Loading...
2001/03/27 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 27, 2001 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait and Shirley McCracken. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder. A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on March 23, 2001 at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards. Mayor Daly called the regular meeting to order at 3:13 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: Finding that there was a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the City Council subsequent to the agenda being posted, Mayor Daly moved to add the following item to the Closed Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8: Property: Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, 2695 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California Agency negotiator: James D. Ruth Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim, Ogden Facility Management Corporation and Vancouver Grizzlies Professional Basketball Team Under negotiation: Terms of facility lease Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. Mayor Daly moved to recess to Closed Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously. The Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:14 P.M. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 Agency designated representative: David Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 Agency designated representative: David Hill Employee organization: Unrepresented Management Employees ...,... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 2 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: South Coast Cab v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 80-03-59. 4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: Kord Group v. The Fieldstone Company, et aI., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 76-32-58. 5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: Number of potential cases: two. 6. ANNUAL EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Title~ City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer 7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8: Property: Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, 2695 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California Agency negotiator: James D. Ruth Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim, Ogden Facility Management Corporation and Vancouver Grizzlies Professional Basketball Team Under negotiation: Terms of facility lease AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of March 27, 2001, to order at 6: 18 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: David Lewis, Western Avenue Church of Christ FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Lucille Kring PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS: Recognizing April 2001 as Volunteer Recognition Month, Betty and Ruben Soto accepted the recognition on behalf of the Volunteer Program. They explained that volunteers who accumulated 100 or more hours were honored at the Annual Recognition Banquet. Recognizing April 8 - 14, 2001, as National Telecommunicators Week, Shelly McKerren and Deborah Wuest accepted the proclamation. Recognition's to be presented at a later date were proclamations declaring: ..,..... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 3 Recognizing April 16, 2001, as Shine the Light on Child Abuse Day Recognizing April 1 - 7, 2001, as Week of the Young Child Recognizing April 16 - 22, 2001, as National Community Development Week Recognizing April 5 - 22, 2001, as Days of Remembrance Recognizing March 2001, as DeMolay Month Recognizing Cesar Chavez Recognizing Reverend Crow on his retirement from The Garden Church Recognizing April 15 - 21,2001, as Organ & Tissue Donor Awareness Week Recognizing April as Fair Housing Month Recognizing the week of April 15 - 21, 2001 as Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week and Recognizing April Fair Housing Month. At 5:58 P.M., Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting at 6:18 P.M. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Francis X. Nutto, 621 Jambalaya, spoke in favor of the Groundwater Replenishment System Project. James Robert Reade, 100 Midway Drive, asked for the cleanup of the Little Dude restaurant. He voiced concern over the situation of the Mexican-Americans in Anaheim. Alma Ramirez, 100 W. Midway Drive, spoke about problems experienced with the Police Department and children in the Golden Skies Mobile Home Park. Helo Solori, 626 E. Big Tree Circle, spoke against a demonstration, which occurred at his service station. He noted the celebration, which was to be held at La Palma Park, was called off after the sponsors, R. J. Reynolds Company and Adolph Coors Company, and was told they would not be able to promote their products. Art Castillo, 1431 W. Chateau, spoke in favor of a Council decision to remove the liquor store at the South Street and Harbor Boulevard gas station. .... ClTY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 4 Steve Faessel, 1005 South Cardiff Street, Chairman of the Public Utilities Board, recapped the Public Utility Board's history regarding the Groundwater Replenishment System Project. He finalized that the Board found enough merit to recommend to Council, on a seven to zero vote, to support the continued development and analysis activities of the Groundwater Replenishment System by the combined boards of the Orange County Water District and the Orange County Sanitation District. AI Salahi, 333 N. Santa Anita Ave. #16, Arcadia, spoke on behalf of Sed con Engineering Contractors, who had been awarded the contract to build Euclid Avenue Fire Station 6. He said the project had turned a dead-end corner due to a number of reasons. He said the City was wrongfully and unfairly handling the project causing it to come to a halt. When asked by the Mayor what his suggested solution was, Mr. Salahi said he wished the Council to demand the City to take action on the project to make sure the project can go forward. He said the building was half done without the possibility of any more work being done. Mayor Daly asked to what extent were the City Manager and City Attorney aware of the situation. City Attorney White said his office was aware of the situation and had been offering advice and counsel to the Public Works Department. The Mayor asked if Mr. Salahi was an attorney for the contractor and Mr. Salahi responded no, that he was their representative, speaking on their behalf. Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works, said he had been in consultation with the City Attorney's office to make certain that the project moved forward and gets completed in some fashion with the current contractor or in a different manner. He said there were some extensive issues with the contract and the contractor, but he was not prepared to go over them that evening. Mr. Salahi stated that their intent was to bring the issue to Council's attention and seek a remedy. He said they tried to work it out with City officials, but was not getting anywhere and the sub-contractors were not getting paid because the City was not paying the general contractor. Mayor Daly told Mr. Salahi that any further action by the Council would be stimulated by recommendations by the Public Works Director, City Manager and City Attorney. Mr. Ruth explained to the Mayor and Council that staff would provide a detailed report at the next closed session. Tom Kirkker, 647 South Bruce Street, Vice Chairman of the Public Utilities Board, spoke in support of the recommendation of the Groundwater Replenishment Project. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A20: Mayor Daly moved to waive the reading in full of all the ordinances and resolutions, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried. """T" CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 5 Mayor Daly moved approval of the Consent Calendar, Items A 1 through A 19, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member as listed on the Consent Calendar. Mayor Daly asked that Item A20 be pulled for separate discussion. City Clerk Schroeder noted a clarification on the agenda pertaining to Item A 19, areas 1 and 2 from the RM1200 zone to the RM3000 zone. 118 A1. 117 A2. 156 173 A3. 123 150 A4. Reject certain claims filed against the City. Receive and file February Investment Report as presented by the Treasurer; the Police Department Crime and learance Analysis for the month of February and federal Energy Regulatory Commission notices of docket filings. Approve the agreement between the City of Anaheim and the City of Placentia For a sewer connection located at 1500 North Lakeview Avenue. Terminate the contract agreement and approve a settlement agreement with Zarif Construction Company in the amount of $5,100 for the John Marshal Park Parking Lot Improvement Project. A5. Amend the Fiscal Year 2000/01 Public Works Capital Improvement Program budget in the amount of $240,000 for the acquisition of property located at 2004 East Lincoln Avenue (R/W 5189-10) to complete the Lincoln Avenue/State College Boulevard improvement project. 158 A6. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-71 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 00R-125 which established rates of compensation for job classifications designated as Professional Management. 153 153 A7. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-72 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Police Association. A8. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-73 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving two Letters of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47. 153 123 A9. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement between the City and Chapman University to provide Anaheim Leadership Education and Development Seminars (L.E.A.D.S.). 153 A10. ORDINANCE NO. 5757 (ADOPTION) AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City of Anaheim and the Board of Administration of the California Public --r- CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 6 Employees' Retirement System (Introduced at the meeting of March 6, 2001, ItemA8.) 123 A 11. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the agreement and related documents with Siemens Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $300,000 (plus applicable taxes) for the hardware, software and metering protocols associated with an Advanced Metering Communications System (AMCS); and Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the License Agreement and Wireless Data Service Agreement with SmartSynch, Inc. for the software and satellite paging communication protocols associated with AMCS and approve annual support and maintenance agreements at a cost not to exceed $12,000 per year (with annual adjustments for inflation); and 160 Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue annual purchase orders necessary for the monthly communication charges to support AMCS at a cost not to exceed $20,000 per year. 123 A 12. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the amendment to Lease No. PRC 6785.1 between the State of California State Lands Commission and the owners of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) to extend the expiration of the lease to February 28, 2023 for Parcel 2, 26 circular parcels of submerged land located offshore used for environmental monitoring buoys. 106 A13. Amend the Fiscal Year 2000/01 budget and CDBG Action Plan to increase appropriations by $164,200 in the Park Site and Playground Fund (216-213- 4760) to be partially funded by a transfer from the CDBG Program in the amount of $140,862; and Amend the Public Works Department budget to increase appropriations by $150,000 in the Resort Neighborhood Improvement Program (455-412-9785); and Reprogram CDBG funds in the amount of $140,862 generated from CDBG program income to acquisition costs related to the Paul Revere Park project after approval from the Department of Housing and Urban Development is received; and Reprogram $40,404 from the CDBG demolition program to the Graffiti Removal program and increase appropriations in the Planning Department CDBG fund and decrease appropriations in the Community Development CDBG fund by same amount, $40,404. 123 A 14. Approve an agreement with the Magnolia School District in the amount of $51,563 to fund a "Kids In Action" youth development and sports program site at the Salk Family Resource Center; increase the revenue and expenditure appropriations in the amount of $23,767 and increase part time work hours by ... 160 160 160 129 179 123 ..,.... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 7 2,064 hours in Program 101-213-7287; and increase the revenue and expenditure appropriations in the amount of $25,046 and increase part time work hours by 1,104 hours in Program 101-213-4277. A 15. Accept the low bid of Fortel Traffic Inc. in an amount not to exceed $500,420 (tax inclusive) for green LED traffic signal modules for Public Works in accordance with Bid #6114A. A 16. Accept the bid of Southwest Power, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $398,608 for one-year, with three one-year optional renewals, for pad mount switches with fuse holders in accordance with Bid #6105 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to execute the optional renewals. (Continued from the meeting of March 20, 2001, Item A11) A17. Waive Council Policy 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $44,710 to LaserFiche for document imaging, conversion and indexing of Public Works drawings and records. A18. Accept the Arson Canine Scholarship from State Farm Insurance and authorize the Fire Chief to execute all documents necessary to implement the training program beginning April 15, 2001. A19. ORDINANCE NO. 5759 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 89-90-58 located in Areas 1 and 2 from the RM-1200 zone to the RM-3000 zone. All resolutions and ordinances were read by title only. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried. A20. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Orange County Water District (OCWD) regarding beautification of OCWD facilities within Anaheim and replacement of City production wells affected by the proposed Groundwater Replenishment System project. (Continued from the meeting of March 20, 2001.) Marcie Edwards, Utilities General Manager, explained that the Public Utilities Board held a special meeting and the revised recommendation received a seven to zero vote in support of it. George Martin, Water Engineering Manager for the Public Utilities Department gave the presentation on the Ground Water Replenishment System. He noted the issues facing Orange County were sewer outfall that was rapidly approaching it's capacity, a weak sea CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 8 barrier that was weak because Water Factory 21, which was used to support that barrier, was rapidly approaching the end of its useful life. He noted that Orange County was currently overpumping the groundwater basin by a significant amount each year and the difference had to be made up by purchasing significant amounts of replenishment water. Lastly, he said the availability of imported water was in question. Mr. Martin explained that staff had identified three different project alternatives that could address the issues and he referred to a map depicting the full project. He noted the advantages of the project included avoiding a new sewer outfall that was estimated at about $170 million, which would replace Water Factory 21 and reduce the City's dependence on imported water and at the same time would provide a cost sharing opportunity to implement much needed regional water reclamation projects. He reviewed some of the disadvantages identified as overcoming the public perception of water quality and a significant capital expenditure, with a current estimate of $352 million for construction and approximately $22 million annually for operations and maintenance cost. Another alternative was the phased approach, which he indicated that Phase I had a reduced sized of the advanced water treatment plant would be constructed first and that water would be used for the sea barrier. At a later date, he explained, the second phase would be constructed where the size of the advanced water treatment plant would be increased and then construct the pumping facilities in the pipeline. Mr. Martin explained that a couple of objectives had to be met if the City considered the phased approach; the reduced size of the plant must still avoid the sewer outfall in order to maintain the 50% funding that was being provided by the Sanitation District. He said there was currently $57 million that had been received in grants. If the phased approach was used, some of the advantages staff had identified were reduced initial cost for Phase I would be $187 million, with $8 million in operations and maintenance. It would construct the critical component first to protect the barrier and at the same time replace Water Factory 21 and provide opportunity for obtaining additional grant funding. This option came with potential disadvantages, he noted, potential loss of project grants, increased total project cost and potential new environmental mitigation. Mr. Martin said it would be appropriate to look at a "no project" alternative, which would involve rebuilding Water Factory 21 at a cost of approximately $130 million and the Sanitation District would have to create a new sewer outfall. He said the only advantage for a "no build" alternative that staff could come up with was that it avoided the project capital outlay of $352 million. He clarified that it would require building the new sewer outfall which was $170 million dollars, rebuilding Water Factory 21 which was $130 million and the continued dependence on imported water and actually purchasing the replenishment water that would have been manufactured at the plant for $11 million annually. He noted that even a "no build" alternative had a financial impact. Mr. Martin referred to page 11 of the staff report which reflected, from a water perspective, what an Anaheim, single family residential customer would see on their water bill. He informed the current replenishment assessment, what the Orange County Water District charges each producer to take an acre-foot of water out of the ground, .......... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 9 was set at $107. He said in the next five years, the replenishment assessment would increase to $157 to pay for the first portion of the Ground Water Replenishment Project and if there was no project, it was scheduled to increase to $147, he explained. He added that what it computed to on an average water bill was increases of $31 if there was a project, $26 increase if there is no project. Mr. Martin explained that the Public Utilities Board listed to the alternatives and made the recommendation to move forward with further analysis and design of the ground water replenishment system, which was based on the following information: (1) the recommendation was not a "go" for the entire project recommendation; (2) enough merit with the project to proceed; (3) some questions still unanswered; (4) 11 conditions and milestones were identified by the groundwater producers; (5) establish an Advisory Committee; (6) conclude the analysis before construction; and (7) add public information presentations. He noted that the Resolution before Council had been amended to incorporate the Public Utilities Board recommendation to support moving forward with additional analysis and design in a cooperative manner with the Orange County groundwater producers to further analyze and determine the aspects of the project, which included costs. Answering Mayor Daly's question regarding status, Mr. Martin informed that there was a joint board meeting the next evening with the Sanitation District and the Water District to make a recommendation on where to go from here. He said they had concluded a 30% design. Council Member Kring asked Mr. Martin if he knew how much money had been spent to get to the 30% mark. He responded that he believed the design cost was somewhere around $5 million. Council Member Feldhaus asked how the City would oversee that effective cost control measures are put into place and how was it monitored. Don Calkins, Assistant General Manager of Utilities, answered that the purpose of the 11 conditions and milestones that had been developed over the last few weeks with the underground water producers was to provide the structure and frame work to make sure the issues and questions were addressed before construction. Council Member Feldhaus asked if there was an MOU being developed between the Districts and the City. Mayor Daly asked what the City's leverage was concerning the 11 conditions and milestones. Mr. Calkins answered that the groundwater producers would be working through the advisory committee and brining forth recommendations of all ground water producers whether to support the project or not. Mayor Daly asked for future updates on how the staff felt about the effectiveness of the groundwater producers group and what Anaheim could do to enhance or monitor the group. -,- CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 10 Marcie Edwards said staff would not only be going to participate through the advisory group, receiving routine reports on the conditions and milestones, but also be pursuing their own continued independent evaluations on the project and staff would summarize those efforts and provide updates to Council. Mayor Daly suggested that rather than a formal resolution; Council could aim towards monitoring the additional analysis and design development activities, working with the underground water producers as this goes forward. He also stated that they should adopt the MOU on the beautification project. Council Member McCracken asked if she was correct in saying that there has been work with staff and provided input on the project over the last three years and Mr. Calkins answered that was a correct statement. Mayor Daly stated that he would recommend Council approve the MOU between the City and the Water District regarding the beautification and regarding the resolution, he suggested that rather than adopt a formal resolution, he suggested Council work from the paragraph provided by staff recommending staff monitor additional analysis design development activity of the proposed system in a cooperative manner with the Orange County Ground Water Producers. Mayor Daly moved to approve the MOU and rather than adopt the Resolution, the Council directs the staff to monitor the additional analysis and design development activities of the proposed Ground Water Replenishment System Project on a cooperative manner with the Orange County Ground Water Producers to further define the project's many aspects including cost and water supply reliability before a final decision is made on expenditure of significant funds for project construction. Motion seconded by Council Member Kring. Council Member Tait asked that the MOU be voted on separately. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Feldhaus, Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried. Council Member Tait said that his position was cautious acceptance and he expressed his desire to vote for staff's latest recommendation, page 13 of the staff report, to move forward but cautiously. Council Member McCracken said she agreed with Council Member Tait in the sense that the recommendation states where the City of Anaheim's caution was. Council Member Tait said he would be willing to place the staff recommendation in the form of a motion rather than a resolution Council Member Tait asked Ms. Edwards that if information developed down the road which was uncomfortable to staff and Council, could the Council change from acceptance to non-acceptance, to which she responded absolutely, staff wanted to keep the door open. .......... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 11 The wording of the motion was: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Anaheim does hereby support moving forward with additional analysis and design development activities of the proposed Groundwater Replenishment System project in a cooperative manner with the Orange County Groundwater Producers to further define the project's many aspects, including cost and water supply reliability, before a final decision is made on expenditure of significant funds for project construction. Mayor Daly called for the vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Kring, Tait, Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carried. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR OFF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM: 173 A21. Consider adoption of a moratorium ordinance prohibiting the processing or approval of any new taxicab operator's permits pursuant to Chapter 4.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pending public hearings by the city Council to award new taxicab franchises, and pending amendments to Chapter 4.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ORDINANCE NO. 5760 (URGENCY) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting an interim measure imposing a moratorium on the issuance of new operator permits, and permits to existing operators for additional vehicles, for taxicabs or chauffeured limousine services in the City of Anaheim which permits may be in conflict with new regulations the City is studying or intending to implement; and declaring that this ordinance is an emergency measure which shall take immediate effect. City Attorney White explained that staff had been working on a plan to improve the quality of taxi service in the City by possibly transitioning from a current permit system to a franchise system that would involve the awarding of franchise to taxi operators. He clarified that staff had been working on the plan for almost two years. He said that late last year the city solicited RFP's for taxi franchises pursuant to the proposed transition. He said the staff was currently planning to bring those recommendations regarding the franchise system to Council at the next meeting, April 17, 2001. He informed that the City had recently received a decision from the Fourth District California Court of Appeals, finding that the City's current permit system had a provision in it relating to the criteria under which permits were awarded that was void and unenforceable due to vagueness. If the City were to retain a permit system, he explained, at a minimum it would need to amend the current permit ordinance with regard to the provision prior to processing or approving any further taxi permits. Mr. White explained that the City had received and would receive additional applications for permits in the immediate future. The purpose of the moratorium, he noted, would be to keep the status quo as it exists today, with regard to the taxi operations and permits until the Council had received the staff report relating to the potential award of taxi franchises and/or has had an opportunity to make necessary amendments to the current ordinances relating to taxi permits. He ciarified that the proposed moratorium ordinance had been posted outside the doors of the CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 12 Council Chambers and had been shown as available on the agenda for the meeting that evening, as provided for in the Charter. He said that the proposed duration of the ordinance would be for a maximum of 180 days or until such sooner time as the City had actually adopted a system or ordinance that would be necessary, at which time the moratorium would be terminated and the City would then be able to operate under the ordinances that had been enacted for the system that the City had put into place. He finalized by saying that the staff recommendation was to adopt the moratorium, which would require a 4/5 vote of the Council since it was an urgency ordinance. He said the moratorium would not apply to the permit that had been ordered by the Court of Appeals to be issued to the South Coast Taxi Company for 117 additional taxi cabs, which would bring the total permitted taxi cabs in the City to 282. Hearing no questions, Mayor Daly offered the ordinance for adoption. He asked if there were any persons in the audience who wished to speak to the item and no one stepped forward. Council Member Feldhaus asked what the urgency was. Mr. White explained that ordinances usually take two readings and then 30 days to become effective. As indicated, staff had planned to return to the next Council meeting the proposals relating to the franchises. He said if Council adopted the ordinance as a regular ordinance, it would not take effect until May 17th and by then the staff would be far enough along to put into place what the Council desired. He also said that to avoid having new applications filed and potentially brought to Council for public hearings, it was recommended to place a hold on the current permit system until the ordinances can be put into place. Mayor Daly called for a roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried. Items B1 throuah 86 From Plannina Commission Meetina of March 12. 