2014/02/18ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2014
AND THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2014
The regular meeting of February 18, 2014 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. in the chambers of
Anaheim City Hall and adjourned to 4:30 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned
meeting of February 18, 2014 was called to order at 4:35 P.M. The meeting notice, agenda and
related materials were duly posted on February 14, 2014.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Jordan Brandman, Gail Eastman, Lucille
Kring and Kris Murray.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Marcie Edwards, City Attorney Michael Houston and City
Clerk Linda Andal.
ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
At 4:36 P.M., Council recessed to closed session for consideration of the following items.
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)
Name of Case: Estate of Manuel Diaz et al. v. City of Anaheim, United States District
Court, Court Case No. SACV 12 -01897 JVS (RNBx)
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision 54956.8 of
the Government Code)
Property: 2000 East Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, CA (Angels Stadium of Anaheim)
Agency Negotiator: Tom Morton
Negotiating Parties: Angels Baseball, LP, City of Anaheim
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease
At 5:27 P.M., City Council returned from closed session.
Invocation: Father Boules, Saint Verena Coptic Orthodox Church
Flag Salute: Council Member Lucille Kring
Presentations: Proclaiming Anaheim as a Purple Heart city
Mayor Tait introduced members of the Veterans Working Group promoting Purple Heart City
designation to honor men and women in the armed forces, and also thanked Council Member
Eastman for bringing this to the attention of the city.
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 2 of 17
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Recognizing the Cypress College Foundation Men of the Year,
Distinguished Business Award and President's Distinguished Service
Award Recipients
Recognizing Inline Distributing Company
Scott Bader, Inline Distributing Company thanked the city for recognizing and welcoming Inline
to the community, emphasizing his firm cared about customers, employees and the community
and would be responsible citizens for the City of Anaheim.
ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items except public hearing): The City Clerk provided a
brief statement on public comment guidelines for speakers.
Judith Ann Colette announced the Creative Identity artwork exhibit to be shown at the Muzeo, a
program of therapeutic and expressive arts for adults with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. She extended invitations to the council and the community to enjoy this program
beginning March 1st. Dr. Cynthia Smith and George Gilliam, Executive Director, spoke to the
mission and values of the program offered in Anaheim via its school system and the talent that
"Transcends Boundaries" for these artists and performers.
Rose Tingle extended an invitation for a meeting of importance on February 20 at the
headquarters of the Voice of Orange County, a non - partisan investigative agency reporting on
many issues in Orange County. This roundtable discussion would speak to the Orange County
Animal Shelter facility, a 73 year old building that had since deteriorated with age, which took in
about 28,000 animals per year. It served various cities, including the city of Anaheim, and a
total population of about 2 million. She remarked complaints to the Board of Supervisors for 17
years yielded no solution for a new shelter, and she hoped Anaheim would send a
representative and be part of the discussion.
Ron Bengochea, resident, addressed his comments to Item No. 4, stating it was confusing to
him and he hoped the vote on whether council members were elected by district or at large was
going to be on the ballot for the voters of Anaheim to determine. He had his own opinion on
which option would be best for Anaheim and asked council to keep an open mind and listen to
the voters.
James Robert Reade, resident, addressed various gang members and the increasing gang
activity in the city.
Michael Baker, Boys and Girls Club, announced the March 22 annual gala fund raiser, urging
the Council and community to attend and support the organization.
Donna Acevedo, resident, addressed the proposed Public Safety Board, stating that the
Anaheim Community Coalition had submitted a plan to the City with specific recommendations.
She could not support Item No. 6 remarking she felt it was a waste of time and resources as
presented because it lacked power and would be ineffective while giving a false impression of
real oversight.
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 3 of 17
Mary Daniels, resident, remarked while the Public Safety Board plan covered a number of
organizational aspects such as budget, staffing, police and fire practices, and certain police
incidents it did not explain how the board would address complaints against police officers. She
added there were no police complaints on file because the community did not trust the police to
follow up on their concerns and were afraid of retaliation and that the outrage over police
behavior shown in the past underscored the need to address these types of grievances.
Theresa Smith, resident, was concerned about how the members of the Police Safety Board
would be selected and whether the process would be transparent. She would like to be part of
that process or to see how members were chosen and recommending those members be
individuals familiar with the community.
Greg Diamond discussed a recent news article about Arte Moreno's meeting with the city of
Tustin to discuss the potential of moving Angel's Baseball.
Cynthia Ward, resident, also discussed Angels Baseball, remarking the City of Anaheim had
now been served with a lawsuit by the Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic
Responsibility, because of dissatisfaction over negotiations and Arte Moreno's conduct toward
the people and the city of Anaheim.
An unidentified speaker suggested that Arte Moreno, after entering into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the city of Anaheim had shown bad faith in meeting with Tustin to discuss
the possibility of moving the Angels team to that city. Addressing the Police Safety Board, he
was appreciative of the effort made to put a board in place but felt that nine randomly picked
members was not appropriate and that individuals with knowledge and experience was needed.
