2014/02/04ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2014
The regular meeting of February 4, 2014 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. in the
chambers of Anaheim City Hall and adjourned to 4:30 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The
regular adjourned meeting of February 4, 2014 was called to order by Mayor Tom Tait
at 4:35 P.M. The meeting notice, agenda, and related materials were duly posted on
January 31, 2014.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Jordan Brandman, Gail Eastman,
Lucille Kring and Kris Murray.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Marcie Edwards, City Attorney Michael Houston, and
City Clerk Linda Andal.
ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
CLOSED SESSION: At 4:36 P.M., City Council recessed to closed session for
consideration of the following items:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)
Name of Case: Moreno et al. v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 2012 - 00579998
At 5:09 P.M., City Council session was reconvened.
INVOCATION: Gregory Tucker, Hope Community Church of Anaheim
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Jordan Brandman
RECOGNITIONS (For A Later Date):
Proclaiming February 7, 2014, as National Wear Red Day
Proclaiming February 2014, as Make Kindness Contagious Month
Recognizing June Glenn, Cypress College Foundation Americana
Award recipient
Proclaiming February 2014, as Career and Technical Education
Month
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 2 of 27
Brian O'Neal thanked Council for recognizing Career and Technical Education Month,
explaining the value in preparing students for the future in relevant technical education.
He announced that the North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
(NOCROP) was a cooperative effort by five school districts within North Orange County
and specific to the city, 6,700 students, 32 percent of the total student body from the
Anaheim High School District were enrolled, as well as 6,100 Anaheim residents, all
attending classes to gain technical skills to succeed in employment and career
advancement.
Proclaiming February 16 - 22, 2014, as National Engineers Week
Proclaiming February 4, 2014, as World Cancer Day
ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA City Clerk, Linda Andal announced staff
requested Item No. 19, a public hearing related to the Anaheim Convention Center, be
withdrawn from the agenda and advised the hearing would be published and re- noticed
for a future meeting date.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items): The City Clerk provided a brief statement
on public comment guidelines for speakers.
Cecil Jordan Corcoran, Outreach Homeless Ministries, discussed his vision of
distributing a magazine bible to the public.
Daniel DeMeyere, resident, cited various concerns related to the Brookhurst Street
Widening project, including a bus stop that was moved which now blocked the view of
pedestrians and the fact there was now only one way to enter into his neighborhood,
leaving it land- locked.
Kurt Brunner, resident, also addressed the Brookhurst Street Widening project,
emphasizing the safety issues for pedestrians using the Islamic Center caused by
construction of a wall as part of the widening project. He added a petition from the
neighbors was submitted outlining their concerns and requested the city's assistance.
Mayor Tait asked the city manager to provide a report to council addressing the
concerns identified, i.e., the bus stop and left -turn lane.
James Robert Reade identified specific gang members and their activities and also
voiced his suggestions for parents and family members who sanctioned these activities.
William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, offered his opinions on the power shortage caused
by the closure of the San Onofre power plant, emphasizing that electric generating
plants should be constructed on sites with available water supply, existing high voltage
lines, and large natural gas pipelines; he suggested that such a facility be considered
for the unused river bottom area near Anaheim Stadium. Additionally, he cited various
allegations against certain council members using language that Mayor Tait felt was
inappropriate and requested the speaker refrain from such language.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 3 of 27
Mariana Rivera identified herself as a community leader in the Guinida neighborhood,
stating she was supporting district elections as a method to address problems in her
community. She emphasized it took too long to get a needed community center and
community park in her neighborhood because funding was always earmarked for other
projects. Ms. Rivera felt that district elections would offer each area a representative
that understood and would support the neighborhood's needs.
Andrew Ochoa remarked on the founding principles of democracy; that is, all people
were equal in the eyes of the law and no one was of the privileged elite. He addressed
the consequences of undermining democracy.
Michael Baker, Boys and Girls Club, reported he ended year 2012 with 2,420 members,
with 640 of the boys and girls living in either priority neighborhoods, motels, Section 8
housing, foster care homes or in homeless shelters. He emphasized without the city's
support, the Club could not have reached those children and reminded the community
of the upcoming fund - raiser for March 22 "d , an annual gala at the Disney Grand
Californian.
Wally Courtney, realtor, asked that the following questions with regard to Item No. 17,
Angels Baseball negotiations be posed when that item was considered by Council: 1)
why was the appraiser picked on a sole source basis; 2) why the high cost, in his
opinion, of the consultant's fee; and 3) why the market value of the property as of
October 2019 was part of the scope of work.
Mary Daniels, resident, spoke on behalf of Zia against a revitalization scheme. She
explained that low income families did not have dependable salaries or any cushion of
cash for emergencies and often needed to bargain with their landlords to pay their
monthly rents in installments rather than at the first of the month. Revitalization efforts
that turned properties over to impersonal property managers who demanded the total
rent on the first of the month or threatened families with eviction might bring about more
aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods but often caused distress to the poor who lived in
those neighborhoods.
Linda Vato, resident, talked about the loss of family resources and programs that were
important to the children and families in poorer neighborhoods, adding that many
parents worked two or more jobs to support their families and were in need of those
services.
An unidentified speaker was dissatisfied with the city's efforts in helping the homeless,
remarking a permanent shelter must be found and that the Fullerton armory was filled to
capacity and beyond. Rather than spending taxpayer dollars on the Honda Center bar
and the ARTIC station, he suggested using those funds to address the impacts of the
homeless who were living in bus shelters with no place to go.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS In response to earlier comments, Mayor Pro Tern
Murray pointed out that construction for a new park just began in Guinida Lane and that
in downtown Anaheim, funding had been allocated for two new community centers with
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 4 of 27
two additional parks in the pipeline for consideration in the immediate future. She
emphasized the dissemination of information about these projects must be improved to
insure those neighborhoods understood Council was committed to making sure
allocations were made and services were being provided as quickly as possible, now
that the city was recovering from a long and deep recession. Referring to settlement
actions on districting, she emphasized the decision was unanimous by the Council and
further details would be presented later during this meeting. She added that each
Council Member was a resource to the residents, and urged them to call, email or meet
in person to get answers for their questions or concerns.
Council Member Kring responded that the City did not pay for the Honda Center terrace
improvements, including the bar that was discussed earlier; it was paid for by Honda
Center management. Responding to a speaker who was dissatisfied with the city's
efforts in helping the homeless, she explained a park campsite for the homeless was
not the answer as residents who lived and used those parks were distressed over the
fact the homeless prevented them from accessing their neighborhood parks.
Alternatively, Anaheim was involved in providing shelter to the homeless with the non-
profits in Orange County participating, and a task force had been established with
Anaheim staff actively working towards solutions to the homeless issue. She
understood the Armory was at full capacity, adding that a regional site was being
explored to expand that capacity and that the city was doing a great deal to address the
issue of homelessness.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Eastman moved to waive reading in full of
all ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the consent calendar as presented, in
accordance with reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each city council
member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Kring.
Mayor Tait indicated a potential conflict of interest on Agenda Item No. 9 as his firm had
done work this past year with the County of Orange, and he would record an abstention.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Chairman Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman,
Kring and Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
5. Approve an agreement with Cathleen Forcucci Dance Academy to provide youth
AGR- 3564.1 and adult dance class instruction for the Community Services Department.