2001: (No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 3, 2001: 179 B1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Harvey S. Owen, P. O. Box 308, Buena Park, CA 90621 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.9 acre located on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street(The Shack). Requests reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on January 31, 2000. To expire on February 2, 2001) and an amendment to a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing public dance hall and sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISISION: 179 179 -r- CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 13 Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 2090 for six months to expire August 2, 2001 (PC2001-30) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Arnold absent). B2. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04332 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: James A. Liberio, Trustee of the Liberio Family Trust, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, #A, Anaheim, CA 92801 Raymond Kubicki, 6307 Canobie Avenue, Whittier, CA 90601 AGENT: Dave Bartlett, 36 Bramford Street, LaDera Ranch, CA 92694 LOCATION: 1712, 1720 and 1730 West La Palma Avenue and 1017. 1021, and 1031 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 2.3 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue. Requests to construct a three-unit commercial retail center and a freestanding, drive-through pharmacy with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 2001-04332 granted (PC2001-31) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Arnold absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. B3. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04333 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Larry P. Henry and Caroi Henry, 225 North Loara Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Dean Garcia, 1303 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 309 North Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 0.25 acre located on the south side of Manchester Avenue, 210 feet west of the centerline of Loara Street (Agape House of Prayer). To retain an unpermitted church in an existing building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 2001-04333 granted for two years to expire March 6, 2003 (PC2001- 32) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Arnold absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. Council Member McCracken indicated that this was a small church and only had 10 parking spaces. She said she found no parking agreement for the church, even though they should have at least 30. She noted that there was open land for sale around the property and she wondered why they were using the street to park. Council Member McCracken asked why staff recommended denial of the waiver. Planning Director Joel Fick answered that staff shared the concerns that she voiced. He noted the Planning Commission granted the permit for a period of two years, which was CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 14 not a permanent use and during that interim time period other redevelopment uses and interests in the area would allow those interests to be further advanced. Council Member Feldhaus asked if they also had a condition that the legal property owner had to apply for an encroachment license or abandonment within 120 days. Mr. Fick answered that was correct. Council Member McCracken said that the encroachment would be on City land, the way the parking spaces were right now was not long enough to be valid parking spaces. Council Member Feldhaus asked what the reason was for the encroachment and Mr. Fick responded that the intention was to encourage as much parking as possible and not in the right of way area. Mayor Daly asked if that permit was handled at the administrative staff level or would it go to the Planning Commission or City Council. Planning Director Fick said that it was handled by Public Works. Council Member McCracken noted that it did not give additional parking, it only made the 10 work that they currently had. Mayor Daly asked if there was a recommendation from redevelopment staff and Mr. Fick responded that both Planning and Redevelopment staff recommended denial. Council Member McCracken called for a public hearing, explaining that churches want to grow and they did not have one third of what they needed now. Mayor Daly agreed and noted the item would be set for a future public hearing. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS 179 B4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4181 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: LOCTION: 3335 - 3351 West Lincoln Avenue. Pacific National Development, Attn: Albert J. Marshall, 930 West 16th Street, Suite E-2, Costa Mesa, CA 92627, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously approved three-story, 132 unit "affordable" senior citizens apartment complex. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved retroactive extension of time for CUP NO. 4181 to expire February 28, 2002. Negative Declaration previously approved. 155 B5. CEQA EXEMPT - SECTION 15061 (bH31 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00387 AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2001-00005 AND OTHER: City-initiated (Community Development Department), Attn: Lisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th Floor, Anaheim, CA ....."... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 15 92805, request to consider initiation of (a) a General Plan Amendment to redesignate certain properties from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation and (b) the application for West Gate Specific Plan No. 2001-00005. Property is located at 2951-2961West Lincoln Avenue. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00387 and Specific Plan No. 2001- 00005. 179 B6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 (PREV. CERTIFIED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 - REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS: Pacific Theatres, Attn:)ohn Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048, request for review of phase one landscape plans. Property is located at 1500 North Lemon Street - Anaheim Gateway. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved final landscape plans for CUP NO. 4171 (6 yes votes, Commissioner Arnold absent.) EIR No. 323 previously certified. 179 Items B7 throuQh B8 from ZoninQ Administrator MeetinQ of March 8. 2001: (No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 30, 2001: B7. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2001- 00210 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 3: OWNER: Robert A. Massari and Athene F. Massari, 5833 Kellogg Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 430 North State Colleoe Boulevard: Property is 0.28 acre having a frontage of 104 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of 117 feet, located 115 feet south of the centerline of Sycamore Street. Waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet high permitted; 7 feet high proposed) to permit and retain an existing 7 ft. high wrought iron fence within the required front yard setback of an office building in the CL (Commercial Limited) Zone. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2001-00210 (Decision No. ZA2001-12). 179 B8. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2001- 00211 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 3: OWNER: Thomas L. and Marian L. Hazzard, 1883 W. Chanticleer Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1883 West Chanticleer Road: Property is 0.17 acre located at the northeast corner of Nutwood Street and Chanticleer Road. Waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet high permitted; 6 feet high proposed) to permit and retain an existing 6 ft. high artificial wood fence within the required front yard setback area adjacent to a collector street, for a single-family residence with a reversed building frontage in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single- Family) Zone. --"-- ----..- 176 --,-- CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 16 ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2001-00211 (Decision No. ZA2001-13). END OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS 6:00 P.M. Public HearinQs: Mayor Daly requested Item C2 be heard first. C2. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 2001-00027: consider abandoning an easterly portion of that certain alley extending from Hampstead Street to Michelle Drive, located approximately 170 feet south of the centerlins of Lynne Avenue. At its meeting held February 27,2001, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001 R-47 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service easements of a portion of the alley located adjacent to the west of Michelle Drive, south of Lynne Avenue and east of Hampstead Street. Natalie Meeks, Public Works, gave the staff report, noting the abandonment was in the Jeffery Lynne Area, the Redevelopment Agency had acquired some additional property and staff was including this land in the gated and secured area that was being developed. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and having no testimony heard, he closed the hearing. Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA Finding, Categorically Exempt, Class 5, seconded by Council Member Kring. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Daly offered the resolution in support of the abandonment for adoption. RESOLLUTION NO. 2001 R-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating certain public streets, highways and service easements (Abandonment 2001-00027) Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Kring, Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carned. Mayor Daly added that the abandonment involved a lease of the property by the developer of the Jeffrey Lynn project. Elisa Stipkovich answered yes; it was a second part of the equation, staff would return to Council for the ability to lease it to the developer. Mayor Daly asked if an appraisal had been done yet and Ms. Stipkovich responded that the Housing Authority was the owner of the property to the south and the City had a long term ground lease with the property to the north. She said that staff would be asking for consideration as the city and housing transaction as part of the entire Jeffrey Lynn project. CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 17 176 C1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 00-9A: To consider abandoning a 22.25-foot wide portion of Water Street and quitclaim of said portion of Water Street together with an 8-foot wide portion of Water Alley; both located east of Olive Street and west of Atchison Street. (Continued from the meetings of February 13, 2001, Item C2, February 27,2001, Item C1 and March 20, 2001, Item C1.) At its meeting, January 9,2001, Item A10, the Anaheim City Council adopted 2001 R-4 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service easements and setting a date and time to consider the abandonment of a portion of Water Street and quitclaim of said portion of Water Street together with a portion of Water Alley, both located east of Olive Street and west of Atchison Street. REQUESTED BY: Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald, LLP, on behalf of KWIKSET CORPORATION, 601 South Figueroa Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor, Los Angeles. CA 90017-5759. Natalie Meeks gave the staff report explaining that at the previous Council meeting, staff reviewed the requested abandonment of Water Street and Council asked for additional research from the City Attorney's Office. She said it had been identified that it appeared that the Council in 1971 intended to abandon the area but the legal descriptions were incorrect. She said that there were a number of options that had been laid out by the City Attorney. Mayor Daly asked for clarification of the staff recommendation. Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Department, told Council that although the City Attorney had laid out several options, the Community Development, in conjunction with the Public Works Department, had made a recommendation. She said that due to the issue regarding the Council's finding that the streets were unnecessary for present or prospective public uses, she said staff felt obligated to inform that they may be required for public use such as a future residential street and/or residential affordable housing. She also said that depending upon the decision whether to abandon the street and alley, that following Council procedures to consider an appraisal on the property because the appraisal that the City had done did not take into consideration the retainment by the City of a utility easement which would actually decrease the value of the property. She asked the Council to consider having an appraisal done before any property was conveyed to the property owner requesting the abandonment and conveyance. Mayor Daly summarized the recommendation as being to deny the abandonment. He asked what the sequence would be. City Attorney White answered that the denial was Community Development's recommendation. He said the procedure that he had laid out was that if the Council ..,..... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 18 desires to abandon the property, then the Council should either make a determination under the Council policy that good cause exists not to require compensation or that Council should obtain an appraisal and require compensation in accordance with the appraisal. Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney that if the Council chose to approve the abandonment, that could be done either with the finding of good cause or with the obtaining of an appraisal. City Attorney answered yes and requiring compensation. Mayor Daly opened the Public hearing. Frederick Rafeedie, counsel for Kwikset Corporation, said he was going to follow the procedure laid out by the City Attorney. He said that the City Attorney obviously concluded that the City intended to convey fee title to Kwikset in 1971 by the resolution that was issued at that time. He said the issue had been raised by staff that Council needed to determine whether the parcel would be needed for public street use. He said the resolution issued in 1971 indicated that the City declared that there was no need for present or prospective use of that area for public streets, adding that he felt the Council had already determined 30 years ago that it would not need the parcel for public use and he added that it would be unjust for the City to renege on that now. The second item raised in the report, he said, was the City Council Policy #216 that apparently required some compensation under certain circumstances unless they found good cause to waive that requirement. He suggested that there was good cause for several reasons to waive that requirement. He informed the first one was that he did not know whether Council Policy #216 