Loading...
1999/03/16ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: MAYOR : Tom Daly PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken, ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER : Jim Ruth CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White CITY CLERK : Leonora N. Sohl PLANNING DIRECTOR : Joel Fick ZONING DIVISION MANAGER : Greg Hastings DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : Richard Bruckner CIVIL ENGINEER : Natalie Meeks DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS : Gary Johnson OPERATIONS CHIEF/FIRE DEPARTMENT : Roger Smith A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:10 p.m. on March 12, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing all items as shown herein. 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. By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:00 p.m.) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 1. 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case : Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and related cases and cross actions) Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2. 54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation: Name of case : Vista Royale Homeowners Assoc. vs. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone Company, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74, ( and related cases). CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3. 54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation: Name of case : Montgomery v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 78-86- 60. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 . PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT - Go vernment Code Section 54957: 4 Title: City Clerk 5. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Dave Hill Agency Designated Representative : Anaheim Fire Association, AMEA. Employee organization : RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of March 16, 1999 to order at 5:37 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Pastor Bryan Crow, from the Garden Church gave the invocation. FLAG CEREMONY/SALUTE: Anaheim Girl Scou t Troop No. 1325, the “Horizons” presented the colors and then led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION 119: : The following Proclamation was issued and authorized by the City Council: Girl Scout Week in Anaheim, March 6 - 13, 1999 The Proclamation was accepted by Sheila Harel , Community Relations Chair of the Girl Scouts of Anaheim, Lorena Dayton, Leader, Troop No. 1325 and six members of the Troop. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,868,953.27 for the period ending March 8, 1999, and $3,368,191.46 for the period ending March 15, 1999 in accordance with the 1998-99 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council Meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. (5:46 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting. (5:49 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Len Spivak , President, Jeffrey-Lynne Owners Association. He is present to give a brief status report on the Jeffrey-Lynne area. Since the ban on parking went into effect on March 3, 1999, the appearance of the neighborhood is unbelievable. Code Enforcement, the Police Department and everyone who comes to the area cannot believe it is the same neighborhood. It is clean and orderly. The Association has been working with the Code Enforcement Manager, John Poole and Police Officers Juan Raveles and David Hermann who have made a great impact on the neighborhood. They are isolating a few apartments that are the problems and dealing with the owners. As they do so, some are selling and moving out of the neighborhood. He referred to and briefed an article that will be coming out soon (copies of which have been given to the Council) in the Apartment News Magazine containing an article by Mr. Poole in which he outlines the efforts the City is making trying to promote better neighborhoods. Before concluding, he noted that on Friday, April 3, 1999 there is going to be what he calls a “Pride Day” in the Jeffrey-Lynne Neighborhood where the neighborhood can become even more involved. He invited the Council to participate as well. 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Patricia Garcia, 3136 Lindacita Ln ., Anaheim. She has sent a letter to the Mayor and one of the Council Members. Today, she is begging for the Council’s help for the children of the City. There is a new school that just opened (1998-1999) in the Anaheim Union High School District, the Oxford Academy. She believes what the School District has done is to say they want to share the school with only Cypress and Buena Park residents. She then referred to the Stanford 9 Test Results which she obtained (copies of which were submitted and made a part of the record) from all school districts that service Anaheim and also the Cypress School District which show District Averages (Grades 2 – 8) in reading, math, language and spelling. She wants everyone to know if they are Anaheim residents and want their children to attend (Oxford Academy), they are making it all but impossible except for those with 3.5 - 4.0 or better grade average to attend. Her understanding of the school when it opened in this school year was to appeal to grade level students that could achieve and maybe get “pushed up” to a higher GPA bracket which is the case with her daughter who attends Oxford. It is a situation that needs their attention. Mayor Daly asked if she communicated her concerns in writing to the School District; Mrs. Garcia answered, yes. She has sent letters and has spoken at meetings and there is going to be a workshop Friday night. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. Reduce the size and cost of government and give Savis Roditis his 100 cabs. PUBLIC COMMENTS – AGENDA ITEMS: Public i nput was received on item A13 (see discussion under that item). MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of March 16, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A23 : On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken , 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. 99R-40 through 99R43 , both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certa in 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 Jin T. Wang for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 18, 1998. b. Claim submitted by Michael Marsicano c/o Christopher E. Russell, Esq, for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 4, 1998. c. Claim submitted by Dirk Kael Blom c/o Jacobson & Assoc. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 29, 1998 . 3 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 d. Claim submitted by George A. Cudhea for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 11, 1998. e. Claim submitted by Nita French for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 22, 1999. f. Claim submitted by Vicki McLain for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 31, 1998. g. Claim submitted by Joseph Donnelly for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 13, 1998. h. Claim submitted by Mrs. Ortrud Loew for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 20, 1998. i. Claim submitted by Maria Barajas for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 5, 1998. A2. 105: Rec eiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held January 28, 1999. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held January 28, 1999. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission meeting held February 17, 1999. 173: Receiving and filing Rate Schedule Designations submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (Docket Nos. OA96-156-001, et al.) A3. 164: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Paulus Engineering, in the amount of $4,783,821 for Vermont Avenue – East Street Storm Drain Improvement; 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. 175: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $544,895.06, in favor of Valverde Construction, and authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute Contract Change Order No. 1 and any related documents. A5. 173: Concurring with the selection of ASL Consulting Engineers, in the amount of $771,372 for design services for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corridor Soundwall Project (from Imperial Highway to Yorba Linda Boulevard); and authorizing the Director of Public Works to submit a pre-award audit evaluation and authorization to Caltrans. City Manager, James Ruth. A slight language change is necessary because this involves a Federal contract. It should read, “Council will concur with the selections of ASL Consulting Services.” Council Member Feldhaus . He noted Willdan is an Anaheim firm whereas ASL is not and also, Willdan’s bid was lower by almost $217,000. He asked for input from staff to explain the evaluation performance rating review and Council Policy which would change that. Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer. The selection on this as well as others is consistent with City Council Policy on selection of professional consultants. It is not fee based but 4 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 performance based. They do not have a policy dealing with Anaheim based businesses in their selection process so they have conducted the selection consistent with current Council Policy and feel ASL is the most qualified firm for this particular project; Russ Maguire , Deputy City Engineer, (Manager on the subject project), then briefed the selection process followed. Mayor Daly. There is a larger project which will be a lowering or depression of the five or six miles of railroad track along this corridor. While obtaining the money to do that will probably take years, his question is, will it be wasteful to install sound walls which are many millions of dollars. The engineering alone will be one-half million dollars. He asked staff to address the advisability of moving forward with the subject proposal. Gary Johnson. There have been studies done regarding track lowering vs. grade separation. The City of Placentia is probably the most interested. They have read the studies and understand follow up work is being done. The OCTA Board is also interested in the issue. The track lowering would start near the Imperial Highway grade crossing to the west so that the tracks in the area proposed for the sound wall, it is unlikely that will be lowered. Based on the information they currently have, staff believes it would not be an unwise expenditure and should proceed. If circumstances changed during the design, they could revisit the issue but they believe it is advisable. They notified the residents who are impacted as to the schedule. In good faith, they are trying to meet all the milestones laid out for them. Mayor Daly also asked if the installation of sound walls makes sense whether or not the grade separation at Imperial is eventually constructed ; Gary Johnson. They are working with Yorba Linda and Caltrans and coordinating the sound wall with the grade separation. They are separate and one is not dependent on the other. He confirmed it makes sense even without that. Council Member McCracken . The people in the area have waited a long time for some relief. With the second rail along that stretch of the corridor, there are approximately 50 freight trains going by every day. It is a real concern and has been for many years and some kind of relief needs to be provided. A6. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 15704 , and the Subdivision Agreement with William Lyon Homes, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Subdivision Agreement. Tract 15704 is located at the west side of Knott Avenue, south of Ball Road on Eureka Drive and Gladstone Circle (private streets), and is filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 97-98-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 4042. A7. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority/ Metrolink for the sale of monthly passes and tickets. A8. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real property or interests therein to the City. (R/W 5411, et al.) A9. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Laerdal Medical Corporation, in the amount of $40,555 for twelve automatic external defibrillators, and related equipment for the Fire Department. Council Member Feldhaus asked if the subject amount is budgeted in the 1998-99 or 1999-2000 budget; Roger Smith, Operations Chief, Fire Department. The plans are to try to accommodate the expenditure out of the 1998-99 budget. It is a one-time purchase. A10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Echo Lighting, Inc., in the amount of $44,200 for ornamental luminaires, in accordance with Bid #5893. 5 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 A11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Leonard Chaidez Tree Service, in an amount not to exceed $158,754 for the full trim of approximately 3,863 palm trees, in accordance with Bid #5892. A12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the second renewal of the purchase order to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $280,287 for a period of one year commencing in April, 1999; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the option to renew for an additional one year period, in accordance with Bid #5630. Revised Ordinance – Re : Massage Establishments: A13. 142: ORDINANCE NO. - - - - - - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANHEIM repealing Chapter 4.29 of, and adding new Chapter 4.29 to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to massage establishments. (Discussed and continued from the meetings of January 5, 1999, Item A13, January 26, 1999, Item A10, and February 9, 1999, Item A7.) 142: RESOLUTION NO. - - - - - - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting certain fees to cover the cost of administration of Chapter 4.29 of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to massage establishments. Allison Hargrave, Battaile & Hargrave, L.L.P., Attorneys at Law, 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660. She is not present in an adversarial position. She represents public agencies as well as private clients and Ms. Ard and Pelletier have hired her to ask their good graces and good will in allowing them to continue to be a part of the City. They have had over 60 years of history with the City. If the Council adopts the proposed ordinance or one of the versions, they will put these ladies out of business. When she was trying to come up with a good argument to ask for a continuance, her first point is , they only received notice (ordinances) on February 28, 1999. As soon as they did and realized how much the ordinances would impact them, they contacted their public official, a Council Member, and subsequently came to her office. She then sent a letter by FAX to the City Attorney and one to each of the Council Members for review. It is important for them to work with the City Attorney and have some time to draft the ordinance so it does not close down their businesses. The problem with all three versions (of the proposed ordinance), they have been drafted to apply to a business( es) that do not exist. The ordinance(s) does not fit the need of her clients or regulate how their businesses are run. (See letter dated March 16, 1999 from Ms. Hargrave in which she addressed the concerns of her clients – made a part of the record). For instance, it is very excessive in terms of continuing education. The mind-set behind the ordinance is outdated. It is assuming there is something wrong with running an establishment that provides a service that is needed. The women will lose their businesses and all their employees will lose their jobs. She does not believe that was the intent. She is requesting that they have time to work with the City Attorney’s office. They also invite the Council to visit their salons. It is a productive and needed service and nothing bad or negative is going on. She is respectfully requesting that the City take the time to work with them and subsequently revise the ordinance so it is workable and protects their citizens but at the same time does not harm the community. Gwen Ard , 3414 Faircrest Drive, Anaheim, owner of Maison de Traitements . Ms. Hargrave has basically expressed how they feel. She notes this item has been on the agenda three times before. The ordinance(s) was mailed to the businesses on February 26, 1999. She started studying version A, then B and she still hasn’t finished with C. They need the time to work with the City. They have an excellent rapport with the Police Department. She would also like to give input to see if they can get an ordinance that works for them and also the City. Mr. Pelletier , son of Marie Pelletier , owner of the Roman Spa. His mother has been in business in the City for over 30 years and has conducted her business with integreity and professionalism. She has a 6 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 vested interest in the City with the ownership of land and the Roman Spa and wants to see the City move ahead in the right direction. With due respect, he asked that they please show his mother due consideration as a long-time participant in the growth of the City for and having done business in the City for 30 years. Council Member Kring . She would like to remove this item from the agenda at this time since she feels they need more time to study the issue and to take input from the people who spoke earlier in the meeting. She would also like a workshop scheduled on the matter; Council Member Feldhaus stated that the workshop should probably be after Ms. Hargrave and her clients have an opportunity to work with the City Attorney on their concerns. City Attorney White. He would suggest those interested in providing input do so and provide that to his office. He would ask for this information within the next two weeks and subsequently he will schedule something with the Council and be prepared to present that information. (He also explained for Council Member Feldhaus how the notification list of businesses was developed). He recommended a motion to remove the item from the agenda to be rescheduled at a later date. After he receives input he will reschedule it in about a month. MOTION. Council Member Kring moved that Item A13. be removed from the agenda at this time to be rescheduled at a later date and in the interim that additional input be taken from business owners through the City Attorney’s Office. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly. There will be a workshop scheduled in approximately three to four weeks which are generally conducted at 3:00 P.M. prior to City Council Meetings. The City Clerk’s Office can keep the public informed as to the schedule. City Attorney White. Anyone who contacts him and gives input, which he would appreciate in writing, he will be sure receives notice of the workshop as well. A14. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 41 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 records.) A15. 123: Approving a License Agreement with the YWCA of Orange County Youth Employment Services program for non-fee use of office space at the Downtown Community Center for the purpose of providing a free job placement and referral program for teenage youth. A16. 123: Approving and instructing the City Manager to sign the Amendment Number Three to Agreement No. D96-016 with Orange County for Urban Park Funds for the Downtown Community Center project. A17. 129: Increasing the appropriation lim it of the Fleet Services Division by $80,000 to acquire urban search and rescue hardware and necessary transportation equipment to raise the Fire Departments’ response capability to that of a Medium Level Technical Rescue organization as per the State Office of Emergency Services criteria. (Continued from the meeting of February 9, 1999, Item A8.) Council Member Tait . This item is for a purchase of $80,000 worth of Fire Department search and rescue equipment originally slated to be purchased in the year 2001 through the bond proceeds from the Anaheim Resort Area. The City has decided to put it on the agenda and propose to purchase the equipment now so that it is available during and prior to construction of $4 Billion worth of improvements 7 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 in the Resort Area. He feels this is a wise decision and appreciates the efforts of City staff in bringing it forward at this time after he had broached the issue a few months ago. Roger Smith, Operations Chief, Fire Department. Currently the department’s day-to-day operating level would be considered light technical risk by FEMA. This purchase, will bring it to a medium technical level allowing them to respond to different types of structural elements, i.e., masonry type and heavy-danger type structures which will fit better into the City’s commercial and industrial complexes. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved the subject appropriation as recommended. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. A18. 123: Approving the First Amendment to Office Building Lease by and between the City of Anaheim and 20 S. Anaheim L.L.C ., a California Limited Liability Company, to include additional suite space in the Woodbridge Building for the City’s Job Training Program Divisions operations associated with the federal Welfare-to-Work and One Stop Center programs; and authorizing the Community Development Director to execute the First Amendment. A19. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two years old. (Human Resources Department.) A20. 123: Approving a Joint Trench Agreement with Century Valley Cable, Inc., for Underground District No. 30 – Imperial Highway/Santa Ana Canyon Road (District), to permit joint trenching and share construction costs. A21. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, General Employees, and the City of Anaheim. (Amending Article 17 and Appendix ”A” Wages of the Memorandum of Understanding – October 4, 1996, through September 28, 2000.) A22. 153: To consider authorizing the Human Resources Director to pay a $10,000 death benefit to the beneficiary of Randall W. Gaston , Chief of Police and to pay this benefit to the eligible survivors of Safety Management employees who die as a direct and proximate result of personal injury sustained in the line of duty. City Manager Ruth asked that this item be removed from the agenda at this time for further policy review A23. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council Adjourned Regular meeting of February 2, 1999, held February 5, 1999. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-40 through 99R-43, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-40 through 99R-43, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. 8 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 CONDEMNATION HEARINGS – KATELLA SMART STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO A24. 