1996/02/27CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY *1996
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Frank Feldhaus, Lou Lopez, Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SRVCS/GOLF: Chis Jawi
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF MAIN.: Tom Wood
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Officer: Kristine Thalman
CIVIL ENGiNEER-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Meeks
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:55 a.m. on
February 23, 1996 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of February 27, 1996 to order and welcomed those in
attendance. He also announced that requests have been received from the utility companies to speak to the
issue today and that opportunity will be given following the staff presentation.
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the time for the scheduled workshop on the staff proposal for a street
deterioration fee. The presentation will be given by the Public Works Director. Staff has been working on the
issue for several months with other government bodies in Orange County and with utility companies. He
introduced Gary Johnson, the Public Works Director and City Engineer.
000: STREET DETERIORATION FEE: Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer. The
presentation today will bo an update of the progress towards adoption of the proposed ordinance. It will
address the impacts of utility cuts on City streets. An extensive workbook has been prepared accompanied by
an Executive Summary of the material contained therein. (See Workbook entitled - City of Anaheim -
Department of Public Works - Street Deterioration Fee - Section 1. through Section 8., and Executive Summary
- Proposed Street Deterioration Fee, also dated February 27, 1996 which summarized each section of the
subjects covered under Sec'dons 1. - 8.) He gave the background on the issue which started in early 1994. The
City's Telecommunications Task Force first identified the potential for damage to the City's streets as a result
of proposed increased telecommunications work. it was clear that a plan to protect the nearly 300 million dollar
investment in the street system needed to be developed. Their worst fears were realized as the City became
aware of the significant damage to City streets in San Diego where they are now developing a process and
program similar to Anaheim's; however, most of the damage has been done from which the City may never
recover.
Extensive work has been done by City staff to research the impacts of street cuts on pavement performance.
Staff provided details of the program and requested input from affected utility companies. In August of 1995
(see minutes of workshop held August 15, 1995 - Street Deterioration Fee), staff brought to the Council a draft
proposal in the form of an ordinance. At that time, Council asked staff to continue meeting with the utility
1
CITY OF /~,N~NEIM, ~aT,[FORNI~ COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27. 1996
companies and address any issues where common ground could be established which resulted in changes
to the implementing ordinance which he then briefed. Because the utility companies do not agree there is an
impact, they were not prepared to have serious discussions with City staff as to the establishment of a fair and
reasonable fee program. Staff continues to believe it is possible to work together to establish a fee program
that is mutually satisfactory. He then introduced Natalie Meeks to make a bdef presentation summarizing the
status of staff's proposal to protect the investment Anaheim has in its street system.
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer. In opening her presentation (supplemented by slides), she reported that
approximately 4 million dollars a year is spent maintaining City streets just keeping pace with current
deficiencies. The arterial sa'eet system alone has a current maintenance deficiency of 50 million dollars. These
deficiencies could increase significantly due to the recent deregulation of the telecommunications industry
resurdog in a drema§c increase in the number of street cuts. San Diego has experienced the beginnings of this
phenomenon as a result of murdpie cuts in City streets as shown in the slides presented. Recent studies have
also shown that street cuts result in long-term damage to the pavement which propagates over time and
impacts the strset beyond the area of the cuts. The damage caused signiticantly increases street maintenance
costs. The Phoenix, Arizona study showed that maintenance costs more than doubled on streets with utility
cuts. Public Works has developed a program to manage those impacts which she then briefed.
The street deterioration fee was developed to recover the cost of the damage associated with street cuts and
that damage is well documented. Ms. Meek's presentation was supplemented by slides which showed some
of the data contained in the extensive report as well as slides of City streets where a number of cuts have
occurred. She briefed a cross section of the material contained in the workbook and also the Executive
Summary (Section 2. - Pavement Deterioration Studies, City of Cincinnati, City and County of San Francisco,
City of Phoenix; Section 3. - Financial Analysis; Section 4. - City Engineer's Association of Orange County
(CEAO) Reseamh and Recommendations; Secl~on 5. - E,~ding Franchise Agreements; Section 6. - Local Utility
Companies Correspondence and Documentation; Section 7. - Statewide Developments; Section 8. - Public
Utilities Commission Negative Declaration). She emphasized during her presentation that utility cuts
significantly reduce the life of street pavements borne out by the studies. She pointed out that findings across
the count~ were similar. The deterioration factor from the Phoenix study was used because of similar climatic
cond~Jons in California and extensive supporting documentation. She also bdefed the proposed fees specific
to Anaheim streets. 'Pmpesed fees for arterial streets range from $10.24 per foot for new streets to $2.55 per
foot for streets over ten years old. Proposed fees for local streets range from $8.98 per foot for new streets
and $2.82 per foot for streets over ten years old. Monies collected pursuant to these fees would be restricted
funds used to repair the long term damage caused by utility cuts.'
Although no City or County in California has yet initiated a fee, the issue is getting a great deal of consideration
statewide. Many Orange County cities have begun to be impacted by the installation of telecommunications
facilities. Orange County and Anaheim promises to be one of the first areas to be wired into the 'super
highway.' In preparation, The City Engineer's Associa~on of Orange County has developed a model ordinance
to assist local caies in dealing wi~ the issue and promoting conformity within the County. A number of Orange
County cities will be recommending the model ordinance to their Councils such as the ordinance before the
Council today. Public Works has also worked with the City Attorney's office to examine the legal issues
associated with the adol:fdon oft street deterioration fee. A review of existing franchise agreements found the
proposed fee to be in conformance with those agreements. Franchise agreements require franchisees to pay
for any and all damage caused by their facilities in addition to any franchise fees.
in concluding, she stated it a plan is not implemented which protects the City's streets to the extent possible and
provide fundiug for repair of the streets as deterioration develops, the quality of all C~ streets will deteriorate.