William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, made a number of claims against the city council regarding
ties to Disneyland and Angels Baseball negotiations. Council Member Kring rebutted comments
made regarding Disney's purchase of its existing property.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Tait remarked that from January 21 -24 he attended
the U.S. Conference of Mayors receiving airfare and hotel lodging on behalf of the city.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Eastman removed Item No. 4 from the consent
calendar, asking for a staff report as a member of the public had some questions on the
proposed ordinance. Council Member Kring then moved to waive reading in full of all
ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the balance of the consent calendar as presented, in
accordance with reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each city council
member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll
Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Chairman Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and
Murray.) Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
1. Receive and file minutes of the Sister City Commission meeting of November 25, 2013
B105 and Public Utilities Board meeting of December 18, 2013.
2. Accept the bids of LineGear Fire & Rescue Equipment, Galls LLC, and GRP2, in an
aggregate amount of $246,836 (including sales tax), for uniforms and accessories for the
X180 Fire Department, as required, for a one year period with four one -year optional renewals,
and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in accordance with
Bid #8111.
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 4 of 17
3. Rescind the award of contract to Alpha 1 Construction for the Paul Revere Park Project,
authorize staff to pursue recovery of the associated bid security, award the contract for
AGR -7997 the project to the second lowest responsible bidder, Yakar General Contractors, in the
amount of $613,000, and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow
Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
4. ORDINANCE NO 6294 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
E127 ANAHEIM amending and restating Chapter 1.25 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to alter
iz7 the timeline for the establishment and implementation of residency districts and
requirement that City Council Members be from residency districts and elected at large.
ORDINANCE NO. 6295 (ADOPTION) AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing regulations pertaining to the authoring and signing of,
delegation of, authority to file, and other matters relating to ballot arguments and rebuttal
arguments with regard to charter amendment ballot measures submitted to the voters of
Anaheim at the November 4, 2014 General Municipal Election requiring City Council
Members (but not the Mayor) be residents of and elected by districts and increasing the
number of City Council Members from four to six.
Michael Houston, City Attorney, reported Council took a variety of actions related to the
November 14, 2014 election at the last meeting and now Ordinance Nos. 6294 and 6295 were
before council for adoption on the second reading, with one ordinance amending the Municipal
Code regarding altering the timeline for the implementation of residency districts that Council
approved last July and the other, an uncodified ordinance relating to certain procedural matters
and nothing to do with the Charter Amendments proposed by the Charter Review Committee
Council Member Eastman remarked she asked for that clarification so no person was left with
the impression that single member districts were already decided, adding that issue would be on
the ballot for all eligible Anaheim voters to consider.
Council Member Eastman then moved to adopt Ordinance No. 6294 and Ordinance No. 6295,
seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council
Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) NOES — 0. Motion Carried.
E127 5. That the City Council by Resolutions revise Measure 1- Various City Charter
Amendments, to remove proposed amendments to Section 1221 (water utility rate
transfer to retail rates), repeal and approve various procedural resolutions relating to
carrying out the June 3 , 2014 Special Municipal Election with the statewide primary
election, and review, direct and /or amend, as deemed necessary, any charter
amendments (Measure 2 and 4) that have been previously approved for submission to
the electors of the city at the June 3, 2014 special municipal election and reflected in the
procedural resolutions.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -029 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -022 and ordering the submission of
a ballot measure proposing amendments to the City Charter to the electors of said City
at the Special Municipal Election to be held in the City in on June 3, 2014 (Measure No.
1 - -- Various City Charter Amendments).
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 5 of 17
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -030 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM repeal Resolution No. 2014 -024 and ordering the submission of a
proposed initiative measure to the electors of said city at the special municipal election
to be held in the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 4 — Safe and Sane Fireworks).
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -031 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -026 and requesting the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Orange to consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be
held in the City in on June 3, 2014, with the statewide primary election to be held on that
date pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -032 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -027 and authorizing members of the
City Council to author and file written arguments and setting priorities for filing written
arguments regarding city measures to be submitted to the electors of the City at the
Special Municipal Election to be held in said City on June 3, 2014, and directing the City
Attorney to prepare Impartial Analyses of such measures.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -033 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -028 and providing for the filing of
rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted to the electors of the City at the Special
Municipal Election to be held in said city on June 3, 2014.
Paul Emery, Assistant City Manager, reported that at the February 4 th Council meeting, the
Charter Review Committee presented 22 proposed amendments to the City's Charter and staff
recommended those amendments be grouped into four separate relatable measures and three
of the four measures were approved by council and would be placed on the upcoming municipal
election to be held June 3, 2014. At the direction of the city attorney, Measure 1 was revised to
reflect the removal of Section 1221, utility rates, in order to comply with the requirements of
Proposition 218 and general tax measures. These measures, he explained, could only occur
when governing body members appeared on a ballot and as proposed in June, there were no
governing members proposed on that ballot. The remaining amendments in Measure 1
remained unchanged as staff believed the amendments collectively were related to modernizing
and updating the Charter.
As a result of the removal of Section 1221, he noted staff had an opportunity to rephrase the
ballot language to provide greater clarity to electors of the city while still maintaining the 75 word
limit set by the elections code. He outlined the ballot language for Council and the public
through a PowerPoint presentation.
Council Member Kring stated she wished to discuss fireworks as a separate matter with the city
attorney recommending the discussion take place prior to acting on this package because some
of the changes could affect the procedural resolutions, in Item No's. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Mayor Tait
recommended reviewing and commenting on the measures numerically, beginning with
Measure 1.
