Loading...
1998/07/21ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING MANAGER: Greg Hastings CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:20 p.m. on July 17, 1998 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:00 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. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 1. 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: 2. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: One potential case. Existing facts and circumstances: possible challenge to pending decision concerning contact for emergency transportation services. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR 3. (Government Code Section 54956.8): Property: Southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Vermont Negotiating parties: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Robert D. Bird Under negotiation: Price and terms. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 4. Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: one potential case. RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:07 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of July 21, 1998 to order at 5:12 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Mary L. Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Zemel led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING SERVICE ON THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION: 119: Recognizing Jeff Farano for his service on the Budget Advisory Commission. Mayor Daly and Council Members extended their appreciation to Mr. Farano for his three years of dedicated service to the citizens of Anaheim as a member of the Budget Advisory Commission. (A “Flying A” plaque will be presented to Mr. Farano at a later date as he was unable to be present at the meeting.) FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,450,567.79 for the period ending July 20, 1998, in accordance with the 1998-99 Budget, were approved. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Jack C. Dutton, 1400 S. Sunkist Street, Space #181, Anaheim. (He prefaced his remarks by giving his background as a resident of the Anaheim community for many years as well as his service as a City Council Member and then Mayor from 1962 to 1970). His remarks, opinions, observations and facts are addressed to all the Council but particularly to Council Member Bob Zemel. His concern deals with the proposed contract for ambulance service in the City of Anaheim and his observations viewing the Council meeting a few weeks ago (see minutes of 6/23/98 - also discussed at previous meetings of 5/26 and 6/9/98) relating to the RFP (Request for Proposal) and contract. He recounted some of the things that took place at that meeting and especially the comments of Mr. Zemel who complained about a number of things and the process in general relative to the selection of the recommended ambulance company. He (Dutton) feels the integrity of the five-man committee who made the recommendation was called into question as well as members of Fire staff. He was also disturbed at Mr. Zemel’s continued cross-examination of the consultant (Christine Altmeyer) who was asked by the City Manager to evaluate the extensive RFP process that was undertaken by the Fire Department. Mr. Zemel stated that the proposed recipient of the contract only had two months experience which was later confirmed to be six years experience in the State of Alabama. He also expressed his concern that Mr. Zemel has a problem with the City Manager. He believes that City Manager Ruth does a fine job and does it well under the provisions of the City Charter and the City’s Council/Manager form of government (quoting applicable sections of the City Charter) wherein the City Manager is mandated to do the things he does. He notes that the ambulance matter has again been continued (see Item A19.) but hopes that when it is again discussed, his comments will be considered. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bob Lowe. He was present last week (see minutes of July 14, 1998) and was critical of how their neighborhood had been negatively impacted due to the actions of City departments, especially Public Utilities. After expressing the concerns of the neighborhood at the Council meeting, the response from the City during the past week was very positive. The Utilities Department and various other departments were out to the area and everything they told the residents they would do, they did, on time and on schedule. He is present tonight to personally thank all those who were involved though he did not get all their names. He wanted to especially thank Jafar Taghavi, Public Utilities, Larry Powers, also of Public Utilities, and Stan Madrid from the City Manager’s Office. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Steven Gooch, 420 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim. He relayed concerns he has regarding the Police Department as well as what occurred when he went to the Mayor’s Office on July 13, 1998 to initially report incidents that had taken place involving him and his family. In reporting his concerns, he felt that there was a breach of confidentiality on the part of staff in calling the Police Department with whom he claims he was having difficulty. He also read a memorandum from staff (Stan Madrid) documenting his visit of the 13th and his complaint(s). The Council was supposed to receive a copy of the report. He then proceeded to continue to read the report and to explain his various contacts including those with the Police Department. Mayor Daly interjected and asked Mr. Gooch what he would like the Council to do; Steve Gooch. He would like a response back from the Police Department. He also addressed the City’s tax on transients starting on the 31st day of occupancy at a motel (where he resides with his family) and he feels there should be a law to prevent the collection of that tax because it is not required by the City. He needs to express his feelings and the troubles he is having especially with the Police Department and needs to talk to somebody in Federal investigations or the like. Mayor Daly. He will have the City Manager explore the issues broached but he also advised Mr. Gooch that as a citizen of the United States, he should go to the appropriate law enforcement agency if he feels he has been wronged. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Agenda items. MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of July 21 , 1998. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A15: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel , the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-155 and 98R-156 , both inclusive, for adoption.. 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 Maria De Rosas for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 13, 1998 . b. Claim submitted by Scott G. Fish and Jesse Gonzalez c/o Michael J. Sheldon, Esq. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 18 , 1997. A2. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for eleven months ended May 31, 1998, as presented by the Finance Director. A3. 168: Directing staff to contact, by mail, the property owners potentially affected by renaming Romneya Drive between Harbor Boulevard and Lemon Street to Carl Karcher Drive; and agendizing a resolution adopting the street name change. 3 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Council Member Zemel. This is a great opportunity to rename a small strip of Romneya after a leading citizen in the community, Carl Karcher. He feels this is long overdue. He believes, however, the change was to be to Carl Karcher Way and not Drive. At the conclusion of the consent calendar, approval of this item included the change to Carl Karcher Way from (Carl Karcher) Drive. A4. 160: Accepting the base bid of Canada Power Products Corporation, c/o Matzinger-Keegan, in the amount of $295,200 for forty 600-Amp SF-6 subsurface switches, in accordance with Bid #5803. A5. 123: Authorizing a First Amendment to Agreement with All City Management Services, Inc., to provide reimbursement to the City of Anaheim, Police Department for costs incurred during the school crossing guard services contract. A6. 160; Accepting the low bid of San Dieguito Publishers, Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $110,184 for printing four issues of the Anaheim Magazine, in accordance with Bid #5830. A7. 123: Approving the contract for legal services with Long and Marquis, LLP. A8. 123: Approving a Third Amendment to Agreement between the City of Anaheim and E. Del Smith and Company, Inc., extending Washington D. C. representation services from August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999. A9. 