Loading...
1997/09/16ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau COMMUTER SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS PLANNER: Diana Kotler TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole CIVIL ENGINEER - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Meeks PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:00 p.m. on September 12, 1997 at the City Hall Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the Council Meeting of September 16, 1997 to order and extended a welcome to those in attendance. Deputy City Manager, Tom Wood, introduced Diana Kotler who will give the presentation today. 173: ELECTRIC VEHICLE PUBLIC ACCESS CHARGING STATIONS: Diana Kotler, Transportation Programs Planner. She is present today to present the Council with information about the project that they have been involved with for the last 12 months. The project is sponsored by the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) and is known as the Electric Vehicle (EV) Quick Charge Program. The MSRC committed $1.3 million to develop a network of EV charging stations for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This particular program involves the Counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County. For Orange County, the City of Anaheim is the lead agency for receiving the funds. Today's presentation will look at the state of the market for electric vehicles, the role Orange County will play in the introduction of EV's to the public, a look at the environmental benefits that will be accrued, and the role that local government plays in facilitation of EV's for the constituents and guests of the City. Electric vehicles are not new to the market. The first EV began development in the 1950's; however, because battery technologies were not as developed as today, EV's were not possible as part of the retail mass introduction to the consumer. Ms. Kotler's presentation, supplemented by slides, then covered the following: (also see brochure submitted containing background documentation on the subject and also containing hard copies of some of the slides presented which were briefed in greater detail - folder, entitled - Anaheim Commuter Services - made a part of the record) The vehicles currently on the market (GM EV1, Ford Ranger, Honda EV Plus, Chrysler EPIC Minivan, Nissan Minivan), vehicle recharging (at home off-peak charging, public access charging stations, power supply), vehicle recharging, the City's role in the EV market launch (development of EV infrastructure, permit streamlining, emergency response, future revenue opportunities), EV charging stations network (23 public access stations, priority corridors), project funding ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 ($8,000 - $15,000 per station - City of Anaheim, Lead Agency: $294,000 Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee; $100,000, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); $70,000, Private Sector Participants; $28,000, US Department of Energy), environmental benefits, other air quality improvement strategies, traditional trip reduction programs, next steps - proceed with installation of public access EV charging stations, commitment to use EV's in public fleets, encourage development of new strategies. Southern California has been chosen as the showcase region for the introduction of EV's and she explained why. Another compelling reason is the mandate of the California Air Resources Board requiring that 10% of all vehicles sold in the State by 2003 meet zero-emission standards, which EV's do, thereby helping to meet the requirements of the State and Federal Clean Air Acts. EV's are considered to be 97% pollution free. Ms. Kotler and then later, John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager, answered an extensive line of questions posed by Council Members Tait and Lopez covering private sector participants in the program (charging stations), the present driving range of EV's (in the literature ranging from approximately 60 miles to approximately 80 - 120 miles), recharging time and costs (recharging time at present Level II, 2-3 hours with the next generation of charging stations to be at Level III, 10-15 minutes), Phase I is just the beginning of the entire program, funding is available next year for Phase II, a home- charging unit at present is approximately $1,000, the biggest investment the City is making is connecting to the power supply, once the infrastructure is there, changing from Level II to Level III is inexpensive, the electric vehicle is 100% clean and the reason it is indicated as 97% is in case a power plant is needed to supply the power (indication at present is that no power plant will be necessary), the cost per mile for energy in an EV is one penny compared to five cents a mile for gasoline, etc. Council Member Lopez. He has a number of concerns in voting on this issue today. He feels the proposal is asking the City to take a big step without showing that it works. If it doesn't work, the Council will take the brunt of the criticism. Mayor Daly. It is necessary to keep in mind that Anaheim is a destination City and one that is continually inviting people to its attractions. Many of the visitors come from the Southern California area and as time goes by, more and more of the cars will be electric. It will be a learning experience from one year to the next. If anyone should be in the forefront, it probably should be Anaheim (as the Lead Agency) because Anaheim is a primary destination. Council Member Tait asked why the private sector has not stepped up to provide some of the charging stations; Ms. Kotler explained that the first round of funding was made available to only local jurisdictions. The second phase will be open not only to local governments, but also the private sector. In concluding her presentation, Ms. Kotler stated that today the Council will have the opportunity to accept the first of the funding sources, $100,000 from the OCTA (to be voted on at the 5:00 p.m. portion of the Council Meeting, Item A8). On October 7, 1997, the Council will be considering an agreement with the Air Quality Management District to receive the rest of the funding. Also through the Public Utilities Public Benefits Program, the Council will be presented shortly with a program that will include the presentation of EV's for the City's general fleet and Utilities fleet. They will need public charging stations just to facilitate the City's fleet. Staff will continue to research and provide information on what is available in the market, what is the next level of charging, and as those programs come forward, the City will be participating in them to make sure citizens and guests will be able to purchase EV's and be able to use them in the City of Anaheim. Council Member McCracken. Relative to the mandate of 10% EV's in 2003, she asked if that will be reflected in some kind of effort on public agencies to purchase EV's in order to reach that compliance. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Diana Kotler. The mandate is between the Air Resources Board and the automobile manufacturers through a memorandum of understanding. However, there is a Federal act known as the Energy Efficiency Act which requires that a certain percentage of the public agency fleets be alternate fuel vehicles. Council Member Tait asked about fuels like natural gas and propane. He would like to see where all the alternative vehicles fall; Council Member Lopez. He also asked about alternative fuels and if the gas company would want to make a presentation to show what they have to offer. Diana Kotler. EV's are the cleanest with no tail-pipe emissions. Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles are available but not at the same scale of availability as EV's will become mainly because the cost of the infrastructure is tremendous. One fueling station for a CNG vehicle would cost as much as $250,000. A network would be extremely expensive to implement. There is still a debate as to which vehicle is the best. In their opinion, EV's are the most promising mainly because the infrastructure is relatively inexpensive, relatively easy to install, and because the manufacturer has made such a tremendous commitment to the technology. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. There are many alternatives -- methanol, CNG type vehicles which the City has, etc. What staff is indicating is that the fueling stations, the infrastructure cost for those types of technologies, is high. The industry is seemingly going to electric. He also does not believe by the action of the Council, the City is locked into a commitment. The City is simply facilitating spending of funds by other agencies and putting a limited number of sites out there. It is a program that may or may not ultimately work out. The City is facilitating it for a number of other agencies. The City has CNG and methanol type vehicles in their fleet at present. Putting in CNG stations in 23 locations as proposed through this grant would be very expensive. Later, after additional discussion and questioning, Mr. Wood reported that no General Fund money is involved in this proposal. Ms. Kotler also clarified that the only mandate involved at this time is the 10% EV's by 2003, that there are two or three EV owners in Anaheim, approximately 45 in Orange County, and about 260 in the region. Council Member Zemel entered the Council Chamber (4:00 P.M.). Mayor Daly. The issue will be on the agenda later in the meeting (5:00 P.M.). He noted that people are present to speak and he suggested that they do so at that time. He thanked staff for the very informative and detailed presentation. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to Closed Session items. PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8: Property: 806 North Brookhurst Street Negotiating parties: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Home Depot, Mr. Yong Ung Kim, Brookhurst Motor, Inc. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: __ cases. one potential PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: (1996-97 Annual Performance Review) City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Treasurer. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:03 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:10 p.m.) INVOCATION: Pastor Glen Merriman, Solid Rock Foursquare Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - ANNOUNCING SANTIAGO CANYON COLLEGE: Margaret Manson, Dean of Instruction, Santiago Canyon College. Plans are under way to develop Santiago Canyon College into a comprehensive college, the newest community college in the State as well as the nation. The opening celebration will take place on October 3, 1997 at 10:00 A.M. and she is extending an invitation to the Mayor and the Council to attend. It has been ten years since California has had a new community college. She presented the Mayor with a T-shirt with their new logo, colors and their mascot. They will be called, the Hawks. Mayor Daly. On behalf of the Council, he thanked Ms. Manson for being present today noting the significant occasion, the establishment of a new community college. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 119 PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Daly and authorized by the City Council: Proclamation recognizing September 17 - 23, 1997, as Constitution Week in Anaheim. Ms. Patricia Scofield, Chairman, Constitution Week Committee, Mojave Chapter, National Society Daughters of the American Revolution accepted the proclamation after commenting on the importance of the occasion celebrating the wisdom of the Country's founding fathers and their great foresight. 119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION ANAHEIM BULLFROGS: A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Stuart Silver, Owner, Anaheim Bullfrogs on becoming the 1997 Roller Hockey International World Champions. Mayor Daly noted that Mr. Silver is one of the original tenants of the Anaheim Pond and in their five years of existence, the Anaheim Bullfrogs for the second time have won the Roller Hockey International World Championship. Mr. Stuart Silver. It was a great season. Their attendance has been up moreso than almost every other team in the league. The people of Anaheim and Orange County have put them there and he feels there is no better place to be. It is an honor to be affiliated with Anaheim. He then presented the Mayor and the City with the two Murphy Cups the team has won -- the first in 1993, and the second now in 1997. They will be on display in City Hall for several weeks and will then be moved to the Anaheim Sports Hall of Fame. As long as the community keeps supporting the team, they will keep coming back every year. Mayor Daly. Speaking on behalf of the City, no one works harder than the Bullfrogs to have a presence in the community. They are a great community asset. RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: 1. PROCLAMATION recognizing October, 1997, as Independent Living Month in Anaheim. 2. PROCLAMATION recognizing September 28, 1997, as Gold Star Mother's Day in Anaheim. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,002,240.06 for the period ending September 12, 1997, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST - AND - PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following people spoke with regard to Item A8 on tonight's agenda. Their comments are summarized: ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Rick Ostro, 2405 White Center Drive, Huntington Beach, CA, local Orange County Electric Vehicle Specialist. He is representing General Motors (GM) and also Saturn and local Saturn retailers in Orange County. He spoke about the EV1. It is a mature technology and GM has over 1/2 billion invested in the vehicle. It exceeds all of the safety standards for 1997 and beyond. It is the most tested vehicle in history and has been on the road for more than five years. It is now available for all people at all Saturn retailers. Because no gasoline is used, it is necessary to have a charging structure. It is quick to "fill up". In 10 minutes, the vehicle will fill up 10-20% and can be topped up through the day. He then briefed some of the other features of the vehicle especially emphasizing the fact that it is a 97% cleaner running car than a gasoline fueled vehicle. He urged that Anaheim take the leadership position as it should by approving the recommendation. Marvin Rush, 7919 Glentese Ln., Sunland, CA. He is an EV1 driver. He bought his car in December and has over 12,000 miles on it. It is practical and fast. He encouraged the City to install the proposed charging sites in the City and to encourage the same in other areas in Orange County. He is a member of the EV1 group which has 90 members. There are currently over 265 EV's on the road. They spend money when the car charges and if a shopping mall installs a charger, he makes and will make that mall a destination. He also noted that one charge site can be used by more than one car in a short span of time. He has his car with him and offered to have any of the Council Members drive it if they wished to do so. Tom Reimer, 319 S. Indiana, Anaheim. He presently owns an electric car and would like to see the infrastructure increase in Anaheim with more charging stations. With additional charging stations, he would be able to drive around a lot more than now. Aisc, more people outside of Anaheim would be attracted to the City if the infrastructure was set up for EV's. Greg Hansen, 4961 Barkwood, Irvine. He is also an EV1 driver. It is a clean car to drive. It is important for the City and County to keep in touch with the new technology of the 21st century. He would like to see Anaheim and Orange County be the first in the nation to support the electric vehicle. John Cox, 22 Toronto Drive, Newport Coast, CA 92657. He has worked on numerous projects in Orange County for the past 16 years as a Council Member. He feels this project is as important as the many others. What is important to keep in mind are the Federal and State regulations that call for air emission reduction throughout the air basin which is the worst in the country. Electric vehicles are one method of reducing those emissions and without that kind of reduction, the region is prone to receiving sanctions by the environmental community or Federal Government that could impact transportation funds or generate regulations to be imposed on other businesses in the region. He encouraged Council support of the item. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He feels the City should keep the money in the pockets of hard working taxpayers who are already overburdened with the costs of clean-air compliance. The economics of electric cars right now make them available to only a very small group of people. He questioned why GM was not setting up the infrastructure since they are the primary vendor of electric cars. Clean air and EV's are a nice thing, but should be paid for by the people that benefit from them. Jack Kirtowski, 4750 Ramsdale, LaCrescenta, CA, Chief of On-Road Controls, California Air Resources Board. Electric vehicles are a very critical part of the clean air plan in California. They are the cleanest of all possible solutions. He referred to the EV's available now and those that are going to be coming out over the next year. It is "ramping up" quickly. They believe strongly in the policy of near-term infrastructure which is beneficial for those willing to take the risk and show others the practicality of the vehicles. Now is a good time. Enid Joffe, 515 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles. She represents the company that distributes the chargers for the vehicles. She noted that a number of questions came up at the workshop earlier today and since there was not an opportunity to respond at that time, she would like to now respond to a few of the points. She prefaced her remarks by stating that the Council has two decisions to make -- one on behalf of Anaheim and whether or not to participate in this program and also to make a decision on behalf of 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 other entities in Orange County and a number of private entities who have all agreed to participate and put their money into the program. She then answered a number of the questions posed at the 3:00 p.m. workshop, some of the main points being that the charging sites chosen were meant to create a network at places where people spend their time thus making charging convenient, the funds cannot be reallocated to other purposes but are special funds for clean air purposes for mobile sources, if the City does not use the funds, some other City or private entity will, the private sector is stepping up to the issue but cannot do it alone, this is a new infrastructure that is being built -- it is a partnership, the Clean Air Act was adopted in the first place to reduce dependence on foreign oil, technological solutions to air quality problems are much more preferential than additional controls on businesses, even though there is a mandate for the vehicles in 2003, individual purchase of the vehicles is voluntary, although makers need to convince people to buy these vehicles, they are working on fast charging but it is still experimental technology and there may be completely different applications than those they are talking about now. The subject is new and they will be happy to share that information. Peggy Volper, 200 E. Lincoln, Anaheim. She lives in one of the three buildings for senior citizens (behind the Center Street Parking Structure). She referred to the six-story parking structure noting that the sweeper comes by at 2:30 a.m. and is the source of a lot of noise. She has contacted a number of people in the City to express her concern. There is not only sweeper noise, but tires squealing, beepers, car security alarms, etc. The past three nights it has been better -- the sweeper is now going to come around at 6:00 a.m. rather than 2:00. She feels something has to be done about the noise coming from the parking structure which disturbs the seniors. Mayor Daly. To make some progress, there is a six-story parking structure in close proximity to senior citizen housing. They will ask City staff to look into the situation and evaluate if there are ways to eliminate the noise. He noted that the parking structure and the senior citizen complex have been co- existing for a long time now. He asked if she had a specific request. Peggy Volper. She suggested putting in cement bumps but was told no; Mayor Daly. He reiterated they will direct staff to see if steps can be taken to limit the noise and also look at some noise limitation practices in other neighborhoods that may be of assistance. The following people spoke on proposed contracting out of Information Services and their comments summarized: John O'Malley. He is representing the interests of the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) and the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association (AMEA). The purpose today is to alert the Council to some serious problems in the proposed contracting out to SCT ( Systems and