2000/03/21ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21, 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
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at March 17,
2000, at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Pro Tern, Shirely McCracken called the workshop portion of the meeting of March 21, 2000 to
order and welcomed those in attendance. (Mayor Daly entered the Council Chamber at 3:18 p.m.).
City Manager James Ruth introduced the workshop requested by the Council on the proposed Charter
amendments. He noted that each Council Member had a packet of recommendations from the Charter
Review Committee and that City Attorney Jack White would lead the discussion.
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS:
City Attorney White explained that the Charter Review Committee completed their work about 30 days
ago and transmitted to the Council 33 recommendations on possible Charter amendments. He said the
recommendations had been provided, along with an index of the changes and red lined copies, showing
how the changes would affect the current Charter language. He said the index listed the attachments in
order of the Anaheim Municipal Code section numbers and were not necessarily in order of importance
as selected by the Charter Review Committee.
Mayor Daly noted they also had the minutes of the Charter Review Committee and he asked if there
were any recommendations by the Committee that were not unanimous.
Mr. White responded that the only one he recalled which was not unanimous, which did not mean there
were not others, was the increase to the Council compensation. He said he thought that was 6 ayes to 1
nay, he would check the minutes, but most of them were unanimous.
Mayor Daly asked if the City Attorney was of the opinion that some of the proposed amendments could
be packaged under one amendment. The City Attorney replied yes, he believed the attachments marked
14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33 and the gender changes, if Council desired, could be packaged
together since they were all technical language changes. Ten of the 33 could be bundled together.
Council Member McCracken noted that there were some recommended amendments to conform to state
law and she asked if it was possible to consolidate them.
City Attorney White said that could be done. He added that the Council had sole discretion on how they
wished to handle the amendments.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Council Member Tait asked which proposed amendments were recommended by staff.
City Attorney White responded that he did not have them organized that way. The amendments initiated
by the Charter Review Committee were 1, 2, 3 A and B, and the general amendment for gender neutral
change. He explained the remainder were recommendations or suggestions by City departments.
Council Member Tait asked if there was a distinction between recommendations and suggestions. He
asked, aside from the 4 mentioned, if it would be safe to say the staff recommended the reminder and
Mr. White replied yes. Mr. White added that other than the 4 that were initiated by the Committee, the
staff recommended to the Committee the others, plus there were 5 others that the staff had
recommended related to the binding arbitration issue that were not approved by the Committee.
Questions were then posed by Council Members and answered by Mr. White relative to the
recommendations initiated by the Committee and those recommended by staff, how that process
evolved, and a specific question relative to whether or not one of the recommendations, i.e. prohibiting
City employees from holding elected office, was legal. Regarding the latter, after briefing provisions of
State law, the City Attorney noted the provision had been part of State law for about 3 years and thus far
it had not been challenged. He also confirmed that he felt comfortable that it would be defendable if the
voters ultimately adopted it and also felt the same regarding all the recommendations.
City Attorney White also clarified that relative to recommendations to make the Charter conform to State
law, the City is required to follow State law whether the Charter has a conflicting provision or not;
however, he said he would not recommend changing issues specifically of local concern, even though in
conflict.
Council Member Kring, referred to recommendation 12, "Amend to avoid decrease in transfers to City
general fund if utility customers elect to directly purchase electric power from another energy provider;
permit City Council to consider cost of service, market prices and other relevant marketplace factors
when setting utility rates." and she asked, if the City lost some of their customers due to direct access,
could they increase utility rates to accommodate the loss of revenue.
Mr. White stated that with regard to recommendation 12, there was a late breaking recommendation. He
said after the Charter Committee made their recommendations, he had further meetings with the staff in
the Utilities Department to determine whether the changes were essential based on the workshop the
Council held on direct access. After the workshop, he felt some of the suggested language could
probably be eliminated. In regard to Attachment 12, the first portion that redefines gross sales relating to
electric energy credits, paragraph (e), that change did not need to be made. He added that the only
language that appeared to be important to the Utilities Department is the language in the last paragraph
that would allow rates to be set based upon items other than cost of service, in order to remain
competitive in the open market arena.
After additional discussion and in concluding the subject, Mr. White stated that the new recommendation
was not to make the change that is currently in the first paragraph under (e) and added he would provide
Council with a revised version. Further, since the topic was technical, possibly the Council would like to
defer the discussion until someone from the Utilities Department could attend to help explain it and
Council Member Kring said she would be interested in that forum.
City Attorney White then explained for Council Member Kring that relative to the discussion and
recommendation regarding Council compensation, the way the process worked, the Committee
discussed the changes, took a vote, made the tentative recommendations and then scheduled the 3
public hearings. After the public hearings, the Committee did not go back and vote on every item; they
only revised ones that they chose to bring up.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
With regard to term limits, because there was a great deal of public discussion on the issue, the
Committee, while they continued to support repealing the entire provision, offered an alternative listed as
3 B, a separate 8 year limit for the offices of Mayor and Council Member. Mr. White further clarified that
the Committee felt there should be no term limits but could foresee that putting a measure on the ballot
to simply delete term limits might have a difficult time passing. In that case, they wanted to allow for
greater latitude than present, i.e. allowing up to 16 years of consecutive service, 8 as Council Member, 8
as Mayor, but not serving more than 8 consecutive years in either office.
Mayor Daly asked if the Committee's unanimous recommendation was to drop term limits entirely. Mr.
White confirmed that was correct.
Council Member Tait asked the City Attorney if the binding interest arbitration items were presented as
alternatives.
City Attorney White responded that they could all be placed on the ballot, could be lumped together, as
individual matters, they were not intended to be alternatives where only one would be picked.
Council Member Tait asked if any of the proposed recommendations to the Charter lent themselves to a
fiscal impact disclosure statement.
Mr. White said probably most of the recommended changes had no or minimal fiscal impact. The ones
that would have impact were the binding interest arbitration provisions. He said he was not sure the City
knew how to quantify it, but staff could try to provide that analysis to Council.
Council Member Tait stated he was also interested in an analysis on the utility recommendations.
Responding to a question from Council Member McCracken, Mr. White explained that relative to the
number of votes required to take a Council action, the Charter was set up to allow actions to be taken by
majority of a quorum, or 2 out of 3 Council Members, unless a higher vote is provided specifically in the
Charter. Currently a higher vote is not provided for approval of contracts. The Charter states it requires
3 votes to adopt a resolution, an ordinance and for orders for payment of money.
A discussion then followed revolving around a situation that occurred some time ago relative to the hiring
of a Special Prosecutor and the fact that the contract was originally approved with only 2 yes votes and 3
Council Members either not voting or legally not able to vote at that time due to pending litigation. The
discussion by the Committee centered around the desire not to have that type of situation arise again
due to conflicts or members not being present.
Mr. White said this was an outgrowth of the hiring of the special prosecutor and the fact that contract was
originally approved with 2 yes votes and 3 members either not voting or legally not able to vote and so
the discussion centered around the desire of the Charter members not to have that type of situation arise
again due to conflicts or members not being present.
City Attorney White explained that was covered by the Political Reform Act under the Rules of Necessity,
which he explained. He also explained what would occur under other scenarios presented by Council
Member Tait.
Mayor Daly asked if there were any recommendations with regard to hiring a special prosecutor and City
Attorney White responded no.
Mayor Daly then stated he was inclined to support the 3 yes votes for adoption of a contract. He
suggested that an amendment could be included in the ballot language to remove the conflicting
language from the Charter. He asked Council to consider asking the City Attorney to develop language
that would prohibit the hiring of a prosecutor to investigate City Council Members, but still allow the City
the option of using outside attorneys to prosecute matters in which the City was a party to a law suit.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
He asked the City Attorney to lay out the implications of deleting it entirely from the Charter or modifying
it to allow the City to use outside counsel for certain City Attorney functions related to the City's
prosecution arm at North Court.
City Attorney White stated he would bring back a report on the subject.
After additional discussion on the issue, Mayor Daly asked why he was not recommending that the
language be removed from the Charter. Mr. White said it was a timing issue but he could prepare
language to do so. Both Mayor Daly and Council Member Feldhaus stated they would support that
change.
Council Member Tait asked if there was a legal reason for the City to change the Charter. He gave as an
example, if the voters turned all amendments down, was there anything that had to be changed.
Mr. White said if the Charter were not in concert with state law, the City would have to follow state law.
A follow up workshop was set for March 28, 2000 at 3:00 P.M. wherein the City Attorney will address
language relative to Special Prosecutors and have the Utilities Department and Human Resources staff
address their issues.
The workshop adjourned at 4:15 P.M.
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) - Existing Litigation:
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).
LIABILITY CLAIM:
Claimant: UMA Engineering, Inc.
Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code
Section 54956.9: one potential case.
Existing facts and circumstances: Threatened litigation by Vista Media Group, Inc.,
concerning a condition of Conditional Use Permit No. 4148 as approved by Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC2000-13 relating to an existing nonconforming billboard. Public
hearing scheduled for March 21,2000 (Agenda item C4).
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT
SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Name of employee organization: IBEW, Local 47.
TO GOVERNMENT CODE
5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code
Section 54956.9: one potential case.