121: IMPLEMENT THE ANAHEIM RESORT AREA IMPROVEMENT PLAN : To consider the adoption of resolutions finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of certain real property located in the Anaheim Resort Area and authorizing the law firm of Rutan and Tucker to proceed with said condemnation action. Submitted was report dated March 3, 1999 from the Public Works Department recommending adoption of the proposed resolutions finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing comdemnation of a portion of certain real properties at various locations as listed in the report. Mayor Daly. This is the time for the hearing on five separate proposed acquisitions of property by eminent domain in connection with the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project and the Anaheim Resort Area Improvement and Beautification Program. The properties involved are identified in paragraphs “a” through “e” of Agenda Item A24. on page 6 of the agenda and the property interests proposed to be acquired for each property are legally described in the resolution attached to the staff report for each proposed acquisition. He asked to hear from staff. Natalie Meeks , 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, west of Harbor to west of West Street, including supplemental right of way to implement the Anaheim Resort Area Improvement Plan. Funding for the project is from OCTA and the sale of the Resort Area bond proceeds. The project has been designed to retain the approximate existing centerline of the street and minimize the overall impact of the acquisitions. Acquisition offers have been made and the City’s acquisition consultant has been in negotiations with property owners but, to date, have been unable to obtain executed acquisition agreements for these parcels. Staff will, however, continue to work with each of the property owners to reach a settlement and address all of their concerns. Adoption of the Resolutions of Necessity will allow construction to begin this summer as scheduled. A significant delay of the project could jeopardize OCTA funding for the Katella Smart Street and impede the City’s ability to complete the Resort Area improvements as scheduled and required in the Infrastructure and Parking Finance Agreement. Council Member Kring referred to letter dated March 15, 1999 from Neal Panish, Attorney, Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon, 2100 Symphony Towers, 750 B Street, San Diego, CA 92101 (made a part of the record) expressing concerns relative to item A24. d. ( Tiffy’s Family Restaurant – R/W 5180-69). The letter outlines different ways they feel the area can be developed other than taking the restaurant’s property which they feel would cause a loss of business. Natalie Meeks . Staff received a copy of the letter today which discusses the location of the bus bay. The design location for the bus bay has been part of the design since the EIR was prepared back in 1993. In 1994, they negotiated a settlement agreement with Tiffy’s on some of the other issues which included the proposed right of way for the project. Tiffy’s wanted to preserve their structure so the right of way was designed around the building but does impact the outside eating area. Staff has not come to an agreement with Tiffy’s. Council Member Feldhaus . The alternative Tiffy’s is suggesting in lieu of eminent domain is to eliminate the bus stop ; Natalie Meeks. They do not believe it is possible and the bus stop is critical to the project. They have considered moving it to the east but it does not relieve the right-of-way impact from their property. The original plan at this location called for a longer bus stop by eliminating the driveway. They were able to work with OCTA and reduced it down to a single bus stop or 80’. They have retained the access which is consistent with the access that Tiffy’s has right now. She also answered additional questions posed by both Council Member Kring and Feldhaus during which she explained that they have come to verbal agreements with the other parties and although they have no executed documents, they are very close. They have not complained about the bus stop location or the extent of the take. With them, it is more financial. She reiterated, relative to Tiffy’s, they are trying to work with them and are 9 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 designing the project to be consistent with the settlement agreement signed in 1994. Their letter of March 15, 1999 states they believe it is not in conformance with the settlement agreement. The City believes it is. They would be happy to work with them again and continue the item a week but Tiffy’s has not been corresponding with staff except for the letter received today. Both Council Member Kring and Council Member Feldhaus stated they would like to see that happen; Mayor Daly asked in the last year, how many conversations or correspondence has staff had with Tiffy’s and its representation. Natalie Meeks . She deferred to the Right-of-Way Agent ; Roger Cunningham, Security Land and Right of Way. Over the past approximately nine months, there have been four or five verbal conversations and several written communications with the attorneys for the property owner. Mayor Daly asked if the issues are the ones being discussed today ; Roger Cunningham. Very early, the same issues were raised and they attempted to address them. David Cosgrove , Rutan & Tucker, Special Counsel. Many of the issues raised with respect to the impacts to the property will be asserted as severance damage and then become a dollar and cents issue. One of the things before the Council, whether considered tonight or later, is whether the project is planned in a manner for the greatest public good and least private injury. Staff is trying to point out these takes all along the street have been aligned to take a little bit on both sides so as not to impact one business more than the other. This take has been realigned to allow alternative access. They have reopened one of the driveways. Findings show minimum impact to the private injury has occurred along with maximizing the public good that will come along with the street improvements. They understand someone is present who wants to speak and before proceeding, the Public Hearing should be opened to see what they have to say. Mayor Daly. In conducting the Public Hearing(s), testimony will be taken separately on each of the five acquisitions listed on the Agenda and will hear from the owner of record, or a designated representative for each property. 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 prerequesites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the property. (a) Public Hearing – Property located at 1016 West Katella Avenue – Magic Carpet – R/W5180-66 : The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. (b ) Public Hearing – Property located at 1030 West Katella Avenue - Magic Lamp Motel – R/W5180-67: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. (c ) Public Hearing - Property located at 1040 and 1050 Katella Avenue – Golden Forest – R/W5180-68: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Natalie Meeks . She explained that on this item, Special Counsel, Rutan & Tucker, has a conflict; therefore, this case will be handled by the firm of Oliver Barr and Vose. (d ) Public Hearing – Property located at 1060 West Katella Avenue - Tiffy’s Family Restaurant – R/W5180-69: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the Council. 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Mr. Neal Panish, Attorney, Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon, representing Benjamin and Mary Lou Hathaway and Tiffy’s Family Restaurant, Inc. ( Tiffy’s). He was glad to hear some of the questions raised by the Council since they broached some of the same issues Tiffy’s has raised in his letter sent via FAX yesterday (letter of March 15, 1999). He is requesting that letter be made a part of the record of this hearing and further requests, along the lines of staff’s offer, that this matter be continued so as to address Tiffy’s concerns. Mr. Panish then gave testimony which briefed and also expanded upon the points outlined in his four- page letter dated March 15, 1999 (previously made a part of the record), i.e., Requested Action, About Tiffy’s Family Restaurant, Discussion (addressing his client’s concerns regarding the Katella Project), Prior Agreement, Impacts of the Katella Project on Tiffy’s (Property Losses, Location of the Bus Stop, Bus Lane, Standing Zone, and Layover Area for Buses, Ingress and Egress to the Property, Aesthetics, Loss of Business Goodwill, Consideration of Viable Alternatives, Conclusion, i.e., “There are other ways to address the real or preceived need for beautification of Katella Avenue other than by destroying a long established and well-respected business in your community, including relocation of the bus stop farther east to the parcel adjacent to Tiffy’s ”. It is not appropriate or necessary, in Tiffy’s view, for certain portions of Tiffy’s property to be taken for the project. They do not dispute that some of the property must be taken but not all. If those certain portions of Tiffy’s property are taken, Tiffy’s substantial rights under the written agreement will be impacted. Tiffy’s would like to mitigate any impacts on their rights and have a good faith resolution of the issues which will permit the project to go forward and permit the City to satisfy Tiffy’s legitimate concerns. He invites each of the Council Members to meet with them at the project to show and demonstrate those impacts Tiffy’s will suffer which can be avoided by certain changes to the proposed take. He continued , they disagree that the settlement agreement merely addresses the structure of Tiffy’s and nothing else. He will be happy to discuss it further with the City Attorney’s staff or anybody who would be willing to discuss it. He agrees elimination of the bus stop may not be a viable alternative of the project, but elimination of the location of that bus stop in front of Tiffy’s is possible and viable by relocating it farther east. Another issue is the location of access to Tiffy’s. A driveway proposed by the project will not be located on Tiffy’s property. The driveway will be taken and moved farther away and an easement granted to access Tiffy’s which will adversely impact the restaurant. Tiffy’s would like to address these concerns prior to any taking to mitigate any impacts on the business which they believe can be mitigated. They would like to remain in the community as a productive member without some of those impacts. Council Member Feldhaus pointed out what he deemed to be the issue and also one of Tiffy’s issues – their long- standing in the community. They want to operate in this same location but certain proposals in this project will prevent Tiffy’s from doing so. He will continue to work with staff, the property agent or anybody else to work out a resolution that will benefit the City and Tiffy’s. They do not think adopting the resolution denying Tiffy’s that opportunity is the way to proceed. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. City Attorney White. It is staff’s recommendation that the Council act on at least the four proposed resolutions on which no testimony was offered. If the Council desires, Item A24. d can be continued. There is a meeting either next Tuesday or three weeks from today. Later in the meeting (see below) this item was continued three weeks. (e ) Public Hearing – Property located at 1820 and 1830 South West Street – Parkside Inn & Suites – Maingate – R/W5180-70 A, B, and C: The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to address the Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Mayor Daly. He is going to offer the proposed resolutions under Item A24. a, b, c and e and subsequently discuss how to handle A24. d separately. City Attorney White clairifed that a 4/5’s vote is required to adopt the resolutions. Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 99R-44 through 99R-47, both inclusive, for adoption (covering A24. a, b, c and e, excluding d). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 99R-44 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINED THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1016 WEST KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-66 - MAGIC CARPET). RESOLUTION NO. 99R-45 : 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 1030 WEST KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-67 – MAGIC LAMP MOTEL). RESOLUTION NO. 99R-46 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PORTIONS OF PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1040 AND 1050 KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-68 – GOLDEN FOREST). RESOLUTION NO. 99R-47 : 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 1820 AND 1830 SOUTH WEST STREET FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-70 A, B, AND C – PARKSIDE INN & SUITES – MAINGATE). Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-44 through 99R-47, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-44 through 99R-47, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Mayor Daly. Relative to A24. d, Tiffy’s Family Restaurant - R/W5180-69, he moved that this item be continued three weeks to April 6, 1999. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. APPOINTMENT TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION : A25. 105: Appointment to the Budget Advisory Commission to fill the unexpected vacancy of Cindy Floriani (term expires 6/30/2000). This item was continued from the meetings of February 9, 1999, Item A12, and February 23, 1999, Item A25.) 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Mayor Daly. At his request, the Council has continued this item on a couple of occasions. Rather than fill this vacancy at this time he would like to ask the City Manager to give recommendations on the advisability of continuing this particular Commission. They are the only City in Orange County and possibly the region that has a Budget Advisory Commission ( BAC). The Commission was created and members appointed in the depths of the recession in the early 90’s. Recently there has been some uncertainty which items the Commission should work on and which should be left to other commissions. Rather than fill the vacancy, he would like the City Manager to give a review and recommendation as to the necessity for the BAC. The Council is free tro accept or make adjustments. He feels it is timely for the Council to take such action. They may discuss the matter and decide they want to make changes to the Commission’s mission or mandate or whether there might be other alternatives. MOTION. Mayor Daly asked the City Manager to review the history of the BAC and recommend the next steps the Council should consider relative to this commission. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Tait stated he would not vote for the motion. He used to serve on the BAC in the early days as did Council Member McCracken who was its first Chair person. The Commission serves as a citizen oversight of the City Manager and his budget. They have not heard a lot from the BAC lately because they have essentially been in agreement with the City Manager. It is a safety check to have and he likes the fact of having a Budget Commission. It gives him a source of comfort. He would like to keep it and fill the position. Mayor Daly. He is not sure what the staff will come up with in terms of an evaluation but believes it is timely to periodically consider the usefulness of all the commissions that exist because there is time and expense involved. Council Member Kring . Instead of eliminating the Commission, perhaps they should meet less regularly. She would hesitate to eliminate the Commission and then in a year or two if there was a financial problem where their assistance would be beneficial, they would then have to assemble another Commission rather quickly. Otherwise, there would always be a Commission in place. Mayor Daly. He stated there could be less meetings and perhaps a smaller Commission; Council Member Tait stated he would be open to either of those possibilities. Council Member McCracken . She served on the Commission with Council Member Tait having served as its Chair for three years. She believes they are searching for some direction and perhaps some other dynamics included in their mission. She feels they serve a purpose. They represent individuals in the community who are willing to devote their time and energy. They ask the hard questions. She suggests perhaps looking at what their mission is and their meeting schedule. She would prefer to have an ongoing Commission looking at the budget than a group that comes in every year (such as the previous Blue Ribbon Budget Committee). Mayor Daly. The comments go to the heart of the issue. The Commission meets monthly whereas the real need on the budget comes once each year. The question is what to do with these dedicated and helpful volunteers in the intervening time. They need the advice of the City Manager in terms of how to proceed and one of the alternatives may be the Commission continues to serve but perhaps meet quarterly or two times a year. He reiterated his motion asking for recommendations and advice from the City Manager who will also take into account the comments made in today’s discussion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including that the matter again be placed on the agenda in 30 days when the City Manager’s report is prepared. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM B1 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1999 - DECISION DATE: MARCH 4, 1999 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 19, 1999: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 152 CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (b)(3)}: B1. 179: OWNER: William H. Hiraga, 8421 E. Foothill Street, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Kurt Byward, 2473 Salem Place, Fullerton , Ca 92835 LOCATION: 8421 East Foothill Street. Property is approximately 0.11 acre having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the north inside of Foothill Street, and a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 270 feet east of the centerline of Larkwood Street. Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a 244 square foot family room addition to an existing 1,694 square foot single-family residence. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 152 ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-4). END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION: B2. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5672 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending various Chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the requirements for fences, walls, hedges and berms. (Introduced at the meeting of March 2, 1999, Item B6.) Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5672 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5672 : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES, WALLS, HEDGES AND BERMS. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5672 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5672 duly passed and adopted. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM B3 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY B3. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 322 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4034 – REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Burnett Development Corporation, 200 East Baker Street, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92780, request for review and approval of final building elevations (including colors and materials) and sign program. Property is located at 1500 South Douglass Road. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved final plans for CUP NO. 4034. EIR NO. 322 previously certified. Continued from the meetings of February 23, 1999, Item B9, and March 2, 1999, Item B11. 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Mayor Daly asked to hear from either the representative of the developer or a summary by staff. Annika Santalahti , Zoning Administrator. She referred to Supplemental Staff Report dated March 16, 1999 (Subject : Conditional Use Permit No. 4034 – Arena Centre – Sign Program and Phase One Final Building Plans – made a part of the record) attached to which was extensive data on Phase 1 of the six- story office building and parking structure relating to the signs proposed for the project including a Planned Sign Program dated March 8, 1999 sign descriptions, design criteria, general sign standards, etc., including elevation drawings, schematics, elevation and wall sections, cutaway views, master landscape plan, color schemes, etc. She reported staff recommends that no action be taken by Council regarding the Final Building Plans for Phase 1 thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval. Staff also recommends that Council approve, in part, the Planned Sign Program dated March 8, 1999 subject to actual plans for the primary tenant signs (two wall signs per building – maximum 200 sq. ft. each - located along the top spandrels of two of the office building facades) being submitted to the Commission for review and approval when the specific tenants are identified. The signs may be on adjoining elevations but not at the same corner. Staff is satisfied that the size of the primary tenant signs is suited to the proposed office buildings. Mr. John Killen representing the developer is present if Council has additional questions. Mayor Daly then posed a line of questions which were answered by Ms. Santalahti; Joel Fick, Planning Director also stated that the sign program addresses the possibility that two wall signs near the top may be proposed by the applicant. They suggested the applicant, as each building comes forward and the tenants are known, that portion of the sign program goes back to the Planning Commission for review on those items. Mayor Daly. He surmised that the item, if approved tonight, does not pin it down entirely but pending future discussion and approval by the Planning Commission which would then come to the City Council; Mr. Fick confirmed that was correct. After additional questions by the Mayor answered by Mr. Fick , Mayor Daly stated his concern is that they know going in what to expect and avoid situations as mentioned by the Planning Director where there is an overloading of signs in one spot which could potentially harm the Arena next door. The staff report is clear in terms of the recommendation which is to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval but to ask that the primary tenant wall signs return to the Planning Commission for approval. He asked if an action was necessary. Joel Fick . Staff has suggested that, by motion, the Council take the action he (Daly) just outlined. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the Arena Centre Sign Program, in part, subject to Planning Commission review and approval of any proposed Primary Tenant wall signs. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: ORDINANCE NO. 5673 PERTAINING TO PERMITTED SIGNS AND MINIMUM B4. 179: LANDSCAPED AND STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ALONG ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. (Introduced at the meeting of March 2, 1999, Item D3.) ORDINANCE NO 5674 DEVELOPMENT FEES WITHIN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM B5. 000: BUSINESS CENTER AND CITY-WIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. (Introduced at the meeting of March 2, 1999, Item D3.) Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5673 and Ordinance No. 5674 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 ORDINANCE NO. 5673 : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 “ZONING” TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 18.50 TITLED “ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FIR THE SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT (SE) OVERLAY ZONE, AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.04, 18.21, 18.41, 18.44, 18.46 AND 18.61 (SITE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-GENERAL, AND RS-A-43,000, CO, CL, CH, AND ML ZONES) TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE (SE) OVERLAY ZONE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED SIGNS AND MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AND STRUCTURAL SETBACKS ALONG ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. ORDINANCE NO. 5674 : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 17 “LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES” RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT FEES WITHIN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER AND CITY-WIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5673 and 5674 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5673 and 5674 duly passed and adopted. B6. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Sanitary Sewer Impact fees for the Anaheim Stadium Business Center West of State College Boulevard. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-48 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 99R-48 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER WEST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-48 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-48 duly passed and adopted. ITEMS B7 – B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 1999 – INFORMATION ONLY APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 16, 1999: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM B7. 134: GENERAL PLAN : Barry Permenter, Real Property Agent, County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department, 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92707, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed sale of County surplus property. Property is located at 8200 East La Palma Avenue. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Determined not to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan at this time. 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Mayor Daly. The Planning Commission determined this particular request was not in conformance with the General Plan. He asked to hear from staff since there appears to be a problem in the sequencing. Joel Fick , Planning Director. The outline of the item is exactly correct. The Government Code requires a response by the Commission within a certain number of days. The Commission continued the item. They made it very clear both in the Planning Commission motion and in discussions with the County. They will likely be resubmitting this item again in the future. Mayor Daly asked if the County has to put the property out to bid ; City Attorney White. He does not believe they have to sell it by auction. They do have to offer it to other public agencies for certain restricted purposes but he does not believe (although they did conduct a large auction at the time of the bankruptcy) that is a requirement. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM B8. 134: GENERAL PLAN : John Pavlik, Chief of PFRD Right-of-Way Processing, County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department, 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed sale of County surplus property. Property is located south of Orangethorpe Avenue at the southwest corner of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad and the Atwood Flood Control Channel. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM MARCH 1, 1999. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT D1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4082 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 319: OWNER: The Home Depot, Attn: Dan Campbell, 3800 W. Chapman Ave., Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 800 North Brookhurst Street - Home Depot. Property is 9.45 acres located at the northeast corner of Gramercy Avenue and Brookhurst Street. To construct a 60-foot high freestanding pylon sign with waivers of (a) maximum area of signs, (b) permitted location of freestanding signs, (c) maximum height of freestanding signs and (d) maximum sign width. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 4082 DENIED ( PC98-203) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Waiver of code requirement DENIED. Approved previously certified EIR NO. 319. Continued from the meeting of February 23, 1999, Item D2. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News : February 11, 1999 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : February 11, 1999 Posting of property : February 12, 1999 City Clerk Sohl noted that the applicant has submitted a request for an additional four-week continuance. MOTION. Since there were no questions or comments relative the the request, Mayor Daly moved to continue the Public Hearing for four weeks. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Before a vote was taken, the City Clerk pointed out that two meetings were cancelled in April; Mayor Daly noted that they were not cancelled but never scheduled. He amended his motion to continue the subject Public Hearing to May 4, 1999. A vote was then taken on the amended motion (continued to May 4, 1999). MOTION CARRIED. C ONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT D2. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4080 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 98-09 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Anaheim Ball Landmark, 1536 Stone Canyon Road, Los Angeles, CA 90077 AGENT: Travis Engineering, Attn: Karl Huy, 12453 Lewis Street #201, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1120-1150 South Anaheim Boulevard - former Dodge dealership. Property is 1.18 acres located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. To construct a service station and convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption and an integrated fast food restaurant with a drive through lane with waivers of (a) permitted types of signs - DENIED, (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs – APPROVED, (c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to an interior boundary line – DENIED and (d) minimum number of parking spaces – DENIED. To determine public convenience or necessity to allow retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in a proposed service station convenience market. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 4080 GRANTED, IN PART ( PC99-16) (4 yes votes, 1 no vote, 1 absent, and 1 abstained). Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, approving waiver (b), and denying waivers (a), (c), and (d). Denied Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-09 ( PC99-17) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and 1 absent). Informational item at the meeting of February 9, 1999, Item B6. Review of the Planning Commission’s decision requested by Mayor Daly and Mayor Pro Tem McCracken. Public hearing continued from the meeting of March 2, 1999, Item D2. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News : February 18, 1999 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : February 16, 1999 Posting of property: February 19, 1999 Council Member Tait . His engineering firm has done some work for Jack in the Box within the past 12 months which is a possible use of the site. For that reason, they may incur financial benefit and, therefore, he must declare a conflict and will be abstaining from any discussion and decision on this issue. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 City Attorney White. He asked for confirmation from Council Member Tait that Jack in the Box has been a source of income to his ( Tait’s) firm in the past 12 months; Council Member Tait answered yes. He thereupon left the Council Chamber temporarily (7:22 P.M.). Mayor Daly. The reason he requested this proposal to be set for a Public Hearing, the subject property is a gateway to the downtown area. It is in the Redevelopment Corridor along Anaheim Boulevard and the heart of the proposal appears to be a service station. There are seven service stations within approximately one mile in either direction. He has had a concern on that subject and that is the essence of the concern he has. There are many other details, but he wanted to get that on the table. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He summarized the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 20, 1999. He also noted in concluding that during the last several weeks, Community Development staff had discussions with the applicant concerning opportunities for the property and surrounding area. A separate memo from Community Development had been submitted to the Council in that regard. Staff recommends that the Council deny the request based on concern about the land use and that the incremental development of the site would be contrary to the goals and objectives of the commercial-industrial Redevelopment area as noted in the memo. Council Member Kring . It is her understanding the applicant withdrew the request for beer and wine consideration from his application; Greg Hastings. That is under consideration tonight as well. Mayor Daly. To clarify his own comment on the number of service stations in the area on Ball Road. There is one directly across the street, two at the next intersection to the west (Ball & Harbor), to the east at Ball and State College there are four including two that were recently redone. As he stated, there are a total of seven existing stations within 1 ½ miles to the west or the east which was the heart of his concern as well as the appropriateness of the proposed uses at this key corner into the City’s downtown area. He asked to hear from the applicant or a representative to summarize the proposal. Applicant’s Statement (summarized) : Mr. Jeff Farano, Attorney, 2300 E. Katella Avenue, Ste. 235, Anaheim. He is the applicant’s representative on this matter. A brief summary of the application has already been made. He would like to clarify the applicant has agreed to all conditions set forth in the Planning Commission recommendation. They are not asking for any waivers at this point. . . not for the beer and wine and Public Convenience and Necessity or any of the waivers with the exception of the waiver of minimum distance between free-standing signs which the Planning Commission approved. The justification for that was that the dedications of the site did not allow the amount of distance required. The application as it is before the Council is for a restaurant with a combination of retail gasoline and a convenience market inside. The property under consideration is the corner site which was formerly the Dodge dealership and before that, a bank. It has been vacant for several years. The property owner owns the land between Ball Road and Clifton Street, but only the subject parcel is involved in this project. He then submitted a booklet, Anaheim Crossroads – Retail Shopping Center – Development Plan – Continental Development Group, LLC, 3879 Culver Center, Culver City, CA 90232 – made a part of the record. (The booklet contained Tab 1, Site Plans, Tab 2, Rendering (retail buildings), Tab 3, Elevations (Jack in the Box & Retail Buildings), Tab 4, Jack in the Box (colored renderings, inside and outside of building and also statistics relative to the business and its market, locations nationally, etc.), Tab 5, Lucy’s ( Lucy’s Laundry Mart – Company Overview). Referring to Tab 4 (Jack in the Box) it is a unique proposal since it is a sit down Jack in the Box restaurant with gas as a secondary use out front and a small convenience store inside. (He noted that Jack in the Box is in the process of determining whether they still want to be involved in the project or not). He then briefed the renderings and explained the concept. He emphasized that no waivers have been requested. It is simply a CUP with the exception of the distance between the signs. Mr. Farano then explained, because of the history of the property, when the project was first proposed, he went to staff and asked what they would like to see on the property. Some suggestions were an upscale restaurant, a sit-down restaurant, etc. He noted the demographics are such it does not fit a sit- down, upscale restaurant. The area is in flux and there are problems with it. The existing property owner 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 would have a difficult time holding the property to a time when such uses might be appropriate. He reiterated , the demographic fit the proposed use. Relative to the gas station portion, it is not just an isolated gas station but the proposal provides for more extensive landscaping than the Council has seen in some of the more recent gas stations. He then again broached the concern expressed (by staff) as to what they were going to see on the rest of the site. The other properties are separate parcels and not a part of this