116: Approving the funding recommendations, selecting the new JTPA training agencies for the period of July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999; and authorizing the JTPA Manager to execute the necessary subcontract agreements and amendments thereto. Approving a one-year extension of existing occupational skills training agencies for the delivery of services through June 30, 1999, and authorizing the JTP Manager to execute the necessary subcontract agreements and/or amendments thereto. A10. 123: Approving the Automatic Aid Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. Authorizing the Fire Chief to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and such amendments to said MOU that may be operationally necessary in the future, except those amendments constituting any change in policy, which shall require approval of the City Council. Authorizing the Fire Chief, or his/her designee, to carry out the operational policies of the MOU. A11. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two ye ars old. (Planning Department/Code Enforcement Division.) A12. 155: Determining that the Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with the prezoning of the Katella Yard property serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request. 103: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission commence proceedings, without notice and hearing, for the annexation of the County’s Kate lla Yard property (2630 through 2650 East Katella Avenue) to the City of Anaheim. A13. 123: Approving an Agreement with Orange County Transportation Authority and Southern California Regional Rail Authority for extensions of steel casings to accommodate existing water 4 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 facilities; and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. (Ball Road, Cerritos Avenue, and State College Boulevard.) A14. 123: Approving an Assignment and Acceptance Agreement, which assigns certain responsibilities under the Revolving Credit Agreement, dated June 29, 1993, to Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York. ($28,000,000 short term tax-exempt commercial paper program - Utilities.) A15. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council special meeting held July 2, 1998. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R- 155 and 98R- 156 , for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAY OR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R- 155 and 98R- 156 , duly passed and adopted. END OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION FOR FIRE IMPASSE ARBITRATION: A16. 127: Setting priorities for filing written arguments relative to the subject and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. This matter was discussed and continued from the meeting of July 14, 1998 to this date. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis relative to the Anaheim Firefighter Charter Amendment - Impasse Resolution initiative petition. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly. The remaining action has to do with filing arguments and in particular the setting of priorities. He asked the City Clerk what type of direction she needed from the Council if the Council reserves the opportunity and right to file ballot arguments either for or against. City Clerk Leonora Sohl. If they want to designate members to publicly file arguments in favor or against, those names will be included in the proposed resolution. She also clarified, all five could sign or one or two or three or whoever chooses. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that any member of the City Council including the Mayor may have a priority position in terms of signing ballot arguments either in favor or against the ballot measure in question. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. City Clerk Sohl. August 7, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Clerk’s office is the deadline for any direct arguments to be received including the impartial analysis. 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBMITTAL OF GRANT AWARD - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF A17. 156: JUSTICE FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT MOBILE DATA COMPUTER PROJECT: To consider a resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant award in the amount of $632,124 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, under the FY 1998 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, and for the Anaheim Police Department’s Mobile Data Computer Project. Submitted was report dated July 21, 1998 from Chief of Police, Randall Gaston recommending submittal of the grant proposal. City Manager, James Ruth. The Police Department received a grant this past year for this project. If they are not successful this year, an estimated $1.5 million is still needed to complete the project. The Police Department will continue to seek other funding sources. 5 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being no one who wished to speak, he closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-157 for adoption Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 157 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-157 duly passed and adopted. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS - APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS TO TERMS EXPIRING A18. 105: JUNE 30, 1998: This matter was continued from the meeting of July 14, 1998 to this date. Mayor Daly. He is going to suggest that the Council consider reappointing all those persons now serving on various Boards and Commissions who have indicated they wish to be reappointed and subsequently work their way down the list to consider any vacant positions. Five of the nine commissions involve the reappointment of existing commissioners. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to reappoint all of the persons currently serving on Boards and Commissions who wish to be reappointed. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The following people were thereupon reappointed to the various Boards and Commissions as indicated: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING COMMISSION - TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: JOHN KARCYZYNSKI BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION - TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: PHILY KNYPSTRA - WILLIAM O’CONNELL COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD - TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: JUNE LOWRY - MARTHA MISER - FRANK RAMIREZ - ROSS ROMERO - JACQUELYN TERRELL - JAMES VANDERBILT LIBRARY BOARD - TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: BURTON FINK - CRISTIAN MILLER PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION - TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: ANDREA MANES - GLADYS WALLACE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: JOE WHITE SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION - TERMS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001: MARY ATWELL - RONALD COSTELLO Mayor Daly noted the remaining vacancies (terms ending 6/30/2002) are as follows: One (unscheduled) vacancy on the Budget Advisory Commission (for the term ending 6/30/2000), one vacancy on the Investment Advisory Commission, two vacancies on the City Planning Commission, and two vacancies on the Public Utilities Board (one unscheduled for the term ending 6/30/99). 6 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Council Member Lopez nominated Stan Sewell for the Budget Advisory Commission (term ending 6/30/2000 filling the unscheduled vacancy left by Jeff Farano). MOTION. On motion by Council Member Zemel seconded by Council Member Tait, nominations were closed. MOTION CARRIED. A vote was then taken on the appointment of Stan Sewell to the Budget Advisory Commission for the term ending June 30, 2000. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Sewell was thereupon appointed to the BAC. MOTION: Mayor Daly moved that the remaining vacancies be continued one week. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Appointments to the following Boards and Commission were thereupon continued one week: Investment Advisory Commission (one vacancy); City Planning Commission (two vacancies); Public Utilities Board (two vacancies). CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION (AMBULANCE) SERVICES FOR A19. 129: THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: Authorizing City staff to enter into negotiations with Care Ambulance Services, Inc., to develop a contract for emergency transportation services for the City of Anaheim. This matter was continued from the meetings of May 26, June 9 and June 23,1998 to this date. City Manager Ruth. Staff is requesting a continuance of this matter to August 18, 1998. MOTION. Council Member Tait. He moved to continue the subject until August 18, 1998. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion noting that it has been his position to move faster. Before action was taken, Mayor Daly asked the City Manager if it was his belief that the consultant will need that amount of time. City Manager Ruth answered yes. The consultant indicated he would have the staff report completed by August 11 but that would not give the Council the opportunity to review it for the August 11 Council meeting. Mayor Daly explained that the City Manager has taken steps to hire an independent consultant to review the recommendations of the Fire Department and the Advisory Committee that participated in the RFP process. He is concerned that the information just given by the City Manager relative to timing is not consistent with the conversation they had yesterday. City Manager Ruth. He talked to the consultant today who informed him that the report could be done by August 11. That would be the first time the Council will see it with no chance to react. Mayor Daly. They have been discussing this issue for nine months and there has been one delay after another. Now there is a request to continue it another 30 days. He is very concerned that the ability of City government to do business has been seriously hampered by a variety of questions and concerns he does not think are legitimate. This is the second consultant hired to confirm that the Fire Chief and Fire Department have integrity and are qualified to bring recommendations to the Council. He is disappointed that there will be four more weeks of analysis to review all the work that has already been done. It is not consistent with what he was expecting nine months ago when they started the process to competitively bid the contract. A vote was then taken on the motion to continue to August 18, 1998. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3633 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: B1. OWNER: HARVEY S. OWEN, Post Office Box 308, Buena Park, CA 92803 7 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 LOCATION: 1732 South Euclid Street. Property is 0.55-acre, having a frontage of 102 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of 232 feet and located 300 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To consider reinstatement of this permit and amending a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation to allow sale s of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within a previously- approved restaurant. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved CUP NO. 3633 (ZA DECISION NO. 98-18) for a period of two years. Negative Declaration previously approved. END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS. PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT D1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4010, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Southern California Edison Company, 100 North Long Beach Blvd., #1004, Long Bea ch, CA 90802 AGENT: CGA Associates, Attn: Gavin Berry, 1525 Monrovia Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 1505 South State College Boulevard. Property is 10 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and State College Boulevard. To construct a 91,310 square foot self storage facility with waiver of minimum parking lot landscaping (deleted). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 4010 GRANTED, IN PART, for ten years, to expire May 11, 2008 (PC98-78) (5 yes v otes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy). Denied waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. Informational item at the meeting of June 2, 1998, Item B5. Letter of appeal submitted by Carl Beckmann, President of Everest Storage. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by Carl Beckmann, President of Everest Storage and Public Hearing was scheduled for this date. Informational item at the meeting of June 2, 1998. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - July 9, 1998 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 2, 1998 Posting of property - July 10, 1998 STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 11, 1998. Applicant’s Statement: Tony Arness, Vice President, Everest Storage. He is present to seek elimination of Condition No. 1 to the CUP which reads, “That this approval shall expire ten (10) years from the date of this resolution, on May 11, 2008.” He has had the opportunity to meet or at least talk with all of the Council Members and shared their position, thoughts and concerns. It is his belief given the circumstances of this project, where it is located, the unique nature of the site, the type of needs the site demands, etc., the imposition of this condition would not allow the project to go forward. Mayor Daly. To clarify the request, the Planning Commission approved all the terms of the proposal and also placed a ten-year time limit on the use of the property. The applicant is suggesting a change in the language. He asked what the applicant would like to have done; Mr. Arness stated they would like to have the condition imposing a ten-year limit eliminated. They have to have a sufficient length of time within which to build the project, stabilize the project, and recapture the original investment. The time frame over which they were able to negotiate terms and conditions between California Edison (the owner) and Everest Storage was a 40-year ground lease period. He then summarized the specifics of 8 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 the project during which he noted that it is designed so it is not visible from the street, it will substantially improve the streetscape and there will be substantial street improvements including State College at a cost of approximately $400,000. In ten years, they will barely be able to recover their investment, let alone a return. A 20-year limit will not work either. The condition does not enhance the project. There are already conditions in the CUP that require them to keep it up and, if not, the City can revoke the CUP. The character of the site is not going to change. Edison has reaffirmed they have no intention of removing the utility lines from the location. They have tried to work with staff and the Planning Commission on all concerns regarding landscaping, visibility, what it might look like in ten years, etc. All protective devices are built into the CUP. Questions were then posed by Council Members relative to some of the specifics of the project which were answered by the Planning Director, Joel Fick who also explained staff’s thinking in recommending a five-year time limit (later increased to 10 years by the Planning Commission) as well as the possibilities for future use of the property which would be precluded by making this a permanent use on the site. At the conclusion of extensive discussion, Mayor Daly stated he believes the Planning Commission struck a fair compromise because of the nature of the site and the improvements proposed. A 10-year time limit is reasonable. It is a changing area and they are asking for more upscale development along State College. It would be short sighted not to put some sort of time limit on the project. The Planning staff recommended five years and the Planning Commission ten. He is prepared to support the Planning Commission’s decision. The benefits of the project including landscaping are good. He feels that type of landscaping improvement could happen simply by a joint project with the City and the Edison Company. The City’s desire is to see the right-of-way beautified and improved which could be accomplished in a number of ways and this project is one. Carl Beckman, President of Everest Storage. He would like to address some of the questions brought up. He then spoke to the issue of the deterioration of the containers, how well they are constructed, their appearance, etc., their intention is to fully maintain the project, what is to be done under the terms of the lease with Edison, use of such properties as parks and the terms under which Edison allows such uses, and the use of the land for potential expansion of adjoining properties which they believe lacks potential on this property. He also showed samples of the container material and the color they will be painted. Mayor Daly. He noted there is a new hotel being built at the corner of State College and Katella as well as other high-rise buildings. He asked if people in the hotel and office buildings will be able to look down and see the site; Joel Fick. Line-of-sight studies have not been submitted. There are a number of buildings and properties in between those sights and a number will be very tall. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Joel Fick, Planning Director. He again explained for the Mayor the thinking of the Planning Department staff in setting a time limit on the use, the primary issues being the potential changing land uses and the character of the area. Mayor Daly. If this were a permanent development with permanent features, it would be a different case. By its nature it is an interim use and interim development. The City is currently spending money to replan the neighborhood and make it more attractive through various improvements. He does not feel one squares with the other. It is a lease with the Edison Company and he has to believe there are other ways for Edison and a self-storage developer to work out a deal. He sees more reasons to hold firm in this case because of the exciting improvements that are happening in this part of the City. Council Member Tait. He is concerned if they limit the use to 10 years, that nothing will happen. He feels this is an opportunity to enhance that corner. The temporary buildings do not bother him because they will be out of view completely. As long as the outside is attractive, he believes this will be an enhancement to the area. This is a proposal for a self-storage facility and the subject property is the kind they have talked about that would lend itself to such an action. It is under power lines. 9 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Council Member Zemel. He is sensitive to the investment concept. Not allowing for a return, the corner may not be developed. He sees this as an opportunity to enhance the corner although he recognizes it as a secondary use on the property. He is going to support the request for more time but is asking the Planning Director if there is more they may be able to get in exchange. Joel Fick. The landscaping is very substantial and the use is set back quite a way. It will subsequently be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mayor Daly. It was mentioned that many other communities have worked with the Edison Company to create greenbelts or at a minimum install landscaping. If it is the desire of the Council to see landscaping occur at the corner, they can probably accompish that by approaching Edison and working out an arrangement. He reiterated if they want to see the site beautified, they do have choices and this is not the only one. Mr. Beckman again approached the podium to clarify some points about the site; Mayor Daly explained that it was awkward to take additional input since the hearing was closed but allowed him to proceed. Carl Beckman. He explained the original application indicated it was a 10-acre site. The site plan is only six acres. Even though the original application called for a 10-acre development, in an attempt to make the site less visible, they cut it down to six acres. If the concern is the landscaping in the front, they could work with staff to move the wall to the rear of the towers and provide a grass area in the front to make it more open and park like. They are open to working with staff on the landscaping. Mr. Beckman then answered questions posed by Council Member Lopez relative to the financial aspects involved and the fact that the project is based on a 40-year cash flow and by restricting it to 10 years, the rate of return barely earns back the cost. Council Member Tait. He is not comfortable voting for a 40-year time frame but might be if staff were to relook at this project. Perhaps there could be more landscaping, additional setback, something that makes it a real beautification to the corner and the community. Once they come back with that, he might be willing to consider it. He asked if the applicant would be willing to go back to staff. Carl Beckman. They would be happy to do so. He would prefer to have the condition removed with the direction that they go back to staff and work further on the project. They have to go back to the Planning Commission for a site review in any case and would be happy to work with staff to solve the problem in the front. Council Member Tait. He would be more comfortable with a continuance and asked if two weeks was adequate; Carl Beckman. That would be agreeable to them. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved that a decision on the subject project be continued three weeks (since no Council meeting is scheduled in two weeks). Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3623, AND NEGATIVE D2. DECLARATION - REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Frank Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved 80-bed convalescent facility. This petition was originally approved on September 8, 1993. LOCATION: Property is located at 111 South Mohler Drive. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Denied extension of time for CUP NO. 3623. Negative Declaration previously approved. Informational item at the meeting of June 2, 1998, Item B9. Letter of appeal submitted by Frank Minissale. 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by Frank Minissale and Public Hearing was scheduled for this date. Informational item at the meeting of June 2, 1998. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - July 9, 1998 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 2, 1998 Posting of property - July 10, 1998 STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 11, 1998. Applicant’s Statement: Mr. Frank Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim. The Planning Commission on May 11, 1998 denied him an extension on his CUP which he could not understand since he had a buyer that was already funded and already started plans for the project. He was supposed to be present tonight but apparently was delayed coming from the other side of Los Angeles. The Planning Commission said traffic patterns have changed since then (the time of approval). He does not understand that either because he lives on the property and he sees there is a lot less traffic than before. He went to the Traffic Engineer and got the City of Anaheim Traffic Census Report for Santa Ana Canyon Road between Fairmont and Weir Canyon. His property lies in between. In 1995, the traffic count was 23,440, in 1996/97, 16,700 or a 30% drop perhaps due to the toll road and a lot of other things. He stated in answer to the Mayor that he is not asking for a retroactive extension of time. The hearing before the Planning Commission on May 11, 1998 was for a hearing on the CUP itself. It is not for a retroactive extension of time but for another year extension. Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff to clarify the time frames in question. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The CUP expired March 22, 1998 based on a previous time extension. When the matter was before the Planning Commission on May 11, 1998, it was for a retroactive time extension going back to the March 22, 1998 date. This project originally went to the Planning Commission for approval September 8, 1993 and it came back to the Council on March 7, 1994. Mayor Daly. The Council approved the project on March 22, 1994 and subsequently the applicant asked for a couple of extensions. This is the third request and Mr. Minissale is not suggesting any changes to the plans. Mayor Daly. He asked if they had adequate plans on file if an extension is granted and someone builds the project. Are they precise enough so that staff is comfortable if someone builds those plans, that will be a good project; Greg Hastings. Plans are precise, but there are two conditions requiring landscape plans and sign plans to come back not made a part of the original plan. Mayor Daly. He surmises staff’s recommendation is to deny the extension but if it is approved, that those things come back; Mr. Hastings confirmed that was correct. City Attorney White. To clarify the entire legal picture, if the Council were to deny the time extension, there is nothing that would prohibit either Mr. Minissale or any subsequent owner of the property could come in at any time and file a new application for a similar project which would be looked at in accordance with all the conditions that exist at the time of the application. There would be an application for new CUP. Even if denied tonight, it would not preclude either Mr. Minissale or a potential owner from applying and putting the project through the permit process again starting with the Planning Commission. 