Existing facts and circumstances: Receipt of a bid protest concerning the nonresponsive bid
of Lambco Engineering, Inc., and the proposed award of the contract of the R.J. Noble Company
relating to the Lincoln Avenue Street Improvement Project which is Item A5 on the Council
agenda.
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (4:17 p.m.).
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of March 21,2000 to order at 5:46 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Dr. Kent D. Lawrence, from the First Presbyterian Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Lucille Kring led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following Proclamation was issued and authorized by the City Council:
Designating April 1, 2000 as Census Day in Anaheim
Mary McCIoskey, Deputy Planning Director and City Census Coordinator first introduced several
members of the Complete Count Committee: Esther Wallace, Francisco Ceja, Mary Hibbard, Mike
Neben. Also present was Arnold Landau, Local Census Office Manager of the Regional Census Bureau.
Mrs. McCIoskey reported on the activities of the Committee and the outreach programs in place to assist
all residents to participate in the Census and especially in encouraging them to fill out and return their
Census form. (Census Hotline No. - 714-348-1618). She subsequently recognized Lucy Yeager, Project
Manager as well as Kim Cervantes and Bill Bauer, those responsible for making the program "happen."
Mayor Daly and Council Members thanked all those involved in this very important process.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council Meeting until after the Redeveopment Agency and Housing
Authority Meeting. (5:59 p.m.).
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting. (6:04 p.m.)
Public Comments - Items of Public Interest and/or Aqenda Items:
Mary Hibbard spoke on Item A21. See discussion under that item.
Mark Langevin, 2100 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim -Internal Organizer, Service Employees International
Union (SEIU), Local 1877. (Also see minutes of 2/15/00 - Items of Public Interest -where Mr. Langevin
gave input relative to the workers at the Anaheim Convention Center.) The Convention Center has been
expanded to a world-class facility but SEIU believes it is below typical standards for public employment.
He then expanded on the reasons why, specifically that their members/employees are underemployed in
the hours worked so that they cannot qualify for health insurance and the California State pension. At
least 40% of their facility service employees are without health insurance. After additional comments, he
introduced two of their elected Union Members who then further elaborated on the issues outlined by Mr.
Langevin - Richard Martinez and Maggie Martin; Mr. Martinez addressed the lack of medical insurance
and eligibility for a pension due to the fact that employees are not scheduled enough hours to qualify.
Ms. Martin, speaking on behalf of the nurses at the Convention Center, expressed their continuing
opposition to the resolution adopted on September 24, 1999 (see minutes of February 15, 2000) phasing
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
out registered nurses at the Convention Center and creating a classification for EMT's in their place. She
also elaborated on the requirements necessary for both classifications noting what the nurses consider
an enormous "gap" between the two as well as what they would like to see happen but specifically
rescinding Resolution No. 99R-189 effective September 24, 1999.
Mayor Daly. He explained the Council takes their comments and feelings seriously. They have
discussed with the City Manager a lot of the ongoing issues at the Convention Center and will continue to
discuss those labor issues as well as the budgetary issues. The Convention Center is an expensive and
challenging operation for City government and all of the issues have to be balanced against the realities
of balancing that budget.
Najee Williams, General Manager, Parkway Inn, 916 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim CA 92804. He is
President of the West Anaheim Hotel and Motel Owner's Association, WAMOA, and also manages the
Parkway Inn. He has been asked by the members of the Association to present their mission statement
to the Council. He thereupon read the statement of the West Anaheim Motel Owner's Association which
included their goals and objectives also addressing City issues to be developed by WAMOA and what
the organization, in turn, wants from the City.
Mayor Daly thanked Mr. Willlares for sharing the mission and goals of the Association with the Council.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,260,992.51 for the period ending
March 13, 2000 and $2,200,113.01 for the period ending March 20, 2000 in accordance with the 1999-
2000 Budget, were approved.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be
acted upon for the Council meeting of March 21, 2000. Council Member McCracken seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A33: 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-43 through 2000R-48, both inclusive, for
adoption. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance Nos. 5720 through 5722 for introduction. Refer to Resolution
Book.
A1. 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 Jose Acevedo, c/o Law Office of Kuhn & Belz for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 13, 1999.
b. Claim submitted by Miguel A. Baca, a minor by and through his Guardian, Flor P. Hunter, c/o
Phillips, Lazarus & Associates for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about July 9,1999.
c. Claim submitted by Gae Cappanelli, c/o Jeffrey Q. Steinman, Esq. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 13, 1999.
d. Claim submitted by Ventura M. Cardenas for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 12, 1999.
A2.
A3.
A4.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
e. Claim submitted by Thomas Dale for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about January 25, 2000
f. Claim submitted by Tanea Douglas, c/o Law Offices of Paliwoda & Paliwoda for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 7, 1999.
g. Claim submitted by Chanel Dunn for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about October 7, 1999.
h. Claim submitted by Melissa Grossman, c/o Edward A. Graham Jr., Esq. property damage &
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 28, 1999.
i. Claim submitted by Gray Kilmer for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about January 7, 2000.
g. Claim submitted by Cristobal Martinez, c/o Patrick R. Coffey, Esq. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 12, 1999.
h. Claim submitted by Roberta Rees for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about December 31, 1999.
i. Claim submitted by Jose Roman, c/o Howard C. Crane for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about May 24, 1999.
j. Claim submitted by Southern California Edison Co., Attn. Anna M. Torres for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 3, 1999.
105: Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held February 3, 2000.
105: Receive and file minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held February 2,
2000.
174: Receive and file an Order Directing Compliance Filing before the United States of America
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission directing public utilities to submit compliance filings
dealing with the unbundling of their existing coordination contracts and dealing with revisions to
their open access transmission tariffs.
174: Receive and file correspondence before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
regarding an Offer of Settlement addressing generic terms and conditions for Participating
Generator Agreements.
174: Receive and file correspondence before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of Tariffs and Rates regarding Docket No. ER98-2184-003, et al.
169: Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, All American Asphalt, in the amount of
$245,389.03 for Lincoln Avenue street improvements, Rio Vista Avenue to east city limits, and
approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract
retentions.
107: Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Sedcon Engineers, Contractors, Inc.,
in the amount of $2,073,188 for demolition and reconstruction of Fire Station No. 6 - Euclid
Station, and approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign the Escrow Agreement
pertaining to contract retentions.
A5.
A6.
A7.
A8.
A9.
A10.
All.
A12.
A13.
A14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
169: Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R. J. Noble Company, in the amount
of $3,237,763.08 for the Lincoln Avenue street improvement, State College Boulevard to East
Street, and approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign said agreement pertaining to
contract retentions.
158: Approve the Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1429 North State College
Boulevard for the State College Boulevard/SR-91 Freeway project (R/W 5175-07), authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement and authorize the acquisition payment of
$16,108 to R.C.C. Limited Partnership.
158: Approve the Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1927 East Rosewood
Avenue for the State College Boulevard/SR-91 Freeway project (R/W 5175-09), authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement and authorize the acquisition payment of
$2,000 to Wahid R. Ibrahim and Therese Ibrahim.
123: Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and
City of Anaheim Cooperative Agreement No. C-0484 to transfer funding from OCTA to the City
for improvements on Harbor Boulevard between Manchester Avenue and Disney Way
(Freedman Way).
158: Approve the Property Exchange and Settlement Agreement and Escrow Instructions for
100 and 130 West Katella Avenue (R/W 5180-46A & B, 5180-47 & 5180-48) for the Katella
Avenue Smart Street Improvements project, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Settlement Agreement and Escrow Instructions and authorize the acquisition payment of $32,000
to Grover Escrow.
179: Adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the construction and widening of
the Katella Avenue/Stadium Entrance intersection.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-43 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service
easements, and setting the date and time to consider abandoning that certain easement for
public utility purposes extending easterly from State College Boulevard, said easement
extending parallel to and northerly of Katella Avenue. (Abandonment No. 98-4A.) (Suggested
public hearing date: April 18, 2000.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-44 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties or interests therein to
the City. (City Deeds 10269 - 10276.)
105: Receive and file minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held
January 7, 2000.
130: ORDINANCE NO. 5720 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving the Second Amended and Restated Franchise for collection, handling,
transportation, processing, recycling and disposal of City solid waste to Taormina Industries,
LLC.
106: Approve an appropriation increase to the Department of Public Works, FY 99/00 Solid
Waste Program budget in the amount of $1,009,577.
130: ORDINANCE NO. 5721 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending certain provisions of Chapter 10.10 of Title 10 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to solid waste collection and disposal.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
A15.
160/123: Waive Council Policy 401 and authorize a contract with John James Nicoletti, dba
Nicoletti Communications, Inc., in the amount of $36,500 to perform certain public/community
relations activities supporting the enhanced solid waste programs.
A16.
160: Accept the bid of Sico North America, Incorporated in the amount of $82,235 for portable
staging and accessories at the Convention Center in accordance with Bid #6004.
A17.
160/123: Accept the bid and authorize the execution of an Agreement with Empire Maintenance
Company, Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $684,550 a year for custodial services for a
two-year period with five one-year options to renew beginning April 1, 2000 in accordance with
Bid #6001.
