Loading...
2003/07/08 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JULY 8,2003 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. The Notice of Adjournment was posted at 3:00 P.M. on July 8, 2003 on the exterior door of the Anaheim Council Chambers, announcing the adjournment to July 8,2003 at 3:30 P.M. for the purpose of a workshop. Mayor Pringle called to order the Anaheim City Council at 3:40 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Tom Tait, Robert Hernandez and Richard Chavez. Mayor Pringle announced that Council Member McCracken was absent because she was in Sacramento at the request of the Council to discuss AB71 O. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Tom Wood, Assistant City Attorney Newberry, City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder. A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on July 3, 2003 at the City Hall outside bulletin board. WORKSHOP: Assistant City Manager Wood announced the workshop for the Imperial/BNSF Grade Separation Project and introduced Public Works Director, Gary Johnson, who provided the history and introductions of CalTrans staff. The staff information is available in the City Clerk's Office. Project Engineer Nguyen provided the project description, area and history of Imperial/BNSF grade separation project. Mayor Pringle asked Public Works Director Johnson if the walling was a response to the sound concerns on the draft EIR. Mr. Johnson said it was how CalTrans was proposing to mitigate the rebound noise. Sylvia Vega from CalTrans responded that she had reviewed questions regarding the reflective noise and she said the environmental engineers had checked it but CalTrans had no policy to mitigate reflective noise. Also that CalTrans did not have method or material that would reduce reflective noise. She said they were within CalTrans standards. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 2 Mayor Pringle noted the increase in trips on the route, from 68 trips per day to 128, and asked if CalTrans envisioned getting to 128 based on two tracks. Ms. Vega answered that the noise model was based on traffic not train traffic. Regarding the tracks, there were two tracks and when the EIR was prepared, there were no program projects. Mayor Pringle asked if CalTrans was saying that all the noise was within their standards, there was no reflective noise that would be impacted beyond the EIR. Ms. Vega said for vehicular traffic, not train traffic. She explained that CalTrans modeled for noise, they included traffic noise. Mayor Pringle said the concern regarding rebounding sound was from the traffic going through the underpass and the train traffic. Mr. Johnson said since CalTrans model picks up the vehicular traffic, it was the train rebound noise because of the increase volume and because the City had studied it. He said it was something that could be mitigated, even though they did not have a policy on it, the City was willing to work with them. Mayor Pringle asked when CalTrans referred to increase to 128 train trips per day, was it based on the current two track model or did it take into account the third track that was proposed. A representative from OCT A responded that the 128 trips were the ultimate, which assumed track improvements at some point in time. Mayor Pringle asked if improvements meant the third rail and the OCT A representative answered that it may be passing tracks, other issues. He said at this point, there was no active project for triple track in that area. He said conceptually it maybe possible at sometime in the future. Mayor Pringle said even with present level of traffic, building an overpass in that area would cause reverberation of train noise and he asked what OCT A saw as mitigation to the noise. The OCT A representative added that right now there was an at grade crossing where the trains blew their horns, with the grade crossing that would be eliminated and he said he did not think that was calculated. Mayor Pringle said even with the horns not being blown, there would still be a rebound noise from the trains. Council Member Chavez noted that projections showed that by 2020, it was estimated for traffic to double through that intersection and he wondered if the width was enough to accommodate the traffic as it doubled. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 3 Mr. Nguyen responded that part of the project was to widen Imperial Highway to the subject project and it was designed to handle projected traffic. Council Member Tait said the initial drawings that Council saw over a year ago were more elaborate and he expressed concern that the on/off ramp on the north west would handle the increase in traffic. Mr. Nguyen said traffic modeling studies done indicated the grade separation project with the widening would handle the traffic. He said currently the north bound on ramp had very little traffic so projected out twenty years there would not be enough traffic to even warrant a signal at the left turn onto the north bound on ramp. He referred to the design features of the project. Council Member Tait asked if lanes were dropped from Imperial, going north and west. Mr. Nguyen said yes, at the northern project limit it would drop down to two lanes in each direction, a total of four lanes. Mayor Pringle asked if there were any traffic signals indicated and Mr. Nguyen responded