Computer Technology Corporation) the services now performed by the City's Information Services Department. If the proposed contract goes into effect, it is going to have human consequences displacing the current employees and having an affect on their families. He then touched upon the seven areas of concern they have identified in the City's proposal to outsource to SCT one important issue being, for a small potential savings, there will be a loss of control of a City enterprise. He then deferred to Peter Healy who just arrived and who was to give the presentation. Peter Healy, President, Anaheim Municipal Employees Association. The issue is one of contracting out Information Services and dismantling of the department and the fate of approximately 20 of their members who have devoted their careers to the City's Information Services Department (formerly Data Processing Department). Information is power and carries extra weight today. By turning over that power to a sole outside contractor, it is turning over control. Later this week, they will be delivering to the Council's offices an analysis of the proposed dismantling, a report developed with the assistance of a highly respected, computer technology consultant. The report identifies substantial, quantifiable hidden costs which are certain to arise under the proposed contract. It will also highlight other critical issues related to the loss of access to competing technologies. He urged the Council to take a few moments to ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 look at and consider the report that will be provided at no cost to the City. As a representative of hundreds of citizens of the City and the 700 City employees who have devoted their career to the viability of the organization, he urged their careful consideration to this very critical decision they have to make about where to place the power of information management for the organization. It is about whether to reduce the amount of competition for providing services to the City by going with a sole contractor. The following long-time employees of the Information Services Department (formerly Data Processing) then gave extensive input relative to their role in the department, the dedication they have given to their jobs, the Department and the City, urging the Council first to not outsource their jobs by voting against the proposal but, if not, that the employees be treated with dignity and that jobs be found elsewhere in the City for them. Mr. Wetzel also elaborated on reasons why they feel the best decision in this matter is to vote against the proposal noting that outsourcing may be the quick and easy answer but not the right one: Debra Reams, Systems Specialist II - City employee, 16 years Lauren (Marsden) Brittsan, Support Services Supervisor, 28 years Psyche Lynch, Programmer Analyst, 16 years Ken Wetzel, Information Services/Public Utilities MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of September 16, 1997. Mayor Pro Tern Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM A1 - A16: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 97R-166 through 97R-168, both inclusive, for adoption. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5612 for adoption and Ordinance No. 5615 for first reading. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book. Al. A2. A3. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management. The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended: a. Claim submitted by 20th Century Insurance Company, Ahmed Sobhy, Insured for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 11,, 1997. b. Claim submitted by Gerald Barnes c/o Andrew R. Gale, Esq. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 24, 1997. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held July 11, 1997. 164: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Steve Bubalo Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $333,350 for I-5 Freeway Sewer Relocation Improvements; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the Iow and second Iow bidders. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 A4. A5. Council 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the amount of $961,253.81 for Direct Buried Cable Replacement; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the Iow and second Iow bidders. 129: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $235,168 in favor of DKS Contracting and Engineering, Inc., for the functional replacement of Fire Station No. 3. Member Tait. Due to a conflict, he will be abstaining from any discussion or voting on this item. A6. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS, AND SETTING A DATE AND TIME TO CONSIDER ABANDONING CERRITOS AVENUE EXTENDING FROM WEST STREET TO WALNUT STREET, RESERVING UNTO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, AS PART OF THE DISNEYLAND RESORT (ABANDONMENT NO. 97-6A). (SUGGESTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M.) A7. 106: Approving an increase to the Public Works Department's Capital Improvement Budget for FY 1997-98, in the amount of $8,030,900. A8. 173: To consider accepting $100,000 from the Orange County Transportation Authority Combined Transportation Funding Program to implement a network of 23 Electric Vehicle public access charging stations. See input given relative to this item under the first portion of the Council Meeting - Items of Public Interest and Public Comments on Agenda Items. Council Member Lopez. There was an extensive workshop on this issue today and there has been a great deal of input. He would like to continue this matter for one week and possibly have the opportunity during that time to have a demonstration of the vehicles. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. There are no problems in continuing this item for one week. MOTION. Council Member Lopez moved to continue Item A8. for one week. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. A9. 123: Accepting the bid, and authorizing the execution of an Agreement with All City Management Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for one year with options to extend for two one-year optional renewals commencing October 1, 1997; and authorizing the Chief of Police to exercise renewal options, all in accordance with Bid #5697. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. He requested a continuation of this item to September 23, 1997. Al0. All. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Digital Equipment Corporation for service on computer equipment, in the amount of $1,064.32 per month for the period of August 1, 1997, through July 31, 1998; and authorizing the Community Services Director to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim. 123: Approving an Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the Placentia-Yorba Linda School District for a lunch period and after-school recreation program at Rio Vista Elementary School; and increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in Fund 101, Program 4277 by $12,100. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 A12. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5612: (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18.05 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS. (Introduced at the meeting of September 9, 1997, Item A35.) A13. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-167: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE 60-DAY NOTICE PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION NO. 25351 (FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING THE GREATER AVENUE FOR INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM TO UTILIZE OFFICE SPACE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD). A14. 158: To consider authorizing the Executive Director of Community Development to take all actions necessary to complete the reconveyance of the City's Deed of Trust at 806 North Janss Street (rehabilitation loan). Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager requested withdrawal of this item from the agenda. A15. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held August 19, 1997. A16. 107: ORDINANCE NO. 5615: (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 7.50 TO TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LOST, STOLEN OR ABANDONED SHOPPING CARTS. 107: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-168: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES, AND OTHERWISE IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 7.50 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LOST, STOLEN OR ABANDONED SHOPPING CARTS. Approving a Shopping Cart Storage Agreement with Taormina Industries, Inc.; and approving the form of a proposed agreement with grocers and other retail establishments waiving the three- day notice requirement prior to cart retrieval; and authorizing the City Manager to execute said Agreements for and on behalf of the City. Phil Knypstra, Gelid Avenue, Anaheim. He is not opposed to this but his concern is how it is going to be financed. It has been determined in this case that collecting abandoned shopping carts is a function of an enterprise fund for solid waste. Shopping carts is a law enforcement problem and this type of law enforcement activity is a general purpose function which should be assigned to the General Fund and not the solid waste enterprise fund. He feels it is being done because it is easier to up the user fees than raise taxes on the General Fund. More and more communities are doing this which he is adamantly opposed to. If it is funded through the General Fund, he has no problem. Council Member Tait. Mr. Knypstra made some good points which he has to agree with. It does not state what the cost of the program will be. He also agrees it should not come out of collection fees and particularly he does not think they should raise collection fees to the rate payer because of this. There are unanswered questions, especially the costs. He would like to continue this matter for one week. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue Item A16 for one week. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Zemel stated he agrees on the financial aspect but is certain it will be cleared up. 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Council Member Lopez. John Poole, the City's Code Enforcement Manager has worked long and hard on this issue. He asked to hear from Mr. Poole as to what they are accomplishing with the proposed ordinance. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. When the City Attorney put the report together originally, they had not finished negotiations with Taormina Industries for the storage year. There will be no cost to the City. The shopping carts when retrieved, the monies charged for the retrieval, will reimburse the Taormina's for the cost of operating the yard. When first put together, it looked like they would have to use funds to pay for that but just recently, the contract has been negotiated and there is no charge. All charges will be paid with user fees. The only expense anticipated, currently the City is fortunate to have two retrieval services which they entered into a very Iow cost contract influenced by the State Grocer's Association. He then briefed some of the provisions of the proposed ordinance. In concluding, he stated they have worked for over a year to get the industry to take on the burden. The package before the Council tonight does that. The City now looks better than it did a couple of weeks ago because there are two services retrieving the carts. The stores are doing more now. Council Member Lopez. He only received one call this week on shopping cads. The direction they are taking is the right one and it has been a long "fight". He thanked Mr. Poole and staff for the work they put into this issue. Council Member Tait. He would like to make sure when they vote on this it is amended to state that any costs would not come out of solid waste revenue fees but out of the General Fund if there are any costs. Mayor Daly. He noted that Mayor Pro Tem Lopez had been a leader in trying to resolve the abandoned shopping cart issue and thanked him for focusing the Council on this important matter. City Attorney White. He suggested that the ordinance, the resolution, the agreement and the form of a proposed agreement be offered for adoption and as an additional motion, that any costs incurred by the City come from the General Fund rather than the enterprise fund. MOTION. Council Member Tait. He offered an amended motion that the matter not be continued but that any costs associated with this proposal not come out of solid waste revenue fees but instead come out of the General Fund. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 97R-166 throuqh 97R-168, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 97R-166 through 97R-168, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5612 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5612 duly passed and adopted. 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Ordinance No. 5615 was introduced for first reading END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. A17. 121: CONDEMNATION HEARINGS RELATING TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND KATELLA AVENUE SMART STREET PROJECT: To consider the adoption of the following resolutions finding and determining the public interest and necessity to require condemnation of certain real properties for the purposes of making public roadway improvements as part of the Anaheim Resort Area Specific Plan and the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project; and authorizing the law firm of Rutan and Tucker, special counsel to the City, to proceed with said condemnation actions. Submitted was report dated September 9, 1997 from the Public Works Department recommending adoption of the subject resolutions for certain real properties located on the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project (Anaheim Resort Area). City Attorney White clarified for the Mayor that, in this case, separate hearings are to be held and the hearings opened and closed separately but a vote can be taken after completion of all of the hearings. Mayor Daly. This is the time and place for the hearing on eight proposed acquisitions of property by eminent domain in connection with the Katella Avenue Smart Street and the Anaheim Resort Area Improvement and Beautification Program. The properties involved are identified as items "a" through "h" and each property is legally described in the eight resolutions attached to the staff report dated September 9,1997. He asked for a brief staff presentation. Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Project Manager, Public Works. The resolutions on tonight's agenda are for acquisition of right of way necessary for construction of the Katella Smart Street Improvements from west of Harbor to Anaheim Boulevard including supplemental right of way to implement the Anaheim Resort Capital Improvement Plan. These projects have been considered as part of the City's General Plan in conjunction with the Katella Super Street EIR and the Anaheim Resort EIR. Funding for the projects became available through aCTA and the sale of the Resort Area Bonds earlier this year. Implementation of the improvements will increase the capacity of the street and improve intersection operations. The project has been designed to retain the approximate existing centerline of the street and minimize the overall impact of the acquisitions. Offers have been made and the City's acquisition consultant has been in negotiations with the property owners. To date, staff has not been able to obtain fully executed acquisition agreements for these parcels and is, therefore, recommending adoption of the Resolutions of Necessity to ensure the City obtains legal possession of the property in time for the scheduled construction. Staff will continue to work with each of the property owners to reach a final settlement. Adoption of the resolutions will allow construction to begin January, 1998 as scheduled. A significant delay of the project could jeopardize the aCTA funding for the project and impede the City's ability to complete the Resort Area improvements as scheduled and required in the Infrastructure and Parking Finance Agreement. Mayor Daly. In conducting the hearing(s), testimony will be taken separately from the owner of record or a designated representative for each property on the eight proposed acquisitions listed on the agenda. Testimony should be limited to the following issues only: (1) Whether the public interest and necessity require the project; (2) Whether the project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (3) Whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project; (4) Whether the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record; (5) Whether the City has met all other procedural requirements for exercising eminent domain. 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 (a) Property located at 321-331 West Katella Avenue - R/W 5180-30 and (b) - same address - R/W 5180-31: The Mayor opened the hearing on both (a) and (b) - (same address but involving two rights of way) and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the City Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. (c) Property located at 200 Block East Katella Way and 1844 South Haster Street - R/W 5180-43 A & B: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the City Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. (d) Property located at 100 East Katella Avenue - R/W 5180-44: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the City Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. (e) Property located at 130 West Katella Avenue - R/W 5180-46 A & B and (f) - same address - R/W 5180-48: The Mayor opened the hearing on both (e) and (f) - (same address but involving two rights of way) and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the City Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. (g) Property located at 1801 South Harbor Boulevard - R/W 5180-62: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the City Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. (h) Property located at 620-636 West Katella - R/W 5180-63: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the City Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Daly. The Condemnation Hearings have been closed. He asked if there was any discussion by Council at this time or a desire to vote on the resolutions separately. There was no discussion and it was determined there would be one vote covering items (a) through (h). Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-169 through 97R-179, both inclusive, for adoption. (a) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-169: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-331 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-30). (b) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-170: 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 321-331 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-31). (c) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-171: 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 200 BLOCK EAST KATELLA WAY, AND 1844 SOUTH HASTER STREET, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-43 A & B). (d) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-172: 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 100 EAST KATELLA AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-44). 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 (e) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-173: 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 130 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-46 A & B). (f) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-174: 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 130 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-48). (g) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-175: 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 1801 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-62). (h) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-176: 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 620-636 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-63). Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 97R-169 throuqh 97R-176, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 97R-169 through 97R-176, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. A18. 105. APPOINTMENTS TO THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION: Continued from the meeting of September 9, 1997 to this date. City Clerk Sohl. Because she does not have any list for tenant members as yet, she recommended that the appointments relating to those members be removed from the agenda until a tenant member application list is available. She will bring it back as soon as she has a qualified list. Mayor Daly opened nominations for the five general members. Council Member Zemel nominated Jim Raeder, Lucille Kring, Manny Jalandani and John Karczynski; Mayor Daly nominated Mary Ruth Pinson and Jan Wohlwend; Council Member Lopez nominated David Romero; Council Member McCracken nominated Donald Yvaska. Mayor Daly. He has an additional nomination, John McClendon. MOTION. On motion by Council Member Zemel seconded by Mayor Daly, nominations were closed. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney White. There are nine nominations and only five seats. The rules of order that the Council has adopted state that persons receiving the highest number of affirmative votes constituting at least a majority of the total members of the City Council, meaning at least three affirmative votes, are elected. Abstentions do not count as affirmative votes, only the yes votes. He would offer in the event there are ties, they go through the entire list and then go back and determine how they wish to handle those. 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 A vote was then taken on James Raeder - Ayes: Tait, Zemel, Lopez -- No: McCracken, Daly. A vote was then taken on Lucille Kring - Ayes: Tait, Zemel --No: McCracken, Lopez, Daly. A vote was then taken on Manny Jalandani - Ayes: Tait, Zemel -- No: McCracken, Lopez, Daly. A vote was then taken on John Karczynski - Ayes: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez - Abstained: Daly. A vote was then taken on Mary Ruth Pinson - Ayes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly -- Abstained: Tait, Zemel. A vote was then taken on Jan Wohlwend - Ayes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly -- Abstained: Tait, Zemel. A vote was then taken on David Romero - Ayes: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly. A vote was then taken on Donald Yvaska - Ayes: McCracken, Zemel, Daly -- No: Lopez -- Abstained: Tait. A vote was then taken on John McClendon - Ayes: McCracken, Daly - No: Lopez - Abstained: Tait, Zemel. City Attorney White. He believes they have elected David Romero with five votes and John Karzynski with four votes. There are four other individuals vying for the three other vacant seats. The Council options are open. They can reopen nominations or revote on the nominations made. Mayor Daly. There are three remaining seats and four persons who received three votes. He suggested that they simply take those four persons in the original order and vote on them again in an attempt to fill those three remaining seats. There was general Council consensus to proceed as suggested by the Mayor. The nonimees with three votes each were then voted on in the order in which they were nominated. City Clerk Sohl interjected and asked if the first two appointees should be assigned to the first two slots; City Attorney White asked instead if the highest vote getters are to be assigned to the longest terms. Mayor Daly stated that they be appointed to the first two slots (as indicated on the agenda). A vote was then taken on Jim Raeder - Ayes: Tait, Zemel, Lopez - No: McCracken, Daly. Before voting on Mary Ruth Pinson, Mayor Daly, speaking in her behalf, reported on her service to the Anaheim community. A vote was then taken on Mary Ruth Pinson - Ayes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly - Abstained: Tait, Zemel. Before voting on Jan Wohlwend, Council Member Zemel noted that Ms. Wohlwend managed the Anaheim Plaza Redevelopment Project and asked if there was a problem with her nomination in that regard. City Attorney White. As long as she is not an employee of the City, there is no problem. She can be a contractor but not an employee. Mayor Daly. Jan Wohlwend was the manager of the shopping center. She is now the manager of the Tyler Mall shopping center in Riverside, but is still a resident of Anaheim. Council Member Tait. His concern is that she have no affiliation with Anaheim Plaza. 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Mayor Daly. It would be a shame to exclude her because she works for a company who owns a shopping center in a Redevelopment Project Area. She could abstain if anything on the Anaheim Plaza comes up. She is a resident and has a lot of retail and Redevelopment experience. Council Member Zemel. If there is even a perception of a conflict of interest, he will err on the side of safety. He is not going to support the nomination although he supports Ms. Wohlwend. A vote was then taken on Jan Wohlwend - Ayes: McCracken, Tait, Lopez, Daly - Abstained: Zemel. Before voting on Donald Yvaska, Mayor Daly explained what he knew of him -- that he is President of the Homeowner's Association at Anaheim Shores and has been effective in solving community problems in the Anaheim Shore's area and beyond. He brings a lot of enthusiasm to what he does. A vote was then taken on Donald Yvaska - Ayes: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly. Mayor Daly. Up to four persons have received either four or five votes. In this round, Jan Wohlwend and Donald Yvaska. Only one other seat remains to be filled of the general members. Council Member Zemel suggested that they try to fill that seat next week; Mayor Daly. He is prepared to proceed if a majority wishes to do so. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue appointment of the remaining seat of the general members for one week. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. It was clarified the following were appointed to the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission: David Romero, term expiring June 30, 1988; John Karczynski, term expiring June 30, 1999; Jan Wohlwend, term expiring June 30, 2000; Donald Yvaska, term expiring June 30, 2001. ITEMS B1 - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1997 DECISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 19, 1997: B1. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 120 - EGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3: OWNER: MANZANITA WALK, L.L.C., Michael Hennessey, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, #400, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: 608 West Vermont Avenue. Property is approximately 2.77 acres having a frontage of 295 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue and a maximum depth of 409 feet, being located approximately 190 feet east of the centerline of Citron Street. Petitioner requests waiver of maximum height of fences (6-foot high wall permitted) to construct an 8-foot high wall along the south, east and west property lines of a previously-approved residential condominium complex. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Adjustment No. 120 GRANTED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-17). 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 B2. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4313 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: VIC PELOQUIN, 4740 E. Bryson Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 108 and 124 South Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Aha Canyon Road. Petitioner requests waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, and minimum dimensions of parking spaces to expand an existing 1,655 sq. ft. restaurant and establish a 1,223 sq. ft. fast food restaurant (coffeehouse) within an existing commercial shopping center. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4313 GRANTED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-18). Approved Negative Declaration. END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS. B3. 155: ORDINANCE NO. 5613 (ADOPTION) Amending ordinance no. 5378 as previously amended relating to Specific Plan adjustment no. 1 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (Chapter 18.78 of the Anaheim Municipal Code).(Introduced at the meeting of September 9, 1997, Item B9.) Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5613 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5613 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5378 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 1 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 (CHAPTER 18.78 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE). Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5613 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5613 duly passed and adopted. B4. 155: ORDINANCE NO. 5614 (ADOPTION) Amending Condition No. 7 of Ordinance No. 5443 (Specific Plan No. 92-1). (Introduced at the meeting of September 9, 1997, Item D3.) ORDINANCE NO. 5614 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITION NO. 7 OF ORDINANCE NO. 5443 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1). Adoption of the Ordinance was continued one week at the request of staff since the final draft of the Ordinance was not yet prepared. 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 B5. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5616: (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 97-98-01 located at 424,605,605 1/2 East Adele Street (PARCEL B) from the RS-5000 zone to the RM-3000 zone. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5616 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 5616: AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-01 LOCATED AT 424,605,605 1/2 EAST ADELE STREET (PARCEL B) FROM THE RS-5000 ZONE TO THE RM-3000 ZONE. B6. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5617: (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 97-98-01 located at 300 North Olive Street; 300, 301,306, 306 1/2, 308, 309, 310, 311,312, 312 1/2, 315 and 317 North Sabina Street; 300, 305, 307, 312, 318, 322, and 412 North Pauline Street; and 411,415,419,421,517, 521 and 527 East Cypress Street (PARCEL B) from the RM-2400 zone to the RM-3000 zone. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5616 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 5617: AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-01 LOCATED AT 300 NORTH OLIVE STREET; 300, 301,306, 306 1/2, 308, 309, 310, 311,312, 312 1/2, 315 AND 317 NORTH SABINA STREET; 300, 305, 307, 312, 318, 322, AND 412 NORTH PAULINE STREET; AND 411,415,419,421,517, 521 AND 527 EAST CYPRESS STREET (PARCEL B) FROM THE RM-2400 ZONE TO THE RM- 3000 ZONE. D1. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 350 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: STAFF-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 29805 LOCATION: 2627 East La Palma Avenue - La Palma Mobile Home Park. Property is 13.58 acres located on the northeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and La Palma Avenue. Staff-initiated amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate this property from the existing Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Property is 13.58 acres located on the northeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and La Palma Avenue. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended approval of GPA NO. 350, Exhibit A, to City Council (PC97-110) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Approved Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - September 4, 1997. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 4, 1997. Posting of property - September 5, 1997. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 4, 1997. Joel Fick, Planning Director. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission noting that this staff initiated proposal is the last in a series coming out of the East Anaheim Planning Area Action Plan. The Iow-medium density residential designation would be more consistent with the zoning and land use and also more consistent with the action taken by the Council on the land use item (General Plan Amendment) two weeks ago. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak. Janet Farber, 1224 E. Katella #99, Orange. She is with the management company for the mobile home park (Palm Lodge Mobile Home Estates). She asked the density of the apartments next door; Joel Fick answered it is RM1200 with a density of approximately 36 units to the acre. Ms. Farber wanted to know why the designation for the mobile home park needs to be changed. Joel Fick. The land use and zoning is consistent with the General Plan designation of 36 units to the acre. The mobile home park was developed at a density far less than that and the Iow medium density allows up to 18 units per acre. Both the zoning, which is residential agricultural on the mobile home site, and also RM2400 are zones that would fall within the range of the Iow- medium density category. Janet Farber. She asked what would happen if they wanted to change the property to apartments. Joel Fick. A public hearing would have to be held in any case to allow apartments to be constructed on the site. A density that would be different would require a public hearing. The overall General Plan would be lower than the medium density designation. Mayor Daly. If in the future the owner of this property wanted to build apartments, there would need to be a public hearing regardless of the General Plan designation. It appears the General Plan designation for the property is the same as what exists next door. Joel Fick. Only one minor clarification. The proposed recommendation is Iow-medium density residential consistent with the density designation on the property and the site next door is medium density. Ms. Farber again asked why the designation should be changed. In the future, if they did so, they would have to have another public hearing. She asked why there is a need to change. Joel Fick. It would be consistent with the densities actually experienced. In either case, it would require rezoning of the property if there were a proposal for a higher density and there also could be a proposal to amend the general plan at the time and a case made that a higher density would be warranted. They would propose, that should it be medium density and the land use be changed on the site, that should be made as a comprehensive case to the Planning Commission and City Council at the time there is an actual development. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-177 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 97R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 350, EXHIBIT "A". Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-177 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Lopez, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel The Mayor declared Resolution No. 97R-177 duly passed and adopted. D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3954 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, Attn: Richard O'Brien, 1 Field Court, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 AGENT: JAMES CHOI, 19200 South Pioneer Boulevard, Cerritos, CA 90703 LOCATION: 1111 North Brookhurst Street (formerly Circle Seal). Property is 13.5 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 190 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To establish a church within an existing $5,500 square foot industrial building. The proposal also includes an 85-foot high spire with a cross. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3954 GRANTED (PC97-113) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken at the meeting of August 9, 1997, and Public Hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - September 4, 1997. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 5, 1997. Posting of property - September 5, 1997. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 4, 1997. Mayor Daly. Staff has provided additional background information on this item than they previously had. (See report dated September 9, 1997 to the City Manager/City Council from Joel Fick, Planning Director). It describes some of the conditions on the project imposed by the Planning Commission. It also describes some of the community input from the nearby neighborhood. Relative to the 85' spire, only the very top portion is visible to some of the neighborhood and there can be no lighting without future consent of the City. He noted some of the other issues that were covered in the report. 2O ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Answering Council Member Lopez, Joel Fick, Planning Director, noted that staff had provided a listing in the staff report of several other church towers in different parts of the City that were approved under CUP's ranging from 30' to 79' and for comparison purposes, showed that the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove was constructed at a height of approximately 120'; however, other churches with steeples were constructed prior to CUP's being required so are not listed in the report. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing. Applicant's Statement: James Choi, 19200 S. Pioneer Blvd., Cerritos, Board Member of the church and Acting Chair of the Building Committee. The church has been a good friend of the neighbors. It is sincerely hoped once they move to this location, they will have the same type of relationship with their neighbors. He understands there are concerns relative to the height and the tower. Their architect is present to answer any of those questions but if they have any church questions, he will be happy to answer those. Mayor Daly asked to hear from those who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Dale Magaro, 2250 W. Falmouth, Anaheim. He first thanked staff and those Council Members who replied to his letters. One of his questions was relative to parking which has now been settled. The church decided to make other arrangements with the trade school across the street. The next concern was sound and fence height. After looking into the matter and talking with the applicant and to see the way they are landscaping the north wall, it looks like it will do a good job of deadening sound. A third question was traffic flow into the parking area going north bound on Brookhurst. Today, he had a meeting with the Traffic Engineering Department and they are going to mark the intersection and post signage advising people to keep clear while waiting. If that works, it will take care of the traffic problem. He personally has no problem with the plan as it is. It will be a benefit to their little area because they have lived with the empty Circle Seal building and the attendant problems for too many years. Relative to the height of the steeple, he did a little calculation himself and with a 6' fence looking up at the height of the building, he will probably only see the top half or about 10'. That will be the view from the other homes in that area. He has met with some of the church administrators and they have been very cooperative. They offered just about anything within reason they can do to help the neighborhood. They are also going to help to keep the area graffiti free as well as other good-neighbor policies. He encouraged approval of the project as is. Mayor Daly. One of the questions he heard had to do with the sound wall along the I-5 freeway, hoping that the wall would be raised at the north property line. He asked if in his analysis, was he comfortable with the combination of the sound wall and landscaping along the freeway. Mr. Magaro also pointed out several aspects of the plan which will further mitigate the noise. Mayor Daly then posed questions which were answered first by Mr. Choi and then the architect for the project specifically relative to the roof line of the church. Mr. Choi explained that the roof line will remain as it is. The architect then reported that most of the enclosed area is existing. There are additions primarily on the east side to create support facilities for the sanctuary area and also the new entrance. There is also an arcaded courtyard which is a welcoming point from the parking area and a setting for the spire cross. With regard to roof elements, one of the conditions of approval is screening the mechanical equipment. Some of the roof elements are mechanical screens and clerestory lighting elements. The existing buildings are very horizontal in nature. In order to provide contrast, the curved forms (shown in the rendering posted on the Chamber wall), in addition to the spire and cross complete the composition. Answering the Mayor, Mr. Fick stated that staff is comfortable with the landscaping. The applicant has worked closely with Redevelopment staff to make sure the landscaping is consistent with their new vision. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. 21 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-178 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 97R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3954. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-178 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 97R-175 duly passed and adopted. Cl. 114: GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA 3 AND 4 - ELECTED OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES: Appointing a Council Member as representative for Growth Management Area 3 and as an alternate for Growth Management Area 4. City Clerk Sohl noted that the Council has not revisited appointments to the Growth Management Areas for some time. There is a vacancy for the representative on Growth Management Area 3 and for an alternate on Growth Management Area 4. Council Member McCracken volunteered to be the representative on Growth Management Area 3. John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager reported that the meetings take place in the City of Orange at 8:00 a.m. (GMA3) and 8:30 a.m. (GMA4). Council Member Zemel. He suggested, if Council Member McCracken would agree, it would be prudent to be representative to both (GMA3 and 4) since she would already be there and, if so, he will then agree to be the alternate for both. By general Council consent, it was determined that Council Member McCracken would be the Council representative for Growth Management Area 3 and 4 and that Council Member Zemel would be the alternate for those two areas. C2. 