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Mayor Daly. The Planning staff recommendation is that the permits to build the convalescent home on the site have expired and should not be renewed and the Planning Commission agreed with staff. That is why Mr. Minissale has appealed the decision and is before the Council tonight. Frank Minissale. Now that there is “daylight at the end of the tunnel”, they are trying to shut him down. It is hard to take. The developer stated he is willing to work with the Council on the plans and design. He has previously submitted plans that the architect drew and they must be somewhere in the record. Mayor Daly. He noted that Code Enforcement staff has pointed out a number of code violations on the property and he asked if those had been corrected; Frank Minissale. He has taken care of 90% and is working on the last 10%. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Zemel. There is a reason why there is a time frame imposed on projects like this -- with time, things change and there have been a whole lot of changes on Santa Ana Canyon Road since the project was approved by the Planning Commission (1993) and the Council (1994). He is not even sure what the project entails and whether it would be approved today or not. He has a hard time allowing another extension. They need to look at the project again and make sure the decision made in 1993-94 is still a good one. He also feels that the code enforcement issues should be bifurcated from any decision made relative to the time extension. He concluded that he is not going to be able to support an extension at this time. The applicant should start over. Council Member Tait. He also cannot support the extension. He was on the Planning Commission at the time and voted against approval of the project because it is right in the middle of a residential area. He did not feel it was a proper use in the first place. City Attorney White. Any motion to deny should incorporate the five findings set forth on Page 3 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 11, 1998. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to deny the request for a retroactive time extension incorporating the five findings on Page 3 of the May 11, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Zemel. He confirmed for Mr. Minissale if a buyer came in with specific plans, he would be able to apply by going through the standard process. He asked Mr. Hastings to speak with Mr. Minissale to clarify Council action and to let him know what he needs to do in the future. PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT D3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4027, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: J.D. Gantes Airport Properties, P.O. Box 80340, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 AGENT: Jack Abi, 170 N. Maple Street, #103, Corona, CA 91720 LOCATION: 8295 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Burger King. Property is 2.33 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. To construct a second story 817 square foot indoor playground for an existing drive through restaurant (3,232 square foot total) within a commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 4027 DENIED (PC98-86) (5 yes votes, 2 absent). Denied waiver of code requirement. Denied previously-approved Negative Declaration. Informational item at the meeting of June 16, 1998, Item B4. Letter of appeal submitted by the owner, J. D. Gantes. 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by J.D. Gantes and Public Hearing was scheduled for this date. Informational item at the meeting of June 16, 1998. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - July 9, 1998 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 2, 1998 Posting of property - July 10, 1998 STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 27, 1998. Council Member Tait. Previously he declared a conflict on this project but has since had discussions with the City Attorney and apparently, he does not have a conflict and can participate in the discussion and vote on the matter; City Attorney White clarified that was correct. Mayor Daly. He asked staff to summarize the proposal; Greg Hastings. Zoning Division Manager. He described and summarized the project as outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission first noting that five months ago, a similar request was before the Council and the request denied due to a tie vote. The Planning Commission denied the project at their May 27, 1998 meeting. He also confirmed that the Planning staff has also recommended denial. Mayor Daly asked how the proposal has changed since the last time it was before the Planning Commission/Council; Greg Hastings. The square footage has been reduced and the height of the building has been reduced. Council Member Lopez. His concern from the beginning was traffic. Looking at the photographs that were submitted (by the applicant) before the meeting, the entire parking lot is impacted. He questioned how many more vehicles the proposed addition would generate and if it was compared with other similar type businesses relative to traffic generation. Greg Hastings. This particular application includes a parking waiver. A parking study was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. In answer to Council Member Lopez’s question about additional trips generated, he reviewed the information available and talked with other professionals. It is not really going to generate more trips but the trips that are attracted to the business right now will stay longer so it does have an impact. Council Member Tait asked if the parking was already close to capacity. John Lower. The parking spaces and all dimensions were not built to code so they are tight. Cars are getting bigger and that creates a problem. Council Member Tait asked if it is a problem lot as it exists right now; Mr. Lower answered, yes. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant. Applicant’s Statement: John Gantes, Franchisee for Burger King. They have reduced the building footprint from over 1,300 sq. ft. down to approximately 817 sq. ft. or a 38% reduction. They reduced the height from 35 ft. down to 29. With the playground, they are looking to reduce the number of seats in the restaurant by nine so that there would be less of a peak demand opportunity to exist in the restaurant due to a reduction in the seats. With regard to parking, they are attempting to add additional signage to direct cars to the parking areas that are under utilized. The parking study that was done months ago indicated there was ample parking but often people are parking closest to the front and not using the parking to the south and east of the project. With a playground, typically, it will stretch out the dining 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 opportunity hours. A lot of mothers come in during off hours. They are hoping to be busier during the times now when they are fairly quiet. Mr. Gantes then clarified on Council questioning that the tower on the building is approximately 24’; Greg Hastings. Staff believes the existing building is 19’ high (and the tower is 24’). Council Member Zemel asked what percentage of the building would go to 29’; Mr. Gantes answered only approximately 25%. Mr. Gantes continued that relative to anticipated sales, they are still anticipating a lower level than they were producing one to two years ago before there was another Burger King built at the intersection of Imperial and LaPalma which impacted their sales nearly 15%. With the playground, they are looking to bring their sales up in the eight to ten percent range. The average ticket goes up with families. He also clarified for Council Member Zemel that the project he is bringing before the Council tonight is less intrusive than the one presented earlier by almost 40% and that all the tenants are still supportive of the proposal. He went to them twice in January and again about six weeks later and talked to everybody in the center and also made some calls to inform them of their intent. He showed them plans so they had first-hand knowledge and he received unanimous support. The tenants have found when the Burger King traffic counts are higher, their traffic counts are also higher. In other words, they feel that Burger King’s success is also their success. In concluding, Mr. Gantes stated in a family-oriented community like Anaheim Hills, they would be satisfying the residents and fulfilling their needs by putting a playground in their facility and it is the only one in the area except for McDonalds in Yorba Linda gaining the sales tax revenue that could be in Anaheim. Andrea Manes, 1475 W. Wedgewood, Anaheim. She has occasion to be in that area often. This would be the only facility with a playground and she feels it would be an important addition to the area especially considering the amount of families and children living there. She has seen the congestion there on occasions but believes if the people are properly directed to use those parking spaces that are underutilized that will be helpful. It is beneficial to have people who are willing to invest money and expand. The Planning Commission approved the project the first time but did not do so this time. She urged that they look at the project as it is now proposed. She is in favor. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly. He asked if this restaurant is allowed to expand and build the 29’ extension what the implications are for the other two restaurants to the west (El Pollo Loco and Carl’s Jr.). All three buildings are in the scenic corridor. He asked if they will be creating a precedent. Joel Fick, Planning Director. This center originally had a setback variance approved at 50’. Santa Ana Canyon Road (S ACR ) has a 100’ setback. This would be an expansion of an existing structure in that setback area. Relative to similar requests, they would have to apply for a similar CUP. The Traffic and Transportation Manager has expressed concerns about the existing situation and he would expect that he would have concerns with additional requests as well. He also clarified for the Mayor that this would be the only two-story restaurant along that stretch of the corridor, certainly the only one in the center. Council Member Zemel. He is not sure he would have voted for this type of center at this corner in the first place but since it is there, if they can enhance business opportunities and none of the tenants are present in opposition, he does not feel it will hurt anything while at the same time keeping tax revenue in Anaheim. After additional discussion between Council Member Zemel and the Mayor relative to the appropriateness of projects in the scenic corridor and especially on Santa Ana Canyon Road, the Mayor stated it is important to have places for kids to play but it is also important for them to grow up in an attractive area in a planned community atmosphere. On the basis of poor planning, this would set a bad 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 precedent for the area. It is already a problem property because of the parking and circulation issues. They should not set a precedent allowing fast food buildings to go to two stories as this would. Council Member McCracken. She noted in driving around the area that some of the other restaurants to the west and in the Festival Shopping Center appear to be higher than the Burger King. She also feels that fast food restaurants are developing in this manner to appeal to mothers and/or child-care workers and offering playground facilities is an attraction. She is sure it is going to happen with all three restaurants. It is probably the direction in which a lot of fast food restaurants are going and they perhaps have to look at the issue. Council Member Tait noted that the applicant stated that they are removing seats in the restaurant; Mr. Gantes confirmed that was correct. There will be no seating on the second floor. On the first floor, some seating is being removed to accommodate a stair well to the second floor. They are taking out basically unoccupied seats. Allowing them to increase their business by 8 - 10%, people will spend more money and there will be greater utilization throughout the day. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Zemel , seconded by Council Member Mc Cracken , the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 98R-158 for adoption approving Conditional Use Permit 4027. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4027. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 158 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCI L MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R- 158 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general Council consent, the Council meeting was recessed for 10 minutes (7:37 P.M.). AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (7:52 P.M.). SOUTH COAST CAB COMPANY - REQUEST TO OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE: C1. 173: To consider the request of South Coast Cab Company to operate a Taxi Service within the City of Anaheim. COAST YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. - REQUEST TO OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE: C2. 173: To consider the request of Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc., to operate a Taxi Service within the City of Anaheim. Previously submitted were reports dated May 19, 1998 from John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager recommending denial of the applications submitted by South Coast Cab Company and Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. to operate taxi service within the City of Anaheim. Mr. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He referred to the subject reports noting that consideration on both applications were continued from the meeting of May 19, 1998 (see minutes that date) when the 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 suggestion was made that stickers be placed on the vehicles licensed to conduct business in the City. The process was completed in about two weeks; they were hoping to have more history than they do. One of the things staff did was to give some additional information beyond what is contained in the staff reports to give an idea of response times of the present two cab companies in the City. Mr. Poole then referred to the report just submitted wherein Code Enforcement conducted a survey on June 30, 1998 involving six calls to “A” Taxi Cab and Yellow Cab of North Orange County. (See report - City of Anaheim - Code Enforcement Taxi Survey - Yellow Cab of North Orange County and “A” Taxi/Cab Company - made a part of the record.) He then relayed the results of the survey which gave response times to respond to calls for taxi cab service from different areas of the City (excluding the resort area). Since the last meeting, no information has been received from the Visitor and Convention Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, or any of the resort properties nor have any complaints been received regarding the lack of taxi cab service in the City. The recommendation in the reports is for denial of both applications since they have not proven need and necessity. Council Member Lopez posed a line of questions which were answered by Mr. Poole relative to specifics of the survey submitted. During the discussion and questioning, Council Member Lopez stated he believes staff does an excellent job but he cannot understand why a cab company would want to invest a considerable amount of money in equipment, insurance, licenses, etc. if they felt the business was not there. It makes it difficult for him to deny them the right to do business if they feel there is sufficient business to add 40 cabs. John Poole. If there is not adequate service, they hear from the citizens. They also put faith in the information they receive from the V&CB. They were contacted again and they indicated they do not see a need for additional cabs. Disney also does not see the need. Hotels talk to them about needs in that area, but it has not been brought to his attention by any of them that there is a need for more cabs in the City. Their study was not to be all-encompassing but to give a small view of 12 calls on a given day with a convention in town of other places rather than the resort area. Mayor Daly subsequently posed questions to Mr. Poole relative to the survey done by Code Enforcement. Council Member Zemel. There is the recurring issue of need and necessity which is a finding that the Council has to make. With the present construction in the City, especially in the resort area, he would think need and necessity would be less and is consistent with what the Finance Department has been telling them with regard to TOT revenues and overnight stays which are down. He assumes both go hand in hand; Mr. Poole stated they have not received any complaints from the resort area or otherwise about a lack of taxi service. One of the best indications of that is that there are cabs lined up at the various properties waiting for fares. After additional discussion and questioning, Mr. Poole clarified that South Coast is asking for 40 cabs and Coast Cab, 30. Relative to the current cab companies, Yellow Cab has 115, and “A” Taxi has permits for 50 cabs so there is a total of 165 cabs permitted in the City at the present time. Mayor Daly. These are not technically public hearings, but the applicants are entitled to summarize