2000/07/25ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 25, 2000
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait and
Shirley McCracken.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll
Schroeder, Code Enforcement Supervisor John Poole, Zoning Division Manager Greg Hastings,
Community Development Director Elisa Stipkovich, Civil Engineer Natalie Meeks, Senior
Electric Systems Designer Robert Templeton, Police Sergeant Randy West, Redevelopment
and Property Services Manager Robed Zur Schmiede, Public Utilities General Manager Ed
Aghjayan.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None.
Mayor Daly moved to recess to Closed Session for the following purposes:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case: Vista Royale Homeowners Assn. v. 396 Investment Co. fka The
Fieldstone Company, et aL, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74
(and related cases).
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Name of employee organization: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 47.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case: Natividad and Lumahan v. City of Anaheim, Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 99N C12012.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case: Boomer v. Curry, United States District Court Case No. CV-95-
3343-LBG (BQRx).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case: South Coast Cab et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 80-03-59 (4th Civ. No. GO26197); United States District
Court Case No. SACV99-416GLT(ANx) (9~h Circ. No.)-55761.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 2
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS:
Property: 2000 Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, California (Glacier of Anaheim site;
Sportstown Anaheim site; and Edison International Field of Anaheim site).
Agency Negotiators: James D. Ruth and Lisa Stipkovich
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim, Glacier of Anaheim, LLP, and Anaheim
Angels.
Under Negotiation: price and terms.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6:
Agency Negotiator: James D. Ruth
Unrepresented Employee: Executive Managers
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of
the Government Code: five potential cases. Claims of Friends of Frank
Feldhaus Committee, Irving Pickler, Supporters of Irv Pickler Committee, Debra
Daly, Tom Daly and Friends of Tom Daly Committee.
AFTER RECESS:
At 5:45 P. M., Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of July 25, 2000 to order and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Gregory Tucker, First Church of the Nazarene.
FLAG SALUTE: Andrew and Birch of Boy Scout Troop 93 led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS:
Declaration recognizing the Kalos Kagathos Foundation's German U.S.A. Junior Water Polo
Cultural Exchange, accepted by Bruce Hopping, Chairman of the Kalos Kagathos Foundation;
AdoIf Hillebrand, Manager of West Deutscher Schwimmverband, Doisburg, Germany and Jim
Spague, Servite Water Polo Team Coach. The Servite and German junior Water Polo Team
members artended.
June Lowry gave presentation of the student delegation from Anaheim's Sister City Mito,
Japan.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Anaheim Housing Authority
meeting (6:07 P.M.).
Mayor Daly recenvened the City Council meeting at 6:08 P.M.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jenny Lee, Big Brothers and Sisters of Orange County, was in attendance to provide children in
the community with positive mentors. She honored a big brother, John Delgado, who asked for
more people to donate their time to Big Brothers and Sisters by calling (714) 544-7773. Little
Brother Julian spoke in recommendation of the program.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 3
Don Gutierrez, 2102 East Westport Drive, Anaheim, addressed the following measures:
Measure 3 - Compensation, Measure 4 - Term Limits, and Measure 9 - Binding Arbitration. He
said he valued Fire Fighters and Police Officers because they were first to come to,a citizen's
aid.
Francis X. Nutto, 621 Jambolaya, Anaheim, spoke regarding a public hearing held March 21,
2000, CUP NO. 4167, where the petitioners offered to remove four permanent billboards in
exchange for one temporary sign. He said he believed it was a good exchange, but Council did
not approve the CUP. He said he believed that 67% of the billboards presently existing in the
City were in violation of various provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code. He informed there
was a commercial sign erected without a permit at the north west corner of Larch and Lincoln
and he felt the sign was put up deliberately and knowingly over a weekend in direct violation of
City zoning regulations. The matter was brought to the attention of Code Enforcement over two
months ago and the sign was still there, he stated. He presented a list to City Council and
asked when the City was going to do something about the violations.
Mayor Daly referred the information from Mr. Nutto to the Planning Staff so they can provide
Council with a recommendation.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM A1 TO A29:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, seconded by
Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA:
City Manager Jim Ruth recommended that Item A18 be continued for two weeks and Item A28
be continued to August 15, 2000.
On a motion by Mayor Daly, second by Council Member McCracken, the following items were
approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items A18 and
A28 which were continued. Roll call vote: Ayes 5: Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken,
Tait, Feldhaus, Kring. Noes: none. Motion carried.
A1. Reject certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended:
Claim submitted by Clinton & Carole Brownell, do Benjamin P. Wasserman, Esq., for
property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about December 1, 1999.
Claim submitted by Superior National Insurance Company Bradford &
Brandford, for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about October 29, 1999.
Claim submitted by George & Evangelia Mahairas, do Evelyn M. Hart, Esq.,
for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about November 13, 1999.
d. Claim submitted by K. Nassar, for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about March 9, 2000.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 4
e. Claim submitted by Nanette Brandie Sanchez for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 18, 2000.
Receive and file minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meet!ng
held May 5, 2000; minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board Special Board
Development Meeting held May 22, 2000; the Anaheim Police Department Crime
and Clearance Analysis for the month of June, 2000; minutes of the Anaheim
Redevelopment and Housing Commission meeting held May 17, 2000; minutes
of the Ariahelm Private Industry Council meeting held May 25, 2000; the
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds Annual Report Fiscal Year
1999/2000 as submitted by the City Treasurer; and the Investment Portfolio
Report for the month of June as submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3.
Reject all bids for the Modifications to Sedimentation Basins and Wash Recovery
Systems at Lenain Filtration Plant.
A4.
Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Ruiz Engineering Company,
in the amount of $84,054.87 for the Coronado Street - Van Buren Street to
Jefferson Street improvement and approve and authorize the Finance Director to
sign the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
A5.
Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Steiny & Company, Inc., in
the amount of $210,327.16 for Walnut/Chestnut CDBG Neighborhood
Improvements and approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign the
Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
A6.
Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, All American Asphalt, in the
amount of $224,181.28 for Lincoln Avenue - Loara Street to Euclid Street
reconstruction and approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign the
Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
A7.
Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, B.A. Construction, in the
amount of $454,888.63 for North Anaheim/Haster CDBG Neighborhood
Improvements and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the
Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions,
AS.
Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Steiny & Company, Inc., in
the amount of $462,605 for Anaheim Colony CDBG Neighborhood Improvements
and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow
Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
A9.
Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Hood Corporation, in the
amount of $950,656.78 for Santa Ana Canyon Road Anaheim Hills Road to
Imperial Highway street reconstruction and approve and authorize the Finance
Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
A10.
Approve Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects No. 12-
5055, Program Supplement No. M077, for the State College Boulevard Street
Improvement Project from Lincoln Avenue to South Street.
A11.
Approve Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects No. 12-
5055, Program Supplement No. M078, for the Santa Ana Canyon Road
Improvement Project from Anaheim Hills Road to Imperial Highway.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 5
A12.
Approve Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects No. 12-
5055, Program Supplement No. M079, for the Katella Avenue Street
Improvement Project from Nutwood Street to Ninth Street.
A13.
Approve Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects N0. 12-
5055, Program Supplement No. M080, for the Euclid Avenue Street Improvement
Project from Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road.
A14.
