 E. Palm Avenue, Orange. He and his wife own a 16,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant industrial building at 621-631 S. East Street. He and his tenants are not opposed to the subject use but to the abuse. He thereupon elaborated on the parking issues where 18-wheelers have been parked in nearby alley ways and residential streets and there have been numerous code violations and disruptions as provided in the previous Planning Commission meetings. He urged the Council to eliminate the abuses and support the Planning Commission time limit of one year. Peggy Chollet-Guibert, 1218 E. Crestbrook Place, Anaheim. She urged the Council to abide by the Planning Commission's decision. She attested to the testimony given by those who have spoken. Jo-An Burdick-Gottlieb, 1237 E. Crestbrook Place, Anaheim. She submitted and read letter dated February 1, 2000 asking that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's ruling noting that, although ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Quartz Leasing has built a thriving business, it needs a more suitable area to accommodate its growth. The negative impacts on the neighborhood are noise, parking and traffic. Mayor Daly asked for a summation by the applicant. Summation by Applicant: Michael Murphy. He addressed/rebutted the issues broached by those in opposition, i.e., off-loading of vehicles done within the guideline (Cond. 16), parking issues mitigated, etc. The bottom line for the business is that Condition No. 8 imposing a one year limit is not enough and a move cannot be accomplished in one year. All they are asking is for a reasonable opportunity to comply. There are also one or two other conditions that need to be addressed even if they are granted the extension. Condition No. 19 relative to drainage is impossible to comply with since they cannot drain water uphill; Condition No. 20 relative to hours of operation - if they are considering the loading and unloading of car transports to be part of the operation and if the Planning Commission found that suitable to have that occur up to 10:00 at night but no later and to start at 6:00 a.m, they would like to have that condition changed to reflect 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Normal operations are 8:30 to 5:00 but there will be some post-hour activity to move cars around. The Commission has found it suitable to indicate they can load and unload in the alley directly behind the facility. To the best of his knowledge, it is not occurring on East Street. He reiterated, the crucial issue is the time limit. They are asking for the opportunity to find a suitable site, get the permits and to relocate the business. One year is not enough. He then answered questions posed by Council Member Kring during which he clarified he would comply with all the other conditions except 19 and with the change to 20, that they have prepared an agreement with CHOC relative to parking but are awaiting the determination by the Council on the time limit. He also answered additional questions by Council Members for purposes of clarification relative to noise emanating from the business which he had never heard was a problem and further clarification relative to hours of operation. He does not disagree with the hours as imposed but his concern is whether the hours include the receipt and dispatching of transports. If so, an amendment is needed. Joel Fick, Planning Director. He has two suggestions. Relative to Condition No. 19, the Public Works Department had previously indicated that the condition be deleted. Relative to Condition No. 20, for clarity, it should be amended to add, "excepting the loading of vehicles" since the loading and off-loading of vehicles is covered in Condition 16 - "there shall be no off-loading of vehicles during the hours of 10:p.m. to 6 a.m.". That was the intention of the Planning Commission; Mr. Murphy. That is acceptable to them. Council Member Kring noted somewhere in the material that the City (Redevelopment) was going to help the business find another location. She would like to see that happen although she feels one year is too shod and two years may be too long; perhaps 18 months would work. Joel Fick. There was a comment in the staff report that Economic Development staff had been unable to offer relocation assistance since there weren't any properties available that could accommodate the business. Mayor Daly. He believes the proper course of action is to support the Planning Commission action. This is not an uncommon situation where, due to the growth of a business, it can no longer fit in its present location. It is also unacceptable when there is manufacturing zoning directly across from single-family residences. The single-family residential across East Street is about 45 years old and they have put up with manufacturing uses during that time. The Planning Commission action is a reasonable one. Council Member Tait. He agrees except for Condition 8. The applicant submitted a letter from an expert stating that it will take at least 20 months to relocate. He suggested perhaps 20 months instead of one year; Council Member Kring. She can support 20 months and feels the applicant will live up to the conditions and the neighborhood will be enhanced because of the improvements that are now required. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Council Member Feldhaus asked how long the business had been operating without a CUP; Mr. Fick answered, he believes it goes back to 1994 or six years; Mayor Daly reiterated his support upholding the Planning Commission's one-year time limit considering the fact that the business has been operating without a CUP for six years, the impact on the neighborhood, and the recommendation of denial by Planning staff entirely due to the iracompatibility of the business with the neighborhood. Council Member McCracken asked staff's opinion on extending the length of the CUP; Joel Fick. A critical point is that the Planning Commission resolution indicates one year from the date of their resolution. Typically Council action is one year from the date of the Council resolution which will add about 2 % months. Relative to staff's opinion, for all the reasons discussed and concerns expressed by the neighborhood, they continue to support one year from the date of the Council resolution. Council Member Feldhaus. He heard Mr. Murphy say if they do not get 24 months, he will have exceptions to the conditions imposed. He would like to hear from him; Michael Murphy. With the changes to Condition 19 and 20 as articulated, if they are given 20 months from the date of this hearing, they will comply with all the other conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Tait, seconded by Council Member Kring, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Tait offered Resolution No. 2000R-18 for adoption with amendments as follows: Condition No. 8 - changing the date of expiration of the permit from November 22, 2000 to October 1, 2001; Condition No. 19 - eliminated; Condition No. 20 - (hours of operation) add, "excepting the loading of vehicles". Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1322. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-18, for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-18, duly passed and adopted. NEW ITEM: It was at this point in the meeting that Mayor Daly acknowledged the arrival of a Boy Scout Troop and welcomed them to the meeting. He asked the Leader to identify the Troop; from the audience, the Troop Leader stated they were Troop 526 from the Maxwell School affiliated with Faith Lutheran Church. D2. 179: VARIANCE NO. 1229, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 21: OWNER: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite V, Fullerton, CA 92833 LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.3 acre located on the west side of Beach Boulevard 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Covered Wagon Motel). 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation which expired on November 17, 1999 to retain an existing 70-unit motel. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved Variance No. 1229 re-instatement for 1 year, Categorical Exemption Class 21, concurred with staff (PC99-202) (7 yes votes). Informational item at the meeting of December 14, 1999, Item B5. Letter of appeal submitted by the owner Gregory Parkin. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News: January 20, 2000 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 20, 2000 Posting of property: January 21,2000 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 22, 1999 noting that last week the Council upheld the Commission adding the identical condition to the CUP for the Seville, now the Lincoln Inn (see minutes of January 25, 2000, Item D5.). Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year reinstatement with the Planning Commission conditions left intact. He clarified for the Mayor that Planning staff is in agreement with the action of the Planning Commission. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Gregory Parkin, Applicant, Covered Wagon Motel, 823 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim. As staff indicated, the only issue or appeal point is the 30-day mandatory vacation of the motel for a period of essentially 60 days (Condition 3, Planning Commission Resolution, PC99-202). They already have a procedure at the Covered Wagon where people have to vacate every 28 days for a 24-hour period. It is an inconvenience but at least the residents know they have a place to come back to. He understands the reluctance to have someone come to a motel with the idea in mind of using it as a residence. He feels someone with that mindset would not want to come to the motel because they are looking for something of a more permanent nature such as the Seville/Lincoln Inn which has kitchenettes. He then explained the reasons why his tenants come to stay - they are mostly families, poor people but not bad people and although they do not want to live at the motel permanently, to move them around after 30 days is very disruptive, chaotic and difficult on them and especially the children who are going to school. In a sense, it is perpetuating the ongoing cycle making it difficult for the families to get their act together. He explained for the Mayor that it is not a desirable situation. There are still plenty of undesirable people bouncing from motel to motel but the families are not problem people. Those are the kinds of tenants they want; however, not on a permanent basis. He further clarified that he has a "don't rent to" list of over 500 names, the vast majority not being family people but daily renters. The names are put on a computerized list and can never come back. Mayor Daly. It sounds to him that Mr. Parkin runs a shelter for families but yet rents to others. He asked if it is a motel or an apartment; Mr. Parkin answered, it is a motel but what he is saying the trouble they have is not with families and extended-stay people but from the daily renters. When the Planning Commission granted the variance, no one in Code Enforcement asked for the 30-day limit condition. They are in full compliance. The City grants substantial property rights to the motels in general under the code