Loading...
1998/02/03ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau FIRE CHIEF: Jeff Bowman FIRE CAPTAIN: Wait Chamberlain TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole CIVIL ENGINEER - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Armas PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:50 p.m. on January 30, 1998 at the City Hall Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of February 3, 1998 to order at 3:10 P.M. and welcomed all those in attendance. City Manager, James Ruth. This is the appointed time for the Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman to make a presentation on Emergency Transport Services. The Chief and his staff have been working diligently over the past several months on this issue and the Chief will explain the process that has taken place and the status. Council comments will be solicited at the conclusion of the presentation. 129: EMERGENCY TRANSPORT SERVICES - BUILDING AN RFP (REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL): Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman. The presentation will provide a general overview of the process that has taken place thus far in building the RFP for emergency transport services. Staff has provided the Council with a hard copy of the slides that will be presented (see, Building an Emergency Ambulance Transport R.F.P. - made a part of the record). He will answer any questions after his presentation. Chief Bowman first noted that staff has been looking at different options and solutions to providing emergency medical services since 1995. The City Council authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) on October 29, 1997. Staff determined that the process must be open, fair and competitive, address the City's priorities, comply with State and County EMSA regulations, ensure quality service to residents, and produce an agreement. The presentation covered what the ultimate agreement should provide, evaluation of various service delivery options, options considered, RFP design criteria, the extensive steps taken in building the RFP (consulted experts, researched other RFP's, consulted EMSA legal requirements, consulted in-house experts, etc.). Issues were identified -- administration, operations, personnel, equipment/supplies, financial and system design. He also gave the criteria that will be used in evaluating and comparing the bids by issue, and what issues will be measured objectively and/or subjectively (i.e., issues such as operations, personnel, equipment and supplies, financial systems and overall system design). He emphasized in summary that the goal is to ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 design a process that is open, fair and competitive and explained what had been done to this point to meet those goals including the fact that each and every proposer had an opportunity to come to a meeting held December 19, 1997 and ask staff questions and seek answers. In concluding, he referred to the three issues raised by Council Member Zemel at the meeting of January 27, 1998 (see minutes that date) - (1) disaster preparedness, (2) community involvement/education, (3) overall resources of system provider. Those issues are addressed in the current RFP although staff did not specifically mention community education and involvement but there is a paragraph that offers the providers with this intent. Overall resources was addressed in Section 7 but they are willing to have further dialogue on that issue. Finally, the three outstanding issues he is aware of are (1) review of panel makeup, (2) rating criteria, (3) reissuance of timeline on the RFP. City Manager Ruth. Staff has looked at the three additional concerns and is prepared to discuss those with the Council. If the Council would like, they would be glad to share the names and qualifications of the panel members. Relative to the rating criteria, staff would be prepared to review that with Council as well preferably next week. The concern is, it is important that information remain confidential to insure the system continues to be very competitive and there is a level playing field. Staff will be happy to answer any questions. Extensive discussion and questioning took place for the remainder of the workshop mainly revolving around the issues that were previously broached by Council Member Zemel at the meeting of January 27, 1998, i.e., rating guideline (no longer in the RFP), evaluator panel makeup, evaluation criteria (some subjective and some objective in the different categories), etc. These issues were addressed by both Chief Bowman and City Manager Ruth. Council Member Zemel. They are trying to keep flexibility in the process and yet the Council is not going to be told where the providers are on the flexibility issue. If they knew who the evaluators are going to be it would be more palatable for him to accept as well as the rating guidelines; City Manager Ruth. The Council will know that for sure. His understanding is they will share the information with the Council on the raters next week one on one. Relative to the rating mechanism, he sees no reason why not to share that at the same time which would be before going out to the providers. Mayor Daly. An important point to emphasize, before the Council makes any final decision on awarding the contract, all the information being discussed today will be available to the Council; City Manager Ruth stated absolutely with no question. Mayor Daly. The concern is when will the identity of the panelists be made available as well as the ratings by the panel; City Manager Ruth. With the criteria staff is working on now, they could share that information with the Council next week. Mayor Daly. He believes that no one is disputing that the information would be available to the Council before a final decision. He sees no need to depart from their traditional practice of the administrative staff doing its job bringing all material forward to the Council at the appropriate time before acting on the recommendation. Additional discussion/questioning/input by Council Members took place, for purposes of clarification, on the criteria to be used for evaluating the different categories and the weighted values given to those categories. During the discussion, Chief Bowman explained for Council Member Zemel that the objective criteria are fairly easy to evaluate but it is the subjective ones that create a difficulty for staff and eventually the panelists. They have tried in every way imaginable to put together a rate sheet. Eventually they are going to use that document with a panel and ask the panel to use that criteria and rank the providers as they see fit. That will be turned over to the City Council before a decision is made. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Council Member Tait. Relative to reimbursement of medical supplies, he would like to know if providers are willing to pay the City a franchise fee. His feeling is it should not be a criteria; Chief Bowman. That was not the intent. Council Member Tait stated he does not want to trade off fees for service. He also posed questions about 911 experience -- emergency response as opposed to transport, and if that is an important item in the RFP. Questions were answered by both Fire Captain Wait Chamberlain and Chief Bowman on this issue; Council Member Zemel stated he feels it is important in setting public policy that one of the pass/fail criteria be a minimum of five years experience being the first responder in an emergency situation. It does not seem the RFP calls for any experience. It is an important issue and also the crux of the issue for him -- an objective RFP that has specific policy from elected officials. It is something he believes can be changed before they vote next week. Chief Bowman. Staff placed point values on categories they feel important and that is one. They want to know what kind of experience the providers have. They have to have a minimum of five year's experience in an emergency system. It could be construed in different ways. The proposers who have responded are all certified to respond to incidents in Orange County. Council Member Zemel asked Chief Bowman if he was averse to adding to the RFP that providers have at least five year's experience; Chief Bowman was agreeable to adding that. If Council would like staff to draft proposed language, they can do so. Council Member Zemel stated he would like to have that choice when the Council votes next Tuesday; Chief Bowman. He will give two options listed by category. Mayor Daly. He would like to see the optional recommendation of staff on that subject. After further discussion on the matter, Chief Bowman stated he will promise in his instructions to any panel, 911 emergency experience will be a focal point on how well that individual company should be rated; Council Member Zemel stated if it is important, it should be pass-fail. Chief Bowman. They will provide a staff recommendation on that subject and optional language for the Council to consider. Council Member Zemel. Relative to the disaster preparedness issue, there does not appear to be a segregated portion of the RFP that deals with that wholeheartedly. Chief Bowman then distributed specific wording taken from the RFP relating to disaster preparedness. If something is not covered, they can submit wording that meets the needs of the Council. They have looked at many other RFP's and believe they have covered the issue. Before concluding, Chief Bowman also addressed the community involvement/education issue and reiterated as he did at the previous meeting that he does not think it is something they should mandate but something a company should have as part of their mission, to serve the community. They would like the proposer to say that they like the concept and how can they help; Council Member Tait agreed with Chief Bowman on that issue. Mayor Daly. This item will be back on the Council agenda next Tuesday (February 10, 1998). They appreciate the presentation by Fire Department personnel and the additional background information provided. Council Member Zemel asked if there was to be any public input; City Attorney White. There will be an opportunity for public input next Tuesday before action is taken. It is at Council's discretion if they want to take input today; Mayor Daly asked if there was any input today, noting that the item will be on the agenda next Tuesday. (No one came forward). ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Council Member Zemel. He believes, as several other cities have done in the past, i.e., Fresno, Santa Ana, etc., it would be beneficial to hire an independent consultant to work with staff. The Council can still consider this next week and provide direction. If he is the only one that feels that way he will forget it. However, an independent consultant can write the RFP and monitor it and they would not have the feelings that exist right now. He hopes that is the direction it goes next Tuesday. They have made a lot of headway today and he appreciates the work done. 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. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association, IBEW, AMEA, APA and non represented employees. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: Swift v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-29-25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Southern California Edison Company, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 71-49-37. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: one potential case. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:05 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:05 p.m.) ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 INVOCATION: Pastor Jimmy Gaston, State College Church of Christ, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Zemel led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: Declarations of Recognition were unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing City employees who recently have retired with more than 20 years of service. The following employees were present: Richard Betzsold, Finance, 25 yrs.; Police Department - Harold Briggs, 29 years, Peter DePaola, Jr., 32 years, Lawrence Kurtz, 33 years, James Mackin, 27 years; Fire Department - Wilbur Whirlock, 32 years. Mayor Daly and Council Members personally greeted and congratulated the newly retired, long-time employees and commended them for their faithful and dedicated service to the City and citizens of Anaheim. The same was extended to the following employees where were unable to be present: Fire Department - David Berger, 26 years; Police Department - Jonathan Beteag, 32 years, Anna Blount, 30 years, Richard Brace, 29 years, Ronald Good, 32 years, John Jansen, 29 years, Jerry King, 30 years, Gordon McMillan, 27 years; Utilities Department - Beatrice Butryn, 28 years, Sharon Frazier, 23 years, James Showalter, 36 years, Herbert Hillard, 28 years; Finance Department - Thomas Cochran, 22 years, Manuel Dejesa, 25 years; Public Works - Lawrence Oudeans, 24 years and Shirley Oudeans, Human Resources, 30 years. RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: PROCLAMATION recognizing the Anaheim Angels as they begin their Spring training. PROCLAMATION recognizing February 2, 1998, as National Groundhog Job Shadow Day. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,515,263.14 for the period ending January 30, 1998, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Rick Madooglu, 1811-1831 W. Lincoln, Anaheim. He is the General Manager of the Lincoln Antique Mall, a 16,000 sq. ft. facility which rents spaces to individual dealers who sell their merchandise. Currently they have about 180 dealers and 16 employees. They provide income for nearly 200 households. They are located in an area of the City which is depressed and they have been struggling in recent years. Their expenses are too high and the most significant expense is their utility bill. They have contacted and talked to the Utilities Department. They are asking for a rate reduction because of their ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 special circumstances. The 6 1/2 years he has been there, the City has done nothing (for the area). Across the street it looks very deserted and poor and their side of the street has stores and businesses. Perhaps one day the other side of the street will be improved. They are doing their part to reduce their expenses without hurting the business and are asking the City to give a rate reduction on their utility bills. Mayor Daly outlined some of the improvements that have taken place in the area and noted that the area in which Mr. Madooglu's business is located is part of a Redevelopment project area. He will ask the City Manager to report back to the Council on the request and to apprise them of any recommendation of professional staff as well as the status of any Redevelopment programs that may be of assistance. City Manager Ruth. Staff has made a sincere effort to assist Mr. Madooglu in his business. Utilities has done some energy efficiency programs to reduce his overall energy costs and even Redevelopment has looked at the possibility of relocation. They will continue to look at ways to see if they can assist in reducing his operating costs but do not make exceptions for individual businesses in terms of reducing utility costs. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Public input was received on Item C2 (see discussion under that item). MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of February 3, 1998. Mayor Pro Tern Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A13: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, 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. 98R-14 through 98R-20, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission meeting held December 17, 1997. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held December 4, 1997. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Budget Advisory Commission meeting held November 19, 1997. A2. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (STREETS AND SANITATION DIVISION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.) A3. 158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement of real property at 1778 South Heather Lane (R/W 5180-86) - Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; authorizing the mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreements; authorizing the acquisition payment of $185,000 to Grover Escrow; and authorizing the relocation payments in accordance with the relocation plan developed for the project and the State Relocation Assistance Act not to exceed $20,000. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 A4. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, OR INTEREST THEREIN TO THE CITY. (R/W 5180-86) A5. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS, AND SETTING A DATE AND TIME TO CONSIDER ABANDONING THAT PORTION OF MANCHESTER AVENUE EXTENDING NORTHERLY FROM KATELLA AVENUE LOCATED EAST OF HASTER STREET AND WEST OF THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (ABANDONMENT NO. 98-1A). (Suggested public hearing date: March 3, 1998, at 6:00 p.m.) A6. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS, AND SETTING A DATE AND TIME TO CONSIDER ABANDONING THOSE PORTIONS OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND WILSHIRE AVENUE LOCATED GENERALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND A PORTION OF WILSHIRE AVENUE IN THE VICINITY OF PEARL STREET (ABANDONMENT NO. 98-2A). (Suggested public hearing date: March 3, 1998, at 6:00 p.m.) A7. 173: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT OR APPLICATION TO THE STATE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. (AUTHORIZES THE RECEIPT OF $225,000 FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION PETROLEUM VIOLATION ESCROW ACCOUNT TO ESTABLISH A LOCAL CLEAN FUEL SHUTTLE CIRCULATION SYSTEM FOR THE ANAHEIM RESORT AREA.) 106: Amending Public Works Department's Fiscal Year 1997/98 budget in the amount of $225,000. Council Member Zemel posed questions relative to funding of the program which were answered by John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager, who reported that funding at this point is entirely grant oriented and no general fund dollars are expected to be used for the program. Also, Measure M monies are not a source of funding at this time. A8. A9. A10. All. A12. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.) 174: Approving the allocation of CDBG funds from Fiscal Year 1996/97, in the amount of $9,470 to establish a Homework Center for children of the Jeffrey-Lynne neighborhood; and increasing CDBG revenues and expenditures, in the amount of $9,470 in account #235-213-7287. 000: Approving a partial fee waiver for the Buttons and Bows Square Dance Club of Anaheim for a benefit event to be held at Brookhurst Community Center on Sunday, March 8, 1998. 123: Approving an Agreement, in the amount of $82,250 between the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim for the delivery of JTPA services to eligible clients through June 30, 1998, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement and any amendments thereto on behalf of the City; and amending the 1997-98 Budget, Account No. 411-220, by $82,250. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 A13. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held January 13, 1998. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R-14 throuclh 98R-20, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, 7emel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-14 through 98R-20, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. A14. 121: CONDEMNATION HEARING - 1771 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET: To consider the adoption of a resolution finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of certain real property located at 1771 S. Brookhurst Street in connection with the Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement project; and authorizing the law firm of Rutan and Tucker, special counsel to the City, to proceed with said condemnation action. Submitted was staff report dated January 26, 1998 recommending adoption of the proposed resolution following a Public Hearing. Mayor Daly. This is the time and place for the hearing on the proposed acquisition by eminent domain of the property located at 1771 South Brookhurst Street in connection with the Katella Avenue Smart Street Program. The property interests which are proposed to be acquired are legally described in the resolution attached to the staff report. He asked to hear from staff. Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works. The resolution is for acquisition of the property necessary for right of way for the construction of Katella Smart Street improvements at the northwest corner of Katella and Brookhurst. It is a full take leaving the remaining parcel with little value. Staff is recommending adoption of the resolution to move the acquisition forward but will continue to work with the property owner to reach a settlement. It will allow acquisition to be completed with funds currently available through OCTA. Any delay could jeopardize that funding. Mayor Daly opened the hearing and asked if the owner of the property or a representative or anyone else was present who wished to testify on the matter; one person indicated they wished to speak. Mayor Daly. Testimony should be limited to the following issues only: (1) whether the public interest and necessity require the project, (2) whether the project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury, (3) whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project, (4) whether the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record and (5) whether the City has met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the property. Mr. Ron Bengoshea, 1751 S. Nutwood, Anaheim. He just has a question with regard to the property. He knows it was an old gas station and is concerned about environmental cleanup and who will be responsible for that. A representative from Rutan and Tucker (Special Counsel) explained that currently, they are in negotiation with the property owners. In terms of liability, they are hoping to come to an agreement whereby a purchase price will be paid for the property and a reserve account established from the purchase price will be held to insure that the property owner will complete cleanup. Ultimately, liability ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 still rests with the land owner. They are hoping to structure the transaction as such so that the City will not be responsible for any of the liability. Mayor Daly then closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-21 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 98R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1771 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES (R/W 5190-1). Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-21 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-21 duly passed and adopted. A15. TAXICAB OPERATIONS: To consider an ordinance repealing Chapter 4.72, and adding a new Chapter 4.72 to title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to regulation of taxicabs; and considering resolutions adopting certain fees to cover the cost of processing taxicab operator permits, adopting rates of fare to be charged by taxicab operators and adopting the taxicab regulations of the Orange County Taxi Administration Program (OCTAP). City Clerk Sohl. In accordance with the recommendation of the City Attorney, consideration of adoption of the applicable resolutions will be at the meeting of February 10, 1998 when the Council votes on adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Daly offered the Ordinance No. 5627 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5627: (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 4.72 OF, AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 4.72 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATION OF TAXICABS. RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE TAXICAB REGULATIONS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY TAXI ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM (OCTAP). RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING RATES OF FARE TO BE CHARGED BY TAXICAB OPERATORS. RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING CERTAIN FEES TO COVER THE COST OF PROCESSING TAXICAB OPERATOR PERMITS. Resolutions to be considered at the time of Ordinance adoption on 2/10/98 as recommended. A16. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 BOARD AND COMMISSION ITEM: 105: UNSCHEDULED VACANCY - PLANNING COMMISSION: Accepting a letter of resignation from Julie Mayer, Planning Commission, and directing the City Clerk to post a notice of vacancy (term expires 6/30/99). MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to accept the resignation of Julie Mayer from the Planning Commission with regret and appreciation for her excellent service on the Commission. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM B1 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 1998 DECISION DATE: JANUARY 22, 1998 INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 6, 1998: B1. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4329 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: WOHL/ANAHEIM, LLC, 2402 Michelson Drive, #170, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1086-1096 North Tustin Avenue and 3800-3822 E. La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.6 acres located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue. Waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces to establish a ballet company and dance school. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4329 APPROVED (ZA98-01). Approved Negative Declaration. B2. 179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3976: OWNER: Alexandru and Mihaela Bauer, 1861 W. Chalet Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1861 West Chalet Avenue. Property is 0.26 acre located on the north side of Chalet Avenue, 360 feet east of the centerline of Nutwood Street. To permit a board and care facility for up to 10 people in an existing 2,400 square foot single- family dwelling with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3976 GRANTED, IN PART (for eight people), and for a period of one year - to expire 11/10/98 (PC97-163) (5 yes votes, 1 no votes, and 1 absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. Informational item at the meeting of December 2, 1997, (B4). Letter of appeal submitted by Howard Secof, on behalf of area residents. The City Council denied CUP 3976 at the public hearing held January 6, 1998. (see minutes that date). A request for reheating submitted by the owner, Mihaela Bauer. City Attorney White explained for the Mayor that requests for reheating are only for the Council to determine whether or not the Council wishes to grant a reheating. It is not a reheating or public hearing tonight. The Council by terms of the ordinance, decides issues on whether they grant a reheating on the declarations presented and the agenda material. Under the Brown Act, the public or the applicant are 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 allowed to speak. The decision is based on the written material already received. It is discretionary with the Council whether or not to grant a reheating. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to deny the request for a reheating on this issue. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. B3. 179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3949 PACIFIC INN MOTEL: OWNER: SUMANBHAI N. PATEL AND NIRMALABEN S. PATEL, 426 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard - Pacific Inn Motel. Property is 0.36 acre located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 408 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. To retain a 23-unit motel. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3949 DENIED (PC97-137) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Informational item at the meeting of October 21, 1997, Item B2. Letter of appeal submitted by Sumanbhai N. Patel and Nirmalaben S. Patel, dba Pacific Inn Motel. Owners request a hearing before a Hearing Officer at the meeting of November 18, 1997, Item D5. New Attorneys Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP, requested that this item return to City Council for a public hearing. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 6, 1998, Item D5, and Council denied CUP NO. 3949 (Resolution No. 98R-5) see minutes that date. a request for reheating was submitted by Barbara Lichman of Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP, on behalf of the owner, Sumanbhai Patel dba Pacific Inn Motel. Mayor Daly. The Council has paperwork providing the details and rationale for the request for a reheating. City Attorney White. As with the foregoing request, this is a discretionary decision of the Council whether or not to grant a reheating. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to deny the request for a reheating on this issue. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly noted that a representative of the applicant was present. Barbara Lichman, Attorney for Pacific Inn, Chevalier, Allen and Lichman, LLP. She is present to emphasize the reasons the Council should reverse their decision in denying Conditional Use Permit 3949. She briefed the reasons as outlined in Attachment A of Request for Reheating and Declaration of Merit (that there was prejudicial abuse of discretion by the Anaheim City Council in its denial of Conditional Use Permit 3949 within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 because (a) the decision of the City Council to deny C.U.P. 3949 is not supported by the findings contained in City Council Resolution No. 98R-5 and, (b) the findings in support of the City Council's denial of C.U.P. 3949 are not supported by the evidence). She then elaborated on the justification for the reasons set forth in the Declaration also citing a court case emphasizing how important findings are especially where a vested right is involved. She also broached the issues brought forth at the Public Hearing before the Council held January 6, 1998 (see minutes that date). She emphasized there is no evidence to support a nuisance or compelling public necessity. In concluding, she stated there are some serious finding problems under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5. She asked the Council to save itself a lot of trouble, time, and money -- hear the evidence, give due process, reverse itself, and grant the C.U.P. for all the reasons stated on the record and in the application. 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial of the reheating. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Daly. He noted that a number of persons were present on Item C1. and C2. He suggested that they consider C2. before C1. since he believes it will go faster unless the Council wishes to take the Items in order. (It was determined C2. would be considered first). C2. 127: DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE TO AMEND SECTION 1220 OF THE CITY CHARTER: Discussion to consider a possible ballot measure to amend Section 1220 of the City Charter to require a simple majority vote rather than a 2/3 majority vote of the electorate for sale, lease, transfer or other disposal of the City's electric or water utility as requested by Council Member Tait at the meeting of January 27, 1998. Council Member Tait. An RFP has gone out (to the private sector to propose partnerships or other alternatives relating to the City's Public Utilities) and approximately 25 proposals received on January 30, 1998. In view of that, he feels this matter should be continued for a week when they will have more information. He is going to make a motion to do so but if anyone is present to speak tonight he feels it would be appropriate to hear those comments. Mayor Daly. Council Member Tait's intent is to continue this matter for one week since proposals have just come in. He invited those who wished to speak to do so at this time. Ron Bengoshea, 1751 S. Nutwood, Anaheim. He believes the 2/3's vote required to make any changes relative to the Utilities as set forth by the City Charter was done as a protective measure to insure that any matters of importance to the residents that are going to be changed or implemented would reflect the voice of the people. Any change would be an injustice to the residents and open the door to a new way of doing business. Anaheim's Utilities Department is an asset to the residents. He then gave justification for his opposition to any change concluding that they should not try to weaken the process that is in place. Dick McMillan, Member of the Public Utilities Board. He moved to Anaheim about 34 years ago from a neighboring city because Anaheim was considered a visionary City with long-range plans. He is a strong advocate that cities should be in control of their own destinies including utilities. He has been a member of the Public Utilities Board since 1984. Based upon consideration of a possible change to Section 1220 it would appear that they are now considering taking a short-term cash flow for loss of long-term stability and control. He believes there are a number of people "out there" that would be more than willing to buy the Utilities, the reason being, the City has a very fine utility providing rates substantially less than neighboring cities. Before making their final deliberations, he would like the Council to consider the following: the Public Utilities Department provides roughly 15 million dollars to the City budget each year, approximately $7 million of overhead is assumed by the department, 65% of the City's water comes from the City's water reservoirs through the City's privately owned wells. It is an asset that cannot be replaced and is the envy of everybody in Southern California. Further, the impact of the City's Utilities Department in attracting businesses to the City as a result of rates and the ability to deal with new business is a significant advantage to the City. He emphasized he would like to believe they would be looking toward the future and not the immediate cash flow. After that is all received and spent, there will be questions they have to answer. Stan Stosel, Business Representative of IBEW LOCAL 47. They are in the middle of contract negotiations. Tempers are short and nerves are frayed with certain levels of distrust on behalf of his bargaining unit for the direction the City is taking. He has tried to assure the members that all is proceeding as normal and they can come to an agreement with the City. When a suggestion like this comes before the Council in the middle of bargaining negotiations, it is adding fuel to the fire and borders on bad faith negotiations. He would ask that the Council seriously consider if they are trying to reach an agreement on a contract, that is what the objective should be. It is difficult enough dealing with RFP's that are coming in without trying to find an easier way to sell the utility. He would recommend they come to a conclusion on a contract. He is arguing against this proposal. 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue consideration of a possible ballot measure to amend Section 1220 of the City Charter for one week. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly. While he feels this is a legitimate issue for public discussion, at this time it is premature in light of the fact that the proposals have just been received. He is not sure this is a necessary discussion at this time and perhaps should be postponed to the future; Council Member Tail He is not necessarily in disagreement. C1. 