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute District Agreement
No. 12-148 A1 with the State of California for design services on the I-5 North
Freeway Widening Project, Freedman Way/Anaheim Boulevard.
A15.
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute District Agreement
No. 12-149 A1 with the State of California for design services on the I-5 North
Freeway Widening Project, West Street/Manchester Avenue.
A16.
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute District Agreement
No. 12-180 A1 with the State of California for design services on the I-5 North
Freeway Widening Project, Orangewood Avenue.
A17.
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute District Agreement
No. 12-203 A1 with the State of California for design services on the I-5 North
Freeway Widening Project, Gene Autry Way.
A18.
RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM rescinding Resolution No. 96R-109 pertaining to the
renaming a portion of Clementine Street to Freedman Way.
Direct staff to initiate renaming of the Philadelphia Street segment between
Broadway and Center Street to Freedman Way.
Continued to August 8, 2000.
A19.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-144 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 certain easement for water utility purposes located on the east
side of Brookhurst Street approximately 300 feet north of Ball Road. (Suggested
public hearing date: August 22, 2000) (ABANDONMENT NO. 00-11A)
A20.
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Permissive Access
Agreement for landscape installation and maintenance purposes for 777
Convention Way (R/W 5200-1 ).
A21. Adopt a seven-year Capital Improvement Program to complete the requirements
for the City's eligibility for Measure M revenues.
A22. Approve an Agreement with the Placentia-Yorba Linda School District for ar
after-school recreation program at Glenview Elementary School.
Council Member Feldhaus asked why the City would expose themselves to a liability on
behalf of the Palcentia-Yorba Linda School District for the City's after hour recreation
program at Glenview.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 6
City Manager Jim Ruth responded that the City provided the program for many years
and they indemnified the City against any liability and paid for all associated costs.
City Attorney Jack White stated that the agreement contained the same vision as s!milar,
past agreements and required the City to indemnify the District for services that the City
provides. The City controls the employees and the services that are provided and if the
employees provide it in a negligent manner or cause a problem which creates a liability
to the District, the City had the responsibility to cover the cost. He noted that Council
Member Feldhaus was correct that the City would be indemnifying the District for the
services provided by the City to the extent those services created some legal liability.
A23.
Approve Agreements with the Centralia, Magnolia Anaheim Union High School
and Anaheim City School Districts to provide Park Ranger patrols of school
facilities.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (I) approving and authorizing the execution of
Employment Training Panel (ETP) Agreement No. E700-0344 and (11) authorizing
the City Manager to execute the ETP Agreement modifications thereto and
documents implementing the ETP Agreement on behalf of the City and increase
appropriations by $510,700 in Fund 220.
Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a License
Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) authorizing
the payment of a one-time license fee of $1,000 for two underground crossings of
OCTA railroad right-of-way.
Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an
Agreement with Willdan, in an amount not to exceed $55,125, to provide
professional landscape architectural services for screening utility equipment.
Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an
Agreement with Southern California Edison Company for replacement of
overhead facilities with underground communication facilities within Underground
District No. 37, State College/Katella.
A28. Approve a Negative Declaration, in accordance with CEQA guidelines for the
construction of a replacement water production well No. 51.
Continued to August 15, 2000.
A29. Approve minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held June 13, 2000.
END OFCONSENTCALENDAR
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 7
A30.
BOARD/COMMISSION APPOINTMENT TO TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2000:
(Continued from the meetings of June 20, 2000, Item A33 and July 11, 2000,
Item A33).
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR NEW TERM EXPIRING JUNE
2004): (Sewell)
(Term ending 6/30/2004)
Mayor Daly made a motion to continue the item for two weeks, seconded by Council
Member Kring. Motion carried unanimously.
A31.
BOARD AND COMMISSION ITEM:
Direct the City Clerk to post a notice of unscheduled vacancy for George
Edwards, term expires June 20, 2003, Public Utilities Board.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to have the City Clerk post a Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy on the
Public Utilities Board, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried
unanimously.
A32.
BOARD AND COMMISSION ITEM:
Accept a letter of resignation from John Karczynski, Anaheim Redevelopment
and Housing Commission (term expires June 30, 2002) and direct City Clerk to
post a notice of unscheduled vacancy.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly made a motion to accept the resignation letter, seconded by Council
Member Kring. Motion carded unanimously. The City Clerk will post notice of
unscheduled vacancy after July 31,2000.
A33.
REQUEST OF SOUTH COAST CAB COMPANY, INC. FOR A PERMIT TO
OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE: REQUESTED BY: Savvas Roditis, 10700 Katella
Avenue, Suite C, Anaheirn, California 92804-6159
Code Enforcement Manager, John Poole, stated that on June 5, 2000, South Coast Cab
Company submitted an application to operate 115 taxicabs in the City. He explained that South
Coast Cab Company had previously applied for a permit on four separate occasions and on
each of the occasions, they were unable to demonstrate that the public convenience and
necessity required the operation of the applicant's taxicab business in the City and their current
application did not indicate any new information relating to this requirement. Mr. Poole added
that there have been a number of surveys conducted in the past few years to determine the
need for a taxi service in the City. In March of 1998, Orange County Transit Authority
conducted a survey of 132 Anaheim businesses and that survey indicated that a majority of
those that responded felt that there were enough taxicabs in the City. In November of 1999, the
City's Adhoc Taxi Committee provided the following information in finding to the City Council:
that there was currently adequate taxi service in the City except during peak convention periods;
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE g
that the City Council should adopt an ordinance which would allow for the issuance of temporary
permits to the City's two permit holders for use during large conventions; and the City's current
permit requirements should be replaced with a franchise system. An additional taxi service
would be needed on a permanent basis when the opening of the California Disney Adventure
occurred in early 2001, he said. They recommended retaining the services of a taxi consultant
to develop requirements for a franchise system, standards for vehicles, standards for drivers
and to assist in the review of the applications for a franchise. As part of the consultant's work, a
recently completed a survey found that 86% of Anaheim residents found that taxi service in the
City was rated good or excellent; 93% of the visitors rate the service good or excellent, 93% of
the residents felt that Anaheim's taxi service was the same or better than the service that
they've found in other communities and 92% of the visitors felt that the services were better or
about the same as other forms of transportation used during their visit. To cover the peak
convention period, the City Council adopted an ordinance which allowed for staff to issue
temporary permits and since April 25, 2000, at Council's direction, staff had been working with
the consultant and the Adhoc Committee and the public to develop requirements for a franchise
system which he said he believed would improve the service standards citywide and provide for
additional vehicles when the Disneyland Resort expanded. Mr. Poole noted that staff had
scheduled a workshop with Council on August 8, 2000 and at that time Code Enforcement
would present recommendations and information concerning the matter. If Council's direction
was to proceed with establishing a franchise system, RFP's would be mailed to all taxi
companies that had OCTA permits so that they may participate in the process. South Coast
Cab Company, along with anyone else that wanted to apply, would have an oppodunity to do
so, he explained, and a selection committee would evaluate all proposals and make
recommendations to the Council for awarding franchises. Mr. Poole stated that part of their
recommendation would be that the franchises that would be awarded would be to companies
that would be raising the bar for service in the City and added that the new system would be in
place by January 1, 2001. He said staff was recommending a denial of the South Coast current
application based on the information in the report that had been submitted.
