Loading...
1997/03/18CITY OF ANAHEIM - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT:MAYOR: Tom Daly PRESENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez, ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT:CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Aghjayan CIVIL ENGINEER - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Meeks ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 9:35 a.m. on March 14, 1997 at the Civic Center Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of March 18, 1997 to order at 3:11 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. City Manager, James Ruth. Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager will to give the presentation on the Underground Conversion Program -- Five-Year Plan update. FIVE-YEAR UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROGRAM UPDATE: 175: Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager gave a presentation (supplemented by slides) on the continuing Underground Conversion Program for the Fiscal Years 1997/98 through 2001/02. (Hard copies of the slides were also submitted in a 46-page document entitled - “City of Anaheim - Underground Conversion Program - Five- Year Plan Presentation - Fiscal Years 1997/98 through 2001/02” - made a part of the record). He briefed and elaborated upon the material contained in each of the slides starting with the objectives of the program, the history of the program which was established by the Council in June, 1990, the approval process, and subsequently the status of the Underground Conversion Program (Five-Year Plan update) giving details on the completed projects, a progress report on those under way (under construction, under design, etc.), and a progress summary. He also showed slides of completed projects (before and after), as well as proposed projects. Computer-generated slides were used to show what the project(s) will look like when completed resulting in a dramatic positive change in the appearance of the area. There have been 11 projects completed up to FY 1995/96 (Olive St., Anaheim Arena, Tustin Ave./La Palma Ave., Lakeview Ave./La Palma Ave., ARA Phase I, Orangewood Ave./State College Blvd., Harbor Blvd./91 Fwy., ARA Phase II, Anaheim Plaza, Santa Ana St./East St. and Nohl Ranch Rd.). A detailed summary of the current Five-Year Plan (96/97 through 00/01) is $45.2 million and the proposed Five-Year Plan (97/98 through 01/02) is $46.8 million. Later in his presentation, he also briefed the Local Improvement Projects (see pg. 37) and the costs. Those projects are done when shared funding is not utilized and they are, in essence, a partnership with themselves. Council Members posed questions during the presentation which were answered by both Mr. Aghjayan and Jafar Taghavi, Electrical Engineering Manager during which it was emphasized that the proposed projects for undergrounding in all cases are being coordinated with the Public Works Department to assure that City streets do not have to be dug up twice. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 Council Member Lopez. He noted on the summary of the current Five-Year Plan that State College Boulevard undergrounding projects are not scheduled until the 2001-2004 time frame. He noted that State College is heavily travelled to and from the Stadium area and it seems to him it would be a priority. He asked why State College is not scheduled sooner. Mr. Aghjayan and Taghavi then gave input relative to the prioritization of projects and discussion followed on the subject between staff and the Council. Council Member Tait expressed his concern about switching priorities at this time. Mr. Aghjayan explained that moving one project forward a couple of years pushes everything around which they try to avoid especially with projects that are set with the Public Works schedule. However, he would be willing to look at reprioritizing the State College project if there is a consensus that State College has a higher priority. He would first want to analyze the situation with staff. If the direction of the Council is to accelerate State College, he would then come back and let the Council know how that could be done. One of the other concerns he has is relative to the workload where they have been trying to avoid a heavy workload one year and nothing in the next. All of the projects thus far have been on or ahead of schedule. He knows of no other utility or City doing something of this scale. It is a very ambitious program and the team in place is the best in the business. He would like to consult with staff so as not to jeopardize something that has thus far worked so well. Mayor Daly. He agreed that was fair and they also need to know if there are implications to moving the projects around. He would like to see expedited the projects that affect residential neighborhoods. The value to expediting State College is the fact that it is a gateway for visitors as well as being a major corridor for the residents of Anaheim. All the projects are important and beneficial but getting more “bang for the buck” is worth it, i.e., projects such as Lincoln Avenue in the heart of the City. It is a commercial and residential corridor which touches the lives of more Anaheim residents than some of the other projects. In terms of what has already been accomplished, it is tremendous and the process set up has worked well. The before and after slides tell the whole story in terms of improvement, beautification, and the effect potentially on property values. He saluted staff on the very competent manner in which the program has been handled since 1990. Council Member McCracken. She feels that the community does not realize how much has been accomplished and what is planned as far as undergrounding. She suggested perhaps there needs to be some communication by cable TV or whatever is appropriate to communicate this excellent program. After additional discussion relative to specifics of some of the undergrounding projects and the extent of the improvements (Broadway/Gilbert - Imperial/Santa Ana Canyon Road), Mr. Aghjayan asked for specific guidance. The plan is on the Council agenda this evening (Item A14). Hopefully the Council will approve the plan but he is hearing that they might want to accelerate the State College project and move others around. There are a number of options and staff can present alternatives within the Five-Year Plan. He does not think there is an urgent rush. Mayor Daly. He would like more data on accelerating one or two projects, slowing others down, and the effect on cash flow. The Council can then decide. The Council will expect a report back from staff in a week or two or whenever Mr. Aghjayan is able to provide it. Mayor Daly thanked Mr. Aghjayan and staff for the detailed and informative presentation/update on what is a very positive program for the City. He also agrees with what Mr. Aghjayan said about the outstanding work of his staff especially in keeping the projects ahead of or on schedule. 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 Close Session items. 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 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: Amber Investment Company vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 75-65-69. 2.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (a) - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Richter Farms and Richter Farms Trust dba Rancho La Paz vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-63-35. 3.