proposal; however, they have actually talked to other users relative to the other parcels. He then briefed some of the concepts being considered for the remainder of the property such as a Lucy’s Laundry Mart (see Tab 5 of the booklet which described the concept, contained colored renderings of the inside and outside of such establishments as well as additional data/information, core market, etc.). Mayor Daly interjected questioning the relevance of the new concepts for the remainder of the property as explained by Mr. Farano noting the subject of the hearing is the service station and fast food restaurant and not all the conceptual plans/proposals for the remainder of the property not the subject of this Public Hearing. Richard Bruckner , Deputy Director of Community Development. He confirmed that the subject of the hearing is the corner 1 ½ acres. One suggestion from Redevelopment staff was, if you wanted to move forward, but staff is not recommending that. However, here is a mechanism to help with the design of the remainder of the site should they wish to move forward. It is not the subject of the hearing tonight. Mr. Farano emphasized that a substantial amount of time was spent in meetings to determine what the City wanted to see on the property and a great deal of time was spent putting something together (re: the booklet submitted). The whole idea of the additional concept/plans was to illustrate what the City would like to see at the location Juri Ripinsky, owner of the property, then answered questions posed by Council Member Kring relative to the potential for financial success of the operation which, as was pointed out, would be in competition with other similar uses in the area. He explained that Jack in the Box when they first looked at the site and entered into a lease did a market study and financial analysis of the site and of each of the three components -- the food operation, convenience store and gas station and did determine it would be profitable. For that reason they were able to come up to pay the type of rent that was required in order to carry the development for the remainder of the site. He also clarified the reason they put the booklet together and spent the time, money and effort to do so is because they were told that everyone wanted to see what was happening with the rest of the site. He then briefed what had occurred, meetings with City staff, principals involved, etc., leading up to today’s hearing. Mayor Daly reiterated his concern that the presentation regarding conceptual proposals for the remainder of the 3 .8 acre site is all speculative for the future and not a subject for tonight’s hearing; Mr. Ripinsky answered, it is and it isn’t. They were told that if the Council were to support what is going on with the remainder of the site in terms of elevations and site planning, with the City staff remaining neutral (not recommending denial), the Council could approve the CUP tonight with further direction that they (developer) enter into an OPA agreement with City staff in order to insure that by approving the Jack in the Box and the gas station, the City was going to get delivery of the rest of the site and elevations as shown in the booklet . That was the purpose for preparing all of the material. Additional discussion/comments/questions followed wherein the Mayor reiterated his consternation that the subject proposal was being linked to conceptual plans/proposals for the remainder of the property which he felt was irrelevant. Jeff Farano, in concluding his remarks, stated at one point in time there were approximately 200 gas stations in Anaheim and now there are approximately 70 with double the amount of population. Considering the additional population, the expansion of the Convention Center and the improvements in the Resort Area, there will be a substantial amount of traffic passing this major intersection (coming down Ball Road, Anaheim Blvd. coming from Katella). This is the type of proposal that would be a convenience to the traffic travelling through the intersection and it will be a very successful operation. 20 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mathew Green, Field Consultant, The Southland Corporation (7-Eleven Stores/Southwest Division). He submitted a one-page letter dated March 16, 1998 giving a synopsis of all the competition in the area (i.e., fast food establishments, gas stations, businesses that sell alcoholic beverages and markets). Sales are already spread out with the extensive competition in the area. They are opposed to subject proposal. Summation by Applicant : Jeff Farano. Relative to Mr. Green’s presentation, he has not seen the data presented in the Southland Corporation submittal. He does not believe Southland understands the market at all. He noted also that there is a 7-Eleven store across the street from the subject proposal. There is no comparison between the proposed project and the 7-11. The project is a substantial upgrade and the facility across the street has never been upgraded. Market studies have shown their proposal is the best use of the property. He is requesting approval of the proposal. Council Member Feldhaus . After comments relative to how gas stations have changed over the years (16-20 pumps in each station compared to 4-6 in the past) and their profitability (or lack of it), he stated if they don’t try for better development, they will never get it. He feels they have to do due diligence as a Council and planners for the City to take a beautiful boulevard and upgrade it with the best possible commercial uses they can get. He is not sure they have started to do that at this point. Council Member Kring noted in today’s environment, gas stations are very aesthetically pleasing noting especially the new station/convenience mart at the corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard. Such facilities provide a needed service for the resident and the tourist. Council Member McCracken . They heard that Mr. Farano worked with staff with regard to this proposal but no Owner Participation Agreement was finalized during the time spent putting the package together. Her big concern is what the entire block from Clifton to Ball Road is ultimately going to look like. They had seven pieces of property put together and now they are being developed 1 ½ by one with no comprehensive plan. Perhaps she was the one that triggered looking at an overall plan but after all the discussion, it seems they would have come to some sort of agreement. There is no guarantee if they approve this project that any of the other concepts/plans are going to happen. Richard Bruckner . They did work hard with the developer on design issues but the more fundamental issue is land use and what staff was looking for was direction from the Council on whether they should proceed with those discussions on a project where there was a more fundamental concern – the appropriateness of the land use in the area. They started the discussions but did not conclude them. Regardless of design, if there is a basic concern about the land use, there is no reason to consider how to redesign a site plan. Should the Council wish to move forward and ask staff to continue the discussions, they would be happy to do so. Council Member Kring . She is concerned he said they were looking for direction from the Council. Relative to the proposed moratorium (which did not come to pass), did staff take that to mean no more gas stations or no fast food restaurants; Richard Bruckner. Staff was waiting for this hearing to get direction on which direction the Council wanted to take on this particular site. Council Member Kring . She feels they are putting this applicant under undue hardship ; Mayor Daly. Service stations and fast food restaurants are always discretionary. It is always a case-by-case decision at best. At the opposite end, they are “dead on arrival” at best. Until it comes to the Council and is approved, it is discretionary. That is the point he was trying to make earlier. It is unfair of staff to expect them to set a tone in any part of Anaheim on whether fast food or service stations are or are not their vision because they are always discretionary. He is convinced at this time in Anaheim’s growth they can aim far higher on the City’s major streets. Soon the area will be served by far better freeway access off 21 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 the I-5 and he is convinced they can do better in this part of the City. It is not a matter of if, but that they should set a higher standard and he is sure they will be successful in attracting legitimate sit-down restaurants of a higher scale nature, office and other commercial uses which will be in demand. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION – DENIED : On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, denied the negative declaration upon finding 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect of the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-49 for adoption Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 99R-49 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4080. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-49 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Kring ABSENT/ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Tait The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-49 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Daly. He asked for confirmation as he understands there is no need to consider the determination on Public Convenience and Necessity. City Attorney White. In the testimony this evening, that was withdrawn by the applicant and, therefore, no action is necessary. Council Member Tait entered by the Council Chamber (8:14 P.M.). PUBLIC HEARING – FORMATION OF SANTIAGO GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT D3. 184: DISTRICT: To consider a resolution approving the formation of the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District. At the meeting of February 23, 1999, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 99R-31 initiating the proceedings for the formation of the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: The Register : March 5, 1999 Mailing to all property owners within the district : February 25, 1999 Mayor Daly. This is the time and place scheduled for the hearing of objections, if any, to the formation of the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 26558. The boundaries of the proposed District are shown on Exhibit “A” of Resolution No. 99R-31 adopted by the City Council on February 23, 1999. He asked the City Clerk to report any written objections received from persons owning property within the proposed District. City Clerk, Leonora Sohl . She stated that up to the beginning of the hearing, she has received six written objections from Kamal Abdulbaki, Ercole Cambiaso, Ann Ferrante, Manfred Fabian, Rhodette 22 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Westerfield (President, Window Hill HOA) and Oscar Caplin. The total assessed value of all the objections received is $1,484,300 which is less than 50% of the assessed valuation of the property within the boundaries of the proposed District. Mayor Daly. He announced if anyone wishes to file any other written objection to the proposed formation of the District, to come forward and deliver the objection to the City Clerk at this time; no one came forward. Mayor Daly. He then commenced the hearing on the proposed formation of the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District ( GHAD) declaring that the time for filing written objections to the proposed District has expired. He added, if the proceedings sound legalistic, they are. This is an historic event because the City has not done this before in the 145 years of its existence. He then called upon the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, Mark McClarty of Eberhart & Stone to make a presentation. Mr. Mark McClarty , Engineering Geologist, Eberhart & Stone, Geologic