Mayor Daly asked when South Coast or any potential provider of cab service would be able to
apply for one of the franchises and Mr, Poole responded that there would be an August 8, 2000
workshop and Code Enforcement would present information from the Adhoc Committee and
consultant and they would be asking Council to give them direction to proceed with the
franchising system, Applicants would be able to apply in October depending on Council
direction on August 8 th. The proposed application timeframe would be the end of September,
early October for enhanced service.
Mayor Daly asked about how many firms would be responding to the new franchise system and
Mr. Poole responded that maybe a half dozen, maybe more.
Mayor Daly clarified that if the Council decided to launch a franchise system, the August 8th
discussion would be regarding the components of the franchise system, because the decision to
go to a franchise system was made some months ago.
Code Enforcement Supervisor John Poole stated that it would raise the bar for taxicab service
throughout the City, with staff recommending requirement of new vehicles and a number of
service standards which would improve service.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the application for South Coast Cab could be continued to
August 8, 2000 or maybe the applicant would want to make a change between now and August
8, 2000. Mr. Poole responded that the application that South Coast Cab was making this date
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 9
was under the current permit system which staff was recommending the franchise system,
unless Council had a concern with that on August 8th, staff would proceed with the proposal.
City Attorney Jack White stated that the recommendation and the direction Council.had already
taken was to eliminate the permit system and go to the franchise system. He felt this request
could be continued, but the recommendation would remain the same, which was to not award
additional permits but to allow South Coast or any other cab company interested in a franchise,
to apply for a franchise which would commence the first of the year. He finalized that Council
had the right to continue it however, he said he was not sure that continuing it would change
anything.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the application would substantially change in nature and be
applicable to the franchise and City Attorney White responded that there would have to be a
new application and it would be required to be different. August 8, 2000 was for Council to
review the criteria that would go in the RFP's for franchises.
Code Enforcement Supervisor John Poole responded to Council Member Feldhaus' question as
to the timing of the RFP's by saying that they would go out the latter part of September or early
October if Council agreed with their recommendation.
Maryann Cazzel, 1016 West Towne and Country Road, Orange, said she was representing
South Coast Cab. She read Section 4.72.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to
operators permit. She spoke of what the hearing requirements would be and said that an item
placed on the consent calendar, even if removed, was not a public hearing. She said her client
was required to be given notice of the hearing and she said they were not, receiving a phone
call from the secretary of the Assistant Deputy City Attorney one hour prior to the headng was
not notice. They were required to have 72 hours notice, which they were not given. Also, she
added, they were not being allowed to present their oral and documentary evidence.
Ms. Cazzell referred to an article in Sunday's L.A. Times, Orange County Edition, regarding the
opening or reopening for the Disneyland third stage. She noted that South Coast Cab had been
based in Anaheim for ten years, fully licensed by OCTAP and could not get a license. She
reported that since South Coast Cab submitted their application in 1996 and since then, OCTAP
was formed, an Adhoc Committee formed and the Code was changed so that cabs had to have
a decal affixed and a list of the VIN numbers. She said then there was a franchise study and
she added that what Mr. Poole reported, that Council had already voted for the franchise, was
incorrect. She stated that what Council voted on in June of 2000, was an approval of a $77,500
grant or use of the taxpayer's money to do further studies from what Mr. Schaller had done to
see if a franchise was appropriate or not. There had been three changes to the relevant
sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code governing taxicab licenses since South Coast Cab
made its first application and she said she believed that each Code change was to address
concerns that South Coast Cab had raised.
Ms. Cazzell said that the staff report did not point out that there were four separate applications
made by South Coast Cab and she made reference to the application of October 1997 where
she believed that the Council asked for a survey. She noted that the staff report did not indicate
that a survey was done by Jack Armstrong, the methodology was appreved by Mr. Poole, it did
not show the results of the survey and she said she believed that 100% of Ariahelm wanted
77% more cabs at a time when there were over 400 cabs registered and operating in Anaheim.
She said that it did not show that Council specifically granted South Coast Cab first in line status
on February 3, 1998 and it did not show that the first in line status was disregarded. She added
that it did not show that at the South Coast Cab first in line hearing on July 21, 1998, that Mr.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE I0
Rick Shorling, General Manager of A-Taxi Cab, one of the two existing companies, told the City
Council that staff called him and told him to take out the application of A-Taxi Cab for more
cabs. She said the staff report did not show that staff tried to pass a moratorium so that South
Coast Cab could not put in further applications. She believed that the things that were left in
were misrepresentations. She noted that it did not show that there were 34 OCTAP permits, not
27; it did not show that they submitted a video tape to each Council person with the application
approximately 60 days ago, the video showed conventioneers fed up, waiting, she believed
there was a great need and necessity for more cabs in Anaheim. It did not show that the
OCTAP survey, which she said was commissioned by Mr. Poole and associates, scored 55%
satisfaction on driver application and vehicle appearance. She believed that it also did not show
that of the 55% that said there was enough taxicab service said that there was usually enough
taxicab service.
Ms. Cazzell said the most glaring issue was that the staff report said there was no new evidence
and she believed that there were at least six new points raised in the recent application and she
believed that the most important was that there may be insufficient or non existing insurance for
one of the two licensees, A-Taxi Cab. She referred to the Los Angeles Times dated June 27,
2000, report stating the Orange County Transportation Authority voted to yank the 100 permits
of A-Taxi Cab because of insufficient insurance, Ms. Cazzell said it did not tell about the
OCTAP June 26, 2000 letter which pulled the permits from A-Taxi Cab. She believed A-Taxi
Cab fixed the problem by buying $100,000 primary liability policy, before that, it supposedly had
a self-insured retention of $100,000 and she believed that they lost the John Wayne Airport
exclusive taxicab franchise because they could not show proof of insurance, and Ms. Casual
said that OCTAP reinstated the insurance of A-Taxi Cab the next day. She asked that if the
policy was valid and if A-Taxi Cab were able to come up with proof of insurance and a whole
new policy within one day of having their license taken away by OCTAP, why wasn't that done
before. Ms. Cazzell noted that on March 21 or 22, 2000, when the Department of Airport
Commissioners and the Orange County Board of Supervisors demanded that A-Taxi Cab show
proof of insurance within one day or it would get kicked out of the airport, they could not do it to
their satisfaction. She asked how A-Taxi Cab could come up with this policy overnight. She
submitted that the policy may not be valid and no one had checked into it and of the two
licensees here, one might be operating without insurance in the City. She stated there was a
need or a necessity and she requested that the Council reconsider and grant the permit
requested by South Coast Cab.
Mayor Daly asked City Attorney Jack White to comment on the procedural points that were
raised about the consent calendar. The City Attorney responded that the consent calendar
ended with item A29 on page 6 of the agenda. Item A33 was not and never had been, never
was intended to be part of the consent calendar. This was the third or fourth application for a
permit by South Coast and he said that both the applicant and the City were familiar with how to
conduct the hearings. He informed that Item A33 was a separate item for action and the only
question he had was whether South Coast was actually asking for a continuance,
Ms. Cazzell said they would like to continue the item and City Attorney White then
recommended that the item be continued to the next meeting of the Council.
Mayor Daly moved to continue the item for two weeks, August 8, 2000, seconded by Council
Member
McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 1 !