The proposal before the Council has been developed to meet those needs.
Gary Johnson. To conclude the presentation, staff is requesting guidance as to when the Council would like
to see the proposed ordinance or an alternate ordinance brought before them.
Following staff's presentation, Mayor Daly and Council Members posed questions which were answered by
City Attorney White, Gary Johnson, and Natalie Meeks. Council Members Lopez, Zemel, Tait and Feldhaus,
along with questions, expressed some concerns relative to the results of the studies and their relevance to
CITY OF ANAHEIM. CALIFOP. NIA COUNCIL MINUTE8 FEBRUARY 27. 1996
Anaheim, trenching standards and practJces, inspection standards, compaction tests, historical data on
inspection of City streets, the extent to which franchise agreements cover any damage done to streets, etc.
Rela0ve to franchises, City Attorney White explained that the franchise is an entitlement by a third party to be
in the public streets or right of way. Also in the franchise document which is in the nature of a contract or an
entitlement, is specific language as to the obligation to repair damages. The language differs from one
franchise to another. Basically, they require the franchisee to mitigate or repair damages caused from the fact
that they are either in the street or have to impinge into the streets by cuffing the pavement. The real issue
involved is that simply repairing the street does not mitigate all the damage that occurs based upon the studies
brought forth by the various jurisdictions that the Public Works Department referred to in that merely patching
a street does not totally mitigate the damage that is done. The fee is not simply to exact money to repair or
repave the street, but to encourage franchise holders to plan and to coordinate their street cuts so as to avoid
recurring street cuts for a long period. Upon further questioning, he explained most, if not all franchises contain
some language relating to repair of the streets. The issue is whether that language is broad enough to cover
this type of fee. Will what they are obligated to do under the franchise setisfy their total obligation as opposed
to also having an obligation to pay the fee. His staff looked at each one of the existing franchises and their
conclusion is that the language in each of those franchises would not prohibit the imposition of the fee if the
Council chooses. If the franchise says, 'you shall repair the street and make it just as good as it was before
you cut it up," then based upon the engineering analysis that has been done, he is told the only way to make
it as good as it was is to actually repave the whole street. If that is true, it would cost a utility company
considerably more to totally repave the street each time a cut is done than to pay the fee. He is not sure that
interpretation will make any utility company happy. He feels the language could be interpreted broad enough
to require them to totally m~dgate and then the issue becomes an argument as to what the total mitigation is -
patching to a certain standard, or totally reconstructing the street.
Mayor Daly invited representatives of the utility companies to speak at this time if they wished to do so.
The following people spoke giving their comments summarized as follows:
Ben Pruett, Southern California Gas Company. If this is enacted statewide, they view it as a billion dollar tax
increase for rate payers. He then spoke on three issues - the technical, legal and political aspects. He noted
one thing that is missing in the reports is the issue of traffic on the streets, the conclusion instead being that
the only thing that impacts and advances deterioration of the streets is utility cuts. It is the impact of cars driving
on the street, utility cuts have little or nothing to do with it. He also spoke to the studies presented, two of which
have been challenged, which he feels have a number of flaws as in the San Francisco study. The utilities have
hired a consultant who has prepared an evaluation of the reports which he hoped to present today to share but
did not receive which shows that the validity of the reports are in question. The utilities also have conducted
some field experiments plus thor own studies which were released last year. He briefed what they contained.
Ninety percent of the franchises by the gas company are covered by the 1937 Act which is the State legisla§on
under which the franchises are constructed. Under the terms, they have a responsibility for repair which is a
lifetime warranty for the work. There was some discussion about having to repair a whole street in lieu of the
fee. Theytake issue with that because their responsibility is to repair the excavation. The studies put forward
have not established the nexus between the utility cut and any damage that is outside the excavation. If the
excavation is repaired correctly, no nexus has been established that indicates there is long-lasting damage.
Absent the establishment of a nexus that damage occurred or the value of that damage, basically what they
are looking at is a tax.
In concluding his extensive comments, Mr. Pruett stated that the Council should recognize the issue is going
to be litigated. Staff is correct that Sacramento, San Diego, San Bernardino as well as other cities in Orange
County are considering the issue. His understanding is that San Diego has put off ac'don because of potential
liflgaUon not being able to establish the nexus and the same for San Bernardino. They are looking for Anaheim
to take the issue on so they can defend it in litigation. He confirmed for Council Member Tait that his message
today is that long-term damage to streets, if any, has not been substantiated and the reports that staff has been
using have not been substantiated. If there is damage, it is limited to aesthetics.
Teny Kerr, Regional Manager, Southern California Edison. He thanked the Council for consideration of their
3
CITY OF ~NlqHEIM. C~LIFORNI~ COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27. 1996
concerns and asked that they direct staff to further review their work with the utilities to find a satisfactory
solution to the problem.