A18.
160: Authorize the issuance of a change order to Integrated Power and Lighting to increase the
not to exceed amount by $3,280.02 for a lighting retrofit at the Maintenance facility, bringing the
total purchase order to $94,921.02.
A19.
160: Authorize the issuance of a change order to CST, Environmental, Incorporated, to increase
the not to exceed amount by $15,000 for asbestos and lead abatement at the Convention
Center, bringing the total not to exceed amount to $474,690 in accordance with Bid #5764.
A20.
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to proceed with the Anaheim Resort Neighborhood
Improvement Program - Neighborhood Identification and Enhancement Project in the area
bordered by Ball Road, Anaheim Boulevard, and the I-5 Freeway, and to administer the project
on behalf of the City.
Council Member McCracken. She would like to continue this item to have some opportunity to meet with
the City Manager regarding the Neighborhood Improvement Program and the type of neighborhood
identification. Since this would be the first such project, she feels they need a long-range plan in place
before moving forward. She has a concern relative to the particular method of identification and would
like to postpone a decision for one week to afford an opportunity to meet with the City Manager.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to continue Item A20 for one week. Mayor Daly
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A21.
179: Direct the Planning Commission to initiate a hearing to review Conditional Use Permit No.
1043 for the Lincoln Inn and Variance No. 1229 for the Covered Wagon Motel to determine
compliance with conditions of approval and to consider modification of the conditions including
the 30-day in 90-day occupancy limitation.
Direct staff to develop for Planning Commission/City Council consideration a modification to the
Conditional Use Permit at the Lincoln Inn and the Variance at the Covered Wagon Motel that
would provide for an orderly transition of the motels from long-term occupancy to their original
intended uses. Such modifications could "grandfather in" current long-term occupants for six
months and not allow new long-term occupants to move in, effective upon implementation of the
modifications.
Direct staff to develop for Planning Commission/City Council consideration a new ordinance that
would provide for the option of conversion of motels to long-term occupancy use based on
certain living/amenity and operational standards being met.
Direct staff to provide full facilitation for public and private assistance to those families impacted
by any transition resulting from the new ordinance or from the imposition of conditions on
entitlements.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Direct staff to explore land use strategies as identified in this report.
Mary Hibbard, 200 S. Wayside, Anaheim, speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Collaboration. They have
been meeting since October of 1998 and have diligently and quietly made a difference in the lives of
motel families. She thanked the Council and City staff for their support of the Collaboration's
recommendations made a few weeks ago (see minutes of January 25, 2000) for their involvement in this
issue and for addressing a myriad of issues and workable recommendations in which everyone is a
winner. She then referred to and commented on the Motel Task Force Interim Report dated March 21,
2000 to the City Council/City Manager from the Assistant City Manager, Dave Morgan (made a part of
the record) first noting that the Collaboration has agreed to and gives full support to the report. During
her comments she noted the report mentioned SRO's (single room occupancy facilities) as a possibile
solution to the affordable housing dilemma. What the Collaboration is suggesting is "FRO", Family
Rooms Occupancy housing which would be an in-between housing possibility. It would be regulated
with high standards and management like that of the SRO and would be affordable for low-income
families. In concluding, she thanked the Council/City for allowing the Collaboration to be partners on this
issue.
Council Member Kring posed questions to staff for purposes of clarification which were answered by
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager. If the Council gives direction tonight to pursue the whole
package of recommendations, priority would not be given to implementing the 30-day/90-day
requirement until they get final policy resolution.
Council Member Kring. Her concern is with the 30-day/90-day rule and would like to remove that piece
of the puzzle and look at the other options; Dave Morgan. If the Council directs staff to look at policy
options, they will put that aside until they get final direction in that regard.
Council Member Tait. He believes the recommendations are moving in the right direction and is
supportive but believes they should not have passed a 30-day ordinance in the first place. He asked if
staff's plan is to expand the 30-day ordinance to other motels; Dave Morgan. The Task Force is not
done with that issue at this time.
Mayor Daly. As he understands, the Planning Commission will be asked to look at a grandfathering
process where current tenants will be given more than 30 days but from some specified time in the
future, all future residents of motels would be told very clearly when they first move in that there is a 30-
day limit and will return to the Council for final action; Mr. Morgan confirmed that was correct and it is
anticipated that it will be back to the Council in 60 days.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the actions listed under Item A21 as recommended. Council
Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A22.
123: Authorize the amendment of a contract with the Orange County Fire Authority allowing the
City of Anaheim Fire Department to provide service to a small unincorporated area in southwest
Anaheim, extending the service agreement through June 30, 2000 at a cost of $21,206 for the
99/00 fiscal year.
A23.
153: Approve the 2000 plan rates for Standard Long Term Disability insurance plan and
authorize the Human Resources Director to sign all required renewal documents on behalf of the
City of Anaheim.
A24.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-45 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the terms and conditions of
employment for employees in classifications assigned to the Anaheim part-time Customer
Service Employees Unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 47.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
A25.
Approve the Ticket Consignment Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Disneyland, A
Division of Walt Disney World Company, authorizing the Anaheim Convention Center staff to
sell Disneyland Park Passpods on consignment to guests attending events at the Anaheim
Convention Center.
A26.
123 Approve the Agreement for Allocation of Grant between the City of Anaheim and the
County of Orange in an amount not to exceed $48,040 for participation in Census 2000 public
outreach and education activities.
A27.
179 RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-46 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM waiving notice of a sublease agreement by the County of Orange of certain property
located in the City of Anaheim at 2450 East Lincoln Avenue.
A28.
179: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-47 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM waiving notice of rent-free lease by the County of Orange of certain property located
in the City of Anaheim at 2911 West Stonybrook Drive.
A29.
179: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-48 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM waiving notice of lease by the County of Orange of certain property located in the City
of Anaheim at 1147 North Anaheim Boulevard.
A30.
173: ORDINANCE NO. 5722 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Section 4.72.045 of Chapter 4.72 of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to taxicabs (Taxicab Decals Required).
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager clarified questions posed by Council Member Kring noting that
this item is merely a "housekeeping" measure to clear up the enforcement problem that now exists. This
action will now enable enforcement action on the driver.
A31 a. 123: Approve a Joint Trench Agreement with TCG - Los Angeles to permit joint trenching and to
share construction cost for Underground District No. 34 - Brookhurst/Crescent.
A31b. 123: Approve a Joint Trench Agreement with ICG Telecom Group, Inc. to permit joint trenching
and to share construction cost for Underground District No. 34 - Brookhurst/Crescent.
A31 c. 123: Approve a Joint Trench Agreement with TCG - Los Angeles to permit joint trenching and to
share construction cost for Underground District No. 35 - Citron Street.
A31d. 123: Approve a Joint Trench Agreement with ICG Telecom Group, Inc. to permit joint trenching
and to share construction cost for Underground District No. 35 - Citron Street.
A31e. 123: Approve a Joint Trench Agreement with Adelphia Communications Corporation to permit
joint trenching and to share construction cost for Underground District No. 35 - Citron Street.
A32.
123: Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute agreements with
CIVILTEC Engineering, Inc.; DMC Engineering; KFM Engineering, Inc.; The Keith Companies,
Inc.; Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates; Merit Civil Engineering, Inc.; and Van Dell & Associates,
Inc. to provide professional civil engineering services and/or easement/land acquisition services
for the City.
Council Member Tait asked for clarification that for any contract above $25,000 it will come before the
Council; City Manager Ruth answered, absolutely.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
A33.
114: Approve minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held February 15, 2000, and
March 7, 2000.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 2000R-43 throuclh 2000R-48, both inclusive, 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 Nos. 2000R-43 through 2000R-48, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A34.
123: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT -
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY: To consider and act upon
proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
creating the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to add the City of Rancho Santa
Margarita as a voting member of the Agency.
Submitted was report dated March 10, 2000 from the City Attorney recommending the subject action.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-58 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-58 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-58 duly passed and adopted.
A35.
000: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED NEW SCHEDULE OF SANITATION CHARGES: To
consider adopting a new schedule of sanitation charges for solid waste collection and disposal.
Submitted was report dated March 14, 2000 from Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works and City
Engineer recommending adoption of the revised schedule of fees for solid waste collection and disposal.
Doris Roush, Streets and Sanitation Manager, briefed the subject report which explained the reason(s)
for the recommendation of the 2% increase in fees effective July 1, 2000, specifically to fund two new
recycling programs necessary to bring the City into compliance with the requirements mandated in
AB939.
Mayor Daly noted that a workshop was previously held on the subject (see minutes of February 8, 2000)
which gave extensive details on the programs which will be instituted by Council action tonight in order to
comply with State law. He thereupon opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who
wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-49 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
000: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-49 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM adopting a new schedule of sanitation charges for solid waste collection and
disposal.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-49 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-49 duly passed and adopted.
A36.
5:00 P.M. Public HearinG: PUBLIC HEARING - ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS: To consider resolutions authorizing the
issuance, sale and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds for a multifamily housing
project and certain other actions in connection therewith for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
Sea Wind Apartments, Park Vista Apartments and the Fountains at Anaheim Hills.