yes, there would be two signalized intersections. Council Member Hernandez inquired about the plans for the north bound Imperial to east bound Esperanza. Mr. Nguyen said it was handled through the two-way connector on the north west quadrant; there would be two left turn pockets at the signalized intersection on Imperial Highway. Mayor Pringle noted that earlier concerns were that the on/off ramps were cloverleaf design and the City was concerned about the taking of property for the improvement. He noted that some concerns had been addressed but he stressed that everyone should spend time dealing with the neighborhood concerns especially with the rail line. He asked how far the sound wall project would come to the improvements. Public Works Director Johnson answered that it came to the intersection. Mayor Pringle suggested that since there was a lot of money and effort being expended to address the noise, if there were additional mitigation measures that could take place at the same time, it would be a wise review. No further discussion, Mayor Pringle closed the workshop. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 4 Mayor Pringle recessed the Council meeting to Closed Session at 4:17 P.M. for the following purposes: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated representative: David Hill Employee organizations: Anaheim Police Association, Anaheim Firefighters' Association 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Number of potential cases: one. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pringle called the regular Council meeting of July 8,2003 to order at 5:11 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Reverend Mary Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Tait PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing participants in the Mills Act Program. Participants received presentations from Mayor Pringle. PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS: Recognitions to be presented at a later date were: Recognizing 3 Day Blinds on their 5th anniversary. Additions/Deletions to the Agenda: None. Public Comments: Kathy Wright spoke about the grade crossing at Imperial and Esperanza Roads. She stated that she was the representative of her neighborhood coalition who was against a third railroad track at Imperial and Esperanza. She stated that BNSF wanted to make an accommodation for a third tract, but would not state formally that was what they wanted to do. Mayor Pringle responded to Ms. Wright's comments by saying that he was sorry that she was not aware that the Council had a workshop prior to the Council Meeting with CalTrans and OCT A on the over crossing issue. A signification amount of time was ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 5 spent talking specifically about the present design and how it would impact the area properties. The Council concerns that were expressed to CalTrans and OCT A were basically the surrounding view for all the area residents and travelers on the street and the noise factor created by the train passing under the railroad tunnel. CalTrans responded that they do not calculate rebound noise; they look at the vehicle rebound noise but not of the train traffic. He said Council has directed the Public Works Director to work with CalTrans and OCT A in regards to future issues relating to this and to ensure that Anaheim and the area residents shared information on a regular basis so they know that this is a priority. He explained that after the presentation, many of his earlier concerns about the over crossing were alleviated and the change in design that was presented by CalTrans. William Fitzgerald said he represented a group of home owners who lived around Disneyland and he asked Council to outlaw free gifts and benefits to City employees by the Disney Corporation to the detriment of the residents. He said an example was when Disney Corporation gave gifts to the City's department heads and managers and the result was a reciprocal gift to the Disney Corporation of a 93 million dollar parking structure built by the City on Disney property. Another example, he said was one week ago, on June 28, 2003, the City allowed Disney to disturb an estimated 100,000 Anaheim residents by shooting off fireworks after 11 :30 P.M. James Reade complained about Anaheim police. John Light from the Center for Contract Appliance spoke about Item A8. He said he was a labor compliance investigator and said that Ben's Asphalt had a history of non- compliance regarding paying prevailing wage to employees. He asked Council to reconsider the bid award. Ed Perez announced various activities at Move On Entertainment and explained the recent renovation project Leonard Latinen spoke about the Council meeting of June 17, 2003 regarding Maxwell Park plan. He said most residents who spoke at that meeting were opposed to adding sports fields to Maxwell Park. He said he was concerned with the rejection of the opinions of the residents of west Anaheim, the Park and Recreation Commission and the Magnolia School District regarding Maxwell Park. He said the area map Mayor Pringle referred to did not match up with the staff report, which showed 50 percent of the easement was for soccer fields. He said the ball field that was referred to as a small t-ball field, was one of two softball fields that were adjacent to each other now. Some