Karen Calen, Pacific Bell. She would like to correct an opening statement made that San Diego was taking
a look at a similar program. San Diego initially did not have inspection fees and permit fees and that is what
they are currently developing which did come about to meet what the City of Anaheim already has. Another
concern has to do with the fee charged. If Pacific Bell pays the fee for street cuts and then the gas company
comes in later and does the same and also pays the fee, it seems there will be a duplication whether three
years apart, five years apart or whatever. They are paying for that same deterioration of the street.
Mark Gawn, San Diego Gas and Electric. The issue is a statewide concern. He agrees with many of the
comments made by Mr. Pmeit. He then commented on some of the questions posed by Council Members and
added his thoughts on the issues broached. In concluding, he stated he strongly believes what is being
proposed is a tax and the burden will be placed on businesses resulting in s negative overall impact on the
economy.
Chris, ne Myers, Director, AT&T, San Diego. She has been involved with the proposed ordinance in San Diego.
The City originally proposed the fee being proposed tonight. That was dropped and replaced by an inspection
fee to be strictly coordinated with the field inspection actually done and based on the salary of the Field
inspector. The second proposal in the ordinance is that there will be coordination up to 60 days prior to the
planned excavation. AT&T and the other utilities would be more than happy to try and coordinate their efforts.
With the 1996 Telecommunications legislation, there probably will not be an onslaught of new
telecommunication companies. It will be based on what the market will bear. Most studies show that in
California there will be one or two and it will be economically more attractive to use current lines. AT&T
questions the legality of the proposed fee based on Sec. 7901 of the P.U.C. Code. AT&T would be glad to
work with the City to find an ordinance palatable to all. As seen in the slides, the plates over the streets show
work in progress. It is their goal, as always, to restore the streets as they were.
Mayor Daly. Noting that there were a number of options, he asked Mr. Johnson what he recommends as the
next step.
Gary Johnson. Meetings have taken ptace for over a year on this issue. Staff is pleased to hear that they will
now receive a technical analysis of the studies they are relying on. By and large, what staff is suggesting is that
the universi6es and all the raseamhers that have done the work are correct. They are t~ng to give the Council
the best professional advice possible. He would suggest bringing the ordinance back in 45 days unless they
find it is not an adequate amount of time. He clarified for the Mayor that in the interim, staff would like to see
the technical studies and have an opportunity to review and address some of the issues raised today that they
were not aware of. They believe that can be done within that period and will report back in 30 days to give a
status report. Staff would like to reach a compromise and some accommodation if that is possible and will work
toward that end.
Mayor Daly. The Council will look forward to receiving a status report from the Public Works Department in
approximately 30 days as to how discussions are progressing and reaching a potential compromise. He
thanked staff for the informa0ve presentation and also thanked the representatives of the utilib/companies who
took the time to give their input on this important issue.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there are no additions to Closed
Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
CITY OF /%NaN~IM. CALIFOP. NIA COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27. 1996
The following items are to be considered atthe Closed Session:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of cass: In re: County of Orange, Del/or, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District Case No. SA
94-22272.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9 PENDING LITIGATION
Number of Cases: Two
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
Title: City Attorney
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Juliette Low School
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim, Magnolia School District
Under negotiation: Price and terms
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Anaheim Stadium
Negofiaitng perites: City ofAnaheim, Goldenwest Baseball Co., and Disney Baseball Enterprises, Inc.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY:
Claimant: Fernando Oritz
Agency claimed against: CityofAnaheim
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Employee organization: Hospital and Se~ce Employees Union
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Lopez seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (4:26 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting. (6:00 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Pastor Jimmie Gaston, Church of Christ, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Tom Tait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
CITY OF AN/%HEIM. C/~LIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27. 1996
1. 119: PROCLAMATION: Recognizing the month of March 1996 as Volunteer Recognition Month in
Anaheim.
The Volunteer Recognition Proclamation was accepted by Doris Blackford and Norma Hodges.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously adopted
by the City Council recognizing the National Council of Negro Women for their accomplishments and
conbibutions to the community. The Declaration was accepted by Uz Cason, a member of the Orange
County Section of the National Council who briefed the purpose of the organization, their on-going
work, and the many positive accomplishments achieved.
119:
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION recognizing February 1996 as American History Month.
PROCLAMATION recognizing March 3 - 9, 1996, as Save Your V*~on Week.
DECLARATION recognizing the Retirement Housing Foundation on their 35th Anniversary.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,006,103.36 for the period ending February
20, 1996 and $2,635,121.28 for the pe~nd ending February 26, 1996, in accordance with the 1995-96 Budget,
were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority
meeting. (6:10 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6:14 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items,
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Mr. R. Patel spoke on behalf of Mr. Janah Shah, 450 S. Loare St., Anaheim.
He submitted a letter signed by Mr. Shah which expressed concerns relative to his health and that of Mr. Patel
and problems with the City's Code Enforcement Department concerning the upkeep of the property at 450 S.
Loare. The letter also asked for assistance in the payment of utilities as well as assistance for needy people
such as himself and Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel briefed these concerns in his comments to the Council.
Upon questioning by the Mayor, Mr. Patel stated that he already had contacted and spoken with a
representative in the Utilities Department, the City Manager's Office, and other City staff,
Mayor Daly. He will ask the City Manager's Office to evaluate all of the issues raised, provide an analysis of
the situation and to give a recommendation.