Submitted was report dated March 21, 2000 from the Community Development Department
recommending the subject.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development briefed the subject staff report giving a
breakdown of the three projects.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak; there being
no response, he closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-50 through 2000R-52, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-50 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
PROJECT AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEA
WIND APARTMENTS.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-51 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND
DELIVERY OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PARK VISTA APARTMENTS.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-52 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
PROJECT AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ANAHEIM HILLS FOUNTAINS SENIOR APARTMENTS.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 2000R-50 throuclh 2000R-52 both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 2000R-50 through 2000R-52, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
A37. 105: Board/Commission Appointments/Resiqnations:
Appointment To BudGet AdvisoR/Commission:
Appointment to the Budget Advisory Commission to fill the current vacancy of Jeffrey Roberts,
term expiring June 30, 2001. (Continued from the meeting of March 7, 2000, Item A27.)
Mayor Daly nominated Sunio Agi; Council Member Kring nominated Anthony Bodola; Council Member
McCracken nominated Ralph Price. (Each gave a brief background on their nominee.)
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to close nominations. Council Member Kring seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly then called for a roll call vote on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated.
Sunio Agi - Ayes: Daly. Noes: Kring, McCracken. Abstained: Feldhaus, Tait.
Anthony Bodola - Ayes: Kring, Tait. Noes: McCracken. Abstained: Feldhaus, Daly.
Ralph Price - Ayes: Feldhaus, McCracken. Noes: Kring. Abstained: Tait, Daly.
Mayor Daly. He will be happy to support Mr. Price. He thereupon changed his vote to a yes vote; City
Attorney White stated that Mr. Price, therefore, had the requisite three votes to be appointed.
Subsequently, Council Member Tait changed his vote to yes; Council Member Kring changed hem as
well making it a unanimous vote.
Mr. Ralph Price was thereupon appointed to the Budget Advisory Commission for the term ending June
30, 2001 by a unanimous vote of the Council.
A38.
173: PUBLIC HEARING FEES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO TEMPORARY
TAXICAB PERMITS: To consider adoption of a resolution and an ordinance relating to
temporary taxicab permits.
Submitted was report dated March 7, 2000 from John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager recommending
adoption of an ordinance amending the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the issuance of temporary
taxicab permits; a resolution establishing fees to cover costs of administering the temporary taxi permit
program for peak convention periods, and an agreement in an amount not to exceed $77,520 to retain
the services of Bruch Schaller, Schaller Consulting to develop requirements for a taxi franchise system.
(Also submitted was report dated December 8, 1999 from Schaller Consulting who worked with the Ad
Hoc Committee which was established as a result of Council's direction on May 18, 1999 to review the
City's current and future taxi service needs.)
City Attorney White first clarified that the legal requirements for a Public Hearing relates only to the fee
to be adopted in the event that the ordinance is approved creating a temporary taxicab permit system.
For expediency, all three were listed together but just for clarification, the necessity to hold a Public
Hearing only relates to the amount of the fees for temporary permits. Anyone could speak to either of
the other items as well.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Bill Hart, representing A Taxi Cab, one of the two companies permitted to operate in Anaheim. They
were in touch with staff earlier and his questions tonight seek some clarification to make sure the action
is what he believes is intended. He asked if it was accurate that the code applies to the two companies
currently operating in Anaheim on a temporary basis proposed between now and January, 2001.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. The proposed code involves or pertains to the two currently
permitted companies. The code does not sunset in 2001 but they hope a new system will be in place by
January 1,2001.
Bill Hart also asked (1) With regard to the application for certificate, he offered two extreme examples -
one extreme, there could conceivably be four certificates for up to 10 days apiece all the way up to 10
certificates up to four days apiece and anything in between, (2) the administrator would have exclusive
full jurisdiction and authority to make a determination as to the number of cabs and the need and,
therefore, make that recommendation and (3) where there was a competing request by the two
operators, they will be handled on a ratio basis with the ratio being applied to the need; City Attorney
White confirmed Mr. HaWs understanding was correct on all counts.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Feldhaus. He feels it would be problematic to put into the code a definite $10 figure
because things change and that amount should not be cast in concrete. Relative to the proposed
ordinance, it only applies to the current permit holders and does not allow for competitors to comply and
the permit administrator is the Code Enforcement Manager. He has a problem with that and also with
hiring a consulting firm for $77,520 to develop the requirements for a taxi franchise system. He believes
the City and OCTAP should establish criteria and that the Council should not abrogate its responsibility
by hiring a consultant to tell them how many cabs they should or should not have in the City. He feels a
better use for this money would be to use it on a different transportation issue, i.e., a skateboard park.
For those reasons, he is not going to support the recommendation(s). During the discussion that
followed, Council Member Feldhaus specifically emphasized and reiterated his opposition to the hiring of
a consultant.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager, upon questioning by the Mayor, briefed the
reasons/justification for hiring a consultant and why the committee recommended doing so, one of the
main reasons being, staff does not have the expertise to put together a franchise system that they
believe would improve the overall quality of taxi service.
Mayor Daly also asked how much additional need (for taxi service) does the committee and consultant
believe there will be by early 2001 which is the goal in moving to the franchise system; John Poole.
There was some difference of opinion between the committee and consultant but at that time, anywhere
from 50 to 75 more vehicles when Disney (California Adventure) comes on line. There are many modes
of transportation being offered, thus it is unknown how many more cabs are going to be needed with
those new modes. He also explained that the committee is not ongoing but staff believes it should be
reinstituted, at least bring back some of the same people, or open it to Council direction. Staff
recommends that there be people from the Visitor and Convention Bureau noting that the President of
the Bureau, Charles Ahlers was very helpful.
Council Member Kring. They are bringing in the Anaheim Resort Transportation System and her
concern is if they bring in more taxi cabs, they will be competing with the Transportation System. She
noted there are very few problems with the current taxi service in the City (Yellow Cab and A Taxi Cab).
She is wondering if they need to go through a franchise agreement when it does not seem currently that
there are a lot of problems with the existing service.
John Poole. They believe after many hours of study that the franchise system would provide better
quality cab service. Cities that have done the same seem to have a better product and quality of service
with a franchise system.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Extensive discussion followed as well as questioning of staff by the Mayor and Council Members
including debate concerning the need for a consultant. At the conclusion, Mayor Daly asked the City
Manager if he or the consultant had given any thought as to the long-term oversight of taxi service in
Anaheim. Code Enforcement staff has done a commendable job but he does not believe it is central to
the services they provide the City's neighborhoods.
City Manager Ruth. No consideration was given to that issue. Code Enforcement has done a great job
in this area having spent a great deal of time and energy on the matter. At this time, he would leave the
oversight of taxi service with Code Enforcement.
Mayor Daly. The recommendations generally make sense since they do have to prepare for the potential
of a more competitive situation. Professional staff believes a franchise system will work better than a
permit system. He would like to see some analysis done as to how other large tourism cities administer
taxi cab operations; City Manager Ruth. They will be happy to look at that issue.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-53 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-53 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98R-212 RELATING TO
FEES FOR TEMPORARY TAXICAB PERMITS.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-53 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-53 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5723 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5723 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING CHAPTER 4.72 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
TEMPORARY TAXICAB PERMITS.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to approve an agreement with Schaller Consulting in an amount
not to exceed $77,520 to develop requirements for a taxi franchise system, standards for
vehicles, service and drivers; determine the formula to be used for additional cab service that
will be needed with the Resort Area expansion; and assist in the review and evaluation of
franchise applications. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Poole then explained for the Mayor that the plan is to have the franchise system completely in place
by 2001. With that in mind, they hope to get the consultant on board in the next week or so, re-form the
committee, bring back a proposal from the committee/consultant to the Council in three or four months
as to their recommendations for a franchise system, get input from the Council and if the Council agrees
to the recommendations, solicit RFP's for franchise agreements. They would then come back to the
Council for awarding of the franchise (or franchises).
Items B1 through B6 From Planning Commission Meeting of February 28, 2000:
(No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing)
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 21, 2000:
16
B1.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
155/179: General Plan Amendment No. 371 and Neclative Declaration; Reclassification
No. 99-00-12:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim BIvd., Suite 162,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 848-930 South Knott Street and 3411-3441 West Ball Road. Property is 7.0
acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Knott Street and Ball Road.
General Plan Amendment No. 371 - Request for amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to redesignate the subject properties from the Low Density Residential designation
to the General Commercial designation; and the General Commercial, Low Density Residential,
and Medium Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential
designation.
Reclassification No. 99-00-12 - Request for withdrawal of this application.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval and adoption of Exhibit B to City Council (PC2000-20)
(6 yes votes, Commissioner Bostwick absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Reclassification No. 99-00-12 withdrawn.
SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 11,2000, DUE TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
B2.
179: Conditional Use Permit No. 4181 and Neclative Declaration:
OWNER: Govind Bhakta; Jon and Nancy Dowell; Gabriel and Virginia Patin; Shirley and
William Aimand; Willa Jean Comett; Wilton and Ruth Abplanalp, 3335 West Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marshall, 1041 West 18th Street, #104A, Costa
Mesa, CA 92627
LOCATION: 3335-3351 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 3.70 acres located on the north side
of Lincoln Avenue, 970 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street (Lazy Living Mobile Home Park
and Madrid Motel).