Measure 1 — Various City Charter Amendments Shall the Charter be amended
to: modernize and remove outdated language to reflect changes in the City and
law; authorize financial documents' availability in electronic format; update
matters regarding boards /commissions; allow setting City Manager
compensation by agreement, resolution or ordinance; authorize methods for
selling municipal property; permit City Council to delegate Treasurer's
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 6 of 17
appointment/removal to City Manager; allow Treasurer and Finance Director to
be the same person upon Council approval?
Council Member Brandman remarked as the Council Member who proposed the Charter
Review Committee, he was appreciative of the well- managed process and moved to approve
the language as presented for Measure 1, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Murray.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Tait discussed the single subject rule related to state initiatives,
recognizing that it was not mandated for charter amendments but remarking it should be applied
in this case because the way in which a City Treasurer was appointed, which was a substantive
change and should not be lumped in with modernizing or updating Charter language. For
example, he pointed out, if a voter agreed with all of the other components within Measure 1,
except the City Treasurer selection, it would make a yes or no vote confusing. He thought that
component along with the 700 and 900 series and section 1222 should be enacted as separate
amendments. The sale of municipal property required at least 2 /3 rds of members to negotiate
and sell versus having fair market value determined by the purchasing agent in the best
interests of the city reflected a form of checks and balances within the charter system and for
that reason he would vote against this motion.
AMENDED MOTION: Council Member Kring remarked she could agree with Mayor Tait's
recommendation and he subsequently offered an amended motion to submit separate ballot
measures for proposed charter amendments to Sections 701, 702, 900 series and 1222,
seconded by Council Member Kring.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Eastman remarked she was not comfortable with the lack of
discussion and lack of consultation with staff to support or not support Measure 1 stating she
would like more study. Ms. Edwards responded staff was prepared to take each item and
discuss why they believed it belonged in the current measure and to be aware of the importance
of timing to get these measures on the ballot. Mr. Emery remarked that staff was trying to bring
the Charter into alignment with best practices and the appointment of the City Treasurer was not
to change the methodology by which a City Treasurer was appointed, it was to give the Council
the authority to designate how that appointment was made. Mayor Tait understood the
rationale, asking if there was a reason why it should not be enacted as a separate initiative. Ms.
Edwards responded that a number of cities were taking this action to provide for the flexibility to
address financial aspects separately and that was why it was felt to be a good addition in terms
of modernizing. Mr. Emery stated the next issue was the Board and Commissions and the
importance of the Public Utility Board to be identified in the Charter, a ministerial action, but
appropriate in updating and modernization. The 3 rd piece was regarding the sale of municipal
property and to allow the Council to designate and define the mechanisms under which the sale
of property could take place. Council Member Eastman remarked she now had the assurance
that no powers would be taken away but that Council would have more flexibility in how it
operated and would be supportive of Measure 1 as presented. Mayor Tait disagreed remarking
the voters should be able to vote on each component of Measure 1.
Roll Call Vote on Mayor Tait's amended motion, seconded by Council Member Kring. AYES —
2: (Mayor Tait and Council Member Kring). NOES — 3: (Mayor Pro Tern Murray and Council
Members Brandman and Eastman.) Motion Failed.
Earlier Council Member Brandman had moved to approve Measure 1 as presented by the
adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -029 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -022 and ordering the submission of a ballot
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 7 of 17
measure proposing amendments to the City Charter to the electors of said City at the Special
Municipal Election to be held in the City in on June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 1 - -- Various City
Charter Amendments), seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Murray. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 4: (Mayor
Pro Tern Murray and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman and Kring.) NOES — 1: Mayor
Tait. Motion Carried.
Measure 4 — Safe and Sane Fireworks. Shall Anaheim City Charter Section
1214 be added to permit the sale, possession and use of safe and sane fireworks
in the City of Anaheim if such activities comply with restrictions and regulations
adopted by City Council ordinance?
Council Member Kring remarked there was some concern expressed by members of the
Charter Review Committee that they did not feel the use of fireworks was appropriate in the
Charter as it was not a form of governance. She discussed the history of allowing safe and sane
fireworks in Anaheim and recommended repealing that ban and allowing Council to then
regulate the use of fireworks in the city now and in the future. She proposed an amendment to
Measure 4 that would remove fireworks from the Charter, ask the voters to repeal the ban in
Municipal Code Section 6.50.030 and allow Council to regulate fireworks. Mr. Houston
explained that staff had drafted the amended language after a discussion with Council Member
Kring, and as a functional matter, it would be the same outcome that would have occurred with
the current Measure 4, except it would not be part of the Charter.
Council Member Kring's moved was to adopt RESOLUTION NO 2014 -030 A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -024 and
ordering the submission of a proposed initiative measure to the electors of said city at the
special municipal election to be held in the City on June 3, 2014 (Measure No. 4 — Safe and
Sane Fireworks), seconded by Mayor Tait. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council
Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray). NOES — 0. Motion Carried.
The City Clerk announced approval of the remaining three procedural resolutions could be
adopted with one vote and would include Measure 4 (Safe and Sane Fireworks) that was just
adopted.