114: DISCUSSION - POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Discussion requested by Council member Zemel at the meeting of September 9, 1997 (Item C4) to consider the possible appointment of an independent counsel concerning the City's campaign reform laws and potential violations. City Clerk Sohl. Earlier in the meeting, there was a request by Terry Cantrell to speak to this issue. 22 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Terry Cantrell, Attorney, 15722 Starboard, Garden Grove, CA 92643 representing Candace Nunno who has submitted a letter to the City Attorney's Office regarding the City's Campaign Reform Laws and potential violations. He would like to ask the Council to consider appointing an outside counsel to review the issue. Two things concern him about the City Attorney's response. The memo is written more as a defensive legal memorandum to defend and persuade rather than to give an objective view of the different code sections so that the Council can make an objective opinion. The City Attorney has a broader duty of representation than just perhaps one or two potential people. Another point, although there are many things in the memo he agreed with, it did not go to the issue of the letter -- a statutory analysis of persons and those persons acting in concert. The City Attorney's response was based on a conversation with a staff person at FPPC who was not an attorney but a legal staff person. When he spoke to a senior attorney today at FPPC, he refused to give him a legal opinion over the phone. In the interest of total disclosure, it would benefit the Council if they would, in fact, take an objective third party and bring them into the situation. Everybody's interest would be better served. Mayor Daly. At the outset, to the extent any discussion on this item involves actions by myself or a review of actions by myself, I believe the correct thing to do is to abstain in those discussions and any subsequent actions. However, to the extent the discussion is broader than that, or that the discussion is on the constitutionality of the City's Campaign Reform Laws, then he intends to participate to the extent the City Attorney advises it is appropriate. On the matter Mr. Cantrell brought up, he will not be responding. He can choose to abstain or not as appropriate. Council Member Zemel. Since it is an item he placed on the agenda, he should explain how he would like this discussed. They find themselves in a difficult and uncomfortable position as well as the City Attorney who is appointed by the City Council. They have on several occasions asked for outside help for the City Attorney, such as the landslide, the Stadium law suit, etc. Mr. White is a very honorable man and a very valuable asset to the City but is now placed in a very uncomfortable position with regard to enforcing or making a decision about whether or not the City's Campaign Reform Ordinance is constitutional or whether he should make a recommendation to prosecute and also to look at potential violations of one or more of his bosses. The things he would like to look at: the constitutionality of the City's law, the liability the Anaheim taxpayer's may incur, were other laws broken even beyond the ordinance, whether any member of the City Council or former members violated the ordinance inadvertently or not, etc. There is at least one citizen who has made a formal complaint who sees a possible perception of a conflict (for the City Attorney) and a perception is sometimes more the issue than any actual real conflict. To him, there is only one way to eliminate that and that is to remove the conflict by appointing an independent counsel to serve the City Council. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the Council appoint an independent counsel and to look at possible attorneys who could be brought on in the next few weeks and for the independent counsel to provide advice to the Council. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Mayor Daly noted the motion as presented talks about a broader issue, hiring outside counsel to take a look at the constitutionality of the City's campaign law. The existing Campaign Reform Law was enacted after an advisory vote of the people. The Council some years ago asked the citizens in an advisory election whether to enact a campaign limitation and the answer was an overwhelming yes. Subsequently, the Council directed the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance to implement that and he (Daly) participated in all of that and voted for the current ordinance. It is now suggested to hire an outside attorney to determine if it is constitutional. He believes he should be able to participate in that subject as it pertains to an outside counsel. City Attorney White. Council cannot ignore the fact that Mr. Cantrell spoke specifically on allegations that have been presented that in part relate to a committee from the Mayor's last campaign and while he (White) has already given his legal opinion about that, it would be appropriate for the Mayor to not participate in that discussion or vote on that motion. 23 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Mayor Daly. If he has thoughts about alternate ways to proceed and expenditure of taxpayer's money, etc., he asked to what extent he is constrained. City Attorney White. If the motion relates to whether or not to hire and spend taxpayer's money on a matter that includes whether or not an attorney is going to be brought in to possibly look at violations by his committee, that is sufficiently focused to be a problem as far as possible perception of a conflict. If he understands the motion correctly, there are multiple issues -- one existing prosecution is pending and Council may want to discuss that as far as whether or not special counsel is going to be brought in to take over that case. He would like to offer advice and his own thoughts on the issue. Council Member Zemel. He was clear on four items that did not include taking over prosecution of anything. The first is the issue of whether or not additional persons violated the campaign contribution reform law as stated by Candace Nunno in her declaration to the City, but were there also other laws that were broken. If other laws were broken, a very important item is the constitutionality of the law itself which presents a potentially dangerous situation for the taxpayer's since it is being prosecuted and is later determined to be unconstitutional. He would like to have information from independent counsel as to what the taxpayer liability is. He does not think it is that broad. Those are the four items. City Attorney White. The Charter authorizes the City Council to hire special counsel including special prosecution counsel to handle matters for the City. He has no objection to the Council hiring special counsel or a special prosecutor to handle any or all of the campaign financing issues that come up. Under Proposition 205, assuming it is not thrown out as being unconstitutional itself, this problem is in the future probably going to be self-correcting. Under State Law and Proposition 208 specifically, an appointed City Attorney does not have the authority to bring these actions but it lies in the hands of the District Attorney, FPPC or private persons have a right to bring an action. This may be a limited window of time. He does not object but what he would ask is for the Council to define the role that person would play. Council Member Zemel stated the motion is to advise on those four items; City Attorney White stated then he does not think that is appropriate. The problem right now, he is the designated Prosecutor of the City and until that is changed, what he is suggesting is that he thinks if the Council wants to do something in this area, they should appoint a special prosecutor, someone who can take over and handle these matters independent of him. If they want to talk about putting him in a position that is totally untenable, it is if they hire an attorney who comes in and gives them an opinion relating to the four items while he is still in a position where he is expected to be the one who either prosecutes or does not prosecute based upon someone else's advice. Council Member Zemel. He is not so sure they want to take such a drastic step. It would be more information finding to see how they feel. City Attorney White. If it gets to the place where the Council has hired someone and they have a different opinion than his, it is not appropriate for him to proceed; Co. Zemel. If the opinion is different, he would agree. His motion stands the way it is for the time being until they get that information. Mayor Daly. If the City Attorney believed he should simply refrain entirely, he will do so but has a procedural question. He is concerned about precedent and the City Charter. The City Attorney has customarily been the prosecutor for City government. If the Council wants to hire an outside attorney to get an opinion and that outside attorney's opinion is different than the City Attorney's, to what extent may the Council direct that outside Council to take action. Council Member Zemel was concerned that the Mayor was discussing the issue because he felt through that discussion, he was sending messages to other Council Members. City Attorney White. It is important to understand the duties of a prosecutor vs. the duty of a civil attorney because they differ. He then explained for the Mayor that a prosecutor prosecutes cases not for the City Council, nor for the City, but for the State of California. It is imperative to avoid even an 24 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 appearance of interference with the criminal justice system. At some point in time if the Council would get an opinion that differs from his on any matters relating to campaign finance, to not place him in a position to prosecute or refrain from prosecuting a case based on someone else's opinion. After additional questioning, Council Member Zemel reiterated his motion to appoint an independent counsel to advise the City Council in four areas (1) the constitutionality of the campaign reform law itself, (2) potential liability to the taxpayers if the City is prosecuting a defendant for violation of a law later determined to be unconstitutional, (3) the issue of whether or not additional persons beside the ones being prosecuted have committed the same or similar crime -- the Mayor and former Council Member(s) or current members, and (4) to see if other laws were broken and to look at some other issues with regard to campaign laws in the last election. He is asking that independent counsel be appointed to clear up any possible perception of impropriety. Council Member Tait. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Regarding independent expenditures by individuals or committees, the City's ordinance limits those. He has read the City Attorney's memo on the subject and disagrees on the constitutional part. He believes limitation of independent expenditures is unconstitutional. He feels it is the most fundamental of rights and one that the City should not limit. He has problems prosecuting criminally where people are simply expressing their freedom of expression. Criminals generally do not report things. It is not an issue of not reporting but an issue of being unconstitutional. He would like to get a second opinion on the constitutional aspect and if a constitutional expert believes it is unconstitutional, they would not have to go further. City Attorney White. There are two different sections under discussion -- one based on the existing case, and the other section based on the allegations that Ms. Nunno has brought forward. One could be unconstitutional without the other. Council Member McCracken. She has a concern about identifying or hiring an attorney when there are dozens of attorneys who have argued this issue in front of the State Supreme Court and are awaiting an opinion on Proposition 208. If parts are declared unconstitutional, it may answer the issues being discussed. Are they going to find one attorney who argues one way and one who argues the other side. She believes it will be a Supreme Court issue and perhaps go all the way to the Federal Supreme Court. Council Member Zemel. He suggested that Council Member McCracken may want to rethink the matter. The complaint received referred to Mr. Pickler's and Daly's independent expenditures that benefitted her campaign. If so, she may want to ask the advice of the City Attorney to see if it is appropriate that she continue. Council Member McCracken. She asked if he was saying that independent expenditures a candidate does not know about is a conflict of interest and if she is the other person he is trying to include in perceptions/appearances of other laws that may have been violated; Council Member Zemel answered, no. Council Member McCracken continued since he (Zemel) indicated other Council Members might be involved, she asked the City Attorney if there was a conflict for her to discuss the issue about hiring someone to determine the constitutionality issue. City Attorney White. He does not believe so. The fact that an independent expenditure in the past benefitted her past campaign is different from whether or not she may have some culpability with regard to a violation. He cannot conceive how that would put her in a position of violation. Council Member McCracken. Mr. Tait benefitted as well. If that is the conclusion, she will abstain but she believes Council Member Tait might have to abstain as well. She does not want the appearance of a conflict and if that's what is being led to, independent expenditures were also made in favor of Council Member Tait. If that means they can't talk about hiring an independent council, she will abstain. Council Member McCracken left the Council Chamber (8:40). 25 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Council Member Lopez. They are elected officials and work in the public eye and are responsible to the voters. They have to keep politics out of it. He hopes they can move as quickly as possible to get "law and order" back to the Council. He will support the motion. Council Member Tait. Before voting, he would like to limit this to the constitutionality aspect as a threshold issue. MOTION. After a brief discussion with Council Member Tait, Council Member Zemel amended his motion as follows: To hire a special independent counsel to advise the Council on the constitutionality of the City's Campaign Reform Law and the potential liability of the taxpayers if a law is prosecuted that is later determined to be unconstitutional. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Council Member McCracken entered the Council Chamber (8:44 P.M.). Council Member McCracken. This is now a totally different issue. City Attorney White. His opinion is that she does not have a conflict and could have voted even on the last issue; Council Member McCracken. She asked if that was on all of the issues including whether other laws were broken. City Attorney White answered, yes. Council Member Tait. There might be a perceived conflict simply because both he and Council Member McCracken ran in that election. He will vote on the constitutionality issue. Council Member Zemel called for a vote on the motion on the floor with regard to constitutionality and liability. Ayes: Tait, Zemel, Lopez. No: McCracken. Temporarily Absent: Daly. Council Member Tait left the Council Chamber (8:45 P.M.). Council Member Zemel then moved that the independent counsel that has just been appointed to look at the constitutionality and liability issues also look at whether or not additional persons, not only the Mayor and Mr. Pickler, but any other potential violators, violated the City's campaign laws in addition to the people being prosecuted right now and also any other laws regarding any campaign contribution ordinances were broken. Council Member Lopez. He asked for clarification since the issue with Council Member Zemel's last offering is becoming confusing. City Attorney White interjected noting that a Council quorum was not present since Mayor Daly and Council Members Tait and McCracken had left the Council Chamber. At least a third member must be present to conduct any further business. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez. The proposed motion dies for lack of a quorum. Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken and Tait entered the Council Chamber (8:46 P.M.). Council Member Zemel. There is a second part of C2. they can all discuss. He would like the Council to seek out and consider appointing to that position (of independent counsel) Ravi Mehta, current Chairman of FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission). He feels that no one knows the law better. Mr. Mehta will be stepping down as Chairman in a few weeks and so would then be available. Mayor Daly expressed concern that Council Member Zemel was suggesting which attorney the Council should hire. He asked if he (Zemel) was suggesting that Council Members can suggest attorneys and law firms and ultimately the Council will select one of those attorneys. 26 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Council Member Tait stated he does not know if that is such a good idea. Mayor Daly asked if Council Member Zemel had spoken to Mr. Mehta on this subject; Council Member Zemel answered, no. They have to pick an attorney without involving the City Attorney. Mayor Daly. He disagrees strenuously on the appropriateness and ethics of what has been suggested. It is a horrible precedent for the City and he feels at least one member of the Council is confusing his role as a Council Member with his desire to be a prosecutor or to hand select people to prosecute the law for him. After additional voicing of their divergent opinions on the subject, Council Member Zemel stated he just made a motion passed by three members approving the appointment of an independent council. He is now suggesting a way to go forward. There is no prosecution in the motion that has been approved. Whatever ideas he had in the past did not get approved. They are moot and the only issue is who is going to look at the constitutionality. Mayor Daly. He believes his (Zemel's) suggestion of Mr. Mehta exposes all of his motivations. He disagrees that Mr. Mehta is the best person for the job. Council Member Zemel asked that they agendize for next week appointment of the independent counsel which will incorporate City Council ideas on how they should do so. Mayor Daly asked if he wanted ideas and suggestions or legal assistance from the City Attorney; Council Member Zemel. He reiterated his request that there be discussion next week by the Council on their ideas on how they can go about appointing an independent counsel. C3. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report. C4. 114. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Zemel. He would like to have a written report from the City Attorney advising if there is a Charter provision that says a City Council Member is not allowed to meet and discuss any issues with City personnel -- department heads or otherwise. At times during his three-year tenure, it has been permissible for him to speak with different department heads about various subjects. However at certain times, as an example on the Stadium issue, he would make an appointment and there would be a member of the City Manager's Office present to either coordinate or edit the discussion. Again this week, he was told when he made an appointment with a department head that a member of the City Manager's staff would be present. When he questioned that to his Secretary (the City's Secretary), she said it was policy. He believes there was some miscommunication about the meeting and the City Manager's Office presence was most likely a miscommunication and innocent in nature but it was the City's Secretary's comments about policy that really disturbed him, that he would not be allowed access without a member of the Manager's Office. He does not know if it is in the City Charter, a Council Policy or City Manager policy. He would like to have it researched in a written report as to what Council Members can do and by what authority. If it is a Council policy, he would like to revisit that. He feels a City Council Member should have access to anyone he wants. 27 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Council Member Lopez. Relative to the issue of electric vehicles discussed earlier today, he would like to receive information on other alternatives -- what is available and a status update. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of September 16, 1997 was adjourned (8:55 P.M.). LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 28