To construct a 3-story, 132-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4181 GRANTED (PC2000-21) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Bostwick absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B3.
179: Reclassification No. 99-00-17 and Neclative Declaration:
OWNER: Medtronic, Inc., 3850 Victoria Street North, Shoreview, MN 55126
AGENT: Hogle-lreland, Inc., Attn: Kelly Carlyle, 4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, CA
92501
LOCATION: 4633 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.82 acre located at the northwest corner
of La Palma Avenue and Hancock Street.
To reclassify subject property from the Specific Plan No. 94-1, Development Area No. 5 -
Commercial Area to Specific Plan No. 94-1, Development Area No. 2- Expanded Industrial Area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 99-00-17 WITHDRAWN.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
B4.
179: Conditional Use Permit No. 3353 and Neclative Declaration - Request for
Substantial Conformance:
REQUESTED BY: Richard Demolina, 1520 West Roosevelt Street, Azusa, CA 91702.
Request for substantial conformance to construct a 3,000 square foot storage building on
property located at 1340 South Sanderson Avenue (Phoenix Club).
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in substantial conformance (6 yes votes, Commissioner Bostwick absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B5.
B6.
179: Conditional Use Permit No. 4149 and Neqative Declaration - Request Review of Final
Elevation Plans: Philip L. Anthony, 14101 La Pat Place, Unit 10, Westminster, CA 92683,
request review of final elevation plans to establish a large equipment storage repair and rental
agency. Property is located at 3030-3040 East Miraloma Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final elevation plans (6 yes votes, Commissioner Bostwick absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
179: Conditional Use Permit No. 4128 and Neqative Declaration - Request for Substantial
Conformance:
REQUESTED BY: Dennis McCullough, 17875 Von Karman Avenue, #301, Irvine, CA 92614.
Request to determine substantial conformance for a previously-approved commercial retail
center to allow reconfiguration of a portion of the site in order to revise the parking layout, adjust
one vehicular ingress/egress location, reduce the number of retail units and revise the size of the
proposed retail units on property located at 600-626 North Brookhurst Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously approved plans (6 yes votes,
Commissioner Bostwick absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B7.
Items B7 throuqh B9 From Planninq Commission Meetinq of March 13, 2000:
(:No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing)
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 23, 2000:
155: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM
GENERAL PLAN: County of Orange, Attn: Bill De Luca, Staff Analyst, Community Services
Agency - Special Programs Division, 1300 South Grand Avenue, Building B, Santa Ana, CA
92705, requests a determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to enter into a
rent-free tenant use permit for office space for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Program.
Property is located at 2450 East Lincoln Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (7 yes votes).
B8.
155: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM
GENERAL PLAN: County of Orange, Health Care Agency, Attn: V. John lagjian, 515 North
Sycamore, Suite 618, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests a determination of conformance with the
Anaheim General Plan to enter into a rent-free lease agreement for office space to continue to
provide physical and occupational therapy services. Property is located at 2911 West
Stonybrook Drive.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (7 yes votes).
B9.
155: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM
GENERAL PLAN: County of Orange, Probation Department, Attn: Linda Barry, Real Property
Agent, 909 North Main Street, Suite I, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511, requests a determination of
conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for lease of office space for the continued
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
operation of a Probation Department Field Office. Property is located at 1147 North Anaheim
Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (7 yes votes).
C1.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 4167CATEGORICALLY 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 acres 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 Daly and Council Member McCracken. Public
hearings continued from the meetings of February 1,2000, Item D4 and March 7, 2000, Item C2.
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. The Council previously received a memo from the City Attorney on this issue and before
opening the Public Hearing, he asked to hear from the City Attorney in that regard.
City Attorney White. He previously advised the Council and has also spoken to the applicant, Mr.
Abbott, regarding this subject. His comments are directed not at the merits of the application but at the
procedure that needs to be followed to authorize freeway-oriented billboards in Anaheim. The zoning
code currently prohibits privately owned and operated freeway oriented billboards. The code further
provides that a zone variance cannot be granted to authorize a use that is not permitted in the zone in
which it is being requested, not only not permitted in the zone, but absolutely prohibited. In his opinion,
the Council cannot legally grant a variance to authorize a freeway oriented billboard under this
application. If the Council is interested in approving freeway oriented billboards or considering that
concept, the proper process would be to consider an amendment to the zoning code authorizing, by
CUP, freeway oriented billboards thereby removing the current absolute prohibition. He reiterated, it is
not the merits of the proposal, but the process being followed is not one the code currently authorizes.
That is the advice he has previously given to the Council as well as informing Mr. Abbott.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager clarified for the Mayor that staff had recommended against the
variance.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant to summarize his request.
Applicant's Statement: James Abbott, 836 N. Richmond, Fullerton - Coast Advertising. He first
presented an exhibit, a map showing the current Anaheim locations of Coast Advertising billboards (two
locations and a third location where they are requesting to place a billboard). In 1975, he went to the
Building Department to secure a permit to build two billboards "at this intersection" (believed to be
Brookhurst and LaPalma - one of the three location "dots" indicated on the map). They have been in
operation at that location for 25 years. Because Brookhurst and LaPalma was widened a few feet,
Caltrans asked them to remove the billboards but only on a temporary basis to allow movement of their
equipment. Last year when they went to the Building Department to request a hole inspection in order to
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
re-enter the pole, he was informed they could not do so but would have to apply for a CUP. It is the
position of Coast Advertising that it is not necessary to apply for a CUP because they already have one
and have had it for 25 years. They do not feel it is fair that they cannot re-enter their billboard. They
also feel they should be allowed to maintain the billboards they have. However, they are willing to
surrender their permits for the two locations (believed to be Brookhurst/LaPalma and Lincoln/Euclid to
which he was pointing on the map) to install a billboard at Cerritos and the 57 Freeway. After additional
comments/reasons why his request should be approved, Mr. Abbott stated, in fairness to Coast
Advertising, they should either be allowed to re-enter their billboard (at Brookhurst and LaPalma), or
relocate it (Cerritos and the 57 Freeway).
In concluding, Mr. Abbott stated they have been long-time residents in the community. They are the
smallest billboard company in the United States (he and his wife). They need the income because they
are senior citizens. They are asking Council's support in approving their proposal. It would be in the
best interest of the City to remove billboards from the surface streets in a high-density location to a low-
density location which would help beautify the City. They also provide low-cost advertising to local
business people. He referred to two exhibits previously submitted and a part of the Council packet (1)
letter dated February 22, 1995 from Majid Ahmadi, Associate Planner sent to Mr. Friedman and (2) photo
copy of the original sign permit for Brookhurst and LaPalma issued in 1975. They feel the latter is a
current permit and should not have to apply for another. In fact, they have two permits that are current.
He reiterated they should be entitled to either re-enter or relocate.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone else who wished to speak.
Francis X. Nutto, 621 Jambolaya Street, Anaheim. He submitted a two-page letter (which was previously
submitted on March 13, 2000 and made a part of the record). He thereupon read the letter into the
record which was in support of Mr. Abbott's request, giving his reasons why, in this case, the billboard
should be allowed at the corner of Cerritos and the Orange Freeway. One of his premises was that the
City is not dealing fairly with Mr. Abbott since the City itself "erected a two-faced billboard on stadium
property along Katella Ave and a three-faced board along the Orange Freeway." His letter concluded by
stating that the Council should "either approve this Conditional Use Permit; or this Council should direct
staff to administratively handle the matter of Coast reerecting the billboards at La Palma & Brookhurst."
In concluding, Mr. Nutto stated he learned tonight the City Attorney said the City does not have the right
to grant the petition. It is an issue of fair dealing by the City. He urged if they do not authorize the CUP,
they should refund Coast Advertising's fee in submitting the petition.
Mayor Daly then posed a line of questions to Mr. Nutto which prompted extensive discussion at the
conclusion of which, the Mayor asked if he (Nutto) was in favor or opposed to allowing more billboards
on the freeways and if he (Nutto) could supply information as to his statement that there are specific
billboards that are illegal that the City is ignoring; Mr. Nutto answered first that he is opposed to freeway
billboards and, relative to existing illegal boards, he will be glad to supply that information although he
cannot do so this evening.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked for a summation by the applicant.
Summation by Applicant: James Abbott. Relative to the billboard located at Edison Field (Anaheim
Stadium) on the 57 freeway, his research showed that billboard was built in the Caltrans right of way.