Consultants. He and his company have been involved with working with the City since 1992 as Geologic Consultants dealing with the Santiago Landslide. He is present to provide information concerning the proposed Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District ( GHAD). It is a special District authorized by law to be set up with special powers to deal with possible geologic hazards. He referred to the large posted map, the yellow areas of which show the areas proposed to be within the District. The map also shows in the black highlighted area a much smaller area that constitutes the limits of surface damage from the Santiago Landslide. He then gave an historic overview of the geologic hazard beginning in 1993 and what the City had done since that time to present. He also referred to the Plan of Control prepared for the Proposed Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District which was a part of the data submitted. A primary purpose, but not the only purpose of the proposed District, is to operate and maintain the existing dewatering and monitoring systems which protect against rising ground water levels within the Santiago landslide area. In concluding his presentation, Mr. McClarty stated it was his understanding the anticipated settlement of law suits relating to the Santiago Landslide will create a fund of $3.5 million to be turned over to the District to operate the dewatering and monitoring systems and to mitigate the Santiago Landslide. It is also his understanding that the fund will be restricted to these purposes. If the District is to address other geologic hazards within its boundaries, it cannot use these funds or earnings from the funds to do so. The fund is intended to mitigate the Santiago Landslide Hazard and should not be diminished by trying to do other things with the fund. Once the GHAD is formed, it will become a separate public agency and its Board of Directors will make decisions on what it will do. All the Directors have to be property owners within the District. He then explained the areas that will be under their jurisdiction. Mayor Daly. He commented he feels that the name Santiago could be confusing because there are so many Santiagos used in various parts of Orange County; Mike Rubin, Special Counsel, Rutan & Tucker. He noted they could have named it the Anaheim Hills Geologic Hazard Abatement District but it does not localize it as does Santiago. Mayor Daly. If nobody else has a concern relative to the name, he will move forward. He then opened the public participation portion of the hearing asking first if anyone was present to speak in favor of formation of the District and then those persons wishing to speak in opposition; no one came forward to speak either in favor or in opposition to the formation of the District. Mayor Daly thereupon declared the public participation portion of the hearing closed and offered the resolution approving the formation of the District and appointing the Board of Directors as recommended; Before further action was taken, Council Member McCracken asked that the names of the individuals who were named to the Board of Directors be announced. City Attorney White. The names of the five recommended Board of Director members are : Louis Delmonico, Cliff Springmeier, William Collett, Shmuel Ben- Shmuel, David Salene. 23 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-50 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book RESOLUTION NO. 99R-50 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE FORMATION OF, AND APPOINTING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR, THE SANTIAGO GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-50 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus,Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None ABSENT: MAYOR/CO UNCIL MEMBERS : None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-50 duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION – CONSIDERATION OF RESCINDING CITY’S CAMPAIGN REFORM C1. 127: ORDINANCE : Discussion requested by Council Member McCracken at the meeting of January 12, 1998 (see minutes that date), Item C4., to consider the adoption of an ordinance rescinding the current Campaign Reform Ordinance. Item continued from the meeting of January 26, 1999, Item C3. Mayor Daly. The City Attorney has advised him in terms of the legalities of his participation in this issue. He asked the City Attorney to explain the situation so it is clear to the public. City Attorney White. This item involves the consideration of either amending or repealing Chapter 1.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code ( AMC) which relates to campaign finances in the City of Anaheim for local elections. There is one pending law suit that could be affected by whatever decision the Council makes regarding this item, i.e., the one case involving Chapter 1.09 to which the Mayor is a party. Any decision the Council makes with regard to this item could affect that litigation and could have a material financial effect on the Mayor as an individual. On that basis, he has recommended that the Mayor declare a conflict of interest and refrain from participating in the decision. Mayor Daly. He will be doing so according to the City Attorney’s advice and recommendation. He asked if he was allowed to stay and conduct the meeting ; City Attorney White. His advice would be that he turn the gavel over to the Mayor Pro Tem. He can stay in the Chamber, but step down from his seat. Mayor Daly left the Council Chamber temporarily (8:30 P.M.). Mayor Pro Tem McCracken . She noted that several individuals were in the Chamber audience to speak to the issue ; City Attorney White. Before public input, he will give a brief staff report. He has prepared and submitted to the Council alternatives for consideration that fall into two different types. One is the outright repeal of Chapter 1.09. Approximately 15% of the cities in California have local campaign contribution limits. Anaheim has had limits since 1993. There are two sub options given to the Council if they choose to repeal the ordinance – adopt a savings clause in the repealed ordinance, or not adopt a savings clause. The effect of including a savings clause in an ordinance repealing this chapter, it would allow the City to continue to bring prosecutions for past violations including continuing to prosecute the one existing case as to violations of Chapter 1.09. It would not affect the existing case with regard to potential violations of State law. It would enable all those matters to go forward. Adopting the repeal without such a clause would bring to an end the era of campaign litigation in Anaheim and put the City in a position where there would be no further litigation or prosecutions for past violations of the Campaign Reform Ordinance. The other option is to amend rather than repeal the existing chapter. Suggestions have been given to the Council, the primary one being to convert the $1,000 limit on contributions from a 24 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 per election to a per election cycle limit. One of the complaints he has heard from several sources is that the current ordinance is difficult because it does not contain a precise election cycle as do other ordinances and was even included in Proposition 208. The ordinance has been redrafted in what he calls, OptionB, which would include an election cycle from January 1 following any election, to December 31 following the next subsequent election for that same seat. Those are the options before the Council. They are more detailed as outlined in the staff report. Shirley Grindle (address on record). The Council has a monumental decision before it this evening – either eliminate Anaheim’s contribution limit ordinance completely or amend the current ordinance. She wants the Council to consider the following when voting tonight: (Ms. Grindle’s presentation is summarized.) She has reviewed all the Council’s campaign statements and a substantial amount of the funds received comes from the local business community. (1) If the contribution limit is repealed, they are going to be placing what she considers an unfair burden on local business leaders and people who contribute and those who want to contribute but do not want to be “bled to death.” (2 ) They have to ask themselves what they think the residents of Anaheim would want them to do. She does not know of any ballot measure in California where a contribution limit was placed on the ballot that did not pass by a majority of the voters. She does not look with favor upon “dumping” the contribution limit just to get rid of today’s legal issue. That issue will work itself out; it was unfortunate and should never have happened (she briefed the issue which involved what she considers a “fishing expedition” in hiring Special Prosecutor, Ravi Mehta, on the vote of two Council Members). In the new amended ordinance on which she worked with the City Attorney, it does not allow the same thing to happen because it will take three Council votes to direct the City Attorney to either hire his replacement or to proceed himself and file a civil action and prosecute that civil action which has to be initiated by a complaint which was not the case in the Ravi Mehta debacle. In concluding, she stated in the hopes that the Council will adopt the recommended Option B, she would like to discuss some proposed language she is recommending. (She noted she had met with all Council Members except Council Member Tait). The way the ordinance is presented, it requires the Council or the City Attorney to bring before the Council for a decision by three yes votes before any violation can be prosecuted. She is suggesting the changed language in Sec. .020 under Enforcement that the City Attorney is perfectly capable of making a decision on alleged violations by someone not on the Council and would suggest only those violations involving a seated Council Member. Only then should the City Attorney come to the Council for a three-person vote. There is no reason for making everything a political decision. She is asking if they keep the ordinance, that they adopt Option B and consider the language discussed and as noted in the attachment she has submitted (see memorandum dated March 16, 1999 to City Council Members and the City Attorney – Re : Suggested Changes to Sects. 1.09.130- subsections .020, .060 and .0901). She hopes they will do the right thing. George Adams, 7425 Lewis Street, Orange. He believes the whole idea of limits, as frustrating as they have been, are necessary. One gets caught up in the excitement and it is like a bidding war. He feels there is no question that having limits is good because the contributor then knows he/she has done the maximum and have not gone broke in the process. If there were no limits, it would be easy to spend a lot more money. He also feels that any violations should be considered civil and not criminal. In talking to his peers (other business men and women), they are happy that there are limits. As Ms. Grindle stated, having limits protects contributors from themselves. Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. She spoke against having any limits. Limits are also a violation of the First Amendment (to the Constitution) confining the candidate’s ability to get their message out. Irvine does not have such limits. Shirley Grindle interjected and explained that Irvine does, in fact have a contribution limit of $350 enacted by the voters and that limit has not been repealed. Council Member McCracken . She feels the current ordinance is convoluted, confusing and difficult to abide by particularly for “grass roots” candidates with no professional experience in reporting 25 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 contributions they receive. That is why she asked that the current ordinance be considered for possible repeal. However, the proposed amended ordinance addresses the issues she had concerns about and also addresses the issues of those who run for election and still have debt whether they win or lose and gives the opportunity to retire the debt and also incumbents who have debt and find themselves approaching another election cycle. Council Member McCracken thereupon offered Ordinance Option B with the additional language Ms. Grindle suggested allowing the City Attorney to prosecute violations which are other than seated Council Members and those violations against seated members would need a vote of the City Council. ORDINANCE NO. 5675: (INTRODUCTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (OPTION “B”) AMENDING CURRENT CAMPAIGN REFORM ORDINANCE INCLUDING LANGUAGE PROPOSED (later amended, see below). Council Member Feldhaus . He is wondering first why it would take three votes of the Council instead of a 4/5’s vote which is usual and required for something of this magnitude. He has concerns that limits encourage contributors to circumvent the limit. He would also like to know how this rewrite treats owners of companies, spouses, corporations, independent expenditures, etc., and if any changes have been made in that regard. City Attorney White. There are no changes proposed to the independent expenditure provisions that currently exist. Constitutionally and by a court decision, the City cannot impose limitations on campaign expenditures but can impose them on contributions. The same provisions have been kept in the proposed language for Option B on independent expenditures. With regard to the issue of a super majority vote of the Council, Option B was to take the situation out of the criminal arena but a civil law suit that would be filed in the name of the City to enforce payment or obtain an injunction against future violations. It was intended to be set up the same way any other law suit is actually filed by the City which he explained. As well as answering additional follow on questions by Council Member Feldhaus. City Attorney White was then asked to give input on the suggested language changes/additions by Ms. Grindle. He would see no problem in the language that adds, “intentionally or negligently” to the first line of Chapter 1.09.130 Enforcement of Chapter, .020 – Civil Liability. He does, however, question whether this should be authority for the City Attorney to file a civil law suit against anyone without Council approval for anyone other than if it is filed against a Council Member. Two things would occur. It is different from the way any other civil law suit is ever filed with the City and the second is, there may be a public perception if the City Attorney can unilaterally file a civil case against anybody other than the City Council and it takes the Council itself to authorize filing a suit against one of its members, he feels there may be a public perception that the Council is protecting itself in a way the rest of the public is not being protected. He further elaborated on the issue at the conclusion of which he clarified for Council Member McCracken , he is suggesting that the proposed language may be perceived as being unfair and a violation of equal protection and Council has the extra hoop to go through that another member of the public or a contributor would not have to. He clarified for Council Member McCracken that right now, with the exception of small claims, anything other than that comes to the City Council for authorization before a law suit is filed. Council Member McCracken . She is willing to withdraw that particular amendment. City Attorney White. What she ( McCracken) has offered is Option B which would be sufficient to have it placed back on the agenda at the next meeting to be voted on. Any other member of the Council can offer one of the other options if they wish to do so. Council Member Tait . Option B is an improvement but as evidenced by the discussion, it is still extremely complicated; Mrs. Grindle interjected and stated there is nothing in the ordinance that isn’t already required by State law. It is not complicated. There are two changes to the language she has recommended. She has no problem with dropping the issue as to whether the Council authorizes all civil violations or those just having to do with this issue, but the other is definitely needed. She has added the 26 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 language and Mr. White has confirmed that it is needed - - any person who intentionally or negligently violates the ordinance. This allows for correcting unintentional and accidental errors. She believes that as long as there are no other “ Ravi Mehta debacles”, they will probably never see any other violations filed in the City of Anaheim on this issue. There has never been a violation prosecuted because it has all been taken care of by correcting the error. Council Member McCracken . She is amending the offering of Ordinance B as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 5675: (INTRODUCTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (OPTION “B”) AMENDING CURRENT CAMPAIGN REFORM ORDINANCE INCLUDING LANGUAGE PROPOSED – RE: “INTENTIONALLY OR NEGLIGENTLY”. Council Member Tait . He understands Option B and appreciates Ms. Grindle working on it. He reiterated , it is an improvement but to him the best improvement would be to repeal the ordinance altogether. He wants to repeal the ordinance without the savings clause and revert back to State law which is adequate for all State Legislators and 85% of the cities in California. For him, it is a First Amendment issue. In order for candidates to get their message out, it is necessary to raise money. Limiting contributions limits political speech. In the interest of free speech and not prosecuting candidates who make inadvertent errors making potential criminals out of them, he would like to repeal the ordinance. There is still State law and if there is a problem, they do not have to worry about complications involving the City Attorney. Any problem will be referred to the FPPC who has the jurisdiction over violations. Council Member Tait offered Ordinance No. 5676 for First Reading (Option A2) repealing the current Campaign Reform Ordinance with no savings clause. ORDINANCE NO. 5676: (INTRODUCTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (OPTION A2) REPEALING CURRENT CAMPAIGN REFORM ORDINANCE WITH NO SAVINGS CLAUSE. City Attorney White then clarified for Council Member Feldhaus that as discussed in his memo, it would prohibit further criminal prosecutions for past violations of Chapter 1.09. The effect it would have on the one existing case, it would preclude further prosecutions of the municipal code alleged violations. It would technically not preclude prosecutions of alleged State law violations. It would remove the municipal code violations or allegations from that case. It would not affect cases that have already been settled or ajudicated which is why neither Council Members Feldhaus or McCracken has a conflict of interest in this matter. He also clarified for Council Member Kring that Council Member Tait offered Option A2, repeal of the ordinance without the savings clause. Council Member Tait . What he is interested in is accurate disclosure which State law demands. If someone gives $1,000 or $2,000 it has to be accurately disclosed. He feels they get more information without the limit than with having the $1,000 limit. Additional Council discussion, debate, comments and also questions to the City Attorney followed at the conclusion of which, City Attorney White stated two ordinances have been introduced (Ordinance No. 5675 – Option B amending the current Campaign Reform Ordinance including adding the language proposed, “intentionally or negligently”) and Ordinance No. 5675 – Option A2 repealing the current Campaign Reform Ordinance with no savings clause) which will appear on the Council agenda next week (March 23, 1999) in the order in which they were introduced. Mayor Daly entered the Council Chamber (9:22 P.M.). COUNCIL COMMENTS: C3. 114: 27 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 Council Member McCracken : She serves on the Orange County Sanitation District and they are requesting, as well as the Public Utilities Board and the Public Utilities Director, that the Council have an informational workshop on the new Ground Water Replenishment System Project being proposed jointly by the Orange County Water District and the Sanitation District to answer questions raised by the Public Utilities Board regarding the project. Also, Anaheim and staff needs to be involved in the public meetings being held to inform the City’s residents of the project being sure that neighborhood leaders are notified and also that Anaheim’s issues are addressed. It is a huge project for reclaiming the water from the Sanitation District with an intricate process of reverse osmosis and returning the water to the underground basin. She believes the Council needs to know how to vote on the issue and secondly the community also needs to be informed so, as the project moves along, they are not surprised by the process or by what is being proposed. Ultimately, they will see some connection fees for water and sewer that will have to be addressed. The project is what she is concerned with – that the Council have sufficient information and as a City and staff, assist in the public meetings that will be offered throughout Anaheim. Mayor Daly. They will look forward to a workshop being scheduled. His suggestion is the PUB have a separate session rather than with the Council. He would rather just have the Council focus on the issue ; Council Member McCracken. She believes they have already had a couple of sessions, but they do have questions and their questions are questions that staff can bring with them to that workshop so the City can be sure the Sanitation District and the Water District answers Anaheim’s questions. Council Member Kring : She reported she had met the owners of the shopping center at Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl Ranch Road, Alex Glasser and his sister of American Investment Group. The owners have offered their services and facilities (their parking lot or Bella Cucina) for community events/fund raisers. Those interested can call 949-487-6474. Council Member Feldhaus : On their recent trip to Washington for the National League of Cities Meeting, one of the highlights was a session entitled, “Preserving Federal, State and Local Partnerships”, with speakers, Congressman Jim Moran, Democrat from Virginia and Congressman Tom Davis, Republican from Virginia. The focus was Internet Shopping and Catalog Sales, specifically the millions of sales tax dollars being lost to local communities. As Mr. Moran stated, communities need their local stores and shops, but questioned how long can they survive with the competition of internet marketing which can undersell because they do not have to pay sales or use taxes. He is suggesting that an Ad Hoc Committee be set up or a Task Force or perhaps it could be a focus of the Budget Advisory Commission to study this issue so recommendations can be made to Federal and State Legislators. The committee could be composed of local businesses, internet service providers, Chamber of Commerce representatives, perhaps even First World. It is a serious issue since it involves jobs and sales tax dollars. (He then posed questions that might be explored). Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to explore the issue and report back with suggestions on the best sources of information and how to put the best groups of experts together. Before concluding the meeting, Mayor Daly noted the Council had briefly discussed the possibility of adjusting its meeting schedule for April. He asked for their responses as soon as possible in order to provide input so that staff can make adjustments in a timely manner if called for. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of March 16, 1999 was adjourned (9:30 P.M.). LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 28 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1999 29