Mayor Daly asked Council to consider discussion on Item A 34 and A 35, Charter Amendments,
to follow action on the land use items.
Items BI throuqh B5 From Plannin~l Commission Meetinq of July 3, 2000: (No
action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing.)
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 25, 2000:
BI.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00024
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04216
VARIANCE NO. 2000-04398 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: William and Patsy Keough; Eugene and Marie Pardella; Fred and
Yoshiko Kimura; Vito and Josephine Bucaro; Allen M. and Kathy J. Wattenberg;
Richard and Enriqueta Wattenberg; Attn: Allen Wattenberg, 15234 Matisse
Circle, La Mirada, CA 90638
AGENT: Mercy Charities Housing California, Attn: Dara Kovel, 500 South Main
Street, #110, Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.92 acre located on the
south side of Lincoln Avenue, 515 feet west of the centedine of Brookhurst
Street.
Redassification No. 2000-00024 - To reclassify subject property from CL
(Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04216 - To construct a 3-story, 46-unit
affordable apartment complex and day care center with waivers of (a) required
setbacks in special areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum
structural height and (d) maximum residential density.
Variance No. 2000-04398 - Waiver of (a) required setbacks in special areas, (b)
minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height and (d)
minimum yard requirements (deleted), to construct a 46-unit "affordable"
apartment complex. - VARIANCE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN AND THE
WAIVERS WERE COMBINED WITH CUP.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN.
B2.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04196
CEQA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 11:
OWNER: Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of Anaheim, 700 West South
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Greg Ramirez, 6731 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90621
LOCATION: 700 West South Street. Property is 3.32 acres located at the
southeast corner of South Street and Citron Street (Grace Lutheran Church and
School).
To construct two changeable copy "marquee" freestanding signs with waiver of
(a) permitted identification signs and (b) minimum distance between freestanding
signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 2000-04196 GRANTED (PC2000-85) (7 yes votes).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 12
B3.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2715
(CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04227):
CEQA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1:
OWNER: Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, Attn: Tim Ng, 100 North Stoneman,
Alhambra, CA 91801
AGENT: John T. Chan, JTC Architects, 109 North Ivy Avenue, Suite C,
Monrovia, CA 91016
LOCATION: 7295 East Columbus Drive. Property is 0.94 acre located at the
northern terminus of Columbus Drive, 360 feet northeast of the centerline of
Livingston Way (Pacific Bell Switching Station).
To permit the expansion of an unmanned public utility remote switching station.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
APPROVED expansion for CUP NO. 2000-04227/CUP 2715 (PC2000-86) (7 yes
votes).
B4.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3407
(CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- 04228)
CEQA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 32:
OWNER: Bradmore Realty Investment Company, Ltd., 721 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90401-2685
AGENT: Calvary Chapel Anaheim, 270 East Palais Road, Ariahelm, CA 92805
LOCATION: 270 East Palais Road. Property is 4.7 acres located on the south
side of Palais Road, 710 feet east of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard
(Calvary Chapel Anaheim)
To expand an existing private school including the addition of modular classroom
buildings in conjunction with an existing church facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
APPROVED expansion for CUP NO. 2000-04228/CUP 3598 to expire July 3,
2007 (PC2000-87) (7 yes votes).
Mayor Daly asked about the existence of a private school on the site in an industrial
zone. He noted that there were churches and some private schools in the industrial
neighborhoods and he asked if this was a taxpaying user of that property or was there a
revenue impact.
Zoning Division Manager Greg Hastings said that he was not able to respond to the
inquiry and the Mayor asked the staff to get an answer.
B5.
VARIANCE NO. 2000-04399
CEQA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 3:
OWNER: Mark and Arnanda Bowles, 676 South Pathfinder Trail, Anaheim, CA
92807
AGENT: Galkos Construction, 5412 Bolsa, Unit G, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
LOCATION: 676 South Pathfinder Trail. Property is 0.32 acre located on the
south side of Pathfinder Trail, 415 feet east of the centedine of Scout Trail.
Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a patio cover.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GRANTED Variance No. 2000-04399 (PC2000-88) (7 yes votes).
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25~ 2000
PAGE ]3
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:
B6.
ORDINANCE NO. 5733 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE (blTY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Ordinance No. 5729, as
adopted by City Council on May 16, 2000, nunc pro tunc, relating to
Reclassification No. 99-00-13.
Mayor Daly introduced the ordinance.
B7.
ORDINANCE NO. 5734 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Ordinance No.5703, as
adopted by City Council, on September 21, 1999 nunc pro tunc, relating to
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2.
Mayor Daly introduced the ordinance.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
C1.
PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 00-8A:
To consider the abandonment of that certain easement for water purposes on
property located generally south of Riverdale Avenue and easterly of the State
Route 91 Freeway (ABANDONMENT NO.00-BA).
At their meeting held June 6, 2000, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2000R-88 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways
and service easements, and to consider abandoning that certain easement for
water purposes on property located generally south of Riverdale Avenue and
easterly of the State Route 91 Freeway. (ABANDONMENT NO.00-8A).
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, presented the staff report, which is available in the
City Clerk's Offco.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Janine Tolly, representative of United Residents Grassroots Effort of Riverdale (URGE),
4120 E. Addington Drive, Anaheim, said that the majority of the neighbors were against
the abandonment because of the demolishment of homes and an increase of rodents in
the neighborhood and she asked Council to consider their concerns before making a
decision. She expressed concern regarding increased traffic.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. He asked if it was
the proposed housing development which caused the need to abandon the water
easement and Ms. Meeks responded that it was being requested as part of the proposed
development to clear the title and record a tract map. She stated that she would have to
look at the placement of the houses in conjunction with the easements to see if it
impacted the housing layout. She said it did not impact what had been approved on the
site for development and it had no work associated with it, these were empty easements
that were not used so it would not disrupt any rodents or traffic.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE ]4
Council Member McCracken asked if anyone purchased the property, would they
request that the easements be released just to clear the title and Ms. Meeks responded
that typically, it happened when a property was being developed or re-subdivided in
some way and they would like to clear the old easements off their property.
Upon a question from Council Member Feldhaus regarding the question of demolishing
homes, Ms. Meeks responded that no homes would be demolished from action of the
abandonment. She clarified that the homes being demolished were a part of the
development and the pdor approved track map.
Mayor Daly said that because he opposed the development of homes at this site and
because he believed that the site should have been preserved for open space, he would
oppose the approval.
Council Member Kring moved to approve the CEQA environmental findings, seconded
by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried with 4 ayes, 1 no, Mayor Daly.
Council Member Kring offered Resolution No. 2000R-146 for adoption. Council Member
Tait stated he would be voting in opposition to the Resolution, adding that although the
process was routine, once the easement was abandoned, the project would go forward.
He noted he agreed with Mayor Daly that the project should not have been approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-146 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS FOR ABANDONMENT 00-BA
Roll call vote: Ayes - 3: Council Member McCracken, Feldhaus, Kring. Noes - 2:
Mayor Daly and Council Member Tait. Motion carried.
C2.
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 99-17A:
To consider the abandonment of that certain easement for public utility purposes
located south of La Palma Avenue, west of White Star Avenue, and north of the
State Route 91 Freeway. (ABANDONMENT NO. 99-17A).