Dennis Fitzgerald, Torquoise St., Anaheim. He referred to an article he read in the Los Angeles Times that
there was going to be a utility fee increase to pay for street repairs.
Mayor Daly interjected and stated that he believes the issue Mr. Fitzgerald is referring to is one discussed by
6
CITY OF aWaN~IM, caLIFORNIa COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 2?. 1996
the Council at a workshop held this aftemoon at 3:00 P.M. The discussion was relative to a street deterioration
fee - calling it a utility fee is not accurate. Furthermore, the street deterioration fee, if adopted, would only
affect utility companies who have a need to cut into City streets. He suggested Mr. Fitzgerald obtain a copy of
the staff proposal from the City Manager's or City Clerk's Office.
Mr. Fitzgerald thanked the Mayor for the clarification.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He referred to an arlicle in the Orange County Register relative to
the development of an Assembly Bill regarding sales tax diversion to help fund a tou~t development
project giving credit for the Bill to Tom Wood, the City's Deputy C~ Manager. He does not have the
particulam but he is concerned because any diversion of sales tax would have an impact on the City's
General Fund.
Council Member Zemel. The article was correct, but Mr. Kirsch's assessment is not. The bill would not
affect the General Fund or create any new taxes. It would be of benefit to the City. He invited Mr. Kirsch to
give him a call for an explanation of the proposal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were public comments under agenda items A3. and C1. See discussion under those items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted
upon for the Council meeting of February 27, 1996. Council Member Feldhaus seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR:
On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certitications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as
listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 96R-26, for adoption. Mayor Daly
offered Ordinance Nos 5552 through 5554 for introduction. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al.
Rejecting and/or denying certain claims filed against the City.
118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Harry Babadjanian for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about September 21, 1996.
b. Claim submitted by Philip Frankel for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about Janua~ 1, 1996.
C. Claim submitted by 20th Century Insurance Co., Eric Perlman insured for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 10, 1995.
d. Claim submitted by Femando O~z c/o Todd C. Worths, Esq.for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 8, 1995.
e. Claim submitted by Khai V. Nguyen for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 25, 1995.
7
CITY OF ~WaN~IM. C~LIFORNI~ COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRU~.RY 27. 1996
Claim submitted by Gerald Green for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about November 27, 1995.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting held January 11,
1996.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held January 11,
1996.
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report Executive Summary for the month of
January, 1996, as submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3.
000: ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING CHAPTER 12.12 OF TITLE 12 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND IMPOSING FEES FOR SUCH PERMITS
AND AMENDING SECTION 12.24.030 OF CHAPTER 12.24 OF TITLE 12 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE.
Ben Pruett, Southern California Gas Company. He noted them was some discussion with the City
Engineer regarding pulling this item from the agenda today and continuing it for 30 days; City Manager
Ruth. He clarified for the Council that staff is recommending that this item bo continued for 30 days.
At the conclusion of the consent calendar, Item A3. was continued for 30 days.
A4.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 5552 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI'FY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING CHAPTER 14.36 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO DRIVEWAY PERMITS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS.
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Public Works. She clarified for Mayor Pm Tem Lopez that in reviewing some
of the ordinances on right-of-way permits, the City Attorney's Office noted that this section is a duplicate of
some of the other requirements in the code and thus recommended deleting this section.
A5.
A6.
A6.
A9.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, in the amount of $35,945
for converting the Halon 1301 fire suppression system in the Peaking Plan Turbine Generator, in
accordance with Bid #5484.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Ontario Refrigeration Service, Inc., in the amount of $95,325.56 for
the removal and replacement of a cooling tower and an internal ladder and walkway in the Hall "B"
chiller area of the Convention Center, in accordance with Bid ~5486.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order to Dictaphone Corporation, in
the amount of $64,880.20 for a Prolog Digital Recording System to include an additional forty
channels or a total of 64 for the Fire Department Communications Center.
184: Reviewing the need for continuing the Ninth Proclamation of the Existence of a Local
Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on January 2, 1996, concerning the
Santiago Landslide and Pegasus landslide in the City of Anaheim; and taking no action to terminate
the local emergency at this time.
123: Approving a Sublease Agreement for office space rental (1548 square feet of space in the
Gate 6 office/warehouse facility at Anaheim Stadium) between the City of Anaheim and Newport
Entertainment Incorporated; and authorizing the Stadium General Manager to renew the
agreement for additional 12-month periods upon the same terms and conditions. (Continued from
the meeting of February 13, 1996, Item A13.)
8
CITY
Al0.
All.
A12.
A13.
OF ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTEB FEBRUARY 27. 1996
153: Authorizing full-time City of Anaheim Employees to participate in a one-time accrued vacation
buy-out, to provide a cash donation to an employee of the Parks, Recreation & Community
Sen/ices Department, Golf Operations Division who has been off work ill, and recently has
undergone surgery.
175: Authorizing the Public Utilities Department to voluntarily participate in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's Partnership for Safe Water Program, Phases I, II and III; and
authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Initial Agreement and any related
documents necessary to implement the Program on behalf of the City, as recommended by the
Public Utilities Board at their meeting of February 1, 1996.
123: Approving an A~reement with Earl Gaunt, in an amount not to exceed $80,000 for consulting
Bar,ices to assist the Public Utilities Department in the development and implementation of the
Integrated Maintenance & Operating System, and to assist the Department in the operation of the
Combustion Turbine Generator Plant for dispatching by Southern California Edison Company; and
authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Agreement and any related
documents on behalf of the City.