Caltrans complained and the City had to move it back which is the same situation with the Coast
Advertising billboard at Brookhurst and LaPalma. They should be entitled to move it back. He asked
that they be allowed to re-enter the billboard at Brookhurst and LaPalma where they have a valid City
and State permit up to 2003 and then additional four-year increments. The property owners are
delighted to do business with them (Coast Advertising). Tonight is the night to do something about this
matter.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
2O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Council Member Tait. He asked the City Attorney's opinion -- if the Council were to vote for the
billboard, would it be an illegal action by the Council; City Attorney White. It would violate the current
code which does not allow freeway oriented billboards. The Council could amend the code to remove
the current prohibition and expressly provide that they are either permitted uses or conditionally
permitted uses. He emphasized, tonight the code does not allow the Council to approve the item
because they would be violating the provisions of the current code.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. There were a number of items stated in the hearing that were not factual,
but one in particular warrants rebuttal having to do with the exhibit(s) referred to by Mr. Abbott relating to
the Brookhurst and LaPalma location and allowing billboard replacement. (See letter dated February 22,
1995 to Mr. Walter Friedman.) Mr. Fick noted that the letter does not mention billboards, nor does it
mention Brookhurst and LaPalma.
Council Member Tait. Mr. Abbott is proposing an exchange of billboards in the central City for the right to
have a billboard for ten years along the 57 Freeway. After ten years, it will go away. To him, it is not a
bad tradeoff. He also understands what Mr. Nutto was saying and the proposal seems to solve the
problem. He (Tait) does not like billboards because of their intrusion into the skyscape. The City
Attorney has also stated it would be illegal for the Council to approve the request. Perhaps it is
something staff could look into. He likes the concept of trading billboards (in the central City) for a
limited number along freeways where there are already billboards; Council Member Kring stated she
would support that as well.
Mayor Daly. No city in Orange County has more billboards within its city limits than Anaheim. Every
billboard erected anywhere in the City has a history or story that goes along with it. The billboards
mentioned by Mr. Nutto were erected in the 1970's long before the present Council was elected. He
believes those boards were a mistake and a number of other decisions were a mistake as well. The only
way to improve the situation is to not approve any other billboards and slowly and carefully remove the
ones that exist. He feels the subject of a trade is very problematic because it is necessary to come up
with a formula that works. They had hearings in the past on the idea of allowing freeway billboards and
the Chamber was "packed" with opposition. He believes the same thing would happen again; Council
Member Tait. He believes they are in agreement ultimately on where they want to get to relative to
billboards but what he likes about the proposal is the 10-year clause. At that time, there will be fewer
inner City and freeway billboards. Without that provision, he could not support the proposal. It is a
mechanism to get rid of inner-City boards; without some incentive, they will be around forever. Having
said that, they still have to vote no tonight because the Code mandates that they do so.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT-CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - DENIED: On motion by
Council Member McCracken, seconded by Council Member Tait, the City Council determined that the
proposed activity is not Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 2000R-54 to deny Conditional Use Permit 4167 for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
4167.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-54 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-54 duly passed and adopted.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Before concluding, Council Member Kring stated she is going to recommend what Mr. Nutto suggested
relative to reimbursing the fees for the permit. When Mr. Abbott went to the Planning staff, she feels he
should have been advised that it was illegal.
City Attorney White, answering the Mayor relative to the reimbursement of fees, stated it would require a
formal action by the Council. He suggested that they may want to hear from staff about what Mr. Abbott
was advised.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff made it very clear on contacts with the applicant that the item was not
permitted by code. There was discussion about the item being withdrawn or encouraging that. The staff
report is clear that the item is not permitted by code and staff has been consistent in that regard.
Council Member Tait. He would support reimbursement based on the fact that the Planning Commission
did vote in favor. He feels there must have been some ambiguity coming from the Commission. In this
instance it seems equitable to reimburse the fee.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved that Mr. Abbott be reimbursed the application fee expended
relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 4167. Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated this is not a wise precedent and gave his reasons why;
Council Member Feldhaus was of the opinion that if the applicant was so inclined, he should file a claim
with the City. He asked to hear from the City Attorney.
City Attorney White. Filing a claim is an option but since the subject was brought up, the Council can
take action on the reimbursement issue tonight.
Council Member McCracken. Her concern is, making a policy of returning fees every time they reverse
a decision of the Planning Commission, would leave them in difficult straits.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to reimburse the fees and failed to carry by the following
vote: Ayes: Kring, Tait. Noes: Feldhaus, McCracken, Daly.
C2.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4168, AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: American National Properties, P.O. Box 10077, Santa Aria, CA 92711-0077
AGENT: Phillip R. Schwartze, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 1516 West Embassy Street. Property is 5.8 acres located on the north side of
Mable Street at the terminus of Embassy Street.
To permit a 206,667 square foot, self-storage and outdoor recreational vehicle storage facility for
up to 127 recreational vehicles.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4168 GRANTED (PC99-225) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Arnold absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of January 11, 2000, Item B2. Review of the Planning
Commission's decision requested by Mayor Pro Tem McCracken and Mayor Daly. Public
hearings continued from the meetings of February 15, 2000, Item D2, and
March 7, 2000, Item C3.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: February 3, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: February 2, 2000
Posting of property: February 4, 2000
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Mayor Daly. The Planning Director has submitted some suggested changes to the conditions. He asked
him to explain those changes.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. There was a lengthy hearing on this matter on February 15, 2000 which
was subsequently continued to explore the issue of circulation primarily in the general vicinity. Staff has
had several meetings with the applicant. The conditions now before the Council have been reveiwed
with the applicant and proposed operator and they are in agreement. He then briefed the suggested
condition changes (see - Conditional Use Permit No. 4168 - Suggested Condition Changes for City
Council - made a part of the record) which included a new condition relative to the recording of an
unsubordinated covenant reserving a 54-foot wide strip of land along the northeasterly property line,
amending condition No. 9 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC99-225, and deleting condition No.
2. of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC99-225 pertaining to the phasing of Building "E". He
confirmed that the amended conditions preserve the possibility of future right of way. Subsequently,
after additional discussion and questions by the Council for purposes of clarification including input by
the Traffic and Transportation Manager, he reiterated, the development proposal does not perpetuate
additional access or circulation but the added new conditions would do so.
Council Member Feldhaus. His concern was and still continues to be the impact of the traffic along
Mabel and perhaps Embassy Street (see minutes of February 15, 2000). He had asked for Code
Enforcement to look into the issue and he believes they have been working on that aspect.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. He worked with Code Enforcement on the issue in a
meeting with Fairmont School. Fairmont voiced support of the non-competitive nature of the traffic with
the proposal. He believes they could not find a more traffic compatible use to the school than what is
proposed. He also stated in answer to Council Member Feldhaus, that the problem has been addressed
especially in terms of working with Fairmont School in the pickup and drop off of students, where the
buses park, and the sequencing between pickup and drop off of elementary and high-school students.
Council Member Feldhaus, after reiterating his concerns relative to traffic and circulation in the area
including on Broadway, stated he wants to be sure they are "traffic free" to be able to go in and out of the
area.
Mayor Daly. It seems to him that the essence of the reason for the recommendation to allow public
storage at the proposed location as well as RV parking is that the railroad line renders the whole area
problematic where there is no higher and better use. He and Council Member Feldhaus, and over the
years other Council Members, have inquired as to the railroad line adjacent to the site near Manchester
and Lincoln which then proceeds south and east down Santa Ana Street and ends up near Katella and
Lewis and proceeds further east. He asked staff, to the best of their knowledge, how many businesses in
Anaheim and how many outside are served by that line; Mr. Lower answered approximately three to five
businesses in Anaheim. The line then goes down to Huntington Beach. It serves perhaps 30 businesses
total.
Mayor Daly, after expressing his long-standing concerns relative to the railroad line, stated he has been
asking for 12 years for staff to bring him a strategy for this seldom-used freight line that slices through
the heart of the City. The Council Member should have all that information at their fingertips and trying
to do better for that neighborhood. Absent a more comprehensive strategy, he can understand why
Planning feels there is no other lawful use. He would like a definitive answer once and for all on the
issue and who is telling them that the railroad cannot be removed.
Council Member Feldhaus stated he also does not feel he got an answer relative to his questions
regarding traffic issues and traffic circulation on Embassy, Mabel, Loara and also Broadway; John Poole,
Code Enforcement Manager. Staff met with Fairmont School, looked at the trip generation proposed by
the storage project, and determined that the trip generation (25 vehicles in and out at morning peak; 45
vehicles afternoon peak) in and of itself was not enough to trigger a full traffic study.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Extensive discussion followed wherein the Mayor reiterated his concerns relative to the railroad line and
what he considers a lack of a strategy or action by staff to do something about the situation which has
been an ongoing problem especially for the areas surrounding the line.
Council Member McCracken. She feels they have to deal with the freight line but it is a long-term issue,
one that staff can research and supply background for the Council.
City Attorney White, answering the Mayor, stated the Public Hearing had been continued for the purpose
of getting additional input from staff and working out some proposed new conditions. In his view, it would
be preferable to reopen the hearing to discuss those conditions, if for nothing else, to know if the project
applicant is comfortable with those conditions.