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR RELATIONS: Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: AFA and AMEA. RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ( 4:05 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. (5:40 p.m.) INVOCATION: Pastor Glen Merriman, Solid Rock Foursquare Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Lou Lopez led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENTATION: 119: Recognizing Anthony Lozano and Juan Botello for their participation in the Willie O’Ree All-Star Weekend. Mr. Dave Wilks, Executive Director, Disney GOALS introduced the two youngsters -- Anthony and Juan. There are now about 300 kids in the GOALS program. The two boys he just introduced skated in a hockey tournament in Chicago, the Willie O’Ree tournament. Willie O’Ree was the first black player to play in the National Hockey League. He then explained the specifics of the tournament. The two youngsters are dynamic leaders on the ice and in the community and it was easy to select them to go to Chicago. He also explained their accomplishments in the tournament. Most importantly, in the GOALS program, youngsters like Anthony and Juan are viewed as future leaders in the community. Mayor Daly thanked Mr. Wilks and the Disney organization for the GOALS program. He then presented the youngsters with Flying “A” Certificates congratulating them on being chosen to represent the Disney GOALS program at the Willie O’Ree tournament in Chicago. He and the Council Members personally congratulated the youngsters. 3 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 PROCLAMATION: 119: The following Proclamation was issued by Mayor Daly and authorized by the City Council: National Community Development Week in Anaheim - March 24-30, 1997 June Lowry, Chairperson, Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) was present to accept the Proclamation. She first presented a post-card replica of the national poster proclaiming Community Development Week throughout the country. The CDAB is an unusual board in Anaheim made up of different participants from different boards and commissions in Anaheim as well as from the four target neighborhoods whose major job is to listen to citizens at Public Hearings and then make recommendations to the Council for HUD funding which is $6.5 million this year. She then recognized/introduced some of the members of the board who were present tonight: Christopher Whorton, Vice-Chairperson-CDAB, Delia Varela, Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council, Phyllis Boydstun, Planning Commission, Rick Rubio, Citron Neighborhood Council, Larry Cooper, Anaheim Colony Neighborhood Council, Patsy Tafolla, Library Board. (Members unable to be present: Jesus Chavarria, Mitchell Caldwell, Ray Torres, Denise Do, Thomas Holguin, Irma Castellano, Laura Romero). Mayor Daly and Council Members greeted and congratulated the members. The Mayor noted that the program exists with the assistance of the CDAB. The rules and regulations are complicated whenever Federal monies are involved. They appreciate all the hard work of the citizen advisors as well as City professional staff who help in facilitating/operating the CDBG program. RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: PROCLAMATION recognizing March 20, 1997, as Absolutely Incredible Kid Day in Anaheim. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,974,403.65 for the period ending March 14, 1997, in accordance with the 1996-97 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (6:05 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 6:13 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Seferino Garcia, 121 S. Walnut, Anaheim, Director of Solevar Community Development Corporation, P. O. Box 10003, Anaheim 92812. He first thanked the Council for the Proclamation on National Community Development Week. He submitted his letter dated March 18, 1997 and memorandum dated March 19, 1997 both addressing HUD National Community Development Week, March 24-30, 1997. Last year, he came before the Council asking them to set up the celebration of Community Development Week on a more formal basis inviting the community to come so that they can understand and be aware of what the CDBG program is all about. He then read and/or briefed the information submitted which in essence was asking that the Council next year not only issue a Proclamation but that 4 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 there also be a special recognition day for the participants in the program and recipients of CDBG funds. The suggestion is that recognition ceremonies “be held on the steps of City Hall with tables for non- profits with free information given away and refreshments provided.” Mayor Daly. He will ask staff to evaluate the suggestions and give the Council feedback in the future. Judith Serafini, Executive Secretary, Solevar Community Development, 278 N. Wilshire, E6, Anaheim 92801. She also spoke to the importance of the need for the community and public to be made aware of the CDBG program and its ahcievements. In material that she submitted from the National Community Development Association in Washington, D.C., it showed that 260 cities in the country participated in the 1997 National Community Development Week campaign including 31 cities in California. Anaheim is responsible for the third largest CDBG and HOME budgets in the County of Orange. She then commented on why the citizens need to be made aware of this vital program especially in light of the fact that a bill is being proposed (AB923) to dissolve Redevelopment Agencies as of January 1, 1998. It advocates putting every budget item that incurs debt for one year or longer before individual voters. There will be a Public Hearing on March 19, 1997 (SB147-Ayala). That is why they believe that active participation in National Community Development Week with an open day for information and learning about services available to low and moderate income neighbors will help all to realize how important CDBG monies are to Anaheim and the reassurance they are used appropriately to deliver those services as outlined in HUD’s objectives. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ken Fisher, 1415 W. Cerritos, #51, Pepperwood Village, Anaheim. He has been before the Council several times regarding abandoned shopping carts especially those crossing the channel between Walnut and Euclid on Cerritos. There are now nine presently in the channel. The main reason he is present is relative to the Disneyland expansion which the Council has approved. He wants to know what steps the City has taken to insure that the residents will not be confronted with an ever worsening noise problem. He has called the City on many occasions complaining about the noise. His unit in the Pepperwood Village is right near the railroad tracks. The boundaries of the park activities are now going to be extended to Walnut. He asked that he and the citizens of the community be advised as to what if any noise abatement steps are going to be taken in regard to the expansion of the Disney project. Mayor Daly. He will ask the City Manager to respond; City Manager, James Ruth. Those issues have been addressed in the extensive EIR that was prepared and proven to be acceptable by the Council in their certification of the EIR. Staff will be glad to discuss with Mr. Fisher what measures have been or may be taken. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items. MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of March 18, 1997. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 5 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded byCouncil Member Zemel, 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-31 through 97R-33, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A1.118: 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: 1. Claim submitted by Anna M. Lanier for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 2. Claim submitted by Elizabeth E. Rector for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 3. Claim submitted by Stella W. Sanchez for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 4. Claim submitted by Mildred M. Halasy for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 5. Claim submitted by Trung Van Vu for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 6. Claim submitted by Nancy Christiaens for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 7. Claims submitted by Lon O. James for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 8. Claim submitted by William A. Webstervelt for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 9. Claims submitted by Yvonne Webstervelt for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 10. Claim submitted by Marie A. Kounkel for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 11. Claims submitted by Ena Christina Engel for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 12. Claim submitted by Dorothy F. Broden for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 13. Claims submitted by Annetta J. Johnston for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 14. Claim submitted by Ray Johnston Jr. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 15. Claims submitted by Marie C. Darby for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 16. Claim submitted by Lee Feldman for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 6 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 17. Claims submitted by Edward H. Price for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 18. Claim submitted by William A. McConnaughay for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 19. Claims submitted by Mary Evelyn Scott for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 20. Claim submitted by Mae L. Johnson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 21. Claims submitted by Christine Alexander for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 22. Claim submitted by Gordon V. Austin for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 23. Claims submitted by Frances Berry for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 24. Claim submitted by Helen F. Berry for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 25. Claims submitted by Jack Berry for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 26. Claim submitted by Alvey & Leila Boggs for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 27. Claims submitted by Carl W. Bootman for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 28. Claim submitted by Corrine A. Brawley for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 29. Claims submitted by Daisy M. Cannon for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 30. Claim submitted by Laura Carrubba for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 31. Claims submitted by Porphee Castillo for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 32. Claim submitted by Florence E. Cheney for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 33. Claims submitted by Helen M. Cox for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 34. Claim submitted by Willar H. Cox for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 35. Claims submitted by Donovan Crawford for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 7 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 36. Claim submitted by C. William Crumm for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 37. Claims submitted by Linda J. D’Auria for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 38. Claim submitted by Dorothy M. Doyle for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 39. Claims submitted by Rocco A. Esposito for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 40. Claim submitted by Virginia B. Fico for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 41. Claims submitted by Cyril S. Fitchett for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 42. Claim submitted by Mary Jane Frank for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 43. Claims submitted by James L. Fullerton for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 44. Claims submitted by John P. Galligan for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 45. Claim submitted by Merle L. Gell for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 46. Claims submitted by Harry R. Goodell for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 47. Claim submitted by Lorraine Goodridge for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 48. Claims submitted by Terry M. Goodridge for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 49. Claim submitted by Grace A. Gravo for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 50. Claims submitted by Ray H. Halverson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 51. Claim submitted by Paul Hanh Do for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 52. Claims submitted by Wilma E. Hardin for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 53. Claim submitted by Iris B. Hewitt for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 54. Claims submitted by Melvin F. Huber for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 8 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 55. Claim submitted by Wanda J. Huber for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 56. Claims submitted by Jack W. Iseman for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 57. Claim submitted by Leon R. Johnson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 58. Claims submitted by Benjamin F. Kimball for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 59. Claim submitted by Raymond W. King for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 60. Claims submitted by Albert & Leora Lefebare for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 61. Claim submitted by Charles M. Leigh for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 62. Claims submitted by Donna M. Leonard for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 63. Claim submitted by Sharon L. Lowery for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 64. Claims submitted by Helen I. Lynch for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 65. Claim submitted by Louis Martinez for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 66. Claims submitted by Vella McCandless for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 67. Claim submitted by Jean A. Mishler for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 68. Claims submitted by Virginia E. Mizak for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 69. Claim submitted by Geraldine Murphy for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 70. Claims submitted by Dora O. Naranjo for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 71. Claim submitted by John D. Noskey for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 72. Claims submitted by Zena J. Patterson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 73. Claim submitted by Lorraine J. Peters for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 9 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 74. Claims submitted by Ray O.and Irene Pollard for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 75. Claim submitted by Jerome A. Reinders for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 76. Claims submitted by Bruce and Marjorie Reynolds for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 77. Claim submitted by Bernice Robair for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 78. Claims submitted by Richard C. and Norma N. Ross for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 79. Claim submitted by Floyd L. Sanders for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 80. Claim submitted by Nancy Seilhamer for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 81. Claims submitted by Raymond Shedlowski