6. Approve an agreement with OCCU -MED, Inc. to continue their services in the
AGR - 1914.1) area of occupational health and medical standards, including pre - placement
medical examinations and other employment- oriented medical services.
7. Approve an engineering services agreement with Iteris, Inc., in an amount not to
AGR -7994 exceed $664,000, to implement a Traffic Signal Synchronization Project on
Harbor Boulevard from Romneya Drive to the south city limit.
8. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the
1)129 Purchasing Agent to issue purchase orders to Witt O'Brien's LLC, Westnet, and
Keystone Public Safety, in the aggregate amount of $357,279, for software and
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 5 of 27
equipment for the Fire Department, utilizing restricted Urban Area Security
Initiative grant funding, supplemented by funding from the Metro Cities Joint
Powers Authority.
9. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute and take the necessary
actions to implement and administer a Letter of Agreement with the County of
AGR- 1490.1V Orange to proceed with the 800MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications
System Project with the County and funding of $246,123 in the fiscal year
2014/15 budget.
Mayor Tait recorded an abstention. Council Member Eastman moved to approve,
Council Member Kring seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote — Ayes — 4: (Mayor Pro
Tem Murray and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, and Kring.) Noes — 0.
Abstention — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing rates of compensation for classifications
D154 assigned to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2010 -011 for the purpose of
creating, deleting and /or modifying certain classifications designated as
Professional Management.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Permit - Eligible Parking District No. 26
D175 (Vintage Vine Rose) and determine the action is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(13)(3).
12. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting irrevocable offers of dedication of certain real
property and /or facilities. (Tract Map 16859, in conjunction with widening of the
P179 Katella Avenue 1A - Lewis Street to State College Boulevard).
13. RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
R100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2013 -168 which establishes
the days and times of regular meetings of the City Council meetings for the 2014
calendar year.
14. ORDINANCE NO. 6292 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
0280 ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2013 - 00257; 801 -817
South Anaheim Boulevard and 120 West South Street; Introduced at Council
meeting of January 28, 2014, Item No. 23).
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 6 of 27
M142 15. ORDINANCE NO. 6293 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adding Section .053 to Chapter 1.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to electronic and paper filing methods of campaign finance disclosure
statements (Introduced at Council meeting of January 28, 2014, Item No. 23).
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
16. Receive and file the update regarding the public art program at ARTIC.
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, remarked all involved in the planning and design
D175 of ARTIC recognized that the iconic facility would be a significant asset to the city and to
Orange County, adding that public art should be incorporated into the overall plan. To
that end, the grant application included projects to be included in the final design of the
building. The largest component was a proposal for a unique art piece that was
advertised and sent out publicly to any and all interested persons and via a committee
of internal staff and representatives from the Art Commission and the Muzeo, that public
art piece had now been selected. It involved the stair risers in the entry of the building
lobby offering the observer a lenticular display of varying images with movement
depending on the angle viewed, adding that staff was working with the artist to finalize
the transitory images. She also explained the initial contract to finalize the concept and
budget for the art work had been approved, and the full contract for manufacturing and
installation of the work would be presented for council's approval in the near future.
The second art piece, she remarked, was a sun sculpture originally housed in California
Adventure and was donated to Anaheim by the Disney Company in conjunction with a
proposed redevelopment project that was no longer being considered. It would now be
displayed in the ARTIC facility and staff had received approval to place it along the rail
platforms next to the northwest end of the platforms and was awaiting the foundation
design. Other elements would include community art, with a video board, a touch
screen to display children's art or other local art work, plus an interactive puzzle design.
Another aspect would involve the local schools, having students draw transportation
related art or posters with the possibility of additional funding through a grant application
to be submitted in conjunction with the Muzeo. Lastly, she added, the building itself with
its LED lighting and its unique composite material would showcase a number of different
visual lights, dramatically displayed in the evenings and was considered an art piece in
and of itself. She noted staff was in the process of doing a final accounting of the
budget to make sure all these components would be possible with the $900,000
budgeted, and the additional funding being sought.
Mayor Tait remarked he had asked for this update as concerns had been raised that the
art component had changed or was no longer being considered. He noted that
originally the Cultural and Heritage Commission was a part of this effort and he would
like to see staff update the commission on the changes and seek their input before
going forward. Council Member Brandman requested staff also provide details on what
changes were made, as he had received inquiries as well, and that details of the
$50,000 stipend be included in that report. Ms. Meeks indicated that an RFP was
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 7 of 27
broadly advertised in which any artist could propose a concept for the city to consider.
Those proposals were reviewed and short- listed to a handful of firms who were then
asked to provide more detailed concepts of their work. The stair riser concept was
ultimately selected and the unsuccessful proposers were given a small stipend to offset
their costs in producing those proposals for the city, a process, she explained that was
fairly typical in the industry. No stipend had been given for the initial presentation, only
to those short- listed firms who were not selected. She added there was a committee of
internal staff, OCTA, the Cultural & Heritage Commission and the Muzeo who selected
the final art piece and it had changed somewhat from the artist's proposal of 30 varying
images and was now reduced to five, as 30 images did not work physically with the
materials or the installation. Ms. Meeks emphasized it would be a stronger piece and
have a bolder change in views as it traveled across the risers and staff hoped to see
those final images sometime this week, have them approved, and moved into
production as quickly as possible.
Council Member Brandman responded that he was supportive of returning to the
Cultural & Heritage Commission for an update as was Council Member Eastman. She
noted there were several local artists serving on the commission and it was an
appropriate group to review the final concepts and to ensure they were comfortable with
the level of cost and the art.
MOTION: Mayor Tait moved to receive and file the report and for staff to seek input
from the Cultural and Heritage Commission, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll
Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and
Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
17. Discussion of ongoing negotiations with Angels Baseball and Pacific Coast
Investors regarding Angels Stadium and the Stadium District and provide
D124 direction to staff if desired. Receive and comment on Angels Baseball
negotiations Stadium Site appraisal.
Tom Morton, Convention, Sports and Entertainment Director, reported Council had
directed staff to seek out the services of a qualified firm for a property appraisal of the
Anaheim Stadium site in an effort to obtain critical data for the ongoing negotiations with
Angels Baseball, and to that end, staff contracted with Waronzof Associates. Mr.
Morton provided in depth detail on the qualifications and experience of Timothy Lowe,
the principal and lead appraiser of the Waronzof firm responsible for directing real
estate consulting/ valuation, best practice analyses, highest and best use studies along
with market value and fair compensation appraisals.
After introduction by Mr. Morton, Mr. Lowe remarked he understood the role his firm
would play in the city's early assessments as staff gave direction to the negotiation team
and he looked forward to completing the appraisal and discussing the findings and
recommendations. Mayor Tait stated one of the earlier speakers wondered why the city
would seek a valuation of the stadium site for the year 2019 rather than look at the
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 8 of 27
present day value. Mr. Lowe responded it was a common practice when appraisals
were prepared in conjunction with lease negotiations. He advised that a date was
picked consistent with the expiration of the lease and that was the date recommended
to staff as the last point under the current agreement in which Angel's Baseball had an
opportunity to opt out of the lease and when the city would be able to realize the market
value of the property, either under the premise of a new lease with the team or if no new
lease, a time to consider the value of the site without the continued use of the stadium
by the Angels. Mayor Tait asked for clarification of both assumptions, with Mr. Lowe
responding one assumption was if the Angels opted out of the lease and the land was
free and clear of any encumbrances — what would be the highest and best market value
at that time. The other assumption was that the parties would enter into a new lease but
that the conditions which carried over from the existing lease could have changed, and
that was something his firm was examining in the context of the highest and best use.