At their meeting held June 6, 2000, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2000R-89 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways
and service easements, and to consider abandoning that certain easement for
public utility purposes on property located south of La Palma Avenue, west of
White Star Avenue, and north of the State Route 91 Freeway. ABANDONMENT
N0.99-17A).
Natalie Meeks presented the staff report, which is available in the City Clerk's Office.
Council Member McCracken asked if this approval was similar to Item C1, the same rights to
use the property because the City no longer needed access.
Ms. Meeks responded that this abandonment was actually a road and public utility easement, a
portion of the road had been developed earlier but most had been abandoned.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, he closed the hearing.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE ]5
Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA environmental findings, seconded by Council Member
McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-147 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-147 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS FOR ABANDONMENT 99-17A
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5: Mayor Daly, Council Member McCracken, Feldhaus, Kring, Tait.
Noes - 0: Motion carried.
C3.
PUBLIC HEARING - CREATION OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 39:
To consider the approval of the creation of Underground District No. 39 (Orange
Avenue) in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Underground Utilities.
LOCATION: Orange Avenue, Gilbert Street to Knott Avenue.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Jack Passerello, 2474 Orange Avenue, asked if the cable to be installed to the electric panel
was more than 100 feet, would the City complete the work and he asked who placed the control
panels. He asked if the flooding at Orange Avenue and Webster, from lack of storm drains,
would be addressed to keep water from the newly undergrounded power lines.
Mayor Daly said staff would respond to his questions.
Art Stahovich, Cypress, said he owned property on Orange, west of Western Avenue, requested
when the electrical lines were laid out, he wished to have some say as to where the lines are
placed. He indicated the line is currently in the middle of the lot.
No further testimony, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Bob Templeton, Electrical Engineering Division, stated staff would work with Mr. Passerello for
the relocation of his electric service, adding that the City would replace the service from the
roadway to his meter, at no expense to the property owner. He noted the equipment replaced
was waterproof, pumps were put in the vaults, which were waterproof. Regarding Mr.
Stahovich's request, Mr. Templeton stated staff would work with his request to have input in the
design and placement.
Council Member McCracken asked if the City was addressing the drainage problem at Orange
and City Manager Ruth answered that Public Works would provide a report and that the City
was working with the County on a solution.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-148 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 39, ORANGE
AVENUE
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 16
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5: Mayor Daly, Council Member McCracken, Feldhaus, Kring, Tait.
Noes - 0: Motion carried.
C4.
PUBLIC HEARING - CREATION OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 41:
To consider the approval of the creation of Underground District No. 41 (La
Palma Avenue/Imperial Highway Intersection) in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating
to Underground Utilities.
LOCATION: La Palma/Imperial - La Palma Avenue - Imperial Highway
Intersection.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly moved approval of Resolution No. 2000R-149.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF '
OF ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGOUND DISTRICT NO. 41 LA PALMA AVENUE
HIGHWAY INTERSECTION
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5: Mayor Daly, Council Member McCracken, Feldhaus, Kring, Tait.
Noes - 0: Motion carried.
C5. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 1229, CATEGORICALLY EXMEPT-
CLASS 21:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
OWNER: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite V, Fullerton,
CA 92833
LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.3 acres located on the
west side of Beach Boulevard, 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road
(Covered Wagon Motel).
City-initiated request to determine compliance with conditions of approval and to
consider modification to conditions of approval including the length of stay
limitation and a request for reinstatement of this permit (originally approved on
November 22, 1999, to expire on February 1,2001) (to construct and operate a
70-unit motel and coffee shop).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Modified conditions of approval and approved reinstatement of Variance No.
1229 for one year to expire May 22, 2001 (PC2000-59) (7 yes votes).
Informational item at the City Council meeting of June 13, 2000, Item B2. Letter
of appeal submitted by agent, Gregory Parkin.
The City Clerk announced that Council had received late that evening, correspondence from
Steven Wozny.
Mayor Daly asked for a brief staff report on the item referred to as the Covered Wagon Motel.
Code Enforcement Supervisor John Poole said that on March 21,2000, Council requested that
the Planning Commission determine compliance with the conditions of approval for Variance
1229 relating to the Covered Wagon Motel, including the 30-day stay in a 90-day period
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 17
condition. This variance was originally approved in 1960. In 1997, a one-year time limitation
was placed on the variance due to the existence of an inordinate number of code violations and
requests for police service occurring at the property. The latest reinstatement occurred on
February 1,2000, with an expiration date of February 1, 2001, and included a condition limiting
the occupancy to 30-days in a 90-day period. On March 7, 2000, the City Council denied the
applicant's request for a rehearing to reconsider the condition regarding the occupancy
limitation. On May 22, 2000, the Planning Commission determined that there was compliance
with the conditions of approval, except for the 30-day and the 90-day occupancy period. and
approved reinstatement for one year. All current long-term stay tenants were given until
January 15, 2001, to relocate. On June 8, 2000, Gregory Parkin, Covered Wagon Motel,
submitted a letter of appeal regarding the Planning Commission decision on May 22"d. During
the past two years, the owner of the motel had been cooperative in correcting code violations in
a timely manner. July 13, 2000. Code Enforcement inspection revealed no violations on the
property and no evidence of cooking facilities in the rooms.
Mr. Poole said although this motel experienced an inordinate number of code violations in the
mid 1990's, that was not the case today. As a result of Code Enforcement efforts, the property
had improved substantially, he reported. Because of the improvements in the operation of the
motel along with the major renovations, staff was recommending that the existing variance be
reinstated with a condition that it would expire in five years on July 25, 2005, providing that the
applicant agreed to comply with the 30 and 90-day stay limitation. Staff also recommended that
any existing extended stay residents, as of today's date, be given until January 15, 2001, to
relocate.
Police Sergeant Randy West said that the Covered Wagon Motel had 70 rooms plus a
restaurant attached. Between January 1, 2000, and July 16, 2000, the Police Department
recorded 84 various calls for service at the location. After breaking down the 84 calls, they
could only find 33 that were directly attributed to either tenants staying at the motel or directly
related to the property. The 33 calls included assaults, narcotic arrests, probation searches,
parole arrests, as well as calls for service from residents at the motel regarding various
disturbances. On July 13. 2000, a male subject from room 109 at the location, was told by the
management of the motel to go to the Denny's, which is down the street, to call the police so the
call would not be attributed to the property. The gentleman who called the police was
threatened with a knife by another male in room number 109 at the motel and that male subject
was subsequently arrested at a different motel on Beach Boulevard. Between July 1997 to July
1998, there were a total of 182 calls for service at the Covered Wagon. July 16, 1998, to July
15, 1999, there were 106 calls. July 16, 1999 to July 16, 2000, there were 135 calls for service.
Sergeant West said the actual calls for service this year were down a little from previous years.
Sergeant West compared the calls for service at this particular location to calls for service at five
other motels in the Beach Boulevard area.
Council Member Tait asked if there was any way to determine how many of those calls were
related to the management of the motel.
Sergeant West said that the only way was if the responding officers obtained the information
from the person who initially made the call and/or they contact someone from the management
on the property. He explained that when the police pull up calls for service, if a call came in
from the property or from a pay phone on the property, the computer log attributes it to that
address and it may not have any thing to do with that address but it does get documented in the
computer as coming back to that address. He said that was why he broke the 84 down to 33
which were directly attributed to the property, they would have to review the records case by
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 18
case to be able to actually break it down to whether the management had something to do with
the actual incident.