for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 82. Claims submitted by Richard and Christyn Shedlowski for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 83. Claim submitted by Demetra O. Smith for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 84. Claim submitted by Elizabeth L. Stevens for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 85. Claim submitted by Thelma L. Tkach for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 86. Claim submitted by Charles R. Trorter Stevens for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 87. Claim submitted by Anne West for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 88. Claims submitted by Virginia M. Williams for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 89. Claims submitted by Robert D. Williams for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 90. Claim submitted by Robert Witt for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 91. Claim submitted by Susan Witt for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 92. Claim submitted by Robert L. Woodbury for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 93. Claim submitted by Laura A. Maucieri for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 94. Claim submitted by Josephine B. Cooper for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 95. Claim submitted by Mary Jane Harrington for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 96. Claims submitted by Daniel L. McCracken for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 97. Claim submitted by Carol F. McCracken for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 98. Claims submitted by Karen Cory for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 99. Claim submitted by M. Regina Clifford for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 100. Claim submitted by William A. Kelley for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 101. Claim submitted by Beverly J. Beller for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 102. Claims submitted by for Robert R. Neiberger property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 103. Claims submitted by Irene Brookfield for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 104. Claims submitted by Marjorie S. Nicklus for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 105. Claims submitted by Ruth I. Paulsrud for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 106. Claims submitted by Rosaleen Scofill for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 107. Claims submitted by Sharon A. Kelley for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 108. Claim submitted by Maureen M. Aquino for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 109. Claim submitted by Jose F. Serrano for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 110. Claim submitted by Ronald Charles Troster for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 111. Claim submitted by Clark L. Wilmoth for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 112. Claim submitted by Mr. & Mrs. John D. Staples for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 113. Claim submitted by Rita Braun for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 114. Claim submitted by Patricia L. Wilmoth for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 115. Claim submitted by Bertha Leinbloth for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 116. Claim submitted by Helen O. Thouson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 117. Claim submitted by Mary S. Santillan for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 118. Claim submitted by Lorraine D. Long for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 119. Claim submitted by Edward J. Hamilton for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 120. Claim submitted by Francisca Marredo for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 121. Claim submitted by Antonio Marredo for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 122. Claim submitted by Elsie D. Schlueter for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 123. Claim submitted by Eloisa B. Guevara-Serrano for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 124. Claim submitted by Delfino Chanocua Mercado for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 125. Claim submitted by Jose Serrano Beltran for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 126. Claim submitted by Elena Ramirez for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 127. Claim submitted by Jeanette Hollywood for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 128. Claim submitted by Arthur E. Barron for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 129. Claim submitted by John & Olga Helessko for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 130. Claim submitted by Joe Cisneros for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 131. Claim submitted by Monique Colyar for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 132. Claim submitted by Margie R. Roden for Property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 133. Claim submitted by Fred & Shirley Esseling for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 134. Claim submitted by Mary Carey for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 135. Claim submitted by Dellena Sciascia for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 136. Claim submitted by Margaret M. Moore for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 137. Claim submitted by Gerda M. Meyers for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 138. Claim submitted by George F. Lyon for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 139. Claim submitted by Amy J. White for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 140. Claim submitted by Rebecca Cunningham for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 141. Claim submitted by Ann Gohr & John Chow for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 142. Claim submitted by Wallace H. Stiles for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 143. Claim submitted by Carmen Gamboa for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 144. Claim submitted by Belen Vargas Chanocua for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 145. Claims submitted by Marjorie A. Hill for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 146. Claim submitted by Albert & Viola Kukla for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 147. Claim submitted by Jack D. Streitenberger for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 148. Claim submitted by Dolores Bice for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 149. Claim submitted by Jenry J. Glovak & Lawrence Schinhofen for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 150. Claim submitted by Theresa B. Giardino for propert damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 151. Claims submitted by D. Jean Swadner for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 152. Claims submitted by Natalie Sue Calabrese for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 153. Claims submitted by Anthony F. Calabrese for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 154. Claims submitted by Marjorie Criss Harker for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 155. Claims submitted by Elma P. Lyon for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 156. Claims submitted by Guy W. Robinson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 157. Claims submitted by Dean Roberts for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 158. Claims submitted by Walter C. Pack for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 159. Claims submitted by Samuel H. Stephens for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 160. Claims submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Lucero for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 161. Claims submitted by Patricia Lamberth for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 162. Claims submitted by Alice R. Braicou & Ray Lunn for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 163. Claims submitted by Leora A. Halverson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 164. Claims submitted by Madeleine B. Shibe for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 165. Claims submitted by Blas Serrano Segura for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 166. Claims submitted by Carlos Gamboa for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 167. Claims submitted by Steve Seilhamer for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 168. Claims submitted by Geneveve Gomez for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 169. Claims submitted by Millard S. Lieberg for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 170. Claims submitted by Raola M. Robertson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 171. Claims submitted by Thelma Biel for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 172. Claims submitted by Kenneth Braun for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 173. Claims submitted by Ruth C. Griffin for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 174. Claims submitted by Dianne Wilson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 175. Claims submitted by Winifred Best or property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 176. Claims submitted by Deanna Tolbert for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 177. Claims submitted by Delores Sherman property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 178. Claim submitted by Bonnie S. Mulion for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 179. Claim submitted by Girdhard l. Gandotra for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 180. Claim submitted by Karen Hammond for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 181. Claim submitted by Elsie Jones for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 182. Claim submitted by Wanda Burkhardt for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 183. Claim submitted by Michael Biel for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 184. Claim submitted by Stanley R. Marshall for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. 185. Claim submitted by Betty E. Beck for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 20, 1996. A2.105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held February 5, 1997. 140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical Report for the month of January, 1997. 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meetings held September 6, 1996, and January 3, 1997. 105: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by the Finance Director for seven months ended January 31, 1997. 112: Receiving and filing a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF) Report for the month of February, 1997, as submitted by the City Treasurer. 117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report Executive Summary for the month of February, 1997, as submitted by the City Treasurer. A3.107: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Three D Service Company, in the amount of $48,235 for demolition and removal of improvements at various locations; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders. A4.164: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R & L Sewers, Inc., in the amount of $190,771 for West Street Sewer and Storm Drain Improvement 625’ south of Katella Avenue to 500’ south of Eleanor Drive; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders. A5.160: Accepting the bid, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Graphic Systems, in the amount of $28,719 for a Toko 4750 Offset Printing Press for the Reprographics Division. A6.113: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.) A7.175: Approving a grant application for funding to the Department of Commerce (Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program) for up to $750,000 to provide electronic infrastructure and information technology to the South of Romneya Neighborhood Revitalization Project. A8.123: Approving the First Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, the City of Anaheim and Disc Manufacturing, Inc., for the assignment of agreement to Cinram, Ltd., and for an early termination fee. A9.137: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, APPROVING THE BORROWING OF BOND PROCEEDS BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN PRIOR OBLIGATIONS OF THE AGENCY. A10.123: Authorizing the Community Services Department to accept a grant for Public Library Fund monies, in the amount of $171,455 from the State Library. A11.163: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH THE HEALTHY START SERVICE CENTER AT JEFFERSON II, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND BETSY ROSS SCHOOLS. 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 A12.135: Approving new programs at the two City Golf courses for residents of Anaheim, including a new policy for tournaments hosted by Anaheim-based non-profit groups; an advanced tee time reservation privilege for residents; and a special discount for residents to purchase driving range balls. City Manager Ruth. Staff respectfully requests this item be removed for further review. It will be brought back in two weeks. A13.178: RESOLUTION NO. ----- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSING CONSOLIDATION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WITH OTHER WATER DISTRICTS. (Continued from the meeting of March 11, 1997, Item A29.) City Manager Ruth. Unfortunately, Council Member Zemel and members of staff were unable to get together to discuss the possible modification of the wording on the water issue. It is requested, therefore, that this item be continued for an additional two weeks. A14.175: Approving the proposed Five-Year Electric Underground Conversion Plan for Fiscal Years 1997/98 through 2001/02. Mayor Daly. As a result of the discussion at the workshop this afternoon, he thought it was decided that this item be continued for two weeks. He asked if staff was comfortable with that. City Manager Ruth. It should not be a problem and could be done. Staff will be coming back with a possible reprioritization of the State College project and also Lincoln Avenue as requested by the Council. A15.123: Approving the License Agreement with ICG Telecom Group, Inc., and the City of Anaheim for the lease of pole space on solely owned (“D-All”) poles and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said Agreement and related documents on behalf of the City. A16.123: Approving Agreements to provide professional civil engineering services and/or easement/land acquisition services with: UMA Engineering, Inc., Van Del & Associates, Inc., ASL Consulting Engineering, DMC Engineering Willdan Associates, The Keith Company, Aguilar Engineering, Inc., Merit Civil Engineering, Inc.; and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute said Agreements and related documents necessary to implement the Agreements. A17.123: Approving an Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney World Co. to provide long-term electric service to the Disneyland Resort Project; and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute said Agreement and any related documents necessary to implement the Agreement. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 97R-31 through 97R-33, both inclusive, 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 Nos. 97R-31 through 96R-33, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. Items A12, 13 and 14 were continued two weeks as either requested by staff or the Council. ITEMS B1 - B3 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OFMARCH 3, 1997: INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 25, 1997: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3908 AND B1179: NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: W.C.B. 99 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 450 Newport Center Drive, #304, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: MICHAEL GALLEN (E.S.A.), 2525 Cherry Avenue, Signal Hill, CA 90806 LOCATION: 120-130 North Riverview Drive. Property is approximately 2.45 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive. To permit a three story, 42-foot high, 122-unit hotel with waivers of (a) permitted freestanding sign - APPROVED, (b) permitted wall signs - APPROVED, (c) minimum number of parking spaces DENIED, and (d) minimum structural setback adjacent to freeways and scenic highways - APPROVED. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3908 DENIED on the basis that the proposed development is excessively dense for the size of the property and that it would cause visual intrusion (PC97-20) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 absent). Waiver of code requirements APPROVED, IN PART, waivers (a), (b) and (d) and DENIED waiver (c) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces. Approved Negative Declaration. Mayor Daly asked why the waiver of code requirements was approved. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. There was one waiver that would be applicable to whatever is developed on the property having to do with the setback. Because of the size and shape of the property, it is nearly impossible to develop with a 100’ setback from the freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. The Commission approved that on the basis that it was a hardship but the CUP was denied. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3876 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: B2.179: OWNER: GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK, FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, 401 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 534, P.O. Box 1709, Glendale, CA 91209 AGENT: UNITARIAN SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY, Attn: Jim Gibson, 918 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite I, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 511 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.54 acre located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Harbor Boulevard. Petitioner requests waiver of required site screening and review and approval of revised exhibits pertaining to a previously-approved church. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: APPROVED revised plans and waiver of required site screening for CUP NO. 3876 (PC97-21) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Negative Declaration previously approved. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3909 AND B3.179: NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, dba UNOCAL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Attn: Mark Smith, 555 Anton Boulevard, 6th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: UNITED OIL, Attn: Jeff Appel, 18525 South Main Street, Gardena, CA 90248 PHILIP SNIDERMAN & ASSOCIATES, 10806 Cactus Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345 LOCATION: 1201 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.52 acre located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard. To permit an automobile service station and accessory convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of (a) minimum structural setback adjacent to Ball Road - DENIED (b) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to interior property lines - APPROVED, (c) permitted location of freestanding signs - APPROVED and (d) minimum retail sales area - DENIED. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3909 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC97-22) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Waiver of code requirements APPROVED, IN PART, DENIED waivers (a) and (d) on the basis that they were deleted following public notification; APPROVED waiver (b) for the spacing of the trees only, not for the number of trees; and APPROVED waiver (c). Approved Negative Declaration. Mayor Daly asked for clarification of the action of the Planning Commission and if the beer and wine request was approved. He also asked if the free standing signs were monument signs. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The freestanding sign is a monument sign which will exceed a height of 8’. In addition, there is one wall sign. The signs were approved in conjunction with the CUP, limited to those signs. If there is any additional signage, the request would come back as a report and recommendation item. The placement of the sign is on the eventual private property and in the future, the sign will need to be moved back in order to have a clear line of sight for the corner traffic. The condition is that the applicant will be required to pay for the movement of the sign at the time the critical intersection is improved. He also confirmed for the Mayor that staff is comfortable with the landscaping proposed. (The beer and wine request was also approved. See Cond. #9 of Resolution PC97-22.) END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. B4.179: ORDINANCE NO. 5593: (ADOPTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 95-96-04 located on the north west corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude Lane from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) zone to the CO(SC) zone. (Introduced at the meeting of March 11, 1997, Item B5.) Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5593 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. RDINANCE NO. 5593: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 95-96-04 LOCATED ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD AND MAUDE LANE FROM THE RS-A-43,000 (SC) ZONE TO THE CO(SC) ZONE. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5593 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. 5593 duly passed and adopted. 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO.97-1A : D1.176: In accordance with application filed by Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, a public Hearing was held on the proposed abandonment of a certain Easement for Electrical purposes located on the West side of Clementine Street North of Broadway at the new Post Office site pursuant to Resolution No. 96R-12 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated January 29, 1996 was submitted recommending approval osf said abandonment. Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer stated that the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency has requested abandonment of the electrical easements. They are no longer utilized. Staff is recommending approval of the abandonment. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council finds that the proposed activity fall within the definition of sections 3.01 Class 5 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 96R-34 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 96R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL PURPOSES LOCATED ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CLEMENTINE STREET NORTH OF BROADWAY (97-1A). Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 96R-34 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. 