He added there were a number of views and perspectives the city could take but the
most central to the City Council's question is what was the market value of the property
(that is the development rights portion of the property) if the stadium continued to be in
use and baseball continued to be played at Angel Stadium. Mayor Tait asked if the
value would be much different than a market value of the land encumbered; Mr. Lowe
responded that there would be some differences, but there were many things about the
site from a development standpoint which were known and come from the Platinum
Triangle Specific Plan and community facilities district work that had already been done.
He anticipated that in general the development of that site would include residential or
commercial development that might increase in value because of the rising residential
values right now. He added his firm would lay a basis for what they think the 2019
market condition would look like and with such a large property, would have to consider
the build -out of the tract over a longer period of time and the market condition would go
into the next decade. Mayor Tait asked if the property was put on the open market,
unencumbered with and without a lease, would Mr. Lowe be able to provide that kind of
number with Mr. Lowe responding in the affirmative. He added that one of the
challenges from the development and evaluation standpoint was making sure his firm
thought appropriately about and analyzed carefully the time and the cost associated
with converting the parking field into structured parking which then gave rise to
development sites being available; that would be with the lease but with the ballpark still
having initially at least the right to the parking spaces that it needed to operate
appropriately. Mayor Tait emphasized that one scenario might be no ballpark there at
all with Mr. Lowe remarking that was clearly the second scenario.
Mayor Tait requested at a prior meeting a valuation on what the property was worth to
replace, essentially what the valuation was for 150 acres with a stadium, its
replacement value, and what it would take to build one. Mr. Lowe indicated he
understood the request and had the opportunity before drafting the proposed scope to
see some of the council meetings and hear some of the questions raised. Right now, he
explained, Warzonof was starting with the two basic premises and if there was
additional work needed, that could be tackled next. He added the cost of a new ball
park was an important question and a cost estimator would be able to help validate
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 9 of 27
those numbers. Mayor Tait responded the answer to that question would help
determine what the value of the property was to a baseball team if they were to go
elsewhere and was something he would like to add to the scope of work, indicating he
would move to add that task later.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray asked when the value of the land without the stadium was
determined, would Mr. Lowe be able to include the cost to demolish the existing 50 -year
old stadium and what revenue sources could be available for the city to pay for that
cost. Mr. Lowe replied the scope of the real estate appraisal would consider and
include the cost of the value net of the cost of demolition. He added, however, his firm
had no expertise to comment on how that demolition could be funded by the city. Ms.
Murray then asked staff to please include for the City Council as well as the taxpayers,
the full cost of readying the site for commercial marketplace and how that cost would be
funded. Mayor Tait suggested that cost could be paid for out of the proceeds of the sale
of the 150 acres and would incorporate that into his motion.
MOTION: Mayor Tait then moved to direct staff to bring back a contract amendment
authorizing the appraiser to move forward on additional scope of work to encompass a
replacement value of the stadium and to include Mayor Pro Tern Murray's request for
demolition value, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5:
(Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) Noes — 0.
Motion Carried.
18. Discussion and action on:
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
E127 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding
of a General Municipal Election on Tuesday November 4, 2014; ordering the
submission of proposed amendments to the City Charter to the qualified electors
of said City at said General Municipal Election (Measure No. — Require
Council Members be residents of and elected by districts); requesting the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Orange to consolidate a General Municipal
Election to be held on November 4, 2014 with the Statewide General Election to
be held on that date pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code;
authorizing identified members of the City Council to author and file written
arguments in favor of the aforementioned charter amendment measure and
establishing priorities for filing written arguments; providing for the filing of
rebuttal arguments regarding the aforementioned charter amendment measure;
and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the charter
amendment measure.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, repealing City Council Resolution No.
2013 -109; calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election
on Tuesday November 4, 2014; ordering the submission of proposed
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 10 of 27
amendments to the City Charter to the qualified electors of said City at said
General Municipal Election (Measure No. — Increase City Council Members
to six), requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to
consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 2014 with
the Statewide General Election to be held on that date pursuant to Section 10403
of the Elections Code; authorizing members of the City Council to author and file
written arguments in favor of or against the aforementioned charter amendment
measure and establishing priorities for filing written arguments; providing for the
filing of rebuttal arguments regarding the aforementioned charter amendment
measure; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the
charter amendment measure.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing City Council Resolution No. 2013 -110, which
resolution called a Special Municipal Election on Tuesday June 3, 2014
regarding submission of proposed amendments to the City Charter to require that
City Council Members be from residency districts and elected at large.
ORDINANCE NO. 6294 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending and restating Chapter 1.25 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code to alter the timeline for the establishment and implementation of residency
districts and requirement that City Council Members be from residency districts
and elected at large.
ORDINANCE NO. 6295 (INTRODUCTION) AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing regulations pertaining to the authoring
and signing of, delegation of, authority to file, and other matters relating to ballot
arguments and rebuttal arguments with regard to charter amendment ballot
measures submitted to the voters of Anaheim at the November 4, 2014 General
Municipal Election requiring City Council Members (but not the Mayor) be
residents of and elected by districts and increasing the number of City Council
Members from four to six.
City Attorney Michael Houston reported this agenda item contained a number of
resolutions and proposed ordinances relating to the resolution of the Moreno litigation
and with their adoption, the plaintiffs were required to dismiss their claims against the
city within five business days. The first resolution called for an election in November
2014 to place single member district charter amendments to a vote and, he explained,
this item included a number of subsidiary actions including: requesting the election be
consolidated with the state general election, authorization for specific Council Members
that supported single member districts to author ballot arguments in favor of them as
well as other restrictions and statements regarding the filing of ballot arguments and
setting of priorities. He added as part of the action on the first resolution, Council
should identify two or more specific members of council to provide the argument in
favor, if those members supported the change to single member districts.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 11 of 27
The next resolution called for an election in November of this year to place a charter
amendment increasing the size of the City Council from four to six which also contained
procedural items including:
• consolidation requests with the County of Orange,
• a resolution repealing a prior council resolution that called for an election for the
June 2014 ballot on charter amendments related to a change to residency
districts,
• two ordinances for introduction amending Municipal Code Chapter 1.25 relating
to residency districts including suspending implementation of residency districts
to the 2016 council elections to apply only in the event the single member district
charter amendment failed,
• the termination of the current mapping process that would have been completed
this March and to begin a mapping process after the 2014 election, should single
member districts fail, and
• an additional ordinance authorizing a specific process for ballot arguments
related to single member districts and increasing the size of the council member
districts. He emphasized that the recommendations did not prohibit council
members from signing arguments in their personal capacities and prevented the
use of titles only in signature blocks for these arguments.