173: REQUEST OF SOUTH COAST CAB COMPANY TO OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE IN ANAHEIM: To consider the application submitted by South Coast Cab Company for a taxicab permit to operate a taxi service within the City of Anaheim. This matter was continued from the City Council meeting of January 13, 1998 (see minutes that date). Mayor Daly. In terms of procedure, this is not a public hearing but a request for a permit. He asked the City Attorney the recommended guidelines. City Attorney White. He confirmed it is not a public hearing. However there should be an opportunity for interested parties in the application which would include the applicant and the applicant's representative or legal counsel as well as existing permit holders, to address the Council. It is discretionary with the Council relative to additional comments they wish to receive. Under the Brown Act, any member of the public has the right to speak but those are limited to a maximum of three minutes as opposed to a public hearing where there is no time limit. Mayor Daly asked to hear from a representative of South Coast Cab Company. John Erskine, Attorney, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, representing South Coast Cab Company. He first noted that the survey reports that were done, a survey of their ability to serve the entire City and a survey on public necessity and convenience, were not specifically attached to the staff report but were referenced. Those were submitted to the Clerk and staff previously. In addition, he hopes the Council has received the February 2, 1998 letter from him which responded to the items brought up at the last hearing which he believes is the reason Council Member Lopez wanted additional time. (Mayor Daly stated it had been received). Mr. Erskine's presentation then covered the following: They are present to appeal to the Council's sense of fairness and desire for free trade and to make more transportation available for the residents and tourists of Anaheim. The October 28, 1997 denial came with a Council suggestion or discussion that the applicant reapply and submit more detailed information specifically, evidence supporting the Council's ability to make the findings required in the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to public convenience and necessity and South Coast's ability to serve the entire City. A revised application was submitted on November 25, 1997 along with a detailed objective survey report providing results of a mail survey of 104 Anaheim Chamber of Commerce businesses. He then relayed the results of the survey conducted by Jack Armstrong and Associates - (see "A Study of the Ability of South Coast Cab Company to Adequately Service the Non-Resort Areas of Anaheim as of November, 1977). He stated that the consultant's survey overwhelmingly showed that members of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and hotel, motel restaurant and bar businesses want additional service. The applicant's survey showed, on the issue to serve the entire City, South Coast could cover non-resort areas as well as Yellow Cab and much more than A Taxi service. In continuing his presentation, he stated that one major written complaint that has been completely ignored is the letter received from Columbia West Medical Center from Ken Kaiser to City staff. The statement that there has been zero complaints is not valid. He then reviewed what other cities are doing with respect to the number of taxi cab companies they allow in their cities. After covering additional issues and in concluding, Mr. Erskine stated that ultimately the Council has an opportunity to improve 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 and expand transportation service to both Anaheim residents and to those who come as tourists. They hope the Council will grant the permit for South Coast Cab Company tonight. Mayor Daly asked to hear from those present who wished to speak in support. Rich Swadowski, 11811 Gilbert, Garden Grove. He has a business at 8901 Katella in Anaheim, the Loose Moose Saloon and Grill. They have used different cab companies and have had a bad experience with Yellow Cab and other companies. Six months ago they started using South Coast and it is the best service yet. Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone present in opposition. Mr. Larry Slagle, Yellow Cab Company, 1619 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. (Also see Mr. Slagle's testimony given at the meeting of January 13, 1998.) He then gave an extensive presentation on why he opposes the application and the reasons it should be denied. Some of his main reasons were: the survey done was vague and misleading with respect to the questions asked, with the required lettering (notice) inside the cabs, the City would be the designated recipient of complaints, the Chamber is a natural outlet for complaints for the business community and there were no calls to the Chamber, there are no new users of taxi cab service in the City and if someone else comes in, the business will then be divided by thirds, other cities may have more permits, but they do not have the investment and the type of attractions and conventions that Anaheim has, their (South Coast) statement to staff was that they have changed and are a different company but the survey shows they are not a different company, there are no calls on the west side of town near their facility, the City has a risk of diluting existing service, increased rates, an overcharge or line situation at the hotels, and less service. In concluding Mr. Slagle stated that staff's recommendation is that there hasn't been proven need and to deny the operation. He feels it would be shortsighted for Anaheim to authorize an additional provider of service. Because of the kind of issues raised, he would recommend that staff develop a plan that includes standards and criteria to more objectively determine the level of service available to the tourists and residents of the City so that an objective finding could be made rather than wording a survey (as South Coast did). It is time to set up standards and guidelines and then entertain new applications as they look at additional business and opportunities. He is requesting that the Council deny the additional taxi cab service under the authority vested in them by State law. Ray Torres, 5987 E. Avenida LaVida, Anaheim. Yellow Cab is a 54-year old cab company in Anaheim who has given back to the community. They have done an excellent job in those 54 years and should be given some due consideration. They are a very credible company and just on that long-term credibility, he supports denial of the subject application. Mayor Daly. That will conclude additional speakers although there may be questions of staff. This is a discussion about the two findings of the ability to cover the City with cab service and public need and necessity. The applicant has provided two studies as evidence in support of those findings. He asked staff if in their opinion the studies submitted were completed in a fair and even-handed way and are they useful in making a decision on this matter. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager stated he feels they were done fairly. He met with the South Coast consultant, Jack Armstrong before the survey was sent out. What he (Poole) gave more weight to is the fact that they go out and look into the tourist area and see cabs continually waiting in line. Staff feels it is important to have input from the Visitor and Convention Bureau since they are in tune with what is going on. The Chamber takes in complaints and they have not heard any. Staff has not heard any complaints. He gives that type of information more weight than the survey. Mayor Daly asked for comments on the statement made by the representative of South Coast regarding the number of permits in other Orange County cities, i.e., Newport Beach 10, Costa Mesa 8, Santa Ana 6, etc. 