Council Members recommended that the new sports field be put on a one year trial basis that could be removed if the use of the land was creating problems and he said he was not sure that that was part of the motion passed. Alma Rameriz said that James Reade and she spoke to the community at large as well as Sacramento. Consent Calendar: Items A 1 -A42 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 6 Council Member Hernandez moved that Item A8 be pulled from the calendar for separate action. Council Member Tait explained that he would abstain on Items A32, A33, A34 and A35 due to possible conflict of interest. Council Member Chavez moved that Items A22 and A31 be removed for separate actions. Mayor Pringle asked that Items A21, A25, A26 and A40 also be removed for separate discussion. Council Member Chavez moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and approve the following in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Hernandez, Chavez. Noes - O. Council Member McCracken was absent. Motion carried. Recorded abstentions by Council Member Tait on Items A32, A33, A34 and A35. Council Member Hernandez abstained on Item A42, approval of the minutes of the June 10, 2003 Council Meeting. 118 A1. 118 A2. 128 A3. 156 173 105 Reject certain claims filed against the City. Reject an application for leave to present a late claim. Receive and file the monthly Financial Analysis Report presented by the Finance Director for ten months ended April 30, 2003; Crime and Clearance Analysis for May 2003; Southern California Gas Company's Notice to Customers of Proposed Rate Increase, Application No. 03-06-021; minutes of the Public Library Board meetings held April 7, 2003 and May 12, 2003; minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held May 1, 2003; and minutes of the Workforce Investment Board meeting held April 10, 2003. A4. Accept the low bid of Bob Hill Crane Service, in an amount not to exceed $68,000, for crane service for the Utilities Department for a period of one year with two one-year options to renew in accordance with Bid #6397 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise renewal options. 160 A5. Waive Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Bob Barker Company, Inc., in the amount of $31,500 (plus tax), for the purchase of a fifteen passenger van for transportation of prisoners to and from court and the County jail. 160 128 A6. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-136 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving issuance of bonds by the California 123 123 123 158 158 158 158 158 176 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 7 Statewide Communities Development Authority for a local Kaiser project (Kaiser Permanente Financing). A7. Approve and authorize the Director of Public Works to execute Change Order NO.2 in favor of Hillcrest Contracting for the State College Boulevard, SR-91 Freeway Interchange Improvements. A9. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pacific Industrial Electric, in the amount of $489,240, for construction of the Yorba Substation battery room and capacitor bank and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. A 10. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the amount of $4,428,500, for Direct Buried Cable Replacement, Phase 3 and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. A 11. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Mary Lou Hauck, in the acquisition payment amount of $18,000, for the purchase of real property located at 116 South State College Boulevard for the Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard Intersection Project. A12. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Keiko Nishiyama, Barbara S. Hatanaka and Roy H. Hatanaka, in the total payment amount of $36,800, for property located at 3323 West Ball Road for the Ball Road, Phase II Widening Project. A13. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-137 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10640 and 10641 ). A14. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R138 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10632, 10633 and 10634). A15. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-139 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10635, 10636, 10637, 10639, 10642, 10643 and 10644). A16. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-140 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service easements (Abandonment No. ABA2003-00074, 1100 West La Palma Avenue). 113 000 123 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 8 Public hearing scheduled for August 19, 2003. A17. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-141 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two years old (City Attorney's Office). A 18. Approve the waiver of $493 in facility use fees as requested by the Orange Empire Sertoma service organization for use of the Boysen Park Fields for the purpose of conducting a baseball camp for hearing impaired youth. A 19. Approve the Rental Agreement with Sullivan and Mann Company authorizing Sullivan and Mann to rent approximately one acre on the property located at 1790 South Douglass Road, formerly the County Maintenance Yard. 123 A20. Approve the Plumbing Utility Agreement with J & D Plumbing to provide various plumbing services, on a non-exclusive basis, to persons at the Convention Center who require such services in connection with events. 