Council Member Brandman moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -031 A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -026 and
requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to consolidate a Special Municipal
Election to be held in the City in on June 3, 2014, with the statewide primary election to be held
on that date pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code, and to approve
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -027 and authorizing members of the City Council to
author and file written arguments and setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding city
measures to be submitted to the electors of the City at the Special Municipal Election to be held
in said City on June 3, 2014, and directing the City Attorney to prepare Impartial Analyses of
such measures, and to approve RESOLUTION NO. -033 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Resolution No. 2014 -028 and providing for
the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted to the electors of the City at the
Special Municipal Election to be held in said city on June 3, 2014, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern
Murray. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman,
Kring and Murray.) NOES — 0. Motion Carried.
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 8 of 17
6. Public Safety Board update.
D116 City Manager Marcie Edwards remarked this item was an informational report on the pilot Public
Safety Board (PSB) and introduced Joseph Brann, an independent expert on integrated
community policing, including crime reduction strategies, adoption of effective policies and
problem solving measures for many cities nationally. Ms. Edwards pointed out Anaheim had a
number of boards and commissions where the community provided reviews, recommendations
or input on a variety of city services and as public safety accounted for nearly two - thirds of the
city's general fund budget, the intent behind the formation of a pilot program was to gain the
public's assistance in defining preferences for fire and police services and to better understand
and integrate the public performance expectations into the goals of these agencies. She added
that her support of this concept came from the many years of success as an administrator with
the Public Utility Board, an entity that was key in developing strategies and approaches to best
serve Anaheim. She indicated that board's input was and continued to be a critical part of the
Utility Department's understanding of what the public they served, wanted, and needed.
In developing this pilot program, Mr. Brann remarked it was apparent to him through the course
of 45 years in active policing and public safety consulting, that there was no single answer or
best approach model to fit all communities and the goal was to ensure everyone was committed
to designing and implementing a model that worked with the stakeholders or community
members themselves, along with police and fire personnel. He was supportive of Anaheim's
program with the objective of finding a solution that fits this city and saw it as an evolving
process where there was an opportunity to refine and adapt as the process moved forward. He
indicated the pilot Board was intended to incorporate Anaheim residents and have them work
directly with the city manager in reviewing items such as fire and police budgets, staffing levels,
service delivery mechanisms, fire and police practices and certain critical incidents, including
officer - involved shootings and use of force. He added the PSB would be involved in reviewing
both Fire and Police Departments and emphasized while most earlier programs focused
exclusively on police, the reality was the differing types of needs including looking at broader
public safety policy issues, how dollars were spent, and whether the right strategies were in
place and resources were deployed, all matters that could and should be addressed with
community input at the table.
Ms. Edwards remarked the recommended approach was a blended one, involving community
members, drawing on the expertise of a professional independent external auditor with
extensive experience in the examination of public safety and would allow for flexibility to easily
make adjustments. There would be nine members drawn from four neighborhood council areas
and a lottery approach was being used to provide an independent or transparent mechanism in
selecting members. She emphasized it was challenging to satisfy all parties with this program
and one of the reasons she recommended a pilot format was to use this group to help define
many of the elements on which a variety of opinions were already offered. She added other
criteria could have been used, such as industry experts or a panel of retired judges to select the
members but that the lottery was chosen because staff was trying to signal independence and
transparency. Some of the potential benefits of the PSB were designed to increase
transparency, community engagement, and the delivery of public safety. By including residents
and the external auditor, recommendations on a variety of public service practices to help
promote further accountability, improve transparency, and delivery of service, should result in
problem solving strategies through community engagement and an exchange of ideas. The
PSB would also have access to an independent external auditor with extensive experience with
public safety matters with other cities and agencies.
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 9 of 17
Under the pilot program, Ms. Edwards stated, staff would be recommending the scope of the
external auditor be expanded to allow for real time monitoring of critical incidents, including
officer involved shootings, use of force, and in custody deaths. In addition, the external auditor
was an independent entity that would work under the City Manager's Office to monitor on -going
administrative Investigations, provide public reports that may include recommendations on
practices, procedures, training equipment, and potential other aspects to assist public safety
personnel.
Lylyana Bogdanovich, Senior Administrative Analyst, summarized the research efforts and
analysis of various public safety review models pointing out the name or title did not necessarily
reflect an accurate role or understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities. Research
revealed that in California, boards that actually had investigative powers, used professionally
trained independent investigators or internal affairs officers to conduct investigations and in
reality, those boards were not authorized nor equipped to conduct criminal investigations in
California; that was up to the District Attorney's Office or the Attorney General in making a
determination of criminal culpability; citizen -based boards did not and could not conduct criminal
investigations in California. Related to subpoena powers, while some bodies had been granted
subpoena power, the practicality was that if the person subpoenaed did not voluntarily comply
there were no practical means of enforcement and those boards who did have that power as
part of their bylaws, did not use it for this reason. Ms. Edwards added that staff was not
precluding the use of subpoena power, just pointing out the balance of similar agencies did not
use that tool partly because state law made it impractical and there was no means of enforcing
it.