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 John Poole. They have seen cities where there are a number of companies and also cities where there is only one company. Anaheim is very unique by the fact that the City has such an influx of tourists and still tries to maintain cab service in the entire City. In cities where there are no tourists, different cab companies could operate and not cause a problem. Where staff is concerned, for instance, with the Lozano Cab Company which was approved in Anaheim prior to A Cab, once approved, they were in the Disneyland tourist area and not in the neighborhoods responding to calls. Staff is trying to balance their recommendation to make sure there are adequate cabs but not too many to cause problems in certain areas of the City. Council Member Zemel. He noted in testimony given by the owner of the Loose-Moose that they were now calling South Coast Cab Company. He asked how that could be if South Coast does not have a permit to operate in the City; Mr. Poole stated the address indicated is in the County and they can operate in the County area. Council Member Zemel. On October 28, 1997, the Council voted and found no need or necessity for this cab company to operate in the City. He asked if anything had changed in the City in the period of time since then that would cause staff to feel differently. Have new attractions opened, huge businesses, any more demand today that staff knows about that is different; Mr. Poole answered no. Council Member McCracken. Since then, they have received reports on attendance figures from the Convention Center. There was a three million drop in attendance in 1997 and a loss of several major conventions in the next several years (until the convention center expansion is completed). The Visitor and Convention Bureau also asks for a detailed report after conventions/meetings and has information about the needs. She is concerned about the decrease in figures for the next couple of years. Mayor Daly. His perspective is that there is an inevitability about adding more cab service to Anaheim as the City grows, the resort area grows and as the convention center is expanded. It is difficult to find a rationale to deny a legitimate business when other similar businesses are operating. If the City's existing standards have been met and the application has been reviewed in terms of background checks, how are they to deny additional business and service to potential users. He has great respect for the existing operators; however, this is a regulated enterprise and to deny the new business because of fear of the unknown would be wrong. It is a matter of competition and free enterprise. Having said that, he will be the first to act if there are bad results in Anaheim. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the application submitted by South Coast Cab Company for a taxicab permit to operate a taxi service in Anaheim; the motion died for lack of a second. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to deny the application submitted by South Coast Cab Company for a taxicab permit to operate a taxi service in Anaheim based on the finding that there is no public convenience or necessity to do so. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Lopez stated since there are a sufficient number of cabs operating in the City currently, he is concerned that since South Coast has been approved as a bonafide company, if a permit is denied at this time, what will prevent another cab company from applying. He asked if South Coast would still be in the loop. City Attorney White. Referring to the Planning Department staff report dated January 13, 1998, one of the suggestions or options given to the Council was if they determine that there is currently no need for additional cab service and the only reason for denial is because there is no need, not because they are unqualified, there is the ability by a separate motion to indicate that the Council would create a place holder for this company so that in the future if there is a need, that the Council would consider this particular applicant's request. That would avoid the problem broached by Council Member Lopez and would give South Coast the ability to be first in line for a time when there is an additional need for cab service. It would take a separate motion but language to do that is in the recommendation section of the January 13, 1998 staff report. 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Council Member 7emel. He is reluctant to amend his motion and is stopping at, there is no public need and necessity. Council Member McCracken. South Coast has filled all the requirements except for the public need and necessity. Perhaps a year or 18 months from now when Tinsel Town opens as well as a group of new hotels there will be an increased need from this increase in business. She does not see the need right now so can support the motion but the application might be considered if there is a need in the near future. Council Member Lopez. He concurs. The company has met all other requirements but this one. He will support the motion. Council Member Zemel. Saying that South Coast Cab will be the next in line, how will they know what the company will be like six months from now or later. City Attorney White. The intent simply is that South Coast would be considered but not that they are entitled to a permit. They would be the first one considered. They have to go through the same process; Council Member Tail He asked then if they are saying that the application is denied without prejudice. City Attorney White. The motion on the table is simply to deny but if the Council wanted to add, without prejudice, that would be reasonable. What Council Member Lopez was talking about would be a separate action. John Poole. Staff is recommending denial because of the finding that the public convenience and necessity does not currently require the operation of this cab service. Staff also gave Council wording if they find that South Coast meets all the other criteria, then the wording set forth in the staff report is that they would be considered first if they meet the criteria. Council Member Tait. Previously there was also a finding that the company did not have an adequate number of cabs to service the entire City. He asked if that was no longer true. John Poole. The number of cabs they are now proposing to start with, the 13, would increase to 40. Staff believes they have the ability to get adequate cabs to serve the City. He confirmed that the only finding remaining is the public need and necessity. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to deny the permit amended to include, without prejudice. Mayor Daly voted No. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Lopez. He is going to offer a motion that South Coast Cab Company be considered first if there is a need and necessity in the future. City Attorney White. He asked if Council Member Lopez would like his motion to be worded the way the second paragraph in the January 13, 1998 staff report reads: "the Council may wish, by motion, to direct staff to reprocess said application of South Coast Cab Company for further consideration by the City Council upon either (i) January 12, 1999, or (ii) the discontinuation or reduction of taxicab service by an existing permit holder in the City, or (iii) the filing, and prior to City Council consideration, of an application for a taxicab permit by any other applicant, or (iv) the filing, and prior to City Council consideration, of an application or request of any existing City taxicab permit holder for additional taxicab service in the City, whichever occurs earliest." MOTION. Council Member Lopez moved the foregoing recommendation by staff as articulated by the City Attorney and as contained in the January 13, 1998 staff report. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White clarified for Council Member Zemel all the motion would do would be to bring the application back for consideration. It is not a predetermination but holds their place. 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4307 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11: OWNER: WATT COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, INC., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218 AGENT: SIGN METHODS, 1749 East 28th Street, Signal Hill, CA 90806 LOCATION: 5711-5799 East La Palma Avenue - Canyon Villa.qe Plaza. Property is 9.91 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Waiver of permitted freestanding signs and permitted type of sign (deleted) to construct two (2) freestanding pole signs. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Variance No. 4307 DENIED (PC97-117) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 abstained).lnformational Item at the meeting of Sept. 9, 1997, Item B4. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by the Agent, Sign Methodist 1749 E. 28th Street, Signal hill, Ca. 90806. Public hearing continued from the meetings of September 23, 1997, October 21, 1997, November 18, 1997, and December 9, 1997, at the request of the Agent. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - September 11, 1997. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 12, 1997. Posting of property - September 12, 1997. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 18, 1997. Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed supplemental staff report dated January 27, 1998 which summarized what has taken place since the matter was heard at the Council Meeting of October 21, 1997 and ultimately continued to this date. Staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the size and content of the proposed freestanding sign. He then compared what the code allows and what the applicant is proposing (see page 1 and 2 of the staff report). In concluding, he stated if the applicant's request is approved, staff continues to be concerned that other shopping centers in the scenic corridor could also initiate similar type requests. Mayor Daly. He surmises the bottom line is that staff continues to recommend against this application including the most recent submittal by the applicant; Joel Fick, Planning Director answered that is correct, that the application not be approved as submitted. Staff was hoping that the roof signs would be eliminated and the sign along LaPalma would be more in line with advertising in other commercial centers in the scenic corridor. Mayor Daly asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Dan Cardone, Sign Methods, 1749 East 28th Street, Signal Hill, CA. From the beginning, the need has been to help the small tenants in the Canyon Village Center because they cannot be seen. The scenic corridor does not give the small tenants any exposure. They worked with staff continuously. They have to put SAVON and Lucky on the signs and at least have four tenants on each side. Other signs in the scenic corridor are larger. He was not trying to compare "apples with apples" but was trying to show there are other large pylon signs. In addressing the building signs, they see no other way except 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 to remodel the entire shopping center to bring the signs up. The nursery across the street has a sign exactly like they are proposing. Without spending a lot of money, this is the only way to accomplish what they need to accomplish. They are looking for some approval and some compromise. He again urged that they try to help out the small business owners. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Daly. The public hearing has been continued on two previous occasions. They wanted the applicant to try to work out a solution with staff but it appears that has not happened. The applicant is asking for signs which exceed the code, in particular, roof mounted signs on the shopping center buildings which clearly exceed the code. He visited the site and looked at the signage and is convinced there are solutions available to the property owner and sign company if they choose to pursue them. If the Council approves what they are requesting, they would be setting a precedent for the Anaheim hills neighborhood. They have generally been consistently strict with signage in the area. He believes staff feels strongly on this one and they should not relax their standards in this case. He intends to support denial of the request keeping in mind that the Planning Commission previously denied this request as well. Council Member Tait. He asked what kind of sign would have been allowed from staff's point of view. Greg Hastings. Code does allow one sign on each street frontage and requires the sign be placed on a wall parallel to the street. A good example is the Crossroads Center at Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road with 26 sq. ft. per sign. Joel Fick. It was originally the intent of the Council to encourage staff to work with the applicant. They were open to consideration of other signs but they do not feel the proposal tonight is in keeping with that. Council Member Tait. He agrees. It is important to keep a level playing field and if they do more for this center they would have to do the same for all the rest. He will support denial. Mayor Daly. If the applicant wishes to continue working with City planning staff the opportunity is there. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion By Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait, the City Council determined that the proposed activity fall within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 11, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-22 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 98R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 4307. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-22 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-22 duly passed and adopted. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 C4. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Zemel. He asked that an item be placed on next week's Council agenda - a discussion to consider a ballot measure to be placed on the June ballot, the Anaheim Term Limits Act. He has a written proposal that he will be submitting to the Council some time tomorrow so they can review it in time for next Tuesday. He would like to have placed in front of the voters term limits similar to the ones he discussed throughout this last year with the Council but one where they did not come to a final result. Mayor Daly asked if these are term limits for City advisory commissions; Council Member Zemel answered, beards and commissions, and the Mayor and City Council. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of February 3, 1998 was adjoumed (7:05 P.M.). LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 19