Mayor Tait asked if the various pieces of legislation could be passed in one motion with
Mr. Houston answering in the affirmative, but recommending council discuss which
council members should be authorized to sign the ballot arguments in the first resolution
relating to single member districts.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray asked to speak to the settlement as well as districting. She
remarked she had supported settlement of this lawsuit as a means of protecting
Anaheim and taxpayers from mounting legal costs, and regardless of her personal
opposition to single member districts, she felt it was her duty to protect the city from
future litigation and end the mounting legal fees. She added there had not been a delay
coming to this settlement decision, as council was working from the start in an attempt
to work with the plaintiffs and ACLU on settlement of this case. There were two major
points to be understood, she stated, the first was at no time would ACLU or the plaintiffs
agree to settlement or terms for settlement by putting this question to Anaheim's voters
and were strongly opposed to accepting a ballot measure as a basis for resolution or
delay of the lawsuits. Ms. Murray read a September 12 letter from the plaintiffs
reiterating this point. She added she had not been interested in settling unless the city
and taxpayers were 100 percent protected going forward. She pointed to the city of
Whittier, who was sued under the same conditions as Anaheim and who acted quickly
to put a ballot measure to the voters, to find they were still burdened with mounting legal
costs and time because their plaintiffs refused to settle even though Whittier was
moving to put the question of single member districts to the voters. She emphasized
that Anaheim's City Council came together unanimously when they were able to insure
the protection of the taxpayers and the full dismissal of the case along with the vote of
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 12 of 27
the people. She added, by Council's actions tonight, the litigation was settled and single
member districts would be placed before the voters.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray further remarked she had publicly opposed the issue of single
member districts and believed the residency district plan would have insured a district
based system with neighborhood representation. She felt single member districts went
beyond that to the point of actually reducing the level of representation for every
resident in the city and that residents had the right to have every council member
accountable to them as they determined how the city was governed, services delivered,
and determined budgets for the future. Mayor Pro Tern Murray was a supportive of
voter engagement and outreach to improve access for all residents and their voices to
be heard and she did not support separating the community into wards and using race
as the predominant factor in doing that. For those reasons, she would not support a
measure that she believed divided Anaheim.
Mayor Tait disagreed remarking the litigation went on too long and he believed it would
have ended if council had agreed to put district elections on the ballot when he made a
motion to do so in August of 2012. He was supportive of single member districts
believing it brought government closer to the people and reflected the way the U.S.
Senate and Congress operated and made sense for a large city such as Anaheim with a
population over 350,000.
Council Member Eastman remarked a great deal of information was discussed during
closed session related to the litigation and council's goal was to come up with a
settlement to ensure residents were able to vote and that it would be recognized by the
courts. With respect to single member districts, she was not supportive, feeling that
residents should be represented by and responsive to each member of the City Council,
not just two.
Council Member Kring was also not supportive of single member districts as the voters
could only speak to one representative on their issues, pointing out that currently, all
five members of the council received the same emails and letters when residents
wished to bring something to the attention of the city and all five had the ability to work
on that issue and the obligation to be responsive. She also pointed out that it was not a
matter of race but of participation to get elected and that the pathway to civic
engagement was by getting involved in the community, involved with the non - profits,
and knowing what was going on in the city.
Discussion continued on whether or not the litigation would have continued if single
member districts had been put before the Anaheim electorate 18 months ago. Mayor
Pro Tern Murray believed it would have continued just as it continued with Whittier and
other cities. Mr. Houston speculated the city would have argued strongly to moot the
case, pointing out the rationale for the judge to agree was strong, but the plaintiffs would
have fought that argument. Mayor Tait disagreed stating overall, Anaheim would have
spent fewer funds in litigation.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 13 of 27
MOTION: Mayor Tait moved to approve the following legislation: 1) RESOLUTION
NO. 2014 -017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election
on Tuesday November 4, 2014; ordering the submission of proposed amendments to
the City Charter to the qualified electors of said City at said General Municipal Election
(Measure No. — Require Council Members be residents of and elected by districts);
requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to consolidate a General
Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 2014 with the Statewide General Election
to be held on that date pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code; authorizing
identified members of the City Council to author and file written arguments in favor of
the aforementioned charter amendment measure and establishing priorities for filing
written arguments; providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments regarding the
aforementioned charter amendment measure; and directing the City Attorney to prepare
an impartial analysis of the charter amendment measure; 2) RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, repealing City Council Resolution No. 2013 -109; calling and giving notice
of the holding of a General Municipal Election on Tuesday November 4, 2014; ordering
the submission of proposed amendments to the City Charter to the qualified electors of
said City at said General Municipal Election (Measure No. — Increase City Council
Members to six); requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to
consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 2014 with the
Statewide General Election to be held on that date pursuant to Section 10403 of the
Elections Code; authorizing members of the City Council to author and file written
arguments in favor of or against the aforementioned charter amendment measure and
establishing priorities for filing written arguments; providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments regarding the aforementioned charter amendment measure; and directing
the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the charter amendment measure; 3)
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing City Council Resolution No. 2013 -110, which resolution
called a Special Municipal Election on Tuesday June 3, 2014 regarding submission of
proposed amendments to the City Charter to require that City Council Members be from
residency districts and elected at large; 4) and to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6294
amending and restating Chapter 1.25 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to alter the
timeline for the establishment and implementation of residency districts and requirement
that City Council Members be from residency districts and elected at large; and to
introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6295 establishing regulations pertaining to the authoring
and signing of, delegation of, authority to file, and other matters relating to ballot
arguments and rebuttal arguments with regard to charter amendment ballot measures
submitted to the voters of Anaheim at the November 4, 2014 General Municipal Election
requiring City Council Members (but not the Mayor) be residents of and elected by
districts and increasing the number of City Council Members from four to six; seconded
by Council Member Brandman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council
Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 14 of 27
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
19. This is a public hearing regarding the proposed financing of costs of certain
improvements to the Anaheim Convention Center and refinancing of certain
8130 obligations by the issuance and sale of bonds of the Anaheim Public Financing
Authority, and the determination of significant public benefits from the proposed
financing, in accordance with the criteria specified in Section 6586 of the
California Government Code.
City Council granted staff's request to cancel this public hearing as such would
be rescheduled and re- noticed to a future meeting date.
20. This is a public hearing to consider resolutions approving General Plan
Amendment Nos. 2013 -00488 and 2013 -00489 pertaining to the adoption of the
C410 2014 -2021 Housing Element and update to the Land Use Element.
MOTION: Find and determine that previously- approved Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report No. 346 serves as the appropriate environmental
documentation for the General Plan Amendment Nos. 2013 -00488 and 2013-
00489.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No.
2013 -00488 pertaining to the Land Use Element.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -021 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No.
2013 -00489 pertaining to the adoption of the Housing Element.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported Agenda Item No. 20 would update
the Housing Element (HE) of the General Plan (GP) for the 2014 -2021 planning period
(which had already received approval from the State) and also included a request for
approval of a minor amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to update two
tables identifying Anaheim's projected build -out estimates. She added the Planning
Commission had considered both requests and unanimously recommended council
approval.
Providing background, she remarked the Housing Element was a required component
of the city's General Plan, addressed the housing needs of current and future Anaheim
residents and was the only General Plan element requiring certification by the State.