Council Member Kring asked if 33 calls were a substantial drop and Sergeant West replied that
she was correct.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if there was a beer and wine license or a liquor license at that
location and Sergeant West responded that there was none. Council Member Feldhaus said he
received a letter from a concerned citizen that the owners would apply for a liquor license or
beer and wine license if the coffee shop didn't go through and the area would end up with a
pizza parlor.
Sergeant West agreed that it would have to come back to Council and they would have to go
through the proper process to obtain an ABC license.
Mayor Daly spoke about the culmination of the recent process and that the Planning
Commission agreed to extend the variance until May 22, 2001.
Code Enforcement Supervisor John Poole said that was correct and the only difference that
staff was recommending was that, based on the testimony given and the improvements, that the
vadance be approved for five years.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Gregory Parkin, 823 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim said that he was very concerned about
the 30 and 90 day stay for a number of reasons. He explained a motel on Beach Boulevard
tried to house strictly tourists, and it failed. He said the West Anaheim Hotel/Motel Owners
Association had discussed the same problem with another Beach Boulevard motel that had the
30/90day restriction. He noted he was concerned that he would not be able to make it,
especially in the slow season, the winter months. Mr. Parkin noted that the census counted
about 200 people at the Covered Wagon, which would equate to the City receiving $400,000
over the next ten years and that the City would not receive the money if the motel was a daily or
a short-term rental. In 1999, the Covered Wagon paid $67,470 to the City for services, bed tax,
permits and inspections. He reported that when the restaurant opened, they must make a gross
income of $40,000 per month to survive, which would generate another $27,000 a year in sales
tax. In 1999, the Covered Wagon spent $94,562 for merchandise and supplies, virtually all was
spent in west Anaheim, which generated another $7,092.15 in sales tax revenue. He spoke
about the shortage of affordable homes in the City and that he had 200 rental units, most of
them being in the low-income bracket, with no vacancies. He noted that they housed the
working poor, but not the homeless or transients that bounce from motel to motel. Mr. Parkin
indicated that the basic reason for instituting the 30 and 90 day restriction was because he
believed that the City was trying to prevent motel rooms from having open cooking and the staff
report stated that none of those conditions existed at the Covered Wagon Motel. He informed
that the motel had no cede violations during their last inspection and it was an extended stay
facility and always had been.
Mr. Parkin asked Council to reconsider and stated that they were not a facility that had people
living there year in and year out, they did not want to be an apartment house and had no
interest in converting the property to an apartment house. With the exception of the
employees, there were four people at the Covered Wagon Motel that were there the year
before, people did not come to the Covered Wagon Motel with the idea that they were going to
live there, he said. He explained they stay until several months later, they finally locate an
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 19
apartment and they are gone. He asked Council to reconsider the 30 and 90 day requirement
and allow them to continue operating as they were at the present time.
Council Member Kring asked Mr. Parkin if they had daily maid service and he responded yes,
they had four people in maintenance, three maids and one laundry room person.
Mr. Stahavich, 805 Ramblewood Drive, asked about the police reports and Mayor Daly asked
that someone give Mr. Stahavich a summary of the calls.
Linda Lee Grau, 24 Morning Dove, said that low cost housing was needed in the City.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly said he agreed with the recommendation of the Planning staff especially in
conjunction with the previous decision of the Planning Commission. He said it was worth noting
that the Planning staff believed that enough cleanup had occurred at the site that a five-year
permit made better sense than the one-year extension approved by the Planning Commission
and Mayor Daly referred to the memo from the Planning Department.
Mayor Daly moved approval of the CEQA environmental finding, which had previous approval.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-150 for approval.
Council Member Kring informed that she agreed with Mr. Parkin and said that she had a
problem from the beginning when Council has discussed motels where there was a 30-day
restriction. There was a terrible housing shortage in Orange County, she noted and if people
are being put out in 30-days, they were going to be on the street or in their cars and a homeless
situation would be created. She believed it was incumbent upon Council to help the people and
expressed her opposition to the 30-day out of 90-day condition of living.
Council Member Tait said he would oppose the motion and resolution, adding that he believed
that the 30-day restriction also should be removed because it did nothing but place a greater
burden on the working poor. He noted that he did not think there was a link or a nexus between
any of the problems at the motel and having a 30-day restriction.
Mayor Daly stated that the resolution had been offered following the recommendation of the
Planning staff and Planning Commission and asked for a roll call vote on Vadance No, 1229.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF VARIANCE NO. 1229 AS
HERETOFORE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION 235, SERIES 1959-60 AS AMENDEDAND
REINSTATING AND APPROVING A MOTEL USE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS ONLY,
TO EXPIRE ON JULY 25, 2005.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 3: Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus and Mayor Daly. Noes - 2:
Council Members Tait and Kring. Motion carried.
C6.
PUBLIC HEARING ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00020
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: O.C.T.A., Attn: Rick Grebner, 550 South Main Street, Orange, CA
92863
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 20
AGENT: ChuCk Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 867 South Cottonwood Circle. Property is 0. 195 acres located on
the west side of Cottonwood Circle, 280 feet west of the centerline of Citron
Street.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural)
and the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zones to CL (Commercial, Limited)
Zone to construct a parking lot for the abutting automotive dealership facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 2000-00020 GRANTED (PC2000-70) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the City Council meeting of June 13, 2000, Item B10.
Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Mayor Daly and
Council Member McCracken.
Mayor Daly noted that he asked for the item to be set for review due to the discrepancy
in the recommendation of the Planning staff and what the Planning Commission granted.
He said he wanted to make sure all the details were taken care.
Greg Hastings, Planning Department, said staff's concem was that the location of the
property would create a situation of encroaching commercial properly into a residential
neighborhood. The Planning Commission, said Mr. Hasting, felt that the widening of the
freeway had an impact on the applicant's property.
Mayor Daly asked if the request was to reclassify the entire property to commercial.
Mr. Hastings answered, yes, there were two portions; one was the terminus of Vermont
Avenue as well as one of the previously developed single family lots. He said the
remainder of the property was not part of the request.
Mayor Daiy asked if the owner wanted to install a parking lot on the entire parcel and Mr.
Hastings responded the proposed reclass would only allow parking on that portion that
the applicant was currently requesting the rezoning for. Mayor Daly asked if the
remainder of the parcel would be zoned commercial. Mr. Hastings said the remainder of
the parcel would remain as is, RS7200, where the single family homes were located.
Mayor Daly wondered if the owner was only asking for reclassification of a portion of the
property he was purchasing and Mr. Hastings responded in the affirmative. Mayor Daly
noted the parcel under consideration was currently owned by CalTrans or OCTA and Mr.
Hasting agreed, adding that the parcel is made up of more than one lot. Asking if the
reclassi~cation pertained to the entire parcel, Mr. Hastings said it pertained to the entire
parcel, which was a single family lot as well as the street right of way. Mayor Daly
wondered why the City was considering reclassifying the entire parcel. Mr. Hastings
explained the reclassification was for only one portion of the single family lot, however,
CalTrans or OCTA owned several lots and it was being held as one package.
Council Member Tait said the only area being considered was the one lot on the corner
of Vermont and Cottonwood, that the 4 or 5 residential lots north would remain
residential lots and Mr. Hasting agreed.