which says essentially that the motels can have as many 7-day rental periods as they wish with no limitation. He could understand if they were not in compliance and their extended stays were a problem. There is no reason why he as a motel owner should have the restriction while across the street or down the street, they can operate with the property rights conferred on them by Anaheim City codes. They are in a position where they cannot compete and just want to be able to do so once the 24 hour period is over (after the 28-day stay). They are not objecting to any of the other conditions and will comply. They do not want to be put in the economic situation where the other motels around them can have seven-day renters unlimited while they only have four seven-day periods and then have to kick people out ending up with only the dailys that cause the problem. They need the extended stay lodging to survive. 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Questions were then posed to Mr. Parkin wherein he relayed the following: He has owned the Covered Wagon for 5 years, the daily room rate is $24 for two, those allowed to stay 28 days have to rent by the week at $140/week, the motel has no facilities for cooking, there is daily maid service, he would not object to a microwave (he also later confirmed he would not object to a small refrigerator as well and that the matter had been discussed with Code Enforcement who indicated that this was acceptable), no cooking is allowed in the room as posted, it is monitored by the daily maid service, while the difference in cost between an apartment rental and renting at the motel is minimal, in an apartment, utilities are not included, nor is furniiture, bedding, laundry, maid service, etc., he does not allow anybody to stay beyond 28 days but if they leave for 24 hours, they are allowed to come back and rent, mail delivery remains uninterrupted and the tenants have a continuing address. After 28 days, typically the tenants rent another room in the area. It is not a disruption, but it is an inconvenience. (During this time, Mr. Parkin also informed the Council that he owns some apartments in Anaheim and a number in surrounding cities). Council Member Feldhaus. There are 30 motels in the immediate vicinity that he is certain are catering to the same clientele. His view is that this is a very bad social problem that needs to be addressed. There are only six motels in the area that are conditioned by a CUP for staying no longer than 30 days and then having to relocate. Council Member Kring. She gathers from the discussion that the tenants are in transitional housing if it takes three to five months for them to get back on their feet (as Mr. Parkin had explained). She asked if Mr. Parkin had transitioned many of his guests into apartments; Mr. Parkin answered, yes. Council Member McCracken asked Mr. Parkin if he would consider renovating his facility and turning it into an apartment house since it sounds like that is what he is running and not a motel; Mr. Parkin stated he does not know how to do that. He knows there are single-room occupancy (SRO's) facilities. If that's a possibility, he could look at that. (Council Member McCracken noted he could not rent to families under that scenario). Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak in favor, in opposition, or those who have comments/questions. Patricia Kotter, Member of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). She has been to the motel in the past and noted that there was so much garbage/trash that receptacles were overflowing. She does not believe there is any trash pickup on weekends. Not having sufficient containers for trash would be a health problem. She also questioned if dogs were allowed at the motel since she saw huge dogs being led on a leash by people in the parking lot. She also saw cats. She is concerned if dogs are allowed in the small units. She would like the Council to ask Mr. Parkin if he is willing to live at the motel and, if so, it might motivate him to make changes faster. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND. They have worked with the Covered Wagon for several years and were told many stories about what the motel was going to do. Up to last year, nothing was done. The neighborhood is happy to see they are now complying. She emphasized that they are motels and not apartments. WAND supports the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, that residents be allowed to stay 30 days and cannot come back for 60 days. Buena Park passed a new City law in which they will only allow residents to live (at a motel) 60 days within a 180-day period. Mr. Parkin also has a Covered Wagon Motel in Buena Park. There are nine motels on Beach Boulevard on the west side and only 12 children are going to schools from the nine motels. She does not know how many are going to school from the Covered Wagon. They are also interested in having the Covered Wagon inspected six times a year according to the condition imposed. They would also like to see that improvements continue to be made at that site. Because this motel was a particularly problem motel, they would like to see the restrictions apply. A pizza parlor is being planned to replace the restaurant that left the premises and WAND would like to know whether there will be a liquor license involved. Steve Wozny, 818 S. Hayward, Anaheim. He lives right behind the Rainbow Inn and has given testimony in the past relative to the motels. He is present primarily because he is impressed with the 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 work Mr. Parkin has done at the Covered Wagon. They had been