153: ORDINANCE NO. 5553 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 1.04.110 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY. (CITY DEPARTMENT
REORGANIZATION.)
Mayor Daly. In discussing this matter with the City Manager and members ofthe Library Board, he has
been assured that the Library Department in Anaheim which has a long and very successful history, as part
of the reorganization in the newly named Community Sen4ces Department, will be able to take advantage
of cost savings and efficiencies available in the new format as well as a wider use of volunteers, the
potential of homework centers as part of the library operation and generally a more effective use of the
Library Department and wider availability of Library se~ices in Anaheim.
City Manager Ruth. This has been given a considerable amount of thought. They have met with members
of the Library Board and the Parks and Recreation staff and the belief is, this is a good 'fit". The
commitment is to maintain current levels of sen4ce. The City is proud of the tradition of the Library and will
continue it and enhance it if the merger goes forward.
Mayor Daly. He asked how the Library function will be labelled in the future under the Commun~ Services
Department.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Se~ces. He would expect they would have four
divisions in the department - - Parks and Golf Division, Recreation and Human Services (instead of
Community Sen4ces), Neighborhood Services and the Ubrary Services D~,sion. It is still the intent to keep
the Library system intact as a system and eventually have a Library Division head to run the entire
operation, the City Librarian. He will work with staffto develop this in the best way possible.
A14.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 96R-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92R-19, WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT.
(CREATING THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR AND SPECIAL
PROJECTS DIRECTOR, AND DELETING THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PARKS, RECREATION,
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR AND LIBRARY DIRECTOR, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY
9, 1996.)
9
C~TY OF ~N~W~H, C~LTFORNI~ COUNCIL N[NUTES FEBRU~ltY 27. ~996
A15.
000: ORDINANCE NO. 5554 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADDING SECTIONS 17.30.075 AND 17.31.075 TO CHAPTERS 17.30 AND 17.31,
RESPECTIVELY, OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STADIUM
AREA FEE ADJUSTMENTS.
A16.
123: Approving the Joint Agreement with the County of Orange for the implementation and
operation of the Orange County 800 Megahertz Count3n~de coordinated communications system,
and authorizing the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute the Agreement and any related
documents in substantial conformance with the Agreement necessary to implement the system.
A17.
123: Approving the Joint Agreement of the County of Orange, the Official Investment Pool
Participants' Committee, and Each Option A Pool Participant for Resoluaon of Claims ,~ainst the
County of Orange; and authorizing the City Attorney to execute said Agreement on behalf of the
City, and to take such other actions as are necessary to accomplish the purposes of said
Agreement.
City Attorney, Jack White. Staff is recommending a modification of the proposed action which will apply not
only to the action under the Redevelopment ,A~ency, but also under the Anaheim Public Financing
Authority, Item 1., and the City Council, Item A17. The modification is to approve the joint agreement and
authorize the execution and delivery of the subject agreement to the County only upon verification by City
staff of the amounts owing to the City, Redevelopment Agency, and the Anaheim Public Financing Authority
under the terms of the joint agreement and the plan of adjustment.
A18. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held February 6, 1996, and the
special meeting held February 6, 1996.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON RESOLUTION NO. 96R-26. FOR ADOPTION:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-26, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Item A3 continued for 30 days. MOTIONS CARRIED.
D1.
130: PUBLIC HEARING - MULTIVISlON CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE RENEWAL:
To consider the adoption of an ordinance approving the transfer of the cable television franchise
granted to M.L. Media Partners, LTD to Century Valley Communications Corporation.
At their meeting of February 6, 1996, Item A15, the City Council approved Resolution No. 96R-15
declaring its intention to approve the transfer of a cable television franchise from M. L. Media
partners, ltd., dba Multivision Cable Television, to Century Communications Corporation.
Notice of this public hearing was published in the North County News on February 15 and February 22,
1996.
10
C~TY OF ~s.,NP, HEIHo CALIFORNIA COUIqC~L N~NUTE8 FEBRUlS.,RY 27. ~996
Kristine Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer. The ordinance before the Council today is to
approve the agreement between Mulfivision Cable, M. L. Media Partners, L.P., Century Valley Cable
Television Corporation in the City of Anaheim to transfer the existing franchise held by Multivision to Century
Cable. She then briefed her report of February 27, 1996 to the City Manager/City Council which
summarized the background leading to the proposed action today as well as the provisions included in the
agreement (see page 2 of the report). In concluding, she stated the consultant was present as well as
representa~ves from Century Valley and Multivision Cable to address any questions the Council may have.
Mayor Daly. He opened the Public Hearing and invited anyone to speak on the proposal. There will be a
first reading of the ordinance this evening with final reading next week. No one wished to speak.
Mayor Daly. He asked relative to the name, Century Valley Communications, if that was just the name of
the Anaheim franchise.
Bill Martacrina, Special Counsel, Rutan & Tucker. Technically, the franchisee will be Century Valley Cable,
a separately created corporation which will hold the Anaheim and Villa Park franchise. They have required
and Century has agreed that the parent corporation, Century Communications, will guarantee the
obligations of the single asset corporation. That is why both entities are referenced in the agreement.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance 5555 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5555 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE GRANTED TO M.L.
MEDIA PARTNERS, LTD TO CENTURY VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION.