174 A23. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-142 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit an electronic grant application on behalf of the City of Anaheim to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, for the FY 2003 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program. 185 A24. Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by Anaheim GardenWalk, LLC, that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99- 01 for the 2002-2003 review period. 123 123 153 A27. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-143 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing rates of compensation for classifications assigned to the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Clerical Unit. A28. Approve a Letter of Understanding between the City and Anaheim Firefighters Association amending the mandatory employee contribution under the Retirement Health Savings Plan and approve a revision to the Adoption Agreement for Retirement Health Savings Plan 800217 to modify Section 3, Employee Mandatory Compensation Contributions. A29. Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute the Cooperation Agreement, dated July 1,2003, between the Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority and the City for the Vine Street Housing Project (related to Housing Item No.1). 182 123 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 9 A30. Ratify the Anaheim Workforce Investment Board's completion and submission of a proposal to the Orange County Workforce Investment Board for a One-Stop Business Service Center to serve the North Orange County region. A32. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Joint Trench Agreement with SBC-Pacific Bell to facilitate joint trench construction for work within Underground District No. 43 located at La Palma Avenue/West Street. Council Member Tait abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. 123 A33. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Joint Trench Agreement with SBC-Pacific Bell to facilitate joint trench construction for work within Underground District No. 44, Broadway Phase I, located on Broadway between Euclid Street and Magnolia Avenue. 123 175 123 123 Council Member Tait abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. A34. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Joint Trench Agreement with SBC-Pacific Bell to facilitate joint trench construction for work within Underground District No. 45, State College Phase 2, located on State College Boulevard between Cerritos Avenue and Vermont Street. Council Member Tait abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. 123 A35. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an agreement with Mullen & Associates, Inc., in the amount of $75,400, for engineering and design services and to complete approved construction plans and specifications for ten carports with integrated photovoltaic technology to be located at the Fire Department stations. Council Member Tait abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. A36. Approve and direct the Public Utilities General Manager to implement the City's Renewable Portfolio Standard, effective fiscal year 2003/04 through fiscal year 2017/18. A37. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Water Conservation Agreement with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to provide funding for high efficiency clothes washer rebates. A38. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a Long- Term Power Purchase Agreement with PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of PacifCorp Holdings, Inc., for the purchase of wind- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 10 powered electrical energy and authorize an Interim Agreement with the City of Glendale for delivery of wind energy. 113 A39. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-144 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving an amended records retention schedule for the Convention, Sports and Entertainment Department. 123 A41. Award a contract to Sloat Higgins Jensen & Associates with subcontractor Smith, Watts & Company, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 per year, to provide primary state advocacy services, representing Anaheim in Sacramento, for a two year commitment with three one-year renewal options. 123 Award a contract and authorize the execution of agreements with Townsend Public Affairs, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $50,000, to provide supplemental advocacy services representing Anaheim with an emphasis on public utility issues and to pursue state grant/bond funding opportunities, as directed, for a one year commitment, with three one-year renewal options and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements. 114 A42. Approve minutes of the adjourned regular meetings held June 10, 2003 and June 17, 2003. Council Member Hernandez abstained on approval of minutes of June 10,2003. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION: 123 A8. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Ben's Asphalt, Inc., in the amount of $439,826.15, for road surface reconstruction at La Palma Avenue between Lakeview Avenue to Tustin Avenue. Council Member Hernandez said he asked that the item be pulled for further discussion and referred to a letter received that evening from Mr. Light. He requested that Gary Johnson explain the document more in depth. Public Works Director, Gary Johnson, asked that Assistant City Attorney Newberry give an opinion relative to the lowest responsible bidder, but he wanted to note that this particular bidder, Ben's Asphalt, had completed three federal projects in the last year, all the prevailing wage rates were paid and the field surveys were conducted by Anaheim inspection staff. He said the City's experience with the contractor had been satisfactory. Assistant City Attorney Newberry stated that whether Ben's Asphalt was a qualified bidder and whether or not the City can prevent his low bid from succeeding were two different issues. With respect to being a qualified bidder, that referred to whether or not he was capable of performing the specifications of that particular job. The City's experience with them was that Ben's Asphalt could do this type of job and the City has no basis to say he cannot perform to specifications. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 11 Assistant City Attorney Newberry also said that with respect to whether or not they were in violation of State labor law, the City did not have its own debarment provision. Debarment meant a procedure for preventing someone from presenting a bid on a project. He explained that the City employed the debarment procedures in the Public Contracts Code, Section 6109. This allowed the City to debar someone from bidding who was a qualified bidder for violation of three or four specific state statues, one of which was attempting to defraud with respect to payment of wages. He said there must be a conviction of actual fraud. The next statue had to do with illegal use of apprentices. A third one had to do with repeated violations of wage orders. He explained that City had some documentation given to them that there was one violation that seemed to have been corrected and there was no indication that Ben's Asphalt had ever been convicted of anything other than the determination of the Labor Commissioner which was in Council's packet. He noted that the City had audited Ben's Asphalt three times on projects performed for the City and on each occasion, the records of payment of prevailing wages was accurate. He finalized, that absent of any experience from the City and any conviction for the specified labor law violations that would permit the City to debar Ben's Asphalt, the City had no alternative than to award the contract based on his low bid. Assistant City Attorney Newberry stated that the Council was free to reject all bids, but to disallow this particular bid on the basis of what the Council had been presented would not be legal. Council Member Tait moved for approval of Item A8, seconded by Mayor Pringle. Council Member Chavez asked if there had been an investigation into a contractor not paying prevailing wages, as the document Mr. Light presented indicated, would that still not be enough for the City to bar them from bidding on a job. Assistant City Attorney Newberry stated that was correct, there would have to be a conviction that the labor law violation was done with the intent to defraud or was a serious violation. Council Member Chavez expressed his concern about getting documents at the last minute. He felt this was a valid issue and should be investigated and the State should be more aggressive in pursuit of people who do not pay prevailing wages. Roll call vote on Item A8: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes - O. Council Member McCracken was absent. Motion carried. 123 A21. Approve the Professional Service Agreement with Don Andersen for professional services related to the sale of cash sponsorships at the Convention Center. Mayor Pringle asked that Item A21 be removed for further discussion and he noted that the item was a professional services contract for an individual to work to deliver sponsorships and advertising support. Mayor Pringle referred to page two, line 18, sub- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 12 section 2 talked about the City's right of refusal and he wanted to make sure that that was a right of refusal on anything from the naming rights at the Convention Center or the facilities to the specific sponsorships to the advertising itself. Dave Meek, Convention Center, responded that it was all encompassing, what the City was trying to do was to make sure that the City had the right to refuse a particular sponsor. Mayor Pringle noted he agreed with the right, but he said the words were specifically referencing advertising sponsorships and not naming rights on other things, which were articulated individually in other places of the contract as a separate product or activity of the individual. He asked if there was a way to modify the contract to ensure that it would be all encompassing over all advertising sponsorships and naming rights that the individual was seeking. Dave Meeks said that was the intent and they would be more concerned with naming rights. Assistant City Attorney Newberry agreed that was the intent, any cash sponsorships, whether they be naming rights or other sponsorship programs, be subject to Council approval and staff would be happy to enter into a letter agreement with Mr. Anderson to make that clear. Mayor