fighting that motel for a long time. He stopped at the motel today and although he did not go inside, he was impressed with the landscaping and painting they have done. He represents his neighbors and they are all impressed with the work that has been done. They are recommending that the CUP be reinstated because he is doing good work. He also referred to the proposed pizza parlor; he loves pizza but not without a beer. However, if they are going to start drinking on the premises, he questions if that will start a trend. Summation/Rebuttal by Applicant. Gregory Parkin. He would not mind living at the motel at all. There has been no allegation from anyone that it is a bad property or a run-down property. Relative to the trash overflow, they have five full-time maintenance people and will monitor the situation. They do sometimes allow pets just as the Marriott and other places. It depends on the individual and there are certain rules that must be adhered to. They do not charge an extra deposit for animals. There has never been an arrest for prostitution. (He gave some of the early history of the facility.) He stated it is not fair to look back over the years to say there have been a lot of problems. That is true, but not since he owned it. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Council Member McCracken. She would like staff's evaluation of what has happened at the motel over the past year and the reason behind the change in conditions, specifically the 30-day limit. He (Parkin) had a condition of 28 days and now has the additional condition of 30 days. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. The reason the condition was recommended and imposed by the Planning Commission is because they have found not only with Mr. Parkin but a number of other problem motels, allowing tenants to move back in just perpetuates the problem. The secondary negative effect in allowing long-term stays, food preparation begins. Hot plates are added and then tenants disconnect the smoke detector. Code Enforcement and Planning felt by imposing the total 30-day stay, it would help to assure the secondary negative effects do not come back and that the businesses operate as motels. This is one of seven motels they have recommended and where the Council or Planning Commission have imposed the condition. They have seen progress where the condition has been imposed. They are trying to change to 30 days only; otherwise, it is not getting them where they want to be for the improvements the citizens have asked for. That is why they have asked for the 30-day stay only and 60 days beyond. The motels they have brought back to the Planning Commission and Council are the ones where they were not able to get compliance. It has taken Mr. Parkin years to get the motel to where it is today. Many motels are only improved when the Commission or Council starts targeting the use permit. Extensive discussion, debate, questioning, point and counter point then took place wherein Council Member Kring expressed her support for some relief from the 30 day rule to give tenants/families enough time to get on their feet or until Housing can find appropriate low-income housing and Mayor Daly emphasizing the rationale for 30 days is the fact that the permits are for a motel and if there were no limits there is no difference between a motel and an apartment. Council Member Tait. The issue tonight is the 30-day rule. He does not see what it accomplishes other than a hardship on a lot of poor people who then go across the street to another motel, and then another motel. If the rule accomplished something, it would make sense but it accomplishes nothing. Mayor Daly. If they are concerned with families living there now, he suggested that they be given more transition time but for the future when families move in and Mr. Parkin rents rooms, it is made clear up front that 30 days is the limit. It should be operated as a motel and not as an apartment. Council Member Kring. It is a much bigger issue than the issue of motel families. She would like to see private developers come in and put in affordable housing, a mixture of different types, to enable people 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 to transition into permanent housing. The issue will not be solved tonight and imposing the 30 days is not going to solve the problem. Council Member Feldhaus. Out of 30 motels in the area, seven are on the list which have been or will be brought before the Planning Commission and Council for consideration of modification/revocation of their permits because of very poor conditions and problems and the motels were faced with the threat of losing their Conditional Use Permits. They would not be here if they had been operating their facilities properly as a motel, the additional conditions being imposed to assure compliance compelling them now to do the right thing. He would like to hear from staff on any other issues they may be overlooking. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He explained that, under California State Law, if a tenant stays on a property over 30 days, they have all the rights of tenancy the same as a house or apartment. A motel operator then has no right to evict tenants but has to go through the formal eviction process. Council Member Kring also questioned the issue of a restaurant reopening which she did not see in the material; Mr. Poole stated it was in the original CUP since 1960. They have heard rumors it is going to be reopened but staff has not seen anything further on that issue. They could open a restaurant as a matter of right. Mayor Daly. He has been dealing with land use decisions in west Anaheim for 11 years and at some point, they may do more than just react to short-term situations. They need to have a plan and a vision. No City in Orange County has done more to create varieties of housing, the irony being, the motels are surrounded by some of the most affordable apartments in Orange County. Anaheim's apartment rates are lower than other cities and especially right in the subject neighborhood. Council Member Feldhaus. During the Council Comment portion of the meeting, he was going to ask the City to take a look at the whole issue, but he believes initial steps have been made and will be further addressed as a result of the presentation/requests of Jimmy Gaston (see Items of Public Interest -- also see additional comments relative to this issue addressed under the Council Comments portion of the meeting). He also noted before conclusion of the hearing that the City has already formed a task force under the City Manager's Office to explore the options in dealing with the motels which will result in something positive. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Kring, the City Council determined that the proposed activity falls 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. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-19 for adoption approving the reinstatement of Variance No. 1229 for one year upholding the decision of the City Planning Commission including the 30-day time limit. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 1229. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Tait stated he was going to vote no because he believes the 30-day limitation should be deleted; Council Member Kring stated she concurs. Council Member McCracken. She is going to support the resolution. She then gave additional input relative to her concerns noting that motel guests are supposed to be shod term. The subject motels are 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 a real concern for west Anaheim and something needs to be done if they are going to help make a change in the area. Last week, the Council asked staff to look at the housing issue and they are in the process of doing so. They need to start helping the people in west Anaheim. They cannot continue to subsidize the motels. The businesses are not paying for schools, Police enforcement and all the other things that have caused the City to expend funds. If the owners want to turn the motels into permanent housing, they have to sit down with staff to see what needs to be done. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-19, for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-19, duly passed and adopted. D3. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1550 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: John Pedicini, P.O. Box 15033, Newport Beach, CA 92659 AGENT: Alex Burrola, 1747 South Douglass Road, Suite B, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1755 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.4 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 650 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (El Rey Del Marisco Restaurant). To permit the expansion of an existing restaurant with the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved expansion of Conditional Use Permit No. 1550 for one year (to expire December 6, 2000) (PC99-217) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Boydstun absent) Approved Negative Declaration Informational item at the meeting of December 14, 1999, Item B20. Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Mayor Tom Daly and Council Member Frank Feldhaus. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News: January 20,2000 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 20, 2000 Posting of property: January 21,2000 Mayor Daly. He asked that this item be set for a Public Hearing but upon further review, a visit to the site and talking with staff, his questions have been answered. He was concerned with parking and landscaping but realizes that the expansion is relatively minor and also because it is for only one year, his desire to see more change on the property is probably not possible. He noted that the applicant was present in the audience. He (Daly) stated his concerns about the application have been answered by City staff. He apologized for any delays; Council Member Feldhaus confirmed that he did not have any concerns but seconded the Mayor's request to set the matter out of courtesy. Council Member Kring asked if it is a year from today's date. Mayor Daly asked to hear from the applicant relative to the one year; the applicant (no name given) answered that the (Planning Commission) resolution was adopted on December 6, 1999, and one year from that date is sufficient time (December 6, 2000). 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Mayor Daly asked if anyone was present to speak on this matter; no one was present. He thereupon closed the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-20 for adoption as approved by the Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1550. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-20, for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-20, duly passed and adopted. D4. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4167 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT- CLASS 3: OWNER: Coast Advertising Inc., Attn: James Abbott, P.O. Box 5502, Fullerton, CA 92838 LOCATION: 2590 East Cerritos Avenue. Property is 0.64 acre located on the south side of Cerritos Avenue, 280 feet east of the centerline of Sinclair Street. To construct a new billboard with waiver of (a) prohibited location of freeway-oriented billboards, (b) maximum sign height and (c) prohibited signs. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 4167 GRANTED, for 10 years, to expire 12/31/2009 (PC99-227) (4 yes votes: Bostwick, Boydstun, Napoles and Vanderbilt; 2 no votes: Commissioners Bristol and Koos; and Commissioner Arnold absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Informational item at the meeting of January 11, 2000, Item B4. Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Mayor Tom Daly and Council Member Shirley McCracken. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News: January 20, 2000 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 20, 2000 Posting of property: January 21,2000 See discussion under the Public Comments portion of the agenda where a motion was approved continuing the subject Public Hearing to March 7, 2000. C1. Discussion/action requested by Council Member Tait at the meeting of January 25, 2000, Item C3, with regards to taking the profits from the Resort Area and placing those revenues into a separate/segregated account reserved to invest in neighborhoods as was intended. 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Council Member Tait. He referred to the Resort Area and the City's investment in that area and all the work that has/will be done. Now that there is a "light at the end of the tunnel", they will be seeing a return on that investment. They intended the proceeds derived from the investment be spent in the City's neighborhoods. He suggested that they ask staff to create a separate accounting fund for those profits to insure that they are invested in the neighborhoods and not end up in a "black hole". MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to ask the City Manager to report back to the Council with a device for a separate category of funds characterized as the new and additional revenues from the Resort Area. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated they would be interested in any other thoughts the City Manager would like to add. The sooner they see his recommendation and set up the fund, the better. He would like to see it happen in advance of the upcoming budget so they can gear up for it. Council Member McCracken. The kinds of things that could be designated are additional parks, additional cleanup, things that will change neighborhoods all across the City - quality of life issues so that the whole City benefits from the advantages of the Resort Area. Suggestions from the City Manager would be welcome as well. Mayor Daly. A few years ago, the Council asked staff to set up a neighborhood fund and funded it at a half-million dollars a year. They could also direct some of that money to enhance the neighborhood fund for parks, projects or other programs. The key is to set the money aside. Council Member Tait. He would like to put an "accounting wall" around the fund and call it the Resort Neighborhood Fund. It is formalizing what the Council intended with the investment in the Resort Area; Mayor Daly. It is a return for all the inconvenience that has occurred and the reward they were all hoping for. The City Manager has given them some budget projections and they look forward to the City Manager's recommendations. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Tait: There was a hearing today in Sacramento on the 91 Corridor. He appreciates staff's involvement in monitoring that issue. It is of vital importance to the City of Anaheim linking the Inland Empire to Anaheim. He would like to ask staff to continue monitoring that issue. Mayor Daly. On that subject, he met with some Anaheim residents today who have been seeking a sound wall on the south side of the 91 Freeway near the 55 Freeway. One of the advertised benefits of the sale of the 91 Freeway lanes to the non-profit, which did not happen for a variety of reasons, was that the non-profit would spend some of the revenues from the 91 toll lanes in the surrounding community to improve the corridor. Unfortunately for Anaheim, the 91 express lanes did not provide any benefit to Anaheim. When the lanes were installed, Anaheim did not receive enough mitigation, i.e., landscaping, sound walls and other tradeoffs for having a wider, busier, and noisier 91 Freeway. In monitoring the situation, he asked that staff look for an opportunity to ask for those amenities and to advise if the Council needs to take an action to convey that to Sacramento (Caltrans). At a minimum, they should ask for landscaping on the 91 Freeway and all the sound walls the community would like to see happen. Council Member Tait. He asked that the issue be agendized for the next Council Meeting and ask staff to submit a report and be prepared for a presentation on the issue. 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Council Member Feldhaus: Relative to the Task Force on the motel issue, he suggested that there be a liaison member from the Council and he would like to be that member. (Council Member Kring indicated that should she like to do that as well). City Manager Ruth. They would be happy to include any member of the Council; Mayor Daly asked the City Manager to summarize all the pieces of the undertaking and the Council can then decide at that time. It is a good idea but he (Daly) would like to know more. Council Member Feldhaus. He is very sensitive to people displaced from the motels and considers it a social ill which needs to be addressed. He would like to give his time to address the issue. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council adjourned the Council Meeting of February 1,2000 (9:25 P.M.). SHERYLL SHROEDER CITY CLERK 18