The document analyzed housing needs while considering available resources and
existing constraints and included policies to meet those needs. She added because of
recent changes to the law extending the planning period to an eight year cycle, it was
required to be adopted by February 12, 2014 or the plan would revert back to a four
year cycle and for that reason, it was placed on the February 4 th agenda.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 15 of 27
An extensive outreach effort began in September 2012, as public participation was a
key part of the update process. In addition to six community workshops held, with
notices and materials offered in both English and Spanish, input was also gathered at
community events such as the Downtown Farmer's Market, Cinco De Mayor Festival,
and the Anaheim Barbeque in West Anaheim. The Planning Department also created a
Housing Element web page that included an on -line survey that allowed residents to
share their thoughts and ideas on a wide variety of housing - related issues and a link to
a YouTube video of one of the Housing Element workshops, allowing interested parties
to learn about the Housing Element process if they were unable to attend one of the
workshops in person. Finally, input and support was also provided by the Council -
appointed, 10- member Housing Element ad hoc committee that met several times over
nine months and was tasked with reviewing and providing comments on the entire draft
Housing Element.
Ms. Vander Dussen noted that immediately following the first round of community
workshops, the draft Housing Element preparation began with the primary contents
including a housing needs assessment, a review of available resources and existing
constraints, a review of the city's performance in meeting the goals of the current
Housing Element, and a new policy program that addressed the City's housing needs
during the 2014 to 2021 planning period. She explained the State Department of
Finance was responsible for projecting statewide housing demands apportioning this
demand to each of the state's regions and in cooperation with the various sub - regional
councils of governments, eventually allocated the region's projected housing to each
jurisdiction, a process called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Anaheim's RHNA allocation for the 2014 -2021 planning period was 5,702 units, broken
down into income categories. Ms. Vander Dussen pointed out that it was important to
note that the City was not obligated to build these units between now and 2021, only to
demonstrate that the land and policies were in place to allow the private market to
develop. She added the city would not be penalized if the number of housing units
included in its RHNA allocation were not built although the city must have shown there
were an adequate number of potential housing sites to meet the RHNA allocation.
Through its review of the Draft Housing Element, the State determined that the City
satisfied this requirement, largely as a result of the recently completed Residential
Opportunities Overlay Zone program, a program allowing housing development "by-
right" on over 200 parcels throughout the City at densities suitable to accommodate
both market rate and affordable housing. She further explained that although not
required to ensure build out of the entire RHNA allocation, Anaheim was required to
provide an estimate as to the number of housing units were anticipated to be built
during the planning period, referred to as the "Quantified Objective." This projected
construction figure was based on known projects expected to be built during the
planning period. She remarked the process also considered the resources the City had
available to incentivize development and potential constraints, including the loss of
redevelopment funding along with its record of success for the 2006 -2014 planning
period, which the city met or exceeded its affordable housing production goals.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 16 of 27
Ms. Vander Dussen explained that although the City's housing production efforts were
impressive during the last planning period, the demise of redevelopment programs in
California significantly reduced Anaheim's ability to assist in the production of affordable
housing going forward. However, she pointed out, efforts to seek new alternative
funding or financing mechanisms in the absence of redevelopment funding continued.
Given the City's limited available financial resources, she noted staff expected that up to
710 affordable housing units could be developed during the 2014 -2021 planning period
along with 3,872 market rate units; figures that were projected based on approved
projects that were expected to come on line within the planning period. She stressed
that should alternative funding sources for affordable housing become available during
this planning period, then the actual construction totals within the lower income
categories would rise.
In addition to housing production goals, the Housing Element's policy program
contained several key strategies aimed at ensuring the City was able to address its
housing needs. These strategies included: exploring alternative funding sources to
support the production of affordable housing in lieu of former redevelopment funding
tools; reviewing the City's residential development standards, entitlement processes
and fees to ensure their reasonableness and effectiveness in support of future
residential development; ensuring that the City's infrastructure planning efforts
effectively support future housing growth; and, reviewing the City's emergency shelter
zoning standards, adopted in 2012, to ensure they continued to promote the
establishment of these uses, including the processing of any necessary zoning code
refinements.
Following preparation of the draft Housing Element, Ms. Vander Dussen stated the City
received three letters from the Kennedy Commission requesting a number of revisions
and clarifications to the Draft document and Commission staff was invited to attend the
December 5, 2013 Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee meeting to share its comments.
At the meeting, Kennedy Commission staff requested that the Housing Element Policy
Program be amended to include a commitment to renew Anaheim's Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan, the plan aimed at producing new affordable rental and for -sale housing
units and rehabilitating existing affordable rental units. As all of the projects developed
under the Strategic Plan were funded nearly exclusively by Redevelopment Set Aside
funds and since those funds no longer existed, the Strategic Plan was no longer being
implemented. The Ad Hoc Committee stated it did not believe it was appropriate to
recommend renewal of the Strategic Plan because its primary funding source no longer
existed. The Kennedy Commission also discussed its recommendation that the City
commit to utilizing the limited funding sources that still existed for affordable housing,
including Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, or SERAF, for the
production of extremely -low income affordable rental housing. However, she pointed
out, the Ad Hoc Committee determined that the allocation of these funds should not be
committed to one housing program and that decisions on where to spend these funds in
the future should be left to the discretion of the Council when, and if, such funding
became available. The Ad Hoc Committee also determined that it would be appropriate
for the Kennedy Commission's concerns to be communicated to the Council and took
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 17 of 27
no action to further amend the Draft Housing Element. She added the Kennedy
Commission also attended the January 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting and
made the same requests to the Planning Commission who agreed with the Ad Hoc
Committee's comments and recommended City Council approval of the Housing
Element Policy Program with no additional modifications.
Ms. Vander Dussen added that although the State determined that the Draft Housing
Element fully complied with State law, following the January 13 Planning Commission
meeting, HCD staff recommended that additional language be added to two of the
Element's recommended policies in response to the public comments received. As a
result, Policy 1 -A, "Evaluate Alternative Funding and Financing Mechanisms," had been
amended to emphasize that the City would continue to explore potential emerging
funding sources to assist in the production of affordable housing. In addition, Policy 1-
N, "Promoting Availability of Housing Opportunity Sites," had been amended to state
that the City would evaluate the effectiveness of the recently- adopted Residential
Opportunities Overlay Zone in meeting the housing needs of all income levels. The
remaining step necessary to achieve full HCD certification involved City Council review
and approval of the requested General Plan Amendments necessary to adopt the 2014-
2021 Housing Element and, Ms. Vander Dussen explained, if Council approved the
Draft Housing Element this evening, it would be submitted to HCD before the February
12, 2014, deadline for final certification.
Finally, Ms. Vander Dussen pointed out, staff was also recommending Council approve
a minor amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element by updating two tables that
identify projected Residential and Non - Residential Build -Out Estimates. The build -out
estimates included in these tables were based on the number of acres dedicated to
each of the City's General Plan land use categories and as changes to the City's Land
Use Plan were made through the General Plan Amendment process, these build -out
estimates should be revised to reflect any updated land use acreage figures. The
recommended changes reflected a house - keeping item that would bring these numbers
up to date based upon the City's current land use category acreages.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments.
