Loading...
2012/01/10ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2012 The January 10, 2012 regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:30 P.M. for lack of a quorum. Mayor Tait called to order the regular adjourned meeting of January 10, 2012 at 4:31 P.M. in the Chambers of Anaheim City Hall located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait, Council Members Gail Eastman, Lord Galloway, Kris Murray and Harry Sidhu STAFF PRESENT: Acting City Manager Bob Wingenroth, City Attorney Cristina Talley, and City Clerk Linda Andal ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, offered his opinion on the qualities and experience needed for the position of Acting City Manager. At 4:34 P.M., Council recessed to closed session to consider the following items: CLOSED SESSION 1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Government Code Section 54957) Title: City Manager 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9: Approximately 35 potential cases 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION: (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of Case: Whitehouse v. The City of Anaheim, et al., OCSC Case No. 30- 2008 00109274- CV- PO -CJC Council session was reconvened at 5:20 P.M. INVOCATION: Pastor Rey Guevara, Anaheim United Methodist Church FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Gail Eastman ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearings): Cecil Corcoran Jordan, Outreach Homeless Ministries, summarized various problems facing the city and the need to meet with City leaders regarding solutions. Raul Alvarez, Cypress College Foundation & Community Relations, announced the 37 annual Americana Awards scheduled for February 25 with proceeds supporting Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 2 of 12 scholarships, emergency assistance and other student needs. Presenting invitations to Council, he thanked them for past support and looked forward to their continued patronage. Kathy Woodward and Leon Clark, Orange County Heritage Council, announced the Black History Month Cultural Fair & Parade scheduled for February 4 th in downtown Anaheim, inviting the community to enjoy the event and share in the celebration. Michael Baker gave a brief annual report on the Anaheim Boys and Girls Club highlights for 2011. He thanked the City for its support over the years, announcing that membership had grown by over 500 in 2011 for a total of 2,727 members. He added that the organization had been successful in its fundraising activities relying on the generosity of community partners, local businesses, and grantors to sustain operations needed to continue to help children in the community, although Community Development Block Grant funds allocated to help support programs in years past had dropped from an initial 45 percent of the organizational budget to eight percent in this current year. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, addressed a variety of concerns to him, ending with his opposition to the permitting of on -going fireworks displays, which he opined impacted the health of nearby residents and could be a potential liability to the city. Danielle Vargas, Youth Leadership America (YLA), announced the graduation ceremony scheduled for January 27 for students who had successfully completed the 2011/12 program. She noted this was also YLA's 10 anniversary, thanked the City for its past support and invited Council to attend the event. An individual addressed his comments to public hearing Item No. 14, speaking in opposition to the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries. He requested Council take into consideration those individuals with medical problems in need of these types of medical services. CONSENT CALENDAR: At 5:38 P.M., the Consent Calendar was considered with Mayor Tait requesting Item No. 3 be removed from the calendar for further discussion. Mayor Pro Tern Galloway then moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the balance of the consent calendar in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each council member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Chairman Tait and Council Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried. 1. Receive and file minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings of B105 September 28, 2011 and October 26, 2011 and the Public Utilities Board meeting of November 16, 2011. 2. Authorize the Director of Community Services, or his designee, to accept the donation from the Disneyland Resort, a division of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., consisting of fourteen used cement/wood park benches and two used AGR -7098 cement park benches and authorize the Director of Community Services, or his designee, to execute the Disneyland Resort's Donation Waiver and Release Agreement on behalf of the City. Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 3 of 12 4. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Tamang Electric, Inc., in the amount of $2,199,880, for the Hidden Canyon Pump Station Expansion Project, AGR -7100 authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions, and increase the Public Utilities' fiscal year 2011/12 budget accordingly. 5. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement with HeliStream, Inc., to incorporate AGR- 4953.A.1 an additional specialized pilot training to the Police Department. 6. Approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Grant Deed with Raymond A. Masciel, Trustee of the Masciel Family Trust A, in the amount of $115,000 for the AGR -7101 sale of surplus city property located at 1357 South Palm Street (Lot Line Adjustment No. 0000670). 7. RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM electing to serve as the successor agency to the 8100 Anaheim Redevelopment Agency under Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF D154 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending certain Personnel Rules covering Management, Confidential and Non - Represented Part-Time Employees. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the plans for construction of a helistop at the C280 Kaiser Anaheim Hospital pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 (Miscellaneous Permit No. 2011 - 00531; 3430 E. La Palma Avenue). 10. ORDINANCE NO. 6230 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim C280 Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2011 - 00245; DEV2011- 00083; 1102 and 1160 North Homer Street). 11. Approve minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of November 15, 2011 held on December 5, 2011 and regular meetings of December 6, 2011 and December 20, 2011. END OF CONSENT: 3. Accept the proposal and approve an agreement with Vigilant Video, Inc., in the amount of $1,037,603, for the purchase of fifty Automated License Plate AG R-7099 Recognition systems for the Police Department and other local law enforcement agencies comprising of the Orange County Urban Area Security Initiative program, in accordance with RFP #7522. Carol Ayuso, Purchasing Agent, reported this item would approve a contract to purchase 50 license plate recognition systems from Vigilant Video for the Anaheim Police Department as well as 22 other Orange County law enforcement agencies, funded by the Homeland Security monies. Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 4 of 12 The Anaheim Police Department, she explained, had conducted extensive market research on the license plate recognition systems available and spoke to many other law enforcement agencies throughout the country with experience using such systems. Department personnel also field tested systems from the three top vendors and received internet web -based demonstrations on their systems from four of the vendors. As a result of that research, performance specifications were created for the Request for Proposal (RFP) to let vendors know what desired features and functionality were being sought and an RFP was subsequently issued resulting in proposals received from five firms. She indicated that one of the companies was disqualified for failing to meet requirements of the Homeland Security Grant with the remaining four proposals evaluated by a team comprised of eight employees representing Anaheim and Santa Ana Police Departments, the Orange County Sheriff and the Anaheim Information Technology Division. This team read and scored each of the 90 questions that were contained in the RFP wherein the vendors were allowed to describe in detail their systems, how they functioned and what their capabilities were. Based on written proposals, web demonstrations and system field testing, Ms. Ayuso remarked Vigilant Video had received the highest overall scores of the four proposals. She pointed out the Vigilant system offered a number of additional value -added features that other bidders did not offer, also provided the lowest overall total cost, and was the only system delivering a web - hosted solution. This feature, she explained, enabled the 23 law enforcement agencies to avoid the cost of purchasing hardware and servers and to provide ongoing technical support, and in this case, Vigilant Video included those add -ins in the total cost. For these reasons, she remarked, staff recommended awarding the contract to Vigilant Video having the highest scores and lowest total cost and for best meeting the needs of the agencies represented. She noted that Anaheim would be the contract administrator for the 22 other law enforcement agencies, part of the UASI group. Mayor Tait requested a more in -depth breakdown regarding the total cost. Ms. Ayuso responded that a three year cost analysis was performed based on the initial acquisition cost as well as on -going licensing, support, and any additions purchasing agencies would need, and Vigilant Video had the lowest total cost for that three year period. Mayor Tait wondered why all five bidders were not field tested with Ms. Ayuso replying that one of the vendors was just getting into the market and did not have a system to offer and another declined to provide a system to field test. Mayor Tait then moved to accept the proposal and approve an agreement with Vigilant Video as outlined in the staff report, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Galloway. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5 (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu). Noes — 0. Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12. This is a public hearing to consider a resolution determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at 1006 -1032 North Tustin P121 Avenue for the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue improvement project. RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at 1006 -1032 North Tustin Avenue for Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 5 of 12 the purposes of the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue Improvement Project (R/W ACQ2010 -00382 and R/W ACQ2010- 00383). The City Clerk announced Items 12 and 13 were two separate public hearings to consider acquisition by eminent domain of certain property interests for the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue improvement project. The property interests proposed to be acquired were located at 1006 -1032 North Tustin Avenue, 1086 -1092 North Tustin Avenue, and 3800 - 3822 East La Palma Avenue. She also reported that two letters of objection for both public hearings had been received and were forwarded to Council as well as made a part of the record. Mayor Tait explained the two public hearings would be conducted separately, however one oral staff presentation would relate to all properties and along with the written staff reports for Item No's. 12 and 13 would be part of the record for each of the hearings. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported the resolutions on this agenda were for the acquisition of right -of -way necessary for the construction of the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue Improvement Project. The project would relieve congestion by accommodating existing and future traffic volumes along Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue with a secondary purpose of enhancing street aesthetics in this area. She stated there were two resolutions on this agenda, both having many of the same ownership interests, however, they were separated by an independently owned parcel. Each of the properties functioned independently and would require separate public hearings for both resolutions. She added the ownership of the parcel was complex with many property interests and staff had been unable to successfully negotiate a settlement and was now recommending Council adopt both resolutions of necessity to move the acquisition forward. Ms. Meeks also explained the timing for the construction of this project was critical to meet the funding requirements and traffic needs for the area including the opening of the new hospital, and as planned, the project would be awarded this summer and construction completed in mid -2013. Ms. Meeks ended her presentation commenting that two letters objecting to the project had been received and David Cosgrove, Rutan and Tucker consultants, would brief council on those letters. Mr. Cosgrove reported a letter from the property owners and one from the ground lessee had just been received objecting to the hearings on this agenda. He noted the ground lessee had objected to the fence on top of the retaining wall as potentially impacting views, adding that City staff explained the fence was there for safety reasons as the retaining wall was next to a sidewalk located next to a slope. Staff had also indicated they would work with the ground lessee and the owner regarding the design of the fence with the goal of minimizing view impacts. There was also an objection from the ground lessee that vehicular access to the property during temporary construction easements would be blocked. Mr. Cosgrove pointed out a water line was being relocated because of design requirements imposed by the water utility, however, the easement language specified vehicular access was not to be blocked during that time. He added there was also a complaint regarding a reduction in landscaping which he indicated was true, however, that issue did not relate to the findings in the resolution of necessity. There was also a complaint from the ground lessee that they did not receive an offer letter, however, he pointed out, offer letters were sent on August 25, 2011 to property owners with the offer being clarified on October 25, 2011. The owner also objected that the offer was Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 6 of 12 inadequate but did not specify the grounds on which it was inadequate. Mr. Cosgrove remarked the City's standard format for the offer was followed and considered to be adequate. Mayor Tait asked if there was proof of the mailing of an offer with staff indicating confirmation of that mailing was available. Mr. Cosgrove added the City's consultant met with the owners on site and also met with the ground lessee through the course of pre - condemnation processing and negotiations. There was an allegation by the owner that the City failed to negotiate in good faith, however, an offer was provided and followed up and there were no facts indicating there was not a good faith effort to resolve this matter. The other objections, he stated, were more legal form objections; an exhaustion of administrative remedies component to this hearing and a blanket objection that the City failed to comply with relocation requirements or eminent domain law. He explained this was not accurate, however, there was not enough specificity on what the grounds of the objections were to exhaust or to respond to what the alleged violations may be. He added none of the objections stated in writing should change staff's recommendations and he advised the resolutions of necessity be approved. Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for Item No. 12 noting testimony would be taken from the owner of record or designated representative for the property subject to the hearing. Testimony would be limited to: 1) whether the public interest and necessity require the project, 2) whether the proposed as planned and located in a manner that would be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury, 3) whether the property sought to be acquired was necessary for the project, 4) whether the offer required by Gov. Code sections 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record, 5) whether the City met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the property. Avi Atal, Esq. Murphy and Edwards law firm, stated he represented a number of property owners who own the interest in fee for the properties identified in Item No's. 12 and 13 on this agenda. Letters of objection to the condemnation process were sent and received by the City with Mr. Atal requesting those arguments be included in the record along with his presentation as well as arguments proposed by the ground lessee. He added this project was not planned with the greatest good and least private injury. The limitations prescribed by the temporary construction easement involving ingress and egress, the parking situation within the property and a number of other matters, he stated, could have been planned better and with less injury to the property owners and the ground lessees. For those general reasons, he explained, as affirmed by both letters, he recommended council not adopt the resolutions of necessity and take the matter under further consideration to determine if there was a more appropriate way to construct this project with lesser injury to the property owners. Mayor Tait asked if the property owner had an alternate design to suggest with Mr. Atal indicating there was nothing specific at this time other than what was stated in the letter. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, requested his comments be applied to both public hearings for the Tustin /La Palma Improvement project with the City Attorney concurring. Mr. Fitzgerald then stated his organization objected to eminent domain action on the basis this project was not for the greater public good, was not a necessity and the three left turn lanes proposed for the Tustin /La Palma intersection were not needed and were potential traffic hazards. Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 7 of 12 At 6:06 P.M., Mayor Tait remarked that he may have a conflict of interest on this item; and, out of an abundance of precaution, he declared a conflict of interest and advised that he would abstain from voting on Item No's. 12 and 13 and requested Mayor Pro Tern Galloway continue the public hearings during his absence; Mayor Tait the dais. Mr. Fitzgerald continued speaking on his opposition to the Tustin /La Palma project as well on other topics of concern to him. With no other public comments offered, Mayor Pro Tern Galloway closed the public hearing. Council Member Murray remarked that one of the points made in the objection letters was that there were no written offers or any type of communication made to impacted property owners. Mr. Cosgrove responded the City provided the owners an acquisition offer along with an appraisal summary statement, as required under the statute. It was his understanding that the ground lessee was objecting that there was no independent segregated offer given to the ground lessee for the ground lessee's interest. In response to that concern, Mr. Cosgrove remarked it was not required by law and at this point in the process, it was difficult to segregate out the ground lessee's interest from the property owners. The normal process, he explained, was to make an offer to the owner, indicate that offer was for property acquisition and for allocation of any process from the negotiated acquisitions among other interest holders whether they be tenants or easement holders or any other party. This was the process followed in this case, he emphasized. He also verified that written communication was provided to the owner and in addition a meeting was held with Mr. Cunningham and the ground lessee to discuss the acquisition as well as written notice of this hearing given to the ground lessee and the owners. Council Member Murray remarked the objection letter indicated the utility easement along the southwesterly parking areas in front of Tustin Avenue was not necessary and asked staff to speak to the purpose of the utility relocation. Natalie Meeks responded there were some utility easements that needed relocation within the property and the City was acquiring easements for that purpose. One of the easements was for a water line that the Water District required to pass through the property and then to Tustin Avenue because the District did not want the pipeline to be under the retaining wall that was also required for the project. She recognized it meant a larger impact on the property during the temporary construction period for laying in the pipeline. Work would be completed in approximately one year, however, she pointed out, each particular parcel would not be impacted for the entire year as the contractor would minimize impacts to the properties and driveways by working on the corners of the site first and then coming back at the end of the project for landscaping, etc. To further answer Council Member Murray's query regarding driveway access, Ms. Meeks explained that during construction the contractor was required to maintain access to the site at all times and may erect a temporary driveway while he rebuilds the permanent driveway. She added that at the end of the project, the same driveway accesses would be there at the close of construction. Council Member Sidhu moved to approve RESOLUTION 2012 -004 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at 1006 -1032 North Tustin Avenue for the purposes of the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue Improvement Project, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 4 (Mayor Pro Tern Galloway and Council Members: Eastman, Murray and Sidhu.) Noes - 0. Abstention — 1:(Mayor Tait). Motion Carried. Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 8 of 12 13. This is a public hearing to consider a resolution determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at 1086 -1092 North Tustin Avenue and 3800 -3822 East La Palma Avenue for the Tustin Avenue and La P121 Palma Avenue improvement project. RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at 1086 -1092 North Tustin Avenue and 3800 -3822 East La Palma Avenue for the purposes of the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue Improvement Project (R/W ACQ2010 -00380 and R/W ACQ2010- 00381). Staff's oral presentation offered during the previous public hearing (Item No. 12) was also applicable to Item No. 13 and has been incorporated below (in italics . During the beginning of the public hearing comments, Mayor Tait excused himself from consideration of this matter, indicating there could be a potential conflict of interest and to be exceedingly cautious, he requested Mayor Pro Tem Galloway continue the public hearing during his absence with his vote to be recorded as an abstention. The City Attorney also indicated the record would reflect that comments made by Mr. Fitzgerald during the prior public hearing would apply to this public hearing as well and are also incorporated below. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported the resolutions on this agenda were for the acquisition of right of way necessary for the construction of the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue Improvement Project. The project would relieve congestion by accommodating existing and future traffic volumes along Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue with a secondary purpose of enhancing street aesthetics in this area. She stated there were two resolutions on this agenda, both having many of the same ownership interests, however, they were separated by an independently owned parcel. Each of the properties functioned independently and would require separate public hearings for both resolutions. She added the ownership of the parcel was complex with many property interests and staff had been unable to successfully negotiate a settlement and was now recommending Council adopt both resolutions of necessity to move the acquisition forward. Ms. Meeks also explained the timing for the construction of this project was critical to meet the funding requirements and traffic needs for the area including the opening of the new hospital, and as planned, the project would be awarded this summer and construction completed in mid -2013. Ms. Meeks ended her presentation commenting that two letters objecting to the project had been received and David Cosgrove, Rutan and Tucker consultants, would brief council on those letters. Mr. Cosgrove reported a letter from the property owners and one from the ground lessee had just been received objecting to the hearings on this agenda. He noted the ground lessee had objected to the fence on top of the retaining wall as potentially impacting views, adding that City staff explained the fence was there for safety reasons as the retaining wall was next to a sidewalk located next to a slope. Staff had also indicated they would work with the ground lessee and the owner regarding the design of the fence with the goal of minimizing view impacts. There was also an objection from the ground lessee that vehicular access to the property during temporary construction easements would be blocked. Mr. Cosgrove pointed out a water line was being relocated because of design requirements imposed by the water utility, however, the easement language specified Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 9 of 12 vehicular access was not to be blocked during that time. He added there was also a complaint regarding a reduction in landscaping which he indicated was true, however, that issue did not relate to the findings in the resolution of necessity. There was also a complaint from the ground lessee that they did not receive an offer letter, however, he pointed out, offer letters were sent on August 25, 2011 to property owners with the offer being clarified on October 25, 2011. The owner also objected that the offer was inadequate but did not specify the grounds on which it was inadequate. Mr. Cosgrove remarked the City's standard format for the offer was followed and considered to be adequate. Mayor Tait inquired if there was proof of the mailing of an offer with staff indicating confirmation of that mailing was available. Mr. Cosgrove added the City's consultant met with the owners on site and also met with the ground lessee through the course of pre - condemnation processing and negotiations. There was an allegation by the owner the City failed to negotiate in good faith, however, an offer was provided and followed up and there were no facts indicating there was not a good faith effort to resolve this matter. The other objections, he stated, were more legal form objections; an exhaustion of administrative remedies component to this hearing and a blanket objection that the City failed to comply with relocation requirements or eminent domain law. He explained this was not accurate; however, there was not enough specificity on what the grounds of the objections were to exhaust or to respond to what the alleged violations may be. He added none of the objections stated in writing should change staff's recommendations and he advised the resolutions of necessity be approved. Mayor Pro Tern Galloway then opened the public hearing for Item No. 13 and invited the owners or representatives for properties located at 1086 -1092 North Tustin Avenue and 3800 -3822 East La Palma Avenue to address council. Mr. Atal stated he would reincorporate the presentation provided on public hearing Item No. 12 with the added caveat, that not only would he incorporate the letters of objection by the ground lessee and the property owners that were sent and received by Council on January 10, 2012; in addition, on the East La Palma Avenue project, he stated the permanent access points on part of the property would be permanently reduced. Since permanent turns into the property would be eliminated from La Palma Avenue and he had not seen any requirement for such terms to removed, on behalf of all the owners with fee interest in the property, he objected to the project for this and all other reasons stated and requested Council not pass this resolution of necessity. His earlier comments are incorporated below. Avi Atal,Esq. Murphy and Edwards law firm, stated he represented a number of property owners who own the interest in fee for the properties identified in Item No's. 12 and 13 on this agenda. Letters of objection to the condemnation process were sent and received by the City with Mr. Atal requesting those arguments be included in the record along with his presentation as well as arguments proposed by the ground lessee. He added this project was not planned with the greatest good and least private injury. The limitations prescribed by the temporary construction easement involving ingress and egress, the parking situation within the property and a number of other matters, he stated, could have been planned better and with less injury to the property owners and the ground lessees. For those general reasons, he explained, as affirmed by both letters, he recommended council not adopt the resolutions of necessity and take the matter under further consideration to determine if there was a more appropriate way to construct this project with lesser injury Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 10 of 12 to the property owners. Mayor Tait asked if the property owner had an alternate design to suggest with Mr. Atal indicating there was nothing specific at this time other than what was stated in the letter. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, requested his comments be applied to both public hearings for the Tustin /La Palma Improvement project with the City Attorney concurring. Mr. Fitzgerald then stated his organization objected to eminent domain action on the basis this project was not for the greater public good, was not a necessity and the three left turn lanes proposed for the Tustin /La Palma intersection were not needed and were potential traffic hazards. At 6:06 P.M., Mayor Tait interrupted comments to state he may have a conflict of interest on this project and as a precaution, he would abstain from voting on both Item No. 12 and 13 and requested Mayor Pro Tem Galloway continue the public hearings in his absence. Mr. Fitzgerald continued speaking on his opposition to the Tustin /La Palma project as well on other topics of concern to him. With no other comments offered, Mayor Pro Tem Galloway closed the public hearing. Council Member Sidhu moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -005 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at 1086 -1092 North Tustin Avenue and 3800- 3822 East La Palma Avenue for the purposes of the Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue Improvement Project, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 4: (Mayor Pro Tem Galloway and Council Members: Eastman, Murray and Sidhu.) Noes — 0. Abstention — 1: (Mayor Tait). Motion Carried. AT 6:22 P.M., Mayor Tait returned to the dais 13. This is a public hearing to consider adoption of an urgency ordinance to extend Ordinance No. 6202 which imposes a moratorium on the establishment of M142 medical marijuana dispensaries. ORDINANCE NO. 6231 (ADOPTION) AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM extending Ordinance No. 6202 adopting an interim measure imposing a moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries and declaring that this ordinance is an emergency measure which shall take effect immediately (A copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk). Cristina Talley, City Attorney, reported this public hearing was to consider an urgency ordinance, expiring on January 19, 2012, that extended an interim ordinance that imposed a temporary suspension on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. The purpose of the moratorium ordinance was to give staff an opportunity to consider potential regulatory measures regarding this use because of secondary effects the use had on the community. Since that time, she explained, there had been two significant cases decided by the courts of appeal relating to medical marijuana dispensaries. In one case, the court of appeals held that municipal regulatory measures including a permitting system were invalid and in another case, the court upheld a complete ban on dispensaries. This indicated some uncertainty in the law with respect to the extent to which cities could regulate dispensaries and for that reason, staff was Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 11 of 12 requesting Council consider a further extension of this moratorium for an additional 12 months, to expire January, 2013, to allow staff to further study the matter and to consider recommendations for Council in light of current or new case laws. Mayor Tait opened the public hearing. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, objected to the need for an urgency ordinance, stating the expiration date had been known in advance and there was time to propose legislation without the need for an urgency ordinance. He offered his viewpoint on a number of other matters as well. Scott Case remarked that while his fitness business was located 150 feet from a medical marijuana dispensary, he was not in support of extending the moratorium, but would rather have regulations in place and a solution to this issue. An individual opposed extending the moratorium, indicating he would wholly support regulating and taxing this product and allowing its use for medical reasons. Jose' Rivera opposed extending the moratorium noting it should be regulated and taxed but available for those uses related to medical needs. With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the public hearing Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Galloway to adopt URGENCY ORDINANCE No. 6231 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM extending Ordinance No. 6202 adopting an interim measure imposing a moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries and declaring that this ordinance is an emergency measure which shall take effect immediately, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5 (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu). Noes — 0. Motion Carried. Report on Closed Session Action: None Council Communications: Council Member Murray announced the Youth Leadership America 10 anniversary and graduation ceremony would be held on January 27 and the Halcyon Anaheim Interfaith Shelter Silent Auction and Memphis BBQ benefit would be held on January 29 She congratulated Carol Stone, City Librarian on her retirement and highlighted her achievements during her tenure. Council Member Galloway recognized city employee, Mari Borkowski, Anaheim Police Officer. Council Member Sidhu highlighted the upcoming holiday celebrating the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. Council Member Eastman spoke of her attendance at Carol Stone's retirement reception. Council Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 Page 12 of 12 Mayor Tait reported on his city - related trip to Florida where he viewed and studied Florida's transportation systems. He requested the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk review Anaheim's retention schedule and related record policies to verify compliance with state law and to recommend methods to communicate the City's policies to City staff; asking that this information be presented to Council on their next agenda. Adjournment: At 7:02 P.M., with no further business to conduct, Mayor Tait adjourned the January 10, 2012 City Council meeting. P N. ully sub mitted, 4- Andal, CIVIC City Clerk