Pringle asked what the length of the contact was with the individual before. Dave Meeks said one year. Mayor Pringle asked what kind of return did the City receive. Dave Meeks said that Don Andersen was involved specifically with the plasma screen deal that was just entered into. Over a number of years, the revenue generated will be derived from each individual show, he explained and said that Don Andersen was the one who brought the company, which was named Fabs, into the Convention Center which installed all of the plasma screens. Mr. Meeks said Greg Smith was anticipating that the deal could be as much as $100,000 a year, but it was on going based on what was derived from each individual show. Mayor Pringle asked how an individual received a commission on advertising revenue and was it for one year. Dave Meeks stated that there was no commission to be generated; it was part of Don Andersen's monthly retainer. Mayor Pringle said that in terms of generating advertising sponsorship or naming rights, in the previous year Don Andersen had not brought forward any additional amount yet the new contract would have him focus on those areas. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 13 Dave Meeks said that an agreement was coming to Council on July 15, 2003 on the issue of body scanning that Don Anderson was involved in. Council Member Tait asked if Don Andersen received new compensation or commission on a product that he had been working on for the last year and had come to a completion. Dave Meeks said that if the project was not completed during the term that he was originally hired by, he thinks what came to completion at the end of his term; he would be paid the commission that was indicated in the agreement. Council Member Tait asked that the item be continued until the July 15, 2003. Hearing no objection, Mayor Pringle continued Item A21 until July 15, 2003. A22. Approve and authorize the Chief of Police to execute an agreement with Language Line Services, Inc. to provide interpreter services for the Anaheim Police Department at a rate of $1.65 per minute. Council Member Chavez said he was going to support the item but wanted more discussion on Item A22. He said that there was a need for interpreter services for the police and fire departments but if the City hired more bi-lingual dispatchers they could handle this, they could save the City a significant amount of money. Secondly, and more importantly he said, if the City had bi-lingual dispatchers that were trained in handling emergencies they could deal more compassionately and in a more articulate and competent manner than someone who was just translating. By using an interpreter, he informed, sometimes there was a loss of what had occurred, especially in an emergency. He asked how many bi-lingual dispatchers the City had. Chief Baker said six of the 36 dispatch personnel were bi-lingual in Spanish. Council Member Chavez said that there were a lot of other languages and the City needed the service because they were a resort area where many different languages were spoken. With 44 per cent of the City's population speaking Spanish as their predominate language he would like to see Anaheim do everything to increase the number of dispatchers. Mayor Pringle asked Chief Baker if there was a Spanish language interpreter or a Spanish bi-lingual speaker for every shift at the Dispatch Center. Chief Baker said there was a probability that there would be a shift without a Spanish speaker. Mayor Pringle wanted to be assured that there was always a Spanish bi-lingual dispatcher either by hiring or scheduling to make sure that there was someone with that immediate skill. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 14 Council Member Chavez moved for approval of Item A22, seconded by Council Member Tait. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes - O. Council Member McCracken absent. Motion carried. 179 A25. ORDINANCE NO. 5867 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2002-00078, 711 West La Palma Avenue). 179 A26. ORDINANCE NO. 5868 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2002-00088, 6161 East Santa Ana Canyon Road). Mayor Pringle asked Greg Hastings why it took so long for the adoption of the ordinances when the process was started at Planning Commission in October and January. Greg Hastings stated that the reason would typically be that the applicant was working on conditions of approval that needed to be met prior to the introduction of the ordinance. He explained that from the time that the Planning Commission approved a reclassification, certain conditions were applied on the resolution. As soon as those were complied with, they report to Planning that they have finished their compliance and then the Planning Department immediately sets that for Council consideration to introduce the ordinance. Mayor Pringle said that in the memo that was prepared for Item A26, Planning did say that the applicant had complied with the conditions for approval associated with the reclassification. He noted that sentence did not appear in Item A25. He said he wanted to make sure that as soon as these items were done with the process, nothing that the Council does should slow it. Mayor Pringle moved for the introduction of Items A25 and A26, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes - O. Council Member McCracken was absent. Motion carried. 