William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, objected to the plan, stating its purpose was to
provide subsidized housing to low- income Disney workers while the Disney Corporation
made millions because of poorly paid workers. He offered various other allegations
related to council's actions. Council Member Eastman, as a point of personal privilege,
remarked Mr. Fitzgerald's statements were false and that her son had been working for
Disney in the skilled trade's area for 20 years, long before she ever thought of entering
politics in Anaheim. Mayor Pro Tern Murray, as a point of personal privilege, remarked
that Mr. Fitzgerald regularly used the microphone to make homophobic and racist
statements attacking many individuals in the city, including those who sought to serve.
His statements were baseless, false, and not worthy of a response. Council Member
Kring responded in like comments to the false information provided by the speaker.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 18 of 27
Cecil Jordan Corcoran, offered personal comments on his financial status, unrelated to
the public hearing matter. The City Attorney, in response to Mayor Tait's question as to
whether comments were for general subject matter during this hearing, stated the
comments made should be directly relevant to the items agendized for the public
hearing and not for general subject matter.
Victor Cao, Orange County BIA, remarked the BIA thanked Anaheim for the opportunity
to participate in the Housing Element update and hoped to refocus on future housing
goals under the City's able leadership.
Caesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission, remarked this was a great document
with policies and programs that would further the city's goals for housing for everyone,
asking that the letter the Kennedy Commission submitted become part of the record
which stated there were still tools available, such as the Successor Agency with residual
receipts and sites or land owned by that agency that could be explored for future
affordable housing.
With no other remarks offered, Mayor Tait closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Each of the City Council members expressed their thanks and appreciation to staff for
their expertise and dedication, to the stakeholders and the Housing Element Committee
for their time and effort in coming up with a document that insured citizens and residents
had a say in how their housing was determined in the very near future.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Eastman moved to find and determine that previously -
approved Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 346 serves as the
appropriate environmental documentation for the General Plan Amendment Nos. 2013-
00488 and 2013 - 00489; and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -020 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and
adopting General Plan Amendment No. 2013 -00488 pertaining to the Land Use
Element; and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -021 A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting General Plan
Amendment No. 2013 -00489 pertaining to the adoption of the Housing Element,
seconded by Council Member Brandman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and
Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
21. This is a public hearing to discuss, receive and file, and provide direction on the
Charter Review Committee's charter recommendations and possible action to
M100 place proposed ballot language relating to charter amendment(s) on a future
election to be held on June 3, 2014.
E127
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of a ballot
measure proposing amendments to the City Charter to the electors of said city at
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 19 of 27
the Special Municipal Election to be held in the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure
No. 1- Various City Charter Amendments).
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -023 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of a ballot
measure proposing amendments to the City Charter to the electors of said city at
the Special Municipal Election to be held in the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure
No. 2 - Change to Term of Office - Mayor).
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of a proposed
amendment to the City Charter to the electors of said city at the Special
Municipal Election to be held in the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 3 -
Elimination of Term Limits for Elected City Officials).
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -024 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of a proposed
amendment to the City Charter to the electors of said city at the Special
Municipal Election to be held in the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 4 - Safe
and Sane Fireworks).
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding
of a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2014, for certain
ballot measures proposing amendments to the City Charter pursuant to Article
XIII, Sections 1301 and 1302 of the City Charter and California Elections Code
1415(a)(2)(A).
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA requesting the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Orange to consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be held on
June 3, 2014, with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on that date
pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -027 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, authorizing members of the City Council
to author and file written arguments and setting priorities for filing written
arguments regarding city measures to be submitted to the electors of the City at
the Special Municipal Election to be held in said City on June 3, 2014, and
directing the City Attorney to prepare impartial analyses of such measures.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for city measures submitted to the electors of the City at the Special
Municipal Election to be held in said City on June 3, 2014.
Paul Emery, Assistant City Manager, provided background on the City's 50 year old
charter, adopted by the voters in 1964, remarking that it had been reviewed four times
with the last review taking place in 1999 and that Council Member Brandman had
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 20 of 27
requested the city look into a comprehensive review of the document in May 2013.
During that month, Council also unanimously approved a resolution creating a seven
member charter committee consisting of five City Council appointees and two at large
selected by the majority vote of the five appointed members. He recognized those
seven members, including the two at large appointees, Todd Ament and Gloria Ma'ae.
An extensive outreach began with staff developing a comprehensive plan to make the
community aware that the city's main governing document was going to be reviewed
using a number of marketing avenues to insure feedback and participation from the
community.
Mr. Emery then introduced Dr. Raphael Sonensheim, director of the Pat Brown Institute
of Public Affairs at CSULA and a consultant who provided qualitative and quantitative
information on how charters evolved and what was happening in southern California
charter cities.
Dr. Sonenshein remarked that all the decisions were made by the committee members
themselves and they had deliberated collegially and thoughtfully on every issue and
with the greatest respect for each other and for the community. His goal was to help
them develop the process by which they would make their decisions and to use the
summer to plan and prepare, reviewing the charter document together a section at a
time. In addition, by resolution, any suggestion that came from the city council was
automatically brought to the table and noted, along with items that came from city
departments and items from the community. At that point, a calendar was created for
the fall and in this manner, the community would be informed on when topics would be
considered. He noted the committee also decided to consider a few team decisions
early on and then get into the larger issues and at his request, the committee agreed
that all votes until the final vote would be tentative probationary votes. This strategy
allowed committee members to change their minds and the opportunity to revisit a
decision later on. The tentative votes were taken after debate and deliberation,
however, it was a vote that could be changed with the most important vote being the
single vote that was binding and required that all committee members would decide if
they would support the entire packet of recommendations (even if there were individual
items they might not have supported). That, he emphasized, was considered the
binding vote which sent those recommendations onto the city council.
Looking at other charter cities for comparison, Dr. Sonenshein remarked that some
were from Orange County, others from neighboring counties, but each city had at least
enough in common with Anaheim that the committee could learn from their experiences,
which turned out to be helpful to the committee. He emphasized that the committee
followed a set of principles in this process which they could consider as each charter
issue was debated. Those principles were as follows: 1) FLEXIBILITY - to find as much
flexibility in a charter for those who were elected to represent the people to hold them
accountable but also to not bind their hands to make decisions that were visible and
accountable to the public; 2) TRANSPARENCY - important to understand what was in
the charter in contemporary language that was readable and transparent in its
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 21 of 27
meaning); 3) EXPERIENCE - the committee relied on the wisdom of city departments
and those who had worked in the city family for decades about things that needed to be
changed that might seem minor but turned out to be critical to the ability of people who
worked for the city to effectively serve and carry out their duties; 4) COMPARISON - to
learn what other cities were doing even if it the decision was not to do the same; 5)
CONSENSUS - not unanimous but as much as possible to find majority consensus
through discussion and debate to come up with a document that could withstand a long
period of time; 6) FUTURE ORIENTATION - A charter to be done for decades; for the
committee members to consider whether one would make the same recommendations
assuming a completely opposite personality was holding office and a good way to reach
long -term decisions; 7) CONTINUITY - Anaheim had the benefit of having the charter
reviewed enough times by thoughtful people that the committee did not have to start
from scratch; and 8) ECONOMY OF WORDS - charters should have shorter, clearer
phrasing and be completely understandable to the reader.