96R-34: duly passed and adopted. REVISED COUNCIL POLICY - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: C1.105: To consider the adoption of a Resolution which presents a revised Council Policy No. 117, and is a strong guideline for limiting terms to two four-year terms for members of the Boards and Commissions. (Continued from the meeting of March 18, 1997, Item C1.) RESOLUTION NO. ----- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 117 RELATING TO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS. 20 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 Mayor Daly. Before the Council is a recommendation by City staff (see memorandum dated March 4, 1997 from the City Clerk) following meetings of an Ad Hoc Committee that was set up to review the subject. The choices before them are to consider that recommendation, to consider other recommendations, or take no action at this time pending further discussion and review. They should probably decide one way or another on the recommendation that has been brought forward regardless of what other action they take. He knows the matter was discussed last week and there was public input (see minutes of 3/11/97). He asked the Council for any thoughts they may have at this time. He noted as a point of clarification that the report also mentions a couple of other items that were discussed beyond the subject of limiting terms for advisory boards and commissions and will be coming forth as future recommendations. Council Member Zemel suggested that they first ask to see if there is any additional public input; Mayor Daly thereupon invited public comment. Seferino Garcia, 121 S. Walnut, Anaheim. He thinks term limits are a good thing because, in his opinion, there have been too many members from boards that have been taking advantage of their time served. There needs to be equality on boards. They need to set up a strong criteria especially for the CDBG Board. He would like, if possible, to get a copy of the Ad Hoc results. It is important to get representation from all of Anaheim and to get other people involved. Judith Serafini, Solevar Community Development. She supports some type of term limits. Solevar, along with other citizens, brought this to the Council’s attention last year in great detail and in writing. One of the arguments (against limits) is that people have longevity and expertise on the various commissions. Individuals can, in the future, through different leadership programs, such as through neighborhood councils, develop leadership from the grass roots and then serve on the commissions. That is how to get broad-based representation. She would prefer a six-year term limit with two years off. During the interim, the individuals can participate through audience participation or serve on other commissions. Joe White, 809 W. Broadway, Anaheim. If an eight-year term limit had been established, he would have been off the Public Utilities Board a long time ago. When a change is made, he hopes it is a major change. If he had his way, each Council Member and the Mayor after they are elected should appoint one person on each board and commission with terms running concurrently with the elected official. If re-elected, they would have to reappoint. The other way would be appointment by the Council at large. As it stands now, he feels there are probably members on boards and commissions who would not even recognize the Council Members in a crowd. It would be a benefit to the City to have closer contact between Council and board members. It is his opinion that through the years, board and commission members are too close to staff and too far from the Council. He believes there are hundreds of people in the City who could serve. For him it has been nice to serve on the PUB and he has enjoyed it. If the Council appoints members individually, there is going to be a change and the board/commission will change every time a Council person changes with an election. He feels they should do something completely different from what they have been doing in the past. Alfonso Rodriguez, 226 E. Jefferson, Anaheim. He believes the CDBG should have another member on its board between the ages of 18 and 21. It will give a different perspective. Otherwise, a youth commission for those between the ages of 14 and 18 would be good for the City. Council Member Zemel. There is a tendency to drift away from the issue. There was a 5-0 Council vote in support of having two Council Members become part of a liaison committee to come up with a term limit proposal. He thinks there was and still is interest on the Council’s part to have term limits. As the Council changes every four years, or every two years in some cases, there are situations where commissioners are outlasting Council Members in their terms. As the City becomes more diverse, gets bigger and goes through changes, citizens elect people with new and different philosophies but yet have the same commissioners. What came out of the liaison committee is a revised Council Policy which by three votes the Council can adopt or in a couple of months do away with it. However, there is a clause in the language drafted which takes the concept away which he read. “ Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit the City Council from reappointing any person to serve upon any board or commission for a preiod in excess of two consecutive terms where circumstances so warrant as 21 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 determined at the sole and absolute discretion of the City Council.” It is sending a message but still reserving the right to do business the way it has always been done. He feels they must have true term limits with no “wiggle room.” He issued a memo which he crafted giving some of his thoughts as to where they have been and where he would like to go. (See memo dated March 10, 1997 to Mayor/City Council/City Clerk/Members of Liaison Committee - Subject: Term Limits for Boards and Commissions). He proposed that service be limited to two terms and that a commissioner who has served may reapply after two years or be appointed to a different commission and then appointed back. The current policy (Council Policy 117) does not afford the Council that type of restraint. They need to have verbiage that would not allow an escape, or an ordinance that would change the current process and would also give two opportunities for the public to speak (at first reading and adoption). They need to go forward. It is a simple discussion and has nothing to do with some of the input given and recommendations made. The following are additional viewpoints/comments by Council Members: Council Member McCracken: She feels it is necessary to establish guidelines for the City’s boards and commissions. Individuals often have no idea of the responsibility involved or the time commitments. There is not even a formal application process. If an individual wants to submit a formal application, they may do so, or if they want to call a Council Member they can do that. Some commissions report attendance on a regular basis; others do not. It is necessary to look at the whole process and start with some fine tuning. Perhaps they first need to get input from the Chairs of the boards/commissions to know of the problems they see with the process as well as input from the commissioners. Council Member Lou Lopez. He thanked Mr. White for his comments and stated that it makes sense as each Council Member is elected that he/she appoint a member to serve at the direction of the Council Member. If each member appoints their own person, they would have direct contact and be able to get feedback. If the board or commission is made up of more than five members, then the additional members would be appointed at large. He would support that change if he had Council support. If not, he would leave the process as it is today. At present, if an individual is not attending meetings, the Council gets feedback, there is peer pressure and the