105 A31. Approve the appointment of Gina Galasso and Rebecca Zarate-Cervantes to the Anaheim Workforce Investment Board, each for a term ending June 30,2005, representing business and certain public sector organizations respectively. Council Member Chavez said this was a wonderful program that the City offered. The Workforce Investment Board had been working on expanding what they do and Council Members have read the resumes of both the two individuals. They have wonderful resumes and backgrounds. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 15 Council Member Chavez moved for approval of Item A31, seconded by Council Member Tait. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes - O. Council Member McCracken was absent. Motion carried. 144 A40. Approve the withdrawal of the City from the Orange County Regional Airport Authority and authorize the City Manager to give notice of such withdrawal to the Authority as provided in the Joint Powers Agreement. Mayor Pringle asked that Item A50 be removed from the Calendar and continued to July 15, 2003. He noted that he would support the item but he had not had an opportunity to touch base with some individuals. He felt that he owed a certain courtesy to some people. Council Member Tait moved for a continuance of Item A40 to July 15, 2003. Council Member Hernandez said that it appeared that the airport was a dead issue and it was his understanding that even if Anaheim pulled out of this particular Authority, they could always join again and for that reason he would probably vote to withdraw. He expressed concern that the message the City was sending was that Anaheim was giving up hope on the airport. Regardless of what sides of the issue people were on regarding the airport, he said there was no question that the airport was a much-needed facility in the area. He asked what the other Council Members thought about the message that was being sent. Mayor Pringle said that was why he wanted to postpone the action. He publicly and privately supported EI Toro Airport, but he believed, however, that the public spoke. He said he was tired of the battle within the county and there were others that were not. Others think that they would like to use the resources within the county to keep the hope for EI Toro, as many have envisioned in the past, alive. OCRA over the last two or three months has taken action to be aggressive as their right has been over the last number of years that they have been fighting for EI Toro, they have been continuing in the present context and he said things had changed, the makeup of the Board of Supervisors had changed, the Navy's action toward transferring the base had changed, the voters support of Prop Wand some people still believed that there was still hope for an EI T oro Airport. He said his concern was that OCRA was taking action of which Anaheim's name was associated with since they were a member, so if they sue to challenge things in court as an entity, Anaheim was an equal partner in that action. He wondered where Anaheim went from here. He said his philosophy was more about moving on as opposed to continuing the battle for the EI Toro Airport. Council Member Hernandez said once again Council found themselves discussing issues like this during Council because they were barred by the Brown Act from talking about these issues privately. He said it was important that Council stand united and it was difficult to stand united if the Council did not know how everybody on the Council felt. He said this was a good time for Council to establish where hey stood on this issue so that when approached by OCRA, they can say each Council member spoke on why ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 16 they withdrew and that Council discussed the issue and decided together to withdraw from the Orange County Regional Airport Authority. Mayor Pringle suggested that items like this not be part of the Consent Calendar, but put under a section for discussion items prior to the public hearings. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 105 A43. Consider appointing two citizens to serve on the Investment Advisory Commission, both terms to expire June 30, 2007 (continued from the Council meeting of June 17, 2003, Item A40). Miriam Kaywood stated that there was no continuity on the board due to the expiration dates. Mayor Pringle explained that there were a number of members whose terms had expired this year and those were the two positions on the agenda. These positions would be filled for a four-year term. He said that not every board and commission term expired at the same time; there was an overlap of members whose terms cover expiration dates. Council Member Tait recommended Item A43 through A46 be continued to the July 15, 2003 agenda. Hearing no objection, the items were continued. 105 A44. Consider appointing a citizen to serve on the Public Utilities Board for a full four- year term, which will expire on June 30, 2007 (continued from the Council meeting of June 17, 2003, Item A41). 105 A45. Consider appointing/re-appointing two citizens to serve on the Senior Citizen Commission for full three-year terms, which will expire June 30, 2006 (continued from the Council meeting of June 17, 2003, Item A42). 