Council Member McCracken asked about the lots south along the freeway. Mr. Hastings
said he believed the lots to be in the CalTrans package but not part of this consideration,
they were general planned commercial. She asked if the current business needed
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 21
additional parking and Mr. Hastings said the current code requirements were met with
the existing parking.
Council Member Feldhaus inquired if the other half of the piece going north was owned
by the City and Mr. Hastings said it was either owned by OCTA or by CalTrans and the
trees were being stored temporarily.
Mayor Daly noted that the property Council Member Feldhaus spoke of would also be
sold by either CalTrans or OCTA and Mr. Hastings said, according to the applicant, the
property that he was currently requesting to be rezoned would only be sold with the
adjacent property.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Chuck Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, said when the I-5 freeway was widened, it
took 31 parking spaces from the front of his property and at that point there was
minimum cede required parking, 115 spaces. He said the spaces were taken from the
front of his property where his customers parked and he was unable to rent the building
without customer parking. He said he was also trying to enhance the appearance of his
entrance. He explained the parking area he proposes to build went 50 feet into the
residential area and whatever the City wanted to do with the rest of the area would be
fine with him, he added that a park was a nice idea but the Parks Depadment had not
been receptive to that idea. Mr. Hance said OCTA and CalTrans steering committee
identified businesses that would be highly impacted by the widening and what measures
they could use to help the businesses and they suggested that the land to the north be
sold to Mr. Hance so he ceuld replace the parking they took. He agreed to purchase it
and now the option was getting close to expiring. He clarified that he was attempting to
recover 19 spaces when he lost about 31 spaces, traffic would not change, and he
would be using the same entrance as in the past.
Council Member Kring asked if the parcel he intended to use, less than two tenths of an
acre, would hold 19 spaces plus landscaping. Mr. Hance said it worked.
Council Member McCracken asked if he intended to change the use of the rental
property and he responded no, it was zoned commerdal, he could not rent to industrial
users. He added that there were 5 units and he used one for the Corvette business.
Mayor Daly said the parking would be extended directly across the street from two single
family homes and Mr. Hance said it would only be one home. Mr. Hastings clarified it
was only one home.
Council Member McCracken asked what Mr. Hance intended to do with the remainder of
the property and he responded that he wanted to wait to see if a park was going to be
built there, he would sell it to the City for what he paid for it. If the City did not want the
property, he explained he might sell it for houses.
Mayor Daly asked if the shaded area contained in the background material was owned
by OCTA and Mr. Hastings said the Vermont Avenue portion was owned by the City and
would have to go though the abandonment process. He added that Mr. Hance had
processed an abandonment request which was pending action this date. Mayor Daly
asked if it would be reclassifying City owned property, to which Mr. Hastings responded
yes. Mayor Daly said the agenda noted the property was owned by OCTA but was
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 22
technically owned by OCTA and the City and Mr. Hastings agreed, the street was owned
by the City.
Mr. Hance said he believed the City had an easement but not have fee title to anything.
Upon a question by Mayor Daly, Mr. Hance said he had the fee title to the middle of the
street because it went with his property and on the other side, it went with the other
parcel. He noted that once the street was abandoned, it was only a formality to abandon
the easement rights.
Lori Heulen, 180 South Avenue, said she represented a number of people banded
together as an association of the Vermont, Citron area and recalled a petition and letter
submitted to Council Members. She asked audience members to stand showing
opposition to construction of a parking lot. She said the group did not feel a parking lot
would be the right choice for the land use, the property was zoned residential and they
wished to see it remain residential. She said that with the number of children in the
area, the residents were concerned that a parking lot would generate additional traffic.
Ms. Hulen asked if the parking lot was constructed, did the owner intend to park U-Haul
trucks there. She said the owner had applications in Planning Department for a U-Haul
business and a storage unit.
Michelle Morton, Chairperson of the Citron/Haster Neighborhood Council, noted they petitioned
the neighborhood in 1999, asking what they wished to see on the neighborhood remnant
parcels. They did not wish to see a parking lot or commercial zone there, preferring residential.
Rick Rubio, 1010 S. Cambridge, past Chair of the Citron/Haster Neighborhood, noted that the
1997 strategic plan for the neighborhood indicated they desired parks and green space. He
said one of the actions they took was to work with CaITrans to develop the remnant parcels
created by the I-5 expansion into open green space for mini parks. He informed that
Redevelopment staff had made a recommendation on the use of remnant parcels, which they
presented to OCTA, CalTrans and the Neighborhood Council. He noted they discussed it year
after year, waiting for CalTrans and OCTA to decide on how much would be left over. Mr. Rubio
said he felt it was deceiving that Mr. Hance had not discussed his U-Haul business and that
trucks are parked on the streets. He asked Council to postpone the approval and allow the
residents to work with staff, OCTA and CaITrans for the best use of the open space. He added
that they had been working with Community Development Block Grant to secure assistance and
approval.
Mary Jane Chaveria, 842 West Cottonwood Circle, said the all homeowners on Cottonwood
Circle did not want a parking lot in that area, they wished to urge Council to leave it residential.
Chuck Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, said he had attended the neighborhood meeting and
he knew of their desire for open space. He said that he met with City staff and was told that
they thought the property was too narrow and that there was no funding to complete a park. He
said he understood the residents did not want a parking lot, that he was putting a wall, which
would be covered with vines, along the north and because of the walls and landscaping, not
many people would be exposed to it. Regarding the use of the street for parking of U-Haul
trucks, Mr. Hance said he would sign anything saying that he could never park in that area
because that was not what he intended to use it for. He indicated that there was another parcel,
a land locked parcel behind his property, where One Day Paint used to be and that was where
he would keep them, if the City approved it.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 23
Mayor Daly informed that he had seen U-Haul trucks at Mr. Hance's business for a few months,
he knew an application for a U-Haul business was in the pipeline, so he did not think the City
had approved the business. Mr. Hance noted that it was not fully developed, it was designed in
conjunction with the mini storage
area that he was proposing for the land where One Day Paint used to be.
Mayor Daly expressed his concern about the Council being able to make a decision about
OCTA surplus land when the City has never had a conversation about what alternatives might
be. Mr. Hance said he already owned the land where One Day Paint used to be located. Mr.
Hance said he understood that the City expressed an interest to OCTA about the remnant
parcels for open land and received a letter from OCTA saying they were not interested in it.
Mayor Daly said it was unusual for him to hear this type of information from the applicant, rather
than from staff.
Council Member Kring mentioned that instead of buying land, why didn't Mr. Hance put the
different businesses on the land he already owned. Mr. Hance responded that the piece was
land locked and they hand no one else to sell it to, so they gave it to him in lieu of money, part
of a settlement agreement.
Council Member Kring moved to continue Reclassification No. 2000-00020 for two weeks, to
August 8, 2000. Council Member Feldhaus expressed his desire to have someone from OCTA
in attendance or a letter explaining the situation. Mr. Hance said he would send Council a copy
of the letter from OCTA backing his proposal. He informed that part of the settlement
agreement was that OCTA agreed to sell him the land as long as it was used as a parking lot.
Mayor Daly asked if this was part of an agreement where OCTA paid him for the loss of parking,
Mr. Hance said yes, for the land that was taken, business loss, loss of profits, although he still
had to purchase it.