individual resigns. Also, when the four-year term is up, the Council has the ability to reappoint that person. Mayor Daly. He supports that type of system (Council appointees) and most cities operate that way. In Anaheim, they are somewhat limited by the City Charter which requires a certain approach. It might be a good idea to ask the City Attorney to report back what steps would have to occur, including a Charter amendment, to go to a system as suggested by Mr. White and Council Member Lopez with each Council Member appointing one member. Council Member Zemel. He pointed out that the committee talked about all those things and they are all still valid. What was stated at the beginning when term limits were proposed, they would never as a group be able to tackle all the issues presented in one big “bite.” What the Council voted to support was that the Liaison Committee tackle term limits only at this time, bring the recommendations back, and then get the next assignment. All the issues raised are valid, important and need to be addressed, but the only issue at this time is setting term limits. He noted that according to the Charter, a Council person cannot appoint their own person but can name a person and have it ratified by the Council. To him, there is something frightening about the thought of a Council Member having someone to go to and having their own “person” on a board or commission as a voting member of the public. All that aside, term limits would still apply especially for those at-large members. Since they have spent the last couple of months working on the issue, he favors going forward. If they want to consider a Charter change later, that can be done but in the meantime, he urged that they not get off track. Council Member Lopez. He would support term limits if Council Member Zemel would go along with each Council Member appointing an individual. The person appointed would basically have a term limit as well. Council Member Zemel. Short of trying to cut deals, he would support having the City Attorney look into the matter and getting back to the Council. He agrees relative to Council Members appointing individuals. It would be nice to know he would be able to have an appointment. He would support that later on but reiterated, he does not want to get off track. 22 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 Council Member Tait. There is a recommendation before them but the clause articulated by Council Member Zemel is what bothers him. With that clause, the recommendation is merely “term suggestions” and not term limits. The policy does nothing because it would be at the Council’s sole discretion. For that reason, it is deceptive. It does not say anything and he would not support it. It is a difficult issue to decide. There are some excellent commission members, one being Bob Messe, a long-time member of the Planning Commission. He (Tait) learned a great deal from Mr. Messe’s expertise when he served as a Planning Commissioner. The people have already spoken as far as their feeling on term limits since the Council Members have term limits. It seems inconsistent to have term limits for the City Council but not for appointed board members. He would not support the proposal before them but would support a term limit ordinance. Mayor Daly. He referred to the revised Council Policy before them and asked if anyone was comfortable supporting that, the actual resolution; there was no response in support from Council Members. Mayor Daly then asked if there was support for strict term limits; Council Member Zemel asked for clarification that the Mayor was saying he was not going to support the recommendation as submitted. Mayor Daly answered, not at this time; Council Member Zemel pointed out that the recommendation was the way the Mayor wanted it. At the meeting where they decided it was going to be brought forward and when, he (Zemel) conceded to the wording the Mayor wanted but it was after that meeting he felt he could not go along with it. Mayor Daly. He believes the suggestion Council Member McCracken made relative to discussing the matter with the 50 or 60 persons who serve the Council on advisory boards is a good one. It is a disservice to make a decision before they go through that. Council Member Zemel. He moved that after going through the effort to look at boards and commissions and taking staff time, that they ask the City Attorney to initiate language for term limits for boards and commissions limited to two, four-year terms and that it be done by ordinance allowing for a two-year absence and then returning to a board, that the commissioner or board member could be appointed to a different board during that time and that the member’s service be considered retroactive but the current board member not be excused from service until that time expires which would allow for staggering so that there will be experienced people through the year 2004. Council Member Tait seconded the proposed action. Before further action, Mayor Daly stated he feels they need the opportunity to hear from their advisory board/commission members who serve as volunteers. He for one would like the opportunity to discuss the issue with as many of those persons as possible. He suggests a 60-day continuance to give the opportunity to do more research, obtain more information from City staff and discuss the implications of this with their existing City advisory commissioners. If any Council Member feels strongly one way or the other, they can exercise the prerogative of term limits when it comes time to consider reappointing those who have been serving. He has been faced with that for eight years and on some occasions voted to extend terms and in other cases voted against doing so. At some point, it is probably the simplest way to handle the matter - simply vote when the time comes on various commissioners. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the issue of term limits for board and commission members be continued for 60 days so that additional information can be obtained. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Lopez stated, he agrees. Mr. White gave a good suggestion and perhaps there are other suggestions from other board and commission members. The system is orking OK now and 60 days will give plenty of time to get further input and at that time vote to make a change if they come to the conclusion that they want to do so. A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance and carried by the following vote: Ayes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly. No: Tait, Zemel. 23 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: C2. City Attorney Jack White Stated that there are no actions to report. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C3. Council Member Lopez. On the way to Council meetings, he drives around the downtown area to see how clean it is. There has been a positive change and he finds that the area is nice and clean and apparently staff is working hard to keep it that way. He thanked the City Manager for getting that done and complimented staff. He cautioned, however, that they not let their guard down. He wants to make sure the downtown Anaheim City Hall area is the showcase of the City especially when they have visitors from all over the world. When they visit downtown, it should be an example for all of the City and it should be clean 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Daly: He commented on the opportunity he had earlier today to serve as “Principal for the day” at Canyon High School. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council meeting of March 18, 1997 was adjourned with the next scheduled meeting to take place on April 1, 1997. (7:25 P.M.) LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 24