Mayor Daly. He understands staffwill be back in the near future regarding the franchise itself. He also
appreciates the appearance of the incumbent cable company and extends greetings to the new operators
as well.
ITEMS B1 - B9 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY $. 1996
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 27~ 1996
B1.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4053 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: DON V. EDMUNDS TR., C/O Hardin Oldsmobile, 1300 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805; DON V. EDMUNDS AND GARNET A. EDMUNDS, P.O. BOX 42, Pistol River, Oregon
97444
AGENT: HARDIN HONDA, Attn: Dennis Hardin, 1381 Auto Center Drive, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1381 East Auto Center Drive [Hardin Honda}. Property is approximately 2.3 acres
located on the north side of Auto Center Drive and approximately 720 feet west of the centerline of
Phoenix Club Drive.
Petitioner requests an amendment to a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation for a
sign panel addition to a freestanding pole sign at an existing auto mall.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Amendment to conditions of approval for Variance No. 4053 (PC96-14) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
11
CITY OF ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTE8 FEBRUARY 2?° 1996
B2.
179; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1978 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: NIRMALABEN S. PATEL AND SUMANBAHAI N. PATEL, 426 South Beach Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard (Pacitic Inn Motel). Property is approximately 0.36 acre
located on the east side of Beach Boulevard and approximately 461 feet north of the canterline of
Orange Avenue.
Petitioner requests modification of a condition of approval pertaining to the limitation of time to
retain a 23-unit motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Request to modify conditions of approval of CUP NO. 1978 DENIED (PC96-15) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
City Attorney White, answering the Mayor, stated in the past, several hearings of a similar nature have been
referred to a hearing officer and he would recommend the Council doing the same on this item. He also
recommends the same hearing officer used in the pest, Victor Kalets, and that he be allowed to establish
the date and time of the hearing and subsequently bring a recommendation back to the Council. He
confirmed for Council Member Feldhaus that the City pays for the hearing officer.
Council Member Zemel. He asked in sending the matter to a hearing officer, assuming that the officer will
uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, does that help the City's case.
City Attorney White. It is much easier for a hearing officer being an attorney who deals in these types of
matters to establish the record and make the requisite findings than it is for the Council at the time of the
hearing to try to formulate those typos of findings. The hearing officer has enough time alter the hearing to
digest the testimony and put his recommendation in writing making it more defendable. The Council can
then either uphold the decision, reverse it, or modify it.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the Public Hearing to be held on the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit 1978 be referred to a hearing officer to hold the hearing
with a subsequent recommendation to be submitted to the City Council for a final decision. Mayor Daly
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, additional discussion followed upon questions posed by Council Member
Feldhaus wherein the Mayor asked staffto again explain the rationale in sending such matters to a hearing
officer. Both Joel Fick, the Planning Director and City Attorney White briefed the reasons/advantages to
having a hearing officer hold the hearings on such issues.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including that the hearing officer be Mr. Victor Kaleta or
some other hearing officer as determined by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
B3.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3807 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: NEWPORT FEDERAL A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ATTN: GARY ELDER, 4425
Jamboree Road, ~rZS0, Newport Beach, CA 92600
LOCATION: 3368 East La Palma Avenue. Proporty is approximately 2.1 acres landlocked
between La Palina Avenue and the Riverside (91) Freeway, having a maximum width of 269 feet
and a maximum depth of 425 feet.
Petitioner requests to amend or delete conditions of approval portaining to a freestanding freeway
oriented sign and security guard requirements for a previously approved outdoor roller-hockey
facil~
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval of CUP NO. 3807 (PC96-16) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
12
CITY OF ANAHEIM. CALIFOI~NIA COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27. 1996
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager answered questions posed by Council Member Lopez for
purposes of clarification relative to securib/and signage; Mayor Daly also expressed concerns regarding
signage asking if it was consistent with the Specific Plan the Council previously approved for the whole
Canyon business zone.
Mr. Hastings answered, yes. In fact, the maximum height for a freeway oriented free standing sign is 35'
and the sign proposed is 25'.
Joel Fick. He appreciates the Mayor's concern regarding signage and it is staff's concern as well. As Mr.
Hastings mentioned, it is shorter in height than other signs in the area. Also, planning staff relies heavily on
Community Development input since this is also part of the area Redevelopment Plan.
Mayor Daly. He feels that corridor is taking on an appearance that is quite busy in terms of signage.
Joel Fick. They will discuss the matter with Community Development staff. The matter warrants some
exploration.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3704 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: EVERETT H. & ELMA M. MILLER, 270 Roycrolt Avenue, Long Beech, CA 92803
AGENT: A & S. ENGINEERING, INC., 207 West Alameda Avenue, fi203, Burbank, CA 91502
LOCATION: 956 South Brookhurst Street (Shell Oil Service Station}.
Property is approximately 0.47 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Brookhuret
Street.
Petitioner requests to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to permitted freestanding
signs for a previously approved sen/ice station with car wash facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Request WITHDRAWN by Applicant.
B5.
179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 95-96-03 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT), Attn: Kevin Bass, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 401-411 North Anaheim Boulevard. Prepor[y is approximately 0.42 acre located at
the northwest corner of Adele Street and Anaheim Boulevard.