Ms. Bogdanovich reported that due to California laws, autonomous access to police personnel
files and investigations was not provided to civilians; rather it was given to independent
investigators or professional staff that reviewed public safety investigations. Regarding the
review process, she noted professional groups and review boards all provided a form of public
safety review by accessing or monitoring completed internal administrative investigations for
fairness and completeness and through that process, the majority of California boards could
make policy recommendations. Ultimately, she stated, citizen -based public safety boards could
play a large role in improving the quality of life in the community as well as improving
transparency. Research also revealed the majority of boards brought value to the role of
reviewing public safety by developing recommendations, providing annual reports and
conducting community outreach.
Ms. Edwards indicated the next step in the establishment of the Public Safety Board was to
make applications available sometime in March for 30 days or more depending upon the
numbers of applications receive and to have members selected by the summer for the start of
mandatory training. She heard comments from the community that this program did not go far
enough, that police organizations felt it went too far and while neither side was happy, she felt
this was the right place to begin, and would allow a group of residents to get engaged and
involved to the extent they could help formulate ideas.
Council Member Eastman was supportive of a pilot program to determine best practices and to
come up with a program that fit the City. Council Member Kring asked what the cost would
involve with Ms. Edwards stated she was recommending enhancement of the role of the
external auditor regardless of the development of the associated Police Safety Board and
therefore, the cost reflected the administration of organization of the Board and providing
additional feedback. She was supportive of the lottery selection for members, remarking two
members from each council district should offer a good cross section of the community. Council
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 10 of 17
Member Brandman was appreciative of the thoughtful approach and looked forward to seeing
what the pilot program brought back to Council. Ms. Edwards remarked she had several
discussions with staff who understood the criticality of continuing this effort and they had been
working with the Police Chief who was a proponent of reaching out and involving the
community, adding that even with her potential departure, she believed the program would
move forward.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray asked how a broader pool of applicants would be ensured with Ms.
Bogdanovich outlining the various processes being utilized. Mayor Tait remarked he was
supportive of the program believing it struck a good balance.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. VARIANCE NO. 2009 -04795
if Variance upheld, consider:
C250 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008 -05372
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008- 05372A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
VARIANCE NO. 2009 -04795
CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1:
OWNER: Daniel Akarakian, 7343 Trask Avenue, Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
AGENT: Ware Malcomb, Ware Malcomb, 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION: 5635 East La Palma Avenue
To reconsider the findings for Variance No. 200 -04795 related to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2008- 05372A and Variance No. 2012- 04917, which authorized the proposed
construction of an approximately 3,900 square foot drive - through restaurant in
conjunction with a 4,875 square foot retail building with fewer parking spaces than
required by the Zoning Code and the installation of sign cabinets on an existing legal
non - conforming freestanding sign at the subject property.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
History of Planning Commission Actions:
Planning Commission Meeting of January 13, 2014: Commission found and determined
that previous findings to support the originally approved Variance did not exist and
therefore denied Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3414, 2008- 05372, 2008- 05372A, and
Variance No. 2009 -04795 (AYES: Bostwick, Caldwell, Persaud and Seymour; NOES
Ramirez, Agarwal and Lieberman).
Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 2014: Commission was unable to reach a
majority decision on the resolution to revoke Variance No. 2009 -04795 by a 3 -3 vote
AYES: Bostwick, Caldwell and Persaud; NOES: Ramirez, Lieberman and Agarwal;
ABSENT: Seymour).
The City Council will determine whether the action is within that class of projects which
consist of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or
structures and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -034 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving (1) modifications of the conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 3414 related to a theater complex located at 5635 East La
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 11 of 17
Palma Avenue, and (2) the addition of new conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2008 - 05372, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008- 05372A and Variance No.
2009 -04795 related to a proposed commercial retail center located at 5635 East La
Palma Avenue.
Mayor Tait declared his firm had worked with the architect in this matter and passed the gavel
to Mayor Pro Tern Murray, leaving the dais at 7:31 P.M.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, explained this item was to reconsider the findings for
a parking variance for a new McDonald's drive -thru and commercial building at the Cinema City
site on La Palma Avenue. She provided a detailed report on the background and history of this
proposed project. In 2009, the city approved a conditional use permit for a new 10,000 square
foot building that included retail /restaurant space with an additional 1,500 square foot outdoor
dining area. The approval gave a reduction in the number of parking spaces required by code
and mandated improvements to the parking structure and pedestrian walkways to promote use
of the structure. Ms., Vander Dussen noted that although approved, this project was never
built and in January 2013, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to this permit
modifying the project and permitting the construction of a McDonald's drive -thru restaurant as
well as a 4,875 square foot of commercial building and outdoor dining area.
Imperial Promenade Shopping Center, the adjacent landowner appealed the Commission's
decision, with Council subsequently upholding the Commission's action. A subsequent request
for a rehearing was denied with Council directing the Commission to reconsider the findings for
the parking variance granted along with the 2009 project and 2013 approvals. Specifically, the
Commission was directed to reconsider the result of the loss of 49 parking spaces at the
adjacent bank property originally intended to be available for use when the parking variance
was approved. Ms. Vander Dussen remarked that normally Council only considered appeals of
land use decisions made by the Commission but in reviewing the parking variance, the
Planning Commission considered the findings and voted 3:3 on December 16, 2013. With this
tie vote the request was automatically scheduled for the next meeting on January 13, 2014 by
a 4:3 vote and the Commission determining that the findings for the parking variance no longer
existed, but that those actions could not be considered final until it adopted a resolution
containing the findings to support its action. The resolution for the denial of the parking
variance was then scheduled for January 27, 2014 and at this meeting the Planning
Commission could not reach a final decision due to another 3:3 tie vote. Following rules and
procedures, the matter now ended up before Council without action or a recommendation by
the Planning Commission.