Council Member Kring said she wished to see the letter and more information from staff.
Council Member McCracken said she wanted to know what OCTA's settlement was, telling Mr.
Hance he could have the land for parking when it was zoned residential, how one agency can
speak for another agency's land use.
Mayor Daly explained that OCTA was handling the land transactions on behalf of CalTrans. He
added that he understood that any surplus land owned by the government, once the freeway
was finished, would be brought to Council for discussion about what would happen with it.
Council Member Kring said Assistant City Manager Wood brought a map to Council, noting the
surplus property identified with priorities.
Rob Zur Schmiede, Redevelopment and Property Services Manager, added that this was a
complicated project. He clarified that in November, staff brought to Council a presentation that
included recommendations all along the I-5 corridor. from north to south, with specific
recommendations for future uses of parcels. The recommendation was approved by Council
and was communicated by letter, signed by the City Manager, to the Executive Director of
OCTA. Subsequent to that submitted, staff received a letter in return and the status was that it
was an ongoing process, a matter of negotiation. He said some of the parcels, the City would
have an opportunity to purchase, but some of the parcels OCTA wanted to see go to public sale
situation. He added that the City would not have an opportunity to pass land use approval on
unless the sale resulted in an item that would come before Council as a zoning re-class or a
conditional use permit. Mr. Zur Schmiede explained that Mr. Hance owned the parcel south to
his existing building, he obtained that parcel through settlement in acquisition of the right of way
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 24
that was needed for the freeway widening. The parcel on the Council's agenda this date and
the request arose from an option that he also received in compensation as part of the freeway
taking, the option was conditional and he said he did not know all of the conditions of the option.
He informed the option expired October 2000.
Mayor Daly said he recalled the presentation by Mr. Wood but did not recall a definitive decision
by Council and possibly Council should revisit the item.
Mr. Zur Schmiede clarified that there were meetings which arose from the block grant process
and the neighborhood expressed their interest in developing the land as open space and the
dimensions and configuration of the land posed some challenges for the Parks Department.
All Mazaheri, 8900 Stardust, said he owned three parcels on South Citron, and opposed to the
parking lot proposal.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Council Member Kring said that because of the complicated nature of the item, that it be
continued to August 8, 2000, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus. Motion carried
unanimously.
Returning to Item A34 and A35:
A34, 35. CHARTER AMENDMENTS - BALLOT MEASURES:
To consider the adoption of a resolution approving the proposed Charter
amendments and ballot wording to appear on the November 7, 2000 election.
Mayor Daly indicated that there were would be seven or eight state ballot measures on the
November 7th election and he supported not placing too many City measures on the ballot. The
Council had before them the potential of 14 ballot measures to consider.
It was agreed to take each potential measure on it's own.
Council Member Feldhaus asked who would be authorized to prepare the arguments for and
against the measures. City Attorney White responded that Council would determine that by
adopting the proposed resolution. He said the resolutions were written general in nature to say
that any Council Member could write arguments on either side of the measure. Council Member
Kring questioned the time frame and Mr. White said that August 15, 2000 was the deadline for
submittal of measures to the Orange County Registrar, which would also include the impadial
analysis and arguments, which would be due. The rebuttals would be due August 25, 2000.
Council Member Feldhaus suggested a change in ballot language for the technical
amendments. He wished to have it read: "Shall specified sections of the City Charter be
amended to delete --- as recommended by a citizen Charier Review Committee." Council
Member Kring said she would oppose that suggestion saying she felt it gave undue weight to a
seven-person panel. In the second proposed amendment pertaining to qualifications for
elective office, Council Member Feldhaus suggested adding the wording at the end of the
sentence, "according to state law." Council Member Kring noted that many of the proposals
came from staff and the Charter Committee just approved it, it originated from staff.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 25
Council Member McCracken felt there would be other means to let the voters know the
amendments originated from a Charter Review Committee without adding it to the ballot
language and Council Member Tait agreed.
Mayor Daly asked if there would be another opportunity to add to the ballot and Mr. White
indicated that there would be one more meeting, August 8th, where additional items could be
considered.
Mayor and Council Members asked staff for an analysis on the binding interest Proposition.
After discussion, Mayor Daly offered the following Resolutions for adoption, seconded by
Council Member Kring:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ordering the submission of proposed amendments to the City Charter to the
electors of said City at the General Municipal Election to be held in said City on November 7,
2000.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-152 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held
on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, as required by provisions of Article XIII, Section 1300 of the
City Charter for the submission to the voters a question relating to Anaheim Charter
Amendments.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to consolidate a
General Municipal Election to be held on November 7, 2000, with the Statewide General
Election to be held on that date pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City measure and
directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. ( Measure 1: Technical
Amendments.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a city measure and
directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. (Measure 2: Qualifications for
Elective Office.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a city measure and
directin9 the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. (Measure 6: Special Prosecutors.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a city measure and
directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. (Measure 7: City Funds and
Expenditures.)
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5: Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Feldhaus, Kring.
Noes - none. Motion carried.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-158 for adoption.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 26
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-158 A RESOLUTION OF TJE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City measure and
directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. ( Measure 13: Utility Rates)
Roll call vote: - 3: Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus. Noes - 2: Council
Members Kring, Tait. Motion carried.
Council Member Kring offered Resolution No. 2000R-159 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at
Municipal Elections.
City Attorney White asked Mayor Daly who would provide the drafting of arguments and Mayor
Daly answered that if all Council Members wished to sign that would be appropriate.
D. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney, Jack White, reported there were two items to report actions on: Closed Session
Item 8, approval of the claim of Friends of Frank Feldhaus Committee, in the amount of
$15,000, Ayes: Council Members Feldhaus, McCracken, Mayor Daly, Noes: Council Members
Kring, Tait. The second he reported was the claims of Irving Pickler and the Supporters of Irv
Pickler Committee, in the combined amount of $31,372, Ayes: Council members Feldhaus,
McCracken, Mayor Daly, Noes: Council Members Kring, Tait.
Council Member Tait stated he wished to clarify his vote that the City hired an
independent counsel to review the claims, Dick Terzian gave a report recommending
against paying the claims and that was why he voted no on the two Closed Session
items.
E. COUCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member McCracken congratulated Genevieve Bennett whom was sent to the
Orange County fair as recommended by the Arts Council and won the third prize in the
City pride category for her artwork representing the City of Anaheim.
Council Member Kring said that the reason that she voted against the judgements in the
Closed Session was for the same reason mentioned by Council Member Tait. She
stated she wished to adjourn the meeting in memory of Curtis Stricker who passed away
on Monday and offered her condolences to the Stricker family.
Council Member Feldhaus explained his affirmative vote in Closed Session stating he
had advice from three other attorneys that did not agree with the Attorney that was hired
from the City. He announced October 21,2000 as the City's Halloween festival and
parade.
Mayor Daly commented on the special prosecutor matter and claims filed regarding the
situation. He said he felt it was about fairness and justice and he was pleased the "book
was closed" on the episode.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 25, 2000
PAGE 27
ADJOURNMENT:
No further business to come before the Council and by general consent, Mayor Daly
adjourned the meeting at 9:50 P.M. The next scheduled Council meeting is August 8,
2000.
Respectfully submitted:
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE
City Clerk