To reclassify the subject property from the CG zone to the CL zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 95-96-03 GRANTED, UNCONDITIONALLY, (PC96-17) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3817 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LTD., Attn: Les Lederer, 1990 Westwood Boulevard, Second
Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025
AGENT: JOHN SCHROEDER, 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Market~lace). Property is
approximately 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and
Anaheim Boulevard.
To permit an indoor entertainment area for a television taping studio and an indoor stage for
concerts, live theatrical productions and movie screenings.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3817 GRANTED, for two yearn, to expire 2/5/98 (PC96-18) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained).
Approved Negative Declaration.
13
CITY OF ~NaNRIMo ~aLTFORNI~ COUNCIL MINUTEB FEBRUi~RY 27. 1996
B7.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3819 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: MAYOR B. AND KALPANA M. PATEL, B.U. AND PUSKPA PATEL, 650 Town Center,
#1910, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
AGENT: JOHN ERSKINE, ESQ., 18101 Von Karman Avenue, #1800, Iwine, CA 92713-9772
LOCATION: 1730 South Zeyn Street. Proper~ is approximately 0.92 acre located on the east side
of Zeyn Street and west side of Anaheim Boulevard, approximately 580 feet north of the centerline
of Katella Avenue.
To permit a temporary sales office building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3819 GRANTED for three years, to expire 2/5/99 (PC96-19) (7 yes votes.
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
RI~PORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
B8. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3217 - REQUEST FOR A RETROACTrVE EXTENSION
OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
REQUESTED BY: FRANK VANDENBERG (America Realty Advisors) 700 North Brand Boulevard,
Suite 300, Glendale, CA 91203
LOCATION: Property is located at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Oranaewood
Avenue.
Pe~oner requests a retroactive extension of time to expire January 23, 1997 for Conditional Use
Permit No. 3217 (to construct a 750-room hotel facility with accessory uses with waiver of
maximum fence height and minimum number of parking spaces).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined that EIR 294 is not adequate to serve at the environmental documentation for subject
request and, further, denied request for extension of time.
B9. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3724 - REC]IUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION
OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
REQUESTED BY: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, 2811 E. Villa Real Drive, Orange, CA
92667
LOCATION: Property is located at 412 N. Crescent Way.
Petitioner requests a retroactive extension of time to expire on November 14, 1996 for Conditional
Use Permit No. 3724 (to permit an approximate 38,000-square foot church facility within the ML
Zone).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval of CUP NO. 3724 (to
expire 11/14/96).
Council Member Tait. For the record, he would like to remind the parishioners that the properb/is in an
industrially zoned area and there will be cases where there are conflicting uses. He wants to be on record,
because it is industrially zoned, in his mind, they have pdorit7 and ha will favor those uses.
Mayor Daly. Them has already been a situation a~se regarding the compatibility of a church use in an
industrial zone. This involves a request for an extension of time. He asked if both the Planning staff and
the C~ Attorney are convinced that them are the type of conditions on this that clarifi/it is an industrial
zone.
Joel Fick. The item was discussed in detail at the Planning Commission meeting because the Commission
shared the Council's concerns in that regard as well. The applicant reiterated that they would conform with
the hours of operation and previous stipulations giving recognition to the fact that the church was going into
an industrial area and would respect those other rights.
14
C~TY OF 2~.Iq~HE~Ho C~L~FORIq[~ COUNCIL N~NUTES FEBRUARY 27° ~996
Mayor Daly asked what happened to the concept of shorter term permits for chumh uses in industrial zones
which used to be the standard practice in Anaheim.
Joel Fick. Those are still employed and certainly in the Canyon Industrial Area. In all cases that he can
recall, when a chumh has come in and proposed to pumhase the property where they are actually the
property owner, a time limit has not been established in conjunction with the pumhase and that is the case
here.
Mayor Daly. He asked Mr. Fick, knowing what he knows now about the challenges of compatibility in this
particular neighborhood, and with the property also in a Redevelopment zone, has the Planning staff's
feelings changed regarding conditions of approval for this type of use in an industrial zone.
Joel Fick. They do feel it is conditioned appropriately just because the parlJcular industrial that occurs in
this area is of a light industrial nature. Any time a use goes in that is conditional, the avenue exists where
there could be some incompatibility in the future but that has been brought to the church's attention and
they have stipulated to that recognition that it is in an industrial zone.
Mayor Daly. He feels there needs to be further discussion on this item just based on the background of the
area. He is recommending that this item be set for a Public Hearing; Council Member Lopez concurred.
A Public Hearing on the subject will, therefore, be scheduled for a later date.
ITEM B10 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21. 1996
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 1, 1996
B10.
179: FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 95-63:
REQUESTED BY: JWDA ARCHITECTS, C/O WENNA CHEN, 430 South Garfield Avenue, Suite
400, Alhambra, CA 91801
LOCATION: Property is located at 505 West Katella Avenue.
Petitioner requests review and approval of final site plan, floor plans, elevation plans, and
landscape plans to construct a new 5-sto~, 74 room hotel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Final Site Plan Review 95-03 (7 yes votes).
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
Bll.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5551: FOR ADOPTION: Amending Section 18.61.050 of Chapter 18.61 of
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Cede relating to zoning, deleting references to the Anaheim
Canyon Industrial Area. (Introduced at the meeting of February 13, 1996, Item BIO.)
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5551 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5551 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO ZONING, DELETING REFERENCES TO THE ANAHEIM CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA.