PARKING VARIANCE: Ms. Vander Dussen explained the Cinema City site was built with a
1,795 seat multi- screen movie theater, 396 surface parking spaces and a 190 -space parking
structure. To the east was the Imperial Promenade commercial center which had a variety of
restaurants and retail shops and shared access with Cinema City from La Palma Avenue. The
proposed project and existing theater required 662 parking spaces; however, only 456 parking
spaces could be provided on -site after construction of the proposed buildings. She noted the
permit for the most recent theatre expansion, approved in 1992, included three conditions of
approval pertaining to the required parking, requiring that the theater must provide 80% of the
Code required parking spaces; that any parking agreements for off -site parking must be
reviewed and approved by staff; and, that follow up inspections by Code Enforcement and a
status report to the Planning Commission must occur six months after the approval of the
permit. As part of the parking variance being considered tonight, the applicant requested that
the three conditions of approval be deleted from the original permit since the theatre operator
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 12 of 17
wished to provide less than 80% of the Code requirement and was no longer proposing to
provide off -site parking spaces on the adjacent bank property.
She also indicated the Code required a minimum of 662 parking spaces for all uses on the
Cinema City site, including the existing theatre and other proposed uses. The applicant would
provide 456 parking spaces, which amounted to 69% of what was required by Code and to
support the required findings for the parking variance, the applicant offered a parking study
which counted spaces on the property in April, 2013 to determine the current demand for
parking at the theater. This study identified that the greatest number of cars parked on the
property were 328 at 8 p.m. on a Saturday. The proposed restaurant and retail space would
require 85 spaces per the zoning code, so this requirement was added to the observed theater
demand for a total anticipated demand of 413 parking spaces. This anticipated demand, she
noted, was 43 spaces less than the number of parking spaces that would be provided upon
completion of the new project. Additionally, McDonald's and the restaurants in the commercial
building would have a crossover of patrons with the theater, so the parking study anticipated
further reductions in demand consistent with the Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking
publication, which further reduced the demand for parking to 370 spaces. That study, she
remarked concluded there would be adequate parking on the site to accommodate existing and
proposed uses.
Seasonal fluctuations were also considered with the heaviest demand occurring in the summer
and holiday months and because the applicant's most recent counts were conducted in April, a
slow month for theaters, his parking engineer consider the parking counts from a study
prepared for a restaurant expansion at the adjacent Imperial Promenade property. The parking
counts for that study were conducted in December, 2011 and included parking spaces on the
theater property showing that the greatest number of cars parked on the theater property were
244 at 8 p.m. on a Saturday night, less than the parking demand observed in April. In order to
validate the information contained in these studies, Ms. Vander Dussen stated staff visited the
theater and Imperial Promenade properties on various occasions to personally assess this
demand, on Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving weekend last November. During these visits,
staff observed a significant number of parking spaces available on both properties and on the
day after Thanksgiving at 8:30 P.M., observed only 65 spaces occupied in the parking structure
and 359 spaces occupied on the surface parking lot. On November 18, Veteran's Day, staff
visited the site mid -day and observed that the front parking lot was completely full and
approximately half of the parking structure was in use.
Based on the information included in these studies along with field observations, she indicated
staff was confident there would be sufficient parking to support the proposed project. In
analyzing future parking demand, one important point to consider was the fact that much of
McDonald's business was conducted through its drive - through lane, which did not impact the
demand for parking and additionally, the peak business hours of a McDonald's restaurant
occurred during the breakfast and lunch hours when theater use was light.
When this entitlement was amended by the Planning Commission in January 2013, Ms. Vander
Dussen pointed out a condition of approval required the property owner to submit a circulation
plan to staff demonstrating how the latest development proposal would address potential traffic
and parking congestion on the property. With this proposal, the applicant included way- finding
signs to direct vehicles to the front of the theater for drop -off and to the parking structure for
long term parking. Projecting signs were also included on the theater building identifying the
parking structure location and a digital counter indicating the number of available spaces in the
structure. In addition, the applicant planned to improve the pedestrian connection between the
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 13 of 17
parking structure and theater entrance by installing an illuminated covered walkway along the
east side of the building. It was staff's opinion that with all the improvements offered, there
would be increased use of the parking structure beyond current levels.
Regarding traffic congestion, staff recommended the closure of the first opening on the west
side of the entry driveway leading to the theater's front parking lot. This closure would allow
cars to move more freely to and from La Palma Avenue without cross - traffic. It would also
create a few more parking spaces. She added staff was also recommending that the
southbound exit drive to the signal at La Palma Avenue be painted to delineate two lanes,
separating turning movements for eastbound and westbound traffic. The last recommendation
was for a minimum of 42 parking spaces located within the south parking lot in front of the
theater be subject to a maximum 1 -hour time limit; those spaces represented the demand
identified in the parking study for the restaurants during typical peak hours for the movie
theater and allow dining customers to park near the restaurants while encouraging theater
customers to use the parking structure.