their request. He is requesting that one person speak on behalf of the applicants starting first with South Coast. Karen Clark, Attorney representing South Coast, 8424 Santa Monica, Los Angeles 90069. When she visited Code Enforcement on Friday, she was told the reason the applicant was denied in the past was because no need or necessity was established. That burden falls upon the applicant initially and she believes South Coast has submitted a report that the City has not disputed and Mr. Poole testified on record that the findings were adequately done. The survey she would like to focus on is the one conducted by Code Enforcement on December 9 and December 29, 1997. This was a survey that Mr. LaRochelle of Code Enforcement pointed to her as disputing the fact there is no need or necessity. She then displayed some charts at the podium and elaborated upon the data contained therein. She 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 confirmed for Council Member Lopez that the information was obtained in a report generated in January, 1998 by Code Enforcement; Mayor Daly noted that Ms. Clark was working in a similar format (as the survey submitted by Code Enforcement) but the dates are different. Mr. Poole clarified that was correct. The one given to the Council covered June 30, 1998 and the one Ms. Clark has is January 19. Ms. Clark noted in the report that the call that took 49 minutes and the other that took 33 minutes involved “A” Taxi and Yellow Cab which prove the point there is need and necessity. She also contended that “A” Taxi is illegally serving the City and not respecting the rules and regulations. If “A” Taxi is sending unauthorized vehicles to Anaheim, there is a need and necessity. She spoke to Mr. LaRochelle (Code Enforcement) on July 17, 1998 who told her about the stickers being attached to the cabs that are permitted in the City and he stated there were no violations and no illegal pickups as of that date. Mr. Poole stated some of the stickers were not put on the “A” Taxis in time. She then submitted photographs taken July 17, 1998 of a Yellow Cab in the Disneyland parking lot and two “A” Taxis at the Disneyland Hotel, both without a sticker. In addition, she also has 20 other pictures that show the same type of thing which she took over the weekend. She has been representing clients in this industry for about four years. The market will dictate if the companies have business. Also by permitting competition, it forces other cab companies to comply with the rules and regulations of the City. In concluding, Ms. Clark stated her clients have suggested to her perhaps they can make a proposal to the Council which is that they be permitted to take calls from hotels or issued a conditional permit to take calls from hotels and from the phone book but that they won’t stand in line for a term of about a year. It will give them a period of time to build up their cabs to the 40 they are requesting. She believes there is a need and necessity but this is something they would consider, a conditional permit to be able to pick up in the City but prohibited from standing in line at places like Disneyland. Mayor Daly. He surmises the application is for 40 permits but they would agree not to wait in line at any hotels; Ms. Clark added, for a period of a year. Relative to other locations, it would be whatever the Council would see fit. She reiterated, she believes there is need and necessity proven by her clients and the City’s staff report. Council Member Zemel. Relative to the proposal presented, he asked the enforcement concerns involved with that; John Poole. This would be difficult to enforce. Council Member McCracken asked Ms. Clark to clarify what her clients are willing to accept. Ms. Clark first stated her clients were initially going to speak. Instead, she read the following: “Therefore, we ask you to approve a taxi cab license for South Coast Cab Company to provide 40 taxi cabs in the City of Anaheim. Further, to assist our drivers training and orientation, we ask that you put a condition on the license that South Coast may not stand in queue at any site within the resort for a period of one year. Further for violations by a driver, there will be a fee imposed of $100 by South Coast Cab. There will be no second violations. We further ask that the condition automatically sunset on this date in 1999. The resort will be bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east, Ball Road to the north, West Street to the west, and Orangewood to the south.” City Attorney White. Answering Council Member McCracken as to whether the City’s present ordinance would allow such a condition, he explained that the current licensing ordinance provides that the Council can approve operator permits subject to conditions. If the Council were to find based upon the evidence before it that there was a showing of public convenience and necessity requiring additional cab service but not a showing that the public convenience and necessity required the queing of additional taxis in the resort area as defined, he believes the Council could impose such a condition on a permit. He also explained upon further questioning that relative to the proposal, it is primarily an enforcement issue. When a cab is standing in front of a hotel, it is hard to know if it is standing there because someone has 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 called it to pick up a fare, or simply queueing and waiting. That is the difficulty Mr. Poole and his staff would be in. While the proposed condition is theoretically one that could be imposed, it is a matter of enforcement and how staff would do that. Council Member Zemel. The Council has to determine there is a need and necessity; City Attorney White. That is correct. That is Council’s mandate. If they allow additional taxi cab service at all, they have to make the three findings required. The only one at issue tonight is finding public convenience and necessity require the operation of additional taxi cabs in the City. That is the language in the Municipal Code. Council Member Zemel. It seems prudent and logical to decide that first before considering/debating current proposals; Council Member Tait. He believes by law they need to decide that issue. Mayor Daly. The Council has the staff survey taken three weeks ago. The average time to respond in the 12 calls was 11.6 minutes by one company and 14.8 minutes by another with five minutes being the fastest response and the slowest, 27. He has voted in favor of allowing additional cab companies to operate in Anaheim in the past and he believes it is prudent to do so now as well. He feels that additional cab service by additional cab companies is inevitable with a city of Anaheim’s size and people visiting and with the expansion of the Convention Center. He understands there will be a period of transition until all the new attractions are completed and ready. He believes there is an increasing need for cab service and that the competition is good. He is prepared to support the request submitted finding that there is a need and necessity. How they accommodate the request as has been stated is a separate question. The request is a reasonable one. Council Member Lopez. He concurs. The time is right to allow additional cab companies. He is confident Code Enforcement will find a way to monitor the situation. Council Member Tait. He disagrees. In the next two or three years, he feels there will be a decreasing need with the construction of the Convention Center and all of the other construction in the City. The question is, is there a need and necessity right now. They are being told by staff who has studied the matter that there is not. He finds it difficult to refute staff on this matter. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to find that there is no need and necessity to operate additional taxi service in the City of Anaheim. Before further action was taken, Council Member Zemel stated he is going to have to concur. There was a 4-1 vote in February finding there was no public need and necessity and he does not know what has changed in the City since that time that says, all of a sudden, something is different. The other thing that concerns him is the enforcement issue. To say there is a public need and necessity at this time invites early on before something changes, the creation of more regulation or a “bureaucratic nightmare” with some sort of authority to start monitoring the situation. He does not want to have to do that before there is a need and necessity. It is not about competition. He will stay consistent with his previous vote in not supporting the request and that there is no public need and necessity. Mr. Larry Slagle, Yellow Cab of North Orange County, approached the podium and asked to speak. (See his previous testimony given at the meeting of May 19, 1998). He gave extensive input noting the downturn in business due to the decrease in tourism. There have been no complaints regarding the need for additional taxi cab service through the City, the Chamber of Commerce or the V&CB. The information he submitted to the Council from the San Diego Visitor and Convention Bureau said the impact from San Diego’s experiment in the expansion of taxi cab providers was disastrous and with too many cabs there are going to be problems. The Council is required by State law to regulate taxi cab service since it is considered an essential transportation service to the community. Adding 40 more cabs is going to dilute the effectiveness of all operators who are responding. The reputation of Anaheim is at stake. He urged the Council to seriously reconsider the staff recommendation and oppose the new applications at this point in time. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 Rick Schorling, General Manager, “A” Taxi Cab. He is the only other permit holder in Anaheim (besides Yellow Cab). Nine years ago when his competitor had 128 permitted cabs, the Council allowed him (“A” Taxi) to have 10. It has taken nine years for them to be allowed to have 50 cabs and now South Coast comes in and they may get 40 “right off the bat”. That is not fair. He applied for and paid for in September of 1997, 50 additional cabs for Anaheim and was told by Code Enforcement it would not be approved. They have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Anaheim for the last nine years because they felt the permit was so valuable. They had to scratch and beg for every cab the City let them have. They operate ‘97 Wind Stars, ‘97 Town Cars, ‘98 Crown Victorias right off the showroom floor and three vehicles are handicapped vehicles. He feels it would be interesting for Code Enforcement to read the year and make of the applicant’s fleet (South Coast). It is unfair to deny him additional cabs and then to give 40 to South Coast. He explained for the Mayor that the request for the 50 additional cabs was withdrawn because Code Enforcement told him it would not be approved. This was before the Council changed the rules when requests for additional cabs was approved by the Chief of Police and Code Enforcement. Mr. Schorling then answered additional questions posed by Council Members. At the conclusion, City Attorney White at the request of the Mayor explained the procedure that used to be in place when new permits for taxi cab service were submitted to the City and why the Council would not have seen “A” Taxi or Yellow Cab requests for additional permits. Mayor Daly asked Mr. Schorling if he intended to apply for more permits to the City Council. Mr. Schorling answered, yes. It is not a need and necessity issue as much as it is an operational condition of having the John Wayne Airport contract which nobody else in Orange County has. He has explained this to the Chief of Police and Code Enforcement many times. It is a request that should be granted to whoever has the airport contract whether themselves at the end of next year, or somebody else. It only makes sense that the drivers have the opportunity if there are not enough cabs in queue or calls holding in the City that they be allowed to make additional money instead of having to drive all the way back to John Wayne Airport and wait in line for another 1 1/2 hours. MOTION. Council Member Zemel interjected and suggested that they vote on tonight’s issue. He moved that the Council does not find there is a public need and necessity for additional taxi cab permits in Anaheim at this time. Council Member Tait seconded the motion consistent with staff recommendations. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated that a yes vote will be denying the application. A vote was then taken on the motion finding there is no need and necessity for additional taxi cabs in Anaheim thereupon denying the application of South Coast Cab (Item C1.) to operate a taxi service within the City of Anaheim. Ayes: McCracken, Tait, Zemel. Noes: Lopez, Daly. MOTION CARRIED. Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. (Item C2.): John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. This company is applying for a permit to operate 30 cabs in the City. Most of the information given pertaining to South Coast pertains to this application as well. No need or necessity has been demonstrated. They produced no evidence at all or had any contact with Code Enforcement to give information to help determine if there is a need or necessity. It is duplicate information to what they just gave. Bill Craig, 1724 W. Crone Avenue, Anaheim, Manager, Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. They did not do a survey but they do feel there is a need and necessity for more service in the City and that is why they have applied. He confirmed for the Mayor there was no additional detail he would like to supply; there were no additional comments by staff. Council Member McCracken asked if Coast Yellow Cab filled all the other requirements except need and necessity. 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 John Poole. As displayed in the exhibit on the Chamber wall, Coast’s colors are in conflict with the color of Yellow Cab; Mr. Craig stated he would be willing to change the color. City Attorney White. Before the motion is offered, he would recommend that the Council incorporate all the staff comments and Council discussion on the last item (C1. - South Coast Cab Company) with regard to this item so that neither staff nor Council needs to repeat the same evidence and testimony already presented. If there is no objection, that is deemed to be incorporated. Bill Craig. He believes they qualify relative to all the conditions and repeated they are willing to change their color scheme. Mayor Daly. This application is similar to the previous application and he intends to support the finding of need and necessity. He is going to move to make the finding of need and necessity. City Attorney White. He suggested the language be to make the three findings set forth in Section 4.72.040.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and specifically finding that the public convenience and necessity require the operation of the applicant’s taxi business in the City. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the application of Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. to operate a taxi service in the City of Anaheim with the findings as articulated by the City Attorney. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Ayes: Lopez, Daly. Noes: McCracken, Tait, Zemel. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to deny the application submitted by Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. based on all the previous testimony as well as no public convenience and need and necessity has been shown. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Ayes: McCracken, Tait, Zemel. Noes: Lopez, Daly. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member McCracken. She asked if it was possible again to hold the applications in abeyance for six months, eight months or a year. They told South Coast in February that they fulfilled all their obligations but there was no showing of need and necessity. She believes since they have gone through the application process, all the inspections make them reliable vendors but there is no need and necessity at this time; however, she feels that will be the case in 2000 or 2001. Mayor Daly noted that they have completed their action on the two items. He asked what her goal was, if she wanted to propose a motion or perhaps bring her idea back at a later date; Council Member McCracken stated she would like to discuss the matter with staff and perhaps bring it back. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: C3. City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C4. Council Member Zemel. He asked that the Mayor and Council adjourn tonight’s meeting in memory of Firefighter II, Bobby Cournoyer who died on July 8, 1998, having succumbed to leukemia at age 35. He is survived by his wife, Erin, his parents and three sisters. The Fire Department lost a very dedicated and loyal employee and he will be missed. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council meeting of July 21, 1998 was adjourned in memory of Firefighter, Bobby Cournoyer who served the City since 1990. (9:05 P.M.) LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 20 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 21, 1998 21