15
CITY OF /~N~HBIM. CALIFORNI~ COUNCIL MINUTEH FEBRU/~RY 27. 1996
ROLL CALL VOTE ON ORDINANCE NO. 5551. FOR ADOPTION:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCiL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Mayor Daly declared Ordinance No. 5551, duly passed and adopted.
C1.
139: Discussion and potential resolution to taka a position on Measure "T" requested by Council
Member Zemel at the meeting of Februar~ 13, 1996.
Earlier in the meeting under Public Comments on AQenda Items, the following people spoke giving their
reasons why they are opposed to Measure "T" (County Charter issue) which will be on the Mamh 26, 1996
ballot and asking that the Council oppose the measure as well:
Tom Steel, 2014 E. Westport, Anaheim; Steve White, 856 N. Clementine, Anaheim, and Curtis Stricker,
117 Wakefield Place, Anaheim. Mr. Stricker also commented that he objects to the Council as a whole
taking a position favoring or supporting anything but that the people should be left to decide the issues for
themselves.
Council Member Zemel. As he has expressed before, the Council, being elected by the people of
Anaheim, should take positions on County issues that will affect the City's citizens. He has serious
concerns relative to the measure. It is supposed to be more democratic, but he feels It is anti-democratic
and It takes away the citizen's right to vote. The measure was rushed to the ballot and potentially is a
*knee-jerk' reaction. He would like to hear how the rest of the Council feels and perhaps they could then
go forward with a resolution.
Mayor Daly.. He was not sure what Council Member Zemel had in mind today but he was going to suggest
the Council should invite spokespersons from the group of people who have crafted Measure T as well as
those with an opposite point of view to attend the Council meeting next week.
Council Member Zemel. The last time they attempted to have representatives speak (on Measure R), no
one showed up. The Council could still take a pos~Jon and have representatives attend the meeting. After
reviewing the measure and going through it point by point, he does not believe that anything anyone would
say could sway his view.
Council Member Lopez. He supports Mayor Daly's suggestion and does not feel that a delay of one week
would make a difference.
Mayor Daly. The subject of the County Charter has been widely discussed in Orange County for the past
year. Numerous public meetings have been held. There have been a number of opportunities for Council
Members or citizens to state their point of view including speaking to the County Supervisors who have put
Measure T on the ballot. He suggests that they hear from representatives on the issue before any action is
taken. He does not know of any action being proposed at this time.
Council Member Tait. He would like to set on the agenda next week a Council vote either for or against
Measure T. He has to agree wffh Council Member Zemel that he does not know what anyone could say to
change his mind. He also feels it is anti-democratic. Changing from elected to appointed officials, in his
opinion, is a formula for disaster. He reiterated he would like to have the matter placed on the next Council
agenda for a vote of the Council hopefully opposing Measure T; Council Member Zemel. If that is a motion,
he will second it. In deference to the Mayor, he will vote on the motion supporting the continuance for one
week.
16
CITY OF ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTE8 FEBRUARY 27. 199~
Mayor Daly. As he sees it, the same item that is on the agenda today will be on next week's Council
agenda. It will basically be a discussion on Measure T and inviting a representative from each side of the
issue to address the Council.
Council Member Zemel. He asked how the Mayor envisioned the invitation, from the Council, or one of the
Council Members; Mayor Daly. The City Clerk can contact one of the members from each side.
City Attorney White. The wording on the agenda is sufficiently broad for the Council to take a vote on the
matter if they choose to do so at the time.
It was determined that the issue would again be on the Council agenda of March 5, 1996.
Mayor Daly. To be blunt, the subject of the County Charter has been a topic of discussion for many
months. He has never heard anyone on the Council express an opinion one way or the other and now a
citizen's committee has drafted a charter with various provisions. Atthe last minute, Council Member
Zemel is advising the City Council that the Council should oppose the measure, but the Council has never
offered any input to the crafting of the charter. He feels it is a disservice to the process and that is why he is
disappointed It is coming up this way. If there was a feeling as to what should be in the charter or no charter
at all, it would have been nice to have known that many months ago. The Council does meet with its
County Supervisor quite often and could have shared that with him. He tries to meet with the County
Supervisor who represents Anaheim and provide input. If he had known of this interest, perhaps they could
have dealt with It sooner and affected the outcome.
Council Member Zemel. Personally, he has done the exact same thing and has met with Supervisor
Steiner on a number of occasions. This is not the charter he (Zemel) has been talking about.
Mayor Daly. HIS point is, Council Member Zemel did not ask the Council's opinion during the input stage
and now that the charter has been crafted, he is asking his colleagues to become involved and to take a
position. That is what he is trying to understand. He feels it is disingenuous.
Council Member Zemel. He appreciates the feelings of Mayor Daly, but that was not the intention.
C2. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
C3. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
C~ Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
Jack White recommended at this time that the Council adjourn today's meeting to Thursday, February 29,
1996 at 2:30 P.M. for continued consideration in Closed Session of the items listed on today's Closed
Session Agenda on page 14 and 15 that were not completed today.
17
CZTY OF ~lq2t~TM, C~tTFORNZ~ COUNCZL MINUTEB FEBRU,~,RY 27. 1996
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of February 27, 1996 was adjourned to
Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:30 P.M. for the purpose of a Closed Session to complete consideration of
the items on today's Closed Session Agenda. (7:28 P.M.)
LEONOR~ N. $OHL
SECRETARY
18