Mayor Daly reopened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Phil Schwartze, American National Properties. He had an opportunity to meet with staff to look at
some options. Along with the City, they feel there will be a higher and better land use for the area in the
future and want to poise themselves to take that opportunity. The thought process relative to putting a
road in the location might come to fruition. In the meantime, they feel the proposal presented is an ideal
interim use for the property and subsequently they can take advantage of the situation as it presents
itself. If the railroad is eventually eliminated, they could not be happier and they are hoping that change
will occur over time. Their neighbors, Bryan Industrial and Dr. Jackson from Fairmont School, are
present this evening. He is asking for Council approval of the project.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Carol Latham. She lives in the subdivision south of the proposed facility. They are starting to see an
increase in property values and homes are being sold for much higher prices, no doubt as a result of
Redevelopment. She sees this project as a step backwards. For those who live on Loara, the traffic is
horrendous. The thought of more traffic and heavier vehicles is not exciting. There is also existing rail
blight and a small storage facility is already in the area. She feels they can aim much higher for better
use of the area - something more neighbor-friendly, progressive, attractive and commercially viable.
She would like to see efforts made to make that happen.
David Jackson, Executive Director, Fairmont School. He is present to answer some of the questions
relative to traffic and also to voice the school's support for the project. They have tried to look into all the
different proposed uses of some of the land next door to the school. Considering all the other uses that
can be authorized under the current zoning, a storage facility would work well. From what he has heard
from the staff and the applicant, the times the facility would have any traffic are quite different than traffic
times for the school. He then addressed the traffic issues relating to the school and what the school is
doing to alleviate those problems which they feel will make quite a difference. They will also ask parents
to remove their children from school if they break the law relative to traffic and parking issues. They are
committed to making positive changes. The only problem relates to the 15 to 20 minutes from 3:00 to
3:30. Currently they have 15 and sometimes 25 school staff members outside directing students and
parents. He does not see the school moving either in the shod or long term but will be improving the
situation to make it better for their families and also the area. Before concluding, Mr. Jackson answered
questions posed by Council Member Feldhaus.
Summation by Applicant: Phil Schwartze. They have tried to come up with the optimum land use for the
area at this time. In the future when the opportunity presents itself, they will consider a higher and better
land use.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. He has stated all the reasons why he is opposed to the proposal.
If there is a majority of the Council who decide public storage is the use for the area, he asked that they
consider a time limit because of the prospect that the neighborhood can become more attractive and to
start the transition.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Council Member Tait. The options on this property are either this proposal or the developer can build
industrial buildings by right without coming to the Council bringing with it related truck traffic. The
proposal is a good one with very low impact. Even if they wanted a commercial or residential
development, they could not require it.
Mayor Daly. He asked at this point, when is City government going to attack the General Plan issues in
the area. He is concerned nobody is suggesting this industrial area should be phased away.
Council Member Tait. The market eventually will choose the best use for the property which he believes
will ultimately be commercial.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Kring, seconded by Council Member Tait, 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.
Mayor Daly and Council Member Feldhaus voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Kring offered Resolution No. 2000R-55 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit
No. 4168 for adoption subject to City Planning Commission conditions including the additional suggested
condition changes submitted by staff and agreed to by the applicant. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 4168.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly asked if any time limit was going to be placed on the CUP; Council
Member Kring stated the Planning Commission kept it open ended. She asked Planning staff if they
would like to have a time limit placed on the use.
Joel Fick. The applicant has indicated a willingness to change the use when the market allows. The
applicant also represented that for funding purposes, anything other than a 30-year time limitation would
not make the project feasible. If staff were to recommend a time limit, it would be something like 10
years but the applicant has indicated they could not live with that; Council Member Kring. In that case,
she is going to leave it open ended.
Council Member McCracken. She has for months talked about this issue perhaps as much as 18 months
ago. When the Fairmont School issue came before the Council, she spoke with the property owner
indicating they needed to have some vision for the future. The property immediately to the north and to
the east are things the City is working on to make changes. The money needed and the construction that
has to take place to make it happen will take time and does not just happen. She feels ultimately there
will be changes that will occur before 30 years. There are planners in the community that feel it will take
15 to 20 years. If the prospects are good and the economy is good, people will take down a building for
a higher and better use noting that Walgreen Drugs plans to do just that at the corner or State College
and Lincoln. In the subject case, if the applicant is willing to save part of the land for a road, she does
not think it is a step backwards. Hopefully they will see some development to the north and east that will
make a difference.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-55 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kring, Tait, McCracken,
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-55 duly passed and adopted.
C3.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4389, AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: Goldstone Holdings, LLC., 32685 Caspian Sea Drive, Dana Point, CA 92629
LOCATION: 511 North Brookhurst Street: Property is 1.93 acres located at the southwest
corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street (Bryman College).
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit a private business/trade school within
an existing 3-story office building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4389 DENIED (PC2000-8) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of February 8, 2000, Item B3. Letter of appeal submitted by
the owner, Goldstone Holdings, LLC. Public hearing closed and due to tie vote, continued Item
C4 from the meeting of March 7, 2000.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: February 24, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: February 23, 2000
Posting of property: February 25, 2000
At the meeting of March 7, 2000, at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, Council Member Kring offered
a resolution for adoption granting Variance No. 4389 subject to Interdepartmental Recommendations and
the staff-recommended condition that the school be limited to 100 students per session during the 120
days until additional parking is provided in the construction of an adjacent lot.
Mayor Daly first explained why the meeting was continued from the prior hearing (see minutes of March
7, 2000 where the Public Hearing was held and subsequently continued for full Council action due to a tie
vote on the issue, Council Member Tait having to leave the meeting.)
City Attorney White. For purposes of the record, he inquired as to whether or not Council Member Tait
had an opportunity to familiarize himself with the testimony taken at the hearing on March 7, 2000;
Council Member Tait answered that he had listened to the tape of the proceedings.
City Attorney White. If any member of the Council wishes to pose any questions, they can do so or the
Council can simply vote on the matter again at this time.
Council Member Tait thereupon asked staff to brief the staff report for his purpose and also for the
audience; Joel Fick, Planning Director briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission which
described the proposal as well as briefing what occurred at the previous hearing.
Council Member Feldhaus reiterated and recounted the comments/concerns expressed at the prior
meeting relative to parking and the precedent that would be set by approving a temporary variance.
Mayor Daly. He agrees that a temporary variance is a precedent. Six months can be a long time if it is a
bad parking situation which he believes it is.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Council Member McCracken posed a line of questions relative to parking which were answered by Greg
Hastings, Zoning Division Manager and John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. Mr. Lower
clarified relative to the 100 students, it would be a variance, but based on the shared parking analysis
giving consideration to the other users in the building and their existing demands plus the parking
demand generated by 100 students would fit within the existing number of parking spaces. The 100
students results in 85% utilization which is another way of saying there is a total of 15% extra spaces if
there is additional demand.
Council Member Tait. In layman's terms, during this temporary period, he asked does the parking work
for the use; John Lower. Based upon the parking study and field calculations of the existing demand for
parking by the existing users plus the addition of 100 students, it works.
Mayor Daly then posed questions relative to the ownership of the proposed parking area to the west of
the property; Greg Hastings. A portion of it was owned by the County and portion was privately held.
Mayor Daly asked if the County owned piece of land, which is next to the Dad Miller Golf Course, was
ever offered to the City; Joel Fick. He does not know the answer to that at this time.
Mayor Daly asked that staff follow up for him on that question. There has been a vacant lot between the
subject office building and the golf course for years.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. It is a privately owned piece land
locked and surrounded by the County piece. She has not been notified of that particular piece of
property being sold. She does not know if they actually purchased the property or were currently
negotiating for the property.
Mayor Daly noted that the site plan only shows the current property but not the future parking area. He
asked if the future parking area is the entire western parcel or just south of the flood control channel; Joel
Fick then submitted a highlighted map showing the area involved (made a part of the record). He
confirmed that the entire shaded area will be the new parking area.
Council Member Tait. It seems to him this is a reasonable accommodation the City can make to be
business friendly similar to a temporary occupancy permit, an example being the Convention Center.
Traffic Engineering staff stated during this temporary period, the parking should work. He does not see a
down side and for that reason will vote in support of the project.
Council Member Kring asked if he was going to include the 100 student limit for the four months while
the additional parking is being built; Council Member Tait. He answered yes since that is a condition
recommended by staff.
Mayor Daly asked the applicant if the parking lot property was acquired by the County.
Steve Sheldon, 695 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa. The owner has informed him that the property he
owned was landlocked and there was a parcel between his and the adjacent building that allowed for
ingress and egress to the flood control channel. He owned three quarters of the parcel himself and the
County owned the rest.
Mayor Daly. He is opposed for reasons previously stated.
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
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
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-56 for adoption granting Variance No. 4389 including
the condition limiting students to 100 per session for 120 days until the additional parking is provided.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-56: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 4389.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-56 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kring, Tait, McCracken,
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-56 duly passed and adopted.
C4.
179: Public Hearincl - Conditional Use Permit No. 4148 and Neclative Declaration:
OWNER: Robert Zucherman, 1715 Glen Oaks Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108
AGENT: Hung Van Le, 601 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804
Jackson, DeMarco, & Peckenpaugh, Attn: David Smith, 280 North Westlake Boulevard, Suite
200, Westlake Village, CA 91362
LOCATION: 601 South Ma.qnolia Avenue. Property is 0.46 acre located at the southwest corner
of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue (Le's Automobile).