existed in 1971 but that he did know that no monetary compensation was asked or requested at that time. He said if that policy did not exist in 1971, it would be unfair now to retroactively impose it. If it did exist at time, he said, it was obvious that the City did not ask for compensation under the policy. Second reason, he said, there was no compensation asked for, whether there was a pOlicy or not and it would be unfair for the City to come back 30 years later and say that they intended to convey fee title to Kwikset at that time and now they were going to make them pay for it, even though at the time they did not intend for them to pay any monetary compensation. Mr. Rafeedie said Kwikset had paid consideration for the parcel long ago. He said the first thing they did was agree to a public utility easement over the parcel, it agreed to accept surface water run off and sign a hold harmless agreement with the City. He said Kwikset agreed to relocate its fence from the north border of Water Street to the south border, at the City's request. He said Kwikset had maintained the property, spending thousands of dollars over the last 30 years doing so and had paid the property taxes on the parcel of land for the last 30 years. He said he sent the tax assessors parcel map that clearly reflected that abandoned Water Street was within the taxable parcel. Mr. Rafeedie said he thought those reasons clearly gave the Council more than good cause to waive the compensation requirement, if there was one. --r CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 19 He noted that in the City Attorney's report there was an issue about Section 1222 of the Charter which mayor may not require an appraisal and compensation, he suggested that if Section 1222 was not in existence in 1971, it should not now be retroactively applied to this situation and it would be in the City's best interest to waive that requirement, if it exists, to honor the agreements it previously made. He finalized that those reasons he thought the resolution should be issued, abandoned, title of the property should be conveyed to Kwikset and it should be done for no monetary compensation. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney if he was saying that the abandonment could only occur if the Council found from all the evidence submitted that the streets were unnecessary for present or future public use. Mr. White answered yes, that was the requirement under state law when the City was vacating or abandoning a public street or alley that the City must find that the streets were unnecessary for present or prospective public use. He continued by saying based on the evidence presented, the City Council must make that finding if they were to go forward with the resolution abandoning the street. Mayor Daly asked Ms. Stipkovich to confirm her recommendation and she said yes, for both as a street, for an affordable housing project it may be buffering industrial and staff may be back in the future asking Council to create a street there because she said she did not think the City would have housing butt up to that adjacent industrial. She said that more than likely with the utility easements in there, it was going to be required to stay in there as some sort of drive aisle or street. She also said that if it was not going to be used for that, it could be used as back or front yards for affordable housing. Ms. Stipkovich said that she could not, in good conscience, tell Council that there is no potential for public use and it was difficult because the Council had to make this action in 2001 when conditions were so different from 1971. Mayor Daly asked Mr. Rafeedie if Kwikset was selling the property, would it be their position that part of their sale would include this property. Mr. Rafeedie answered that was correct. Mayor Daly asked Mr. Rafeedie what his interpretation of what the City Attorney told Council about the state law and Mr. Rafeedie said his view was that in 1971 when the Council attempted, but by mistake some how the fee title was not conveyed to Kwikset, this should have all taken place in 1971, this would not be an issue. He said that at that time in order to pass the resolution, the City declared in the resolution, the subject parcel was unnecessary for present or prospective roadway or alley purposes. He continued by saying the City did follow state law in 1971 when it issued the resolution and it seemed unjust and unequitable to now go back and say that if every thing had been done correctly in 1971 and conveyed title, this would not be an issue right now. ......... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 20 Council Member Feldhaus asked if it could be conveyed back to the City at 1971 dollars. Mr. Rafeedie said that brought up another issue because if the Council wanted to get an appraisal, wouldn't that be at 1971 dollars. He said that trying to do this 30 years later was difficult and he suggested that everyone follow what appeared to be the intent of 1971 and close the transaction. Council Member Tait asked the City Attorney what his findings were regarding the intent of the parties in 1971. Jack White answered that from the material he was able to review it appeared clear to him that in 1971 the Kwikset Corporation applied for an abandonment for both Water Street and Water Alley, which was basically a 38.25 foot wide strip of property that at the time, ran between two parcels of land which belonged to Kwikset. He said they were apparently doing that to consolidate their property for a plant development. He also said that the City drew a map that described the area to be abandoned as both the street and the alley, however, when the resolutions were written, both the resolution of intent and calling the public hearing and the resolution actually attempting to accomplish the abandonment, the language was inexact and did not include Water Street and was incorrect in describing Water Alley by calling it Water Street. He went on to say that for all those reasons, it was clear that the abandonment did not occur at Water Street and the title company was taking the position, which he agreed with because of the ambiguity in the description that was in the resolution, that even Water Alley was not abandoned. He noted the City retains fee title today of the entire Water Alley, Water Street strip of land but the parties since 1971, have both considered that this property belonged to the Kwikset Corporation. He explained the reason he said that was because in 1971, the City required the Kwikset Corporation to move a fence that previously divided the northerly portion of the Kwikset property from the street so that the street and the alley were both going to be included within the Kwikset parcel and at the same time ask for a reservation of an easement back across the property. He said that you do not ask to reserve an easement back across your own property. For those reasons, he said it appeared clear to him that the City not only intended to abandon the right of way but intended in 1971 to convey title. However, he explained, a second set of mistakes was made in 1971 by the City believing that merely abandoning the right of way resulted in a conveyance of title. Council Member Tait asked if it was fair to say that the Council in 1971 voted to abandon the property and convey title to Kwikset. Jack White said he believed they thought that was what