Ms. Vander Dussen stated the Code required certain finds be made in order to approve a
parking variance with staff determining those findings could be made, after careful consideration
of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and based on the information in the
applicant's parking study and staff's field surveys. For this reason, she indicated, the applicant
clearly demonstrated there were enough parking spaces available on the property to
accommodate the proposed uses
Ms. Vander Dussen reported that after the January 27 Planning Commission meeting, a letter
was received from an attorney representing the Imperial Promenade property that questioned
staff's findings and claimed that the Commission's consideration of this matter did not follow
proper procedure. Staff disagreed and provided a copy of the letter and staff's detailed
response to the Council. Contrary to one of the claims made, she stated it was not required to
make typical variance findings related to a property's size, shape or location when it came to the
consideration of parking variances. The first finding was having adequate parking for the
proposed uses and the submitted parking studies and staff's field surveys demonstrated this site
would have adequate parking spaces to accommodate the proposed uses. The second and
third findings addressed the impacts of the variance on adjacent properties and public streets
and staff determined there would not be an increased demand for parking spaces upon the
public streets or on adjacent properties because there were sufficient number of parking spaces
provided on -site and on- street parking was prohibited on the adjacent public streets. The fourth
finding addressed traffic congestion and because of the recommended conditions of approval
with way- finding signs, it was determined there would not be an increase in traffic congestion
because motorists would be clearly directed where to park and an existing congestion point
would be corrected by the recommended driveway closure as pointed out earlier. The final
finding, she remarked addressed access impacts to streets and adjacent properties and it was
found this project would not impede vehicle access to or from adjacent properties or upon the
nearby public streets because the flow of traffic to and from the site would be improved upon
project completion.
Ms. Vander Dussen ended her presentation recommending council determine that the evidence
presented showed that all of the conditions for the issuance of a parking variance existed to
uphold this variance request. Additionally, she recommended that Conditional Use Permit No.
3414 be modified to delete Conditions Nos. 28, 29 and 30, which were required in connection
with the original theater entitlements. Lastly, she pointed out staff received an e-mail from Ms.
Cynthia Wolcott requesting modifications to two conditions of approval and if council wished to
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 14 of 17
consider these conditions, staff was prepared to assist. A copy of a letter from Linscott, Law
and Greenspan, dated February 12, addressing the points raised in Ms. Wolcott's February 6
letter was also provided to Council.
Procedurally, Ms. Vander Dussen stated, since there was no draft resolution outlining findings to
deny the variance, staff would prepare such a resolution based on the hearing this evening and
that resolution would then be scheduled for review and adoption at a subsequent meeting on
March 4 ", to allow council time to consider all of the recordings and documentation available on
this matter. Should the variance be revoked, she noted it would be necessary to revoke the
remaining entitlements for the Cinema City property, since there would not be adequate parking
to accommodate the existing uses which could be done at the Planning Commission level or by
the Planning Director either before the Commission or the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray opened the public hearing for comments.
Pete Mitchell, representing Cinema City Theatre, remarked there had been three City Council
and two Planning Commission approvals of this project with staff's recommendations in total
support for the development each time. He offered an Imperial Promenade leasing
advertisement publicizing Cinema City for drawing strong foot traffic for nearby businesses,
adding the area was a good place for tenants with a strong daytime population; this ad he
remarked was from a neighbor who objected every step of the way for the enhanced
development of Cinema City site. He reminded Council that Mr. Akarakian would agree to all
the conditions stated in the July 11, 2012 letter, from valet parking to better lighting and signage.
He emphasized the parking structure would work when improvements and resources were
utilized to attract customers and pointed out that Imperial Promenade had been given a parking
variance at 66 percent of their required spaces, while Cinema City Theatre requested a 69
percent variance, adding their application was approved on that basis with less surplus parking
than his clients. Addressing McDonald's, Mr. Mitchell remarked it was a drive -thru restaurant
that served existing customers and those who might drive by the street, and an appropriate
tenant to bring into the site. He added the project meetings and the criteria articulated by staff
clearly indicated there was enough parking for the development and looked forward to moving
forward to bring vitality to an excellent project.
Robert Abbitt, Citibank, remarked the parking space issue for his customers had been resolved.
He added that the proposed project was aggressive and provided two quick service restaurants
plus a drive -thru along with the building expansion and that the Planning Commission had
issues arise in their December /January meetings. He asked if the project went forward, that an
on -site parking guard service be required to make sure customers were monitored and use the
parking structure rather than nearby parking spaces available at Imperial Promenade center.
He asked that the valet proposal be considered and required as well.