Todd Ament, Chairman, remarked the members of the community were diverse, worked
under the premise of transparency, responsiveness to the community, and healthy
debate and discussion of all issues. He added that while there was diversity of opinion
among Charter Committee members on individual recommendations, the Committee
voted unanimously to transmit the report to the City Council for consideration. He
indicated there were 22 proposed charter amendments with a great majority of them
cleanup language or gender specific language or to comply with state laws. He began
his presentation on the items that were not unanimously approved.
CITY COUNCIL TERMS, SECTION 500: On a vote of 6:1, the committee
recommended eliminating term limits in the city. He added the majority agreed from a
philosophical standpoint, i.e. if someone stayed in office, it should be up to the voters
ultimately to make that decision. He added there was much discussion on the council
election process, terms of office, and the limitations /challenges of term limits.
MAYOR TERM LIMITS, SECTION 504: The committee looked at cities in the region
from the very strong Mayor's office to those that were appointed or selected rotationally
or by the majority of the council (Anaheim, Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Irvine
and Westminster). In each of those cities, with the exception of Anaheim, he stated the
mayors were elected for two year terms. As the first among equals and considering the
prestige of the office, it was felt the post should have a higher threshold of
responsiveness to voters and that the two -year term increased mayoral accountability
by requiring the elected head of the city to face the voters more frequently and enhance
accountability by giving council members and other Anaheim citizens more
opportunities to run for mayor, therefore, providing voters with more opportunities to
choose from competing visions for the city. Ultimately, he explained, it was a 5:2 vote
to recommend moving the Mayor's term from four years to two years.
COMMITTEEE APPOINTMENT TERMS, SECTION 902: Council Member Gail
Eastman requested changing the deadline of June for appointing members to boards
and commission as June was the same time frame for council to approve the city's
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 22 of 27
budget and changing the date would afford each council member more time to review
applications and select candidates; that section, he stated, was approved unanimously
by the committee.
The second element was to consider council members each having an appointee on
each board and commission of the city with much dialogue on the pros and cons and
various scenarios if a change was to occur and it ultimately failed on a 4:3 vote. There
was also a consideration at one point in having each member of the council appoint and
then include and at large appointee which also failed on a 4:3 vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, SECTION 902: Mr. Ament stated a great deal of time
was spent on this item as the Charter called out some boards and commissions and not
others and the question was should all the boards and commissions be placed in the
Charter and/ why should they be placed in the charter. Ultimately the recommendation
was to maintain the current recognized boards and commission and to add the Public
Utility Board because of the importance of Anaheim's Public Utilities. That vote was 4:2
in favor with most of the dialogue about whether boards should even be in the Charter.
FIREWORKS, SECTION 1214: The final item was whether to permit the sale of safe
and sane fireworks and it carried over into two meetings with a healthy debate over
whether fireworks should even be in the Charter or should be handled in the framework
of an ordinance. Ultimately, Mr. Ament stated, the committee agreed it should be within
the Charter with a guideline of time, plan, and manner. The recommendation was a 6:1
vote for approval with a memo from the Fire Chief regarding considerations of time,
place, and manner so the safety of the citizens were met and there was freedom to
have fireworks within the city.
Mr. Ament ended his presentation indicating those were the major items of concern and
the committee had worked over seven months to bring this recommendation to council
as to how the city would be governed in future years.
Mr. Emery remarked at this point, staff was looking for direction from council for the next
step in the process and that council had the discretion to accept, amend, delete or add
additional charter amendments on the upcoming ballot. He added staff recommended
that a good majority of the amendments, approximately 19 of them, could be placed in
one item relating to clean -up language with the remaining items placed on the ballot as
separate measures as outlined for council's consideration. Draft language for the
measures was provided as well, which could also be changed, updated or modified. He
indicated there was one more meeting in February before these items were due to the
Registrar of Voters, however, staff requested that a number of these resolutions be
acted upon today.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing.
William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, stated this process would put confusing and
misworded measures on the ballot that would change the Charter and mislead the
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 23 of 27
voting public and allow Disney to continue to control city government. He offered a
number of other allegations specific to current and former elected officials.
Cecil Jordan Corcoran, resident, offered his personal experiences relating to his
religious calling and unrelated to the public hearing regarding charter review
recommendations.
With no other comments offered, the public hearing was closed.
Council Member Kring stated the sale of safe and sane fireworks would be more
appropriate as an ordinance rather than a charter amendment. She expressed concern
over a two -year mayoral term, and remarked she had not heard of any citizen who had
requested term limits be eliminated. Council Member Eastman suggested taking each
item one at a time, so there could be a full discussion and a vote before moving onto the
next. The mayor concurred.
Mayor Tait referring to the single subject rule suggested the measures be considered
separately, particularly applicable to the City Treasurer appointment and the utility rate
transfer included in Measure 1. Mr. Houston responded the single subject rule referred
to state initiatives and the city was not legally required to follow that procedure. He
added that staff put together an appropriate and prudent approach to providing single
ballot questions on items relating to general governmental process of the city, the
modernization of certain provisions in a manner that reflected outdated languages,
changes to the city in terms of applicable laws, and to confirm certain standards with
state law and local practice. Mayor Pro Tern Murray disagreed with Mayor Tait's
suggestion, stating there had been no objection to any of the items in the first measure
and that she was prepared to vote on the item now and as presented.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Murray moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -022 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA,
ordering the submission of a ballot measure proposing amendments to the City Charter
to the electors of said city at the Special Municipal Election to be held in the City on
June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 1- Various City Charter Amendments), seconded by Council
Member Brandman.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Tait remarked that removing the City Treasurer's office away
from a Council appointee was a significant change in the Charter, and one that was a
real issue during the Orange County bankruptcy and while it might make sense for an
individual appointment, he simply wanted the change to be identified as a separate
measure. Using that same rationale, he felt the Utility Transfer that was a subject of
litigation and involved several millions of dollars should also be considered separately,
in the interests of clarity for the voters. Mr. Emery remarked that Section 701 was
added provided that Council may by ordinance or resolution delegate to the City
Manager its vested power to appoint and remove the City Treasurer. He stated it did
not require Council to delete their responsibility, and that it would take affirmative action
by the Council to delegate to the City Manager the authority to appoint a City Treasurer.
Mayor Tait argued the change might make perfect sense, however, he believed it was a
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 24 of 27
significant change in the Charter and involved one of Council's four appointees and
should be addressed separately by the voters for simplicity and transparency. Mayor
Tait then offered an amendment to the motion to separate three items from Measure 1
into separate issues. No second was offered and Mayor Pro Tern Murray called for the
question. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 4: (Mayor Pro Tern Murray and Council Members:
Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray. Noes — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried.
Related to Measure 2, Council Member Kring asked to hear from some of the
committee members as to why they wished to change the term of Mayor from four years
to two years. Todd Ament, Committee Chair stated the discussion was how this
position was more responsive to voters and by changing to two years, the benefits
outweighed any challenges and the electorate had an opportunity for a different leader.
Council Member Kring asked if that could have been addressed with the tweaking of
term limits with Mr. Ament remarking that was taken into consideration, however the
majority felt the benefits of reducing that term outweighed the consequences. Council
Member Eastman concurred, stating that practice appeared to work well in other
Orange County cities, would create more transparency, and would offer another
opportunity for the voters to weigh in, and whether or not there were district elections
implemented, everyone would have an opportunity to vote for the Mayor. Mayor Tait
remarked that if it made more sense for a two year term for the Mayor, then that same
rationale should apply for Council Members as well. He added that the Mayor's term
was voted on and changed from two years to four in 1991 and overwhelmingly passed.