they were doing, the records were sketchy, there was a public hearing yet no one spoke and it was impossible to say what documents may have been presented at the hearing. He noted the records were as complete as possible but they did not have exhibits posted on a board as is done now. He completed his statements by saying he found nothing in the files to the converse, that the City did not intend to convey the property. He also said the property was not, in fact, conveyed and the City did still own fee title and the Council was considering the situation as it existed today in 2001. Council Member Tait asked if it was because of a mistake and Mr. White answered yes. CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 21 Council Member Feldhaus asked if there was any compensation or money that exchanged hands at that time and Mr. White said the City did not have a policy on collecting compensation until 1989. Council Policy #216 was not adopted until January 31,1989, he informed. Council Member McCracken asked if the City Attorney could tell from previous actions of the Council if there was more than one error, were there two actions, one abandoning and one transferring the property. Mr. White answered that it was not an ordinary procedure for the Council to take two actions, normally they were only doing abandonments, he said, and staff was assuming that at that time, abandoning the property resulted in conveyance. He said that sometimes that was the case, the City did not always own the underlying fee to the property. He said the Council did not have the two step process in 1971. Council Member McCracken asked about the County's process. Mr. White informed that the resolution of abandonment was recorded, there was no deed recorded because that step was not customary taken back then. Council Member Kring asked Mr. White if Kwikset had not paid the taxes where would the lien have gone. Jack White responded that the City wc>uld not have paid property taxes, the City was exempt from that. Council Member Kring stated that if Kwikset had not believed they owned the property they would not have been paying the taxes. Mayor Daly asked if the City Attorney had determined if Kwikset had been paying the taxes. Mr. White answered that he had received that information from Mr. Rafeedie that afternoon but had not verified that. Mr. Rafeedie responded that it was paid as part of the overall property. Mayor Daly asked Mr. Rafeedie if he had done a calculation as to what the incremental additional property taxes were in the 30-year period, to which Mr. Rafeedie answered many thousands of dollars; they were estimating tens of thousands of dollars just in maintenance over the years. Mayor Daly said that he thought that a commitment was clearly made by the City in 1971. Mayor Daly asked, if the Council wanted to approve the abandonment, which scenario was the most prudent course. Jack White answered that it was the call for the City Council to determine if good cause existed to waive compensation under all the circumstances presented this evening. He '''T'. CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETlNG MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 22 also said that he believed there was sufficient evidence in the record that would legally justify Council coming to that conclusion, not that they would have to come to that conclusion. Mayor Daly asked Mr. White which of the five points spelled out by the City Attorney's Office should be addressed. Mr. White said if Council wished to proceed with the abandonment, the first step would be to adopt a resolution abandoning the property and making the finding that the streets were unnecessary for present or prospective use. He also said as part of that resolution Council should discuss and indicate whether they intend to reserve the public utilities easement and whether the City was waving compensation or wished to condition the abandonment upon payment of compensation following an appraisal. Regarding the quitclaim, City Attorney White answered Mayor Daly's questions that after the Council acted on the resolution, the next item would be by a motion to act upon the quitclaim and it was quite possible that legally Council could adopt the resolution and not adopt the quitclaim. He also said that assuming the Council wished to adopt the quitclaim, they could offer a motion to do that with a 4/5 vote to waive any bidding sale or waive compensation. Council Member Tait noted that he understood Ms. Stipkovich's position and as far as compensation, he said there wasn't any 30 years ago and he did not see how the City can claim compensation now. Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA finding, Categorically Exempt, Class 5, seconded by Council Member Tait. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Daly offered the resolution in support of the abandonment of the property with the condition on the reservation of the public utility easement across the entirety of both abandoned parcels. He added with the determination that there had been good cause shown for the waiver of compensation, based on historical circumstances. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating certain public streets, highways and service easements (Abandonment 00-9A) Roll call vote: Ayes - 4, Mayor Daly, Council Members Tait, Feldhaus, Kring, Tait. Noes - 1; Council Member McCracken. Motion carried. Mayor Daly moved for approval of the quitclaim. City Attorney White advised, to be consistent with the last action, would be to waive the provisions of public bidding and sale under Charter Section 1222 finding that the conveyance was in the best interest of the City. Mayor Daly said that as recommended by the City Attorney, that language would be incorporated and thus follows through on the commitment made by the City 30 years ago. Motion seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Daly, ,- --.,- ... CITY OF ANAHEIM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2001 PAGE 23 Council Members Kring, Feldhaus, Tait. Noes - 1; Council Member McCracken. Motion carried. D. Report on Closed Session Actions: None E. Council Communications: Council Member Tait asked staff for a report on the graffiti issue, citing a noticeable increase in graffiti. He congratulated the City Manager and his staff on dealing with this issue in the past. Jim Ruth said that there had been a substantial increase in gang activity lately and it was tied into the graffiti issue. He also said the Police Department and Code Enforcement were on top of the problem. Mayor Daly suggested that undercover volunteers could be used. Council Member McCracken said it would be good to have a status report because there was a recent report given to a service organization and staff seemed to have a good strategy and it would be nice for the Council to hear it. She also said it would be good for the community to be reminded on how they can report it. Mayor Daly asked to agendize an update on the steps the City has taken to save the last remaining orange grove at Harbor Blvd. and Santa Ana Street and to research possible historic grant funding. Mayor Daly announced that the next Council meeting would be Tuesday, April 17, 2001. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Daly adjourned the meeting at 8:18 P.M. Respectfully submitted: ~~ Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE City Clerk '...,....