Britney DeBeikes, Imperial Promenade Shopping Center, remarked that the Planning
Commission had a lengthy discussion about the necessary findings to support the parking
variance and concluded that the findings could not be made. Specifically, they stated there was
a parking problem and the problem would continue until there was evidence the parking
structure was used, adding the proposed retail uses would increase the demand and
competition for parking on the adjacent center. She added vehicular traffic from those retail
uses would also increase traffic congestion and that vehicular ingress to and egress from the
Imperial Promenade center would be impeded from the property. Ms. DeBeikes stated she
hired an on -foot security guard to approach customers who used their parking spaces for long
term parking, adjacent to the Inline stores with the result that nearly 200 cars were towed. She
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 15 of 17
added Imperial Promenade enjoyed the theater as a neighbor and the synergy that an
entertainment center created but objected to the parking demand for the proposed retail uses
stating the scope and size of the project was excessive and damaging. She urged Council to
uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
William Fitzgerald, opposed this development, remarking the parking structure was unsafe and
surrounding neighborhoods must pay for special residential permits caused by the City Council
reducing the need for parking required by the Municipal Code.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Pro Tern Murray closed the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Council Member Kring disclosed that Mr. Mitchell called to tell her this item was on the Council
agenda. She added this was the third or fourth time this development had been reviewed by the
City Council and the Planning Commission and that at each and every time, staff supported
approval of the development. She would again be voting to approve the variance asking that
Imperial Promenade management give them a chance to work out any problems. Council
Member Eastman recommended parking standards be reviewed and evaluated for the city in
the future with Ms. Vander Dussen remarking the Commission shared a similar concern with
staff to consider an update to those standards by the next fiscal year. Council Member
Eastman was supportive of the project, stating McDonald's was a good use for the front of the
site and she believed the improvements to the parking structure and walkway would improve
utilization of the structure, asking staff if there were other suggestions or recommendations to
get this project going forward. Ms. Vander Dussen responded that in Attachment 5 of the staff
report, the applicant's letter explained some of the measures he would use, such as directional
signs, walkway improvements, canopies, decorative lightings, removal of security bars and
fencing, new stair enclosures, and upgrading the upper level enclosure to improve natural
lighting. Operationally there would be signage installed, maps available inside the lobby
indicating parking areas to be used by patrons and secondary exits from the theater, although
no valet parking had been offered. Council Member Eastman suggested a prominent sign at
each one of the two entrances from Imperial Promenade stating "No Theater Parking" would be
helpful, especially with an arrow pointing customers into another direction.
Ms. Vander Dussen remarked the Planning Commission could review the operation of the site
after a certain period of time once the retail uses were constructed and operating to confirm that
the conditions of approval were satisfied and to look at data that might have been submitted
indicating theatre customers were parking on the adjacent property, with Council Member
Eastman agreeable to that condition being added. Council Member Brandman remarked he
had been in contact with representatives of the applicant and of interested parties for this
project, stating that this was a better project for the several years it took to come to this point
and added his support to the project. Mayor Pro Tern Murray stated she had received
communication from the applicants, property owners and other interested parties, remarking she
and her family lived close to the promenade and used this center often and she would be
supporting staff's recommendations.
Mr. Mitchell added the applicant would be happy to add the valet component during the
business hours or in the evening, if needed.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray wondered how to ensure harmony to patrons of the Imperial
Promenade. She expressed concern over towing vehicles. Ms. DeBeikes responded there was
signage in specific areas of the Imperial Center which stated "No Cinema Parking" where traffic
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 16 of 17
needs to remain fluid. She appreciated the suggestion that there should be a measure in place
and looked to staff to work on the timeline and hurdles. Mayor Pro Tern Murray remarked that
with the traffic and parking adjustments, both centers would be well - served and improved over
today's operation.
Council Member Eastman reported she had received a text from McDonald's asking if she had
any questions and the response of no was given.
Council Member Eastman moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -034 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving (1)
modifications of the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3414 related to a
theater complex located at 5635 East La Palma Avenue, and (2) the addition of new conditions
of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2008 - 05372, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008 -
05372A and Variance No. 2009 -04795 related to a proposed commercial retail center located at
5635 East La Palma Avenue, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 4:
(Mayor Pro Tern Murray and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman and Kring.) NOES — 0:
ABSTENTION — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member Eastman spoke of her participation in the homeless count, congratulated Walt
Disney Elementary and Albert Schweitzer Elementary as one of Orange County's Best
Elementary Schools, and commented on the Angels' negotiations.
Council Member Kring spoke of her attendance at a fundraiser for Detective Jeff Tobin who was
diagnosed with brain cancer and requested staff look into a water saving initiative for the city.
Council Member Brandman spoke of his attendance to Access California's15 Anniversary,
congratulated the Utilities Department for their Standard and Poor's AAA rating and announced
the Cypress Americana awards dinner where Dr. June Glenn and Iry Pickler will be recognized.
Mayor Pro Tern Murray congratulated Dr. June Glenn and Iry Pickler on their recognition. She
announced the following upcoming events: Homeless meetings February 19 at the Gordon Hoyt
Conference Center and February 20 at the Euclid Branch Library; conception design meeting for
Little People Park on February 20 at the Anaheim Central Library, Cash for College workshop
on February 20 at Loara High School, graffiti clean -up where volunteers are asked to meet at
the Anaheim Central Library on February 22, and the Boys and Girls Gala on March 22. Mayor
Pro Tern Murray requested the meeting adjourn in memory of Jim Fregosi, former All -Star
player with the Angels and manager of Phillies
City Council Minutes of February 18, 2014
Page 17 of 17
ADJOURNMENT:
At 9:11 P.M., Mayor Pro Tern Murray adjourned the February 18, 2014 council meeting in
memory of Jim Fregosi, former All -Star player with the Angels and manager of the Phillies.
Re,spectfully submitted,
IV
1 ;T
Linda N. Andal, CMC
City Clerk