However, he remarked, if the people of Anaheim decided to change the term to two
years, he would not stand in the way, although he was personally opposed to the idea.
MOTION: Council Member Brandman moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
023 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of a ballot measure proposing amendments to
the City Charter to the electors of said city at the Special Municipal Election to be held in
the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 2 - Change to Term of Office - Mayor),
seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council
Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Approved.
Related to Measure 3: Council Member Kring would have preferred to modify term
limits rather than eliminate them altogether, especially as she had no sense that the
community wanted or was in favor of this. Council Member Brandman indicated he had
looked at the past vote on term limits and was aware that it overwhelmingly passed and
did not feel the timing was appropriate now with district elections being considered. His
preference was to return in 2016 and bring this up for consideration again; Council
Member Eastman concurred. Keith Olesen, Charter Review Committee Member, urged
Council to not make decisions based on the fact the committee was recommending
them. The point of the process, after a thorough review of the Charter, was to present
information to the City Council and that it was ultimately up to them to make the final
choices. He added in his opinion he would have listed every item as a separate issue
on the ballot because everything that affected how he was allowed to vote or elect
people to government was significant.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 25 of 27
Mr. Dunn, Charter Committee Member, emphasized that each issue was thoroughly
debated in the last seven months and the thought processes and discussions were
important to the decisions reached. He urged Council and the community to review
those meetings which were available on the city's website and determine why votes
were 6:1 or 4:3, before making their final determinations.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray remarked she was prepared, reviewed materials, and talked to
stakeholders before making an informed decision on any matter and encouraged the
community to view the Charter Committee meetings which were available 24/7 on the
city's website or via the Anaheim library. She remarked that Dr. Sonenshein put in
place a process that ensured a fair and thorough discussion on each and every issue
and that the initial votes were tentative to allow for more discourse and public input
before the final vote was taken. She added the changes recommended should stand
the test of time for decades and should be considered taking the current elected officials
out of the equation and the final document would be amended to keep pace as the city
and region grew and demographics changed. She also felt the issue of term limits
should be tabled for discussion by a future council; Mayor Tait concurred.
MOTION: Mayor Tait moved to deny the RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of a proposed
amendment to the City Charter to the electors of said city at the Special Municipal
Election to be held in the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 3 - Elimination of Term
Limits for Elected City Officials), seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Murray. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.)
Noes — 0. Measure 3 was denied and not submitted for the special election of June 3,
2014.
Related to Measure 4: Council Member Kring stated the Charter dictated how the city
of Anaheim was governed and fireworks were more appropriately addressed through an
ordinance, rather than a charter amendment, adding that she did support the sale of
safe and sane fireworks. Mr. Houston responded this amendment was a partial repeal
of the voter approved ordinance of 1986 with respect to safe and sane fireworks and
conferred to the City Council the ability to regulate and organize the use and the
manufacture and sale of safe and sane fireworks. It could be done in a separate stand-
alone measure if Council did not think it belonged in the Charter, but the
recommendation was to confer to the Council the maximum authority to both permit and
regulate safe and sane firework use in the city by putting it into the Charter. Discussion
continued on the clear meaning of the measure with Council Member Kring and Council
Member Eastman concurring in that it gave the ability of Council to keep more control
on the process than previously allowed.
MOTION: Council Member Eastman moved to approve RESOLUTION NO 2014 -024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA,
ordering the submission of a proposed amendment to the City Charter to the electors of
said city at the Special Municipal Election to be held in the City on June 3, 2014
(Measure No. 4 - Safe and Sane Fireworks); seconded by Council Member Brandman.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 26 of 27
Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring
and Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
The City Clerk indicated the remaining resolutions were procedural in nature and
Council could adopt the resolutions with one vote as they were calling the election,
requesting that the election be consolidated with the statewide primary as well as
directing the City Attorney to draft impartial analyses, authorizing arguments, and
setting priorities and authorizing rebuttals.
MOTION: Council Member Kring moved to approve the following resolutions:
1) RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the
holding of a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2014, for
certain ballot measures proposing amendments to the City Charter pursuant to
Article XIII, Sections 1301 and 1302 of the City Charter and California Elections
Code 1415(a)(2)(A);
2) RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA requesting the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Orange to consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be held on
June 3, 2014, with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on that date
pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code.
3) RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -027 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, authorizing members of the City
Council to author and file written arguments and setting priorities for filing written
arguments regarding city measures to be submitted to the electors of the City at
the Special Municipal Election to be held in said City on June 3, 2014, and
directing the City Attorney to prepare impartial analyses of such measures.
4) RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for city measures submitted to the electors of the City at the Special
Municipal Election to be held in said City on June 3, 2014; seconded by Council
Member Eastman.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman,
Kring and Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
Council Member Brandman, who requested the charter review process, expressed his
appreciation to staff, Dr. Sonenshein, and the committee for taking Anaheim's governing
document through robust public input and discussion during a seven month long
process, presented their final recommendations. Mayor Pro Tem Murray expressed her
thanks as well, remarking the recommendations were thoughtful and with purpose.
Council Member Kring concurred and urged the residents to educate themselves on the
various issues. Council Member Eastman remarked it was the best example of
democracy she had seen and Mayor Tait offered his appreciation as well.
City Council Minutes of February 4, 2014
Page 27 of 27
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member Brandman spoke of his attendance at the Orange County Black History
Parade, announced the 13 MEU 5K Walk/Fun Run on February 15 at Sycamore Park
with all proceeds supporting the marines and sailors of the 13 MEU and the families in
Camp Pendleton. He then asked citizens to reflect on the Nation's freedoms and
liberties this President's Day.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray congratulated all those involved in the success of the Black
History Parade and announced the following upcoming events: Community Forums on
Homeless Outreach on February 5 at Brookhurst Community Center, February 6 at the
Canyon Hills Library, February 19 at the Gordon Hoyt Conference Center and February
20 at the Euclid Library; Arts Council General Meeting on February 6 at the downtown
community center; the opening of Center Gallery on February 6; and the Orange
Symphony Wind Concert on February 9th
Council Member Kring spoke of the Gary Sinise Foundation program honoring veteran's
and congratulated Chief Quezada and other officers who were sworn in last week. She
spoke of her attendance at the Black History Parade and YMCA Film Festival and the
extraordinary talent of the students who participated in this event.
Council Member Eastman celebrated the grand opening of Access California, offering
services of every imaginable kind to refugee and recent immigrant population in
Anaheim. She also announced several free tax preparation services available at the
Downtown Community Center.
Mayor Tait spoke of his attendance at the Black History Parade and announced the 13
MEU 5K Walk/Fun Run on February 15, highlighted February was Make Kindness
Contagious Month and requested the meeting adjourn in memory of Milo Levecke.
ADJOURNMENT With no other business to conduct, Mayor Tait adjourned the
February 4, 2014 meeting at 9:56 PM in memory of Milo Levecke.
Re ctfully submitted,
Linda N. Andal, CIVIC
City Clerk