Requests approval to revise previously-approved plans for an auto repair facility and amend or
delete conditions of approval pertaining to the closing of two driveways and the planting of
landscaping.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Denied the request to defer the installation of landscaping and the closing of the two driveways
for CUP NO. 4148 and amended the conditions of approval including adding two conditions
(PC2000-13) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of February 15, 2000. Letter of appeal submitted by the agent,
Jackson, Demarco & Peckenpaugh.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: March 9, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: March 2, 2000
Posting of property: March 10, 2000
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
January 31, 2000 which outlined the proposal in detail. He noted particularly that the Commission
approved the CUP without the billboard remaining on the property. The applicant is now requesting to
retain the non-conforming billboard. The Planning Commission considered the request and conditioned
that within six months from the date of their resolution that a CUP would need to be obtained for the
billboard.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing;a gentlemen at the podium stated he is the tenant. Another
gentleman from the audience indicated he will be speaking on behalf of the owner and will be addressing
the billboard issue. The tenant is addressing the landscpe issue.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
Mayor Daly. The land owner appealed the Planning Commission condition even though the tenant
applied for the CUP. Now the tenant is present to speak.
City Attorney White. Once appealed, regardless of who submits the appeal, because it is a denovo
hearing, the applicant for the project speaks first, then anyone in support, anyone in opposition and lastly,
the applicant. The two gentlemen at the podium are the applicant for the original project and the ones
who filed the petition, even though the land owner filed the appeal. They should, therefore, go first.
Council Member Tait. He would like clarified whether the land owner and tenant are in agreement and, if
not, why not.
Applicants (Tenant) Statement: Hung Van Le. He took the business over. He would like to introduce his
son to speak for him.
Mr. Le's son (no name given) stated he is speaking on behalf of his father. He would like them to
reconsider the decision and to defer the closure of the two driveways and the landscaping. Following
the decision not to defer the improvement, his father assumed the landlord would be responsible for
doing all the work and for payment of that work. He brought it to his lawyer and they said his father was
responsible. He accepted their decisions. It is a matter of financial reasons. It took six months from the
closure of the original business to open this new one. It is going to cost him over $10,000 to put in the
improvements and that is why he is asking approval to postpone it. All of the other requests -- fixing
loose bricks or the trash area -- his father has complied with.
David Smith, Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, 280 N. Westlake Blvd., Westlake Village. He
represents Vista Media, the owner of the billboard on the site and the authorized agent of the owner,
Robed Zuckerman. The Planning Commission approved the conditional use issue, the automotive
facility, and no aspect of that proposed use is being changed. The reconsideration concerns the legal
non-conforming billboard that has been on the site since the late 70's. Vista Media is asking them to
consider what, if anything, from that already approved conditional use is being changed by the continued
presence of the sign. There is no evidence before the Council that the sign impacts the already
approved conditional use in any way. Mr. Smith then cited areas of case law/State law dealing with the
forced removal of constitutionally protected billboards. (See five-page letter dated December 13, 1999
from Mr. Smith previously submitted which addressed the issue of the non-conforming billboard.) They,
therefore, respectfuly request the Council to strike that condition. They do not have any objection to
allowing additional time to the applicant.
Council Member Tait asked Mr. Smith to repeat his last statement; David Smith. That the condition of
approval be stricken and to the degree deemed necessary, the subject municipal code provisions be
recognized as waived with regard to the project.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). They did not
get involved with this property because this owner has been a very welcomed person in the community.
They believe he is an asset. However, when they learned there was a billboard involved, it struck a note.
She disagrees with the gentleman who just spoke (Smith) relative to the unconstitutionality issue. If they
are going to put something up it should be something that is agreeable to the community. They would
like to see the billboard taken down and also other billboards in their neighborhood taken down. She is
comfortable with the other conditions but she questioned why the owner (as opposed to the tenant) does
not have to change the driveways. She feels the tenant has been taken advantage of. She does not
understand why the owner doesn't have to do the work of closing the driveways and the landscaping.
Judith Ann Gollette, Chairman, WAND/Land Use Committee. They are not opposed to the applicant
being granted time to do the improvements and would like to see that happen. She agrees with Mrs.
Wallace that the owner should be responsible for those improvements. She expressed concern relative
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
to billboards in general in west Anaheim especially those in the Spanish language when demographics
do not seem to warrant them. They would like to see the subject billboard removed, and the tenant given
time to fill the requirements imposed. She suggested perhaps the landscaping could be accomplished by
plants, trees and pots to break up the asphalt and concrete. They appreciate having Mr. Le in that
location instead of leaving the area with a fenced-in vacant lot.
Summation by Applicant. H. V. Le. He does not understand anything about the legal issues. When
ARCO pulled out, he lost everything and that is why they had to stay home about six months before he
could talk to the landlord and then sign the contract for the auto repair. When it was decided he could
not postpone the improvements, the landlord said it was his responsibility. It is too much money.
Estimates are $10,000. He would like to do it but he does not have the money. He is just asking for a
postponement so he can save enough money to do the improvements.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, answering Council Member Feldhaus explained there is a letter that is an
attachment to the staff report from Mr. Zuckerman. It was not a condition of approval that required the
removal of the billboard. Previously before the Planning Commission and the Council, the plans
submitted in conjunction with the prior approval, the applicant made a notation that the billboard would
be removed. The project was conditioned, as all projects are, that the plans be substantially in
conformance with the approval. Quoting from a letter from the owner, Robert Zuckerman, "1 have
owned the property at 601 S. Magnolia in Anaheim since 1973. I have not given anyone permission to
place a billboard on my property. I would like the sign removed." The owner requested the sign be
removed and the applicant made that notation on the plan.
City Attorney White. Relative to the billboard issue, he believes there is a misunderstanding he has
heard voiced by all. The purpose of the condition that was imposed by the Planning Commission and
was appealed and discussed tonight relating to requiring a CUP for the billboard is not to determine
whether it stays or goes. It is a legal, non-conforming structure. It has the right to be there. Whether
approved or denied tonight, it will have the right to stay there. Regardless of whether the condition is
imposed, the billboard would have the right to remain there even if the condition is imposed and the City
does not grant a permit, it will still remain. It is to determine whether or not the repair business can
operate on the property. The Code provides there cannot be a new use on the property as long as there
is an existing non-conforming use. While the repair business needs a CUP, it cannot even operate with
that CUP as long as there is a legal non-conforming use. The purpose of getting a CUP for the billboard
is not to make sure the billboard stays, it is to authorize the repair business to stay. Then there would be
two conforming uses on the property. The purpose tonight is to determine whether the repair business
stays or goes, not the billboard.
Council Member Feldhaus asked why two CUP's; City Attorney White. That is what is being proposed. It
is to grant the CUP for the repair business and to provide as a condition of the repair business operating
and continuing to operate the repair business has to assure that the billboard has a CUP. If they choose
not to apply for a CUP for the billboard, it does not mean the billboard cannot be there, it means the
repair business cannot be there.
Council Member Kring. Her understanding is, if they deny the repair shop, the billboard stays. If they
approve the repair shop, they will be in conflict with the billboard.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
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
3O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered a resolution for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 4148 subject to all City
Planning Commission conditions.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Kring stated the applicant does have a financial hardship and
the neighbors are supporting this person and favor giving him time to comply. She, therefore, cannot
support the resolution as it stands.
Mayor Daly. His offering of the resolution is completely consistent with the Planning Commission and
recommendation of Planning staff.
City Attorney White then confirmed for Council Member Tait a yes vote on the resolution as offered
means that the repair garage will be granted a CUP but in order to exercise the permit to have the repair
garage remain, they will have to obtain and assure that the billboard gets a CUP within six months,
otherwise, the billboard stays and the repair business goes. They will have to comply with the Planning
Commission recommendations on closing the driveways and installing the landscaping. They cannot
defer those; Council Member Tait asked if there was any way to accommodate the time frame and the
cash flow issue of the applicant.
City Attorney White. The Council could defer the improvements as has been requested for a certain
period; Council Member Tait. He would not like to see the applicant invest all his money and then lose
his CUP.
Joel Fick. He clarified that the applicant talked about a two-year time period for finalizing the
improvements.
Council discussion/debate followed wherein Mayor Daly reiterated his belief that the conditions imposed
were reasonable ones if they want to have landscaping in west Anaheim. He pressed for a vote on the
resolution he offered.
The resolution failed to carry by the following vote: Ayes: McCracken, Daly. Noes: Feldhaus, Kring,
Tait.
Council Member Tait offered Resolution No. 2000R-57 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No.
4148 subject to City Planning Commission conditions but allowing the tenant six months to install the
improvements. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-57: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4148.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-57 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-57 duly passed and adopted.
Report on Closed Session Actions:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
31
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MARCH 21,2000
E. Council Communications:
Council Member McCracken: At the National League of Cities Meeting in Washington, D.C. this past
week Congressman Cox recognized the City's Task Force study on the Internet Sales Tax issue and
thanked Anaheim publicly for responding to community input for the Congressional Committee. She
thanked Council Member Feldhaus for moving the issue forward.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of March 21, 2000 was adjourned
(10:20 P.M.).
SHERYLL SCHROEDER
CITY CLERK
32