105 A46. Consider re-appointing/appointing three citizens to serve on the Community Services Board for four-year terms, which will expire June 30, 2007 (continued from the Council meeting of June 17,2003, Item A44). 114 A47. Consider appointing/re-appointing two City Council Members to the Audit Committee. Mayor Pringle recommended himself and Council Member McCracken. Council Member Tait moved to appoint Mayor Pringle and Council Member McCracken to the Audit Committee. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 17 Council Member Hernandez expressed an interest in serving on this Committee. He stated that Council Member McCracken's term would be ending soon and he would gain a lot of experience from this Committee. Mayor Pringle agreed to postpone Item A47 until the July 15, 2003 meeting. 148 A48. Consider appointing a voting delegate and alternate to the League of California Cities annual conference, to be held in Sacramento on September 7 - 10, 2003. Mayor Pringle said he would be attending the League meeting so he requested he be named the voting delegate and Council Member McCracken be the alternate. Council Member Tait moved for approval of Item A48, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Hearing no objections, Mayor Pringle declared the motion passed. Public HearinQs: 176 B1. To consider the abandonment of a certain public utility easement located at 251 - 291 Coffman Avenue. At the meeting held June 3, 2003, Item A29, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 2003R-93 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways, and service easements (Abandonment No. ABA2003-00069). REQUESTED BY: First Team Development LLC, Suong Nguyen, Executive Officer, 135 E. Live Oak Avenue, #201, Arcadia, CA 91006 Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, he closed the hearing. Council Member Hernandez moved to approve the CEQA FINDING: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5, adopt Resolution No. 2003R-145 and approve the quitclaim of the City's right, title and interest in the abandoned area to the applicant/owner. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving abandonment of a certain public utility easement located at 251-291 Coffman Avenue. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes - O. Council Member McCracken absent. Motion carried. 137 B2. A public hearing to consider a resolution approving the refunding (reissuance) of tax-exempt obligations for the Heritage Village Senior Apartments. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 18 Elisa Stipkovich explained that this was a senior project located at 707 West Santa Ana Street, 196 units of which 25 per cent were affordable. The bonds would be dealing with two things; one was changing the letter of credit entity that provided the credit enhancement for the bond from Wells Fargo to Fanny Mae. Secondly, it was negotiated for a longer term of affordably having a term of 30 years from today, the prior term of affordability would have ended in 2022, now it would go to 2033. The rents that would be affected for the one and two bedroom units for seniors, which are $655 net rent for a one bedroom and $784 net rent for the two bedroom units. They will have an annual adjustment factor based upon section eight annual adjustment factor or the market rate adjustment whichever was less. Approval is recommended of the refinancing and it also lowers the total amount of the principle from approximately $900 million to $5.9 million. Mayor Pringle asked if the 25 per cent went from 80 per cent to 60 per cent of medium rents. Lisa Stipkovich answered that the income levels of the people who could occupy the units, were being asked, because the rents were at 50 per cent, they have the ability to rent to people up to 80 per cent and the City felt it should go to people at a lower income level. Mayor Pringle said that the 25 per cent was the income level that was being reduced. He asked if they were still 50 per cent rents. Elisa Stipkovich said that was true. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the hearing. Motion by Council Member Tait, seconded by Council Member Chavez to approve Resolution 2003R-146. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-146 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the refunding (reissuance) of tax-exempt obligations and directing certain actions of 1992 Series A Revenue Bonds. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes - O. Council Member McCracken was absent. Motion carried. 179 B3. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04665 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Kenneth B Isenhart, 302 South Benwood Drive Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Karen Isenhart, 302 South Benwood Drive ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 19 Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 302 South Benwood Drive. Property is approximately 0.19-acre, located at the southeast corner of Academy Avenue and Benwood Drive. To permit and retain an attached second unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum side yard setback. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Waiver of Code Requirement denied (6 yes votes, Commissioner Boydstun absent). Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04665 denied (PC2003-57). Negative Declaration approved. (Planning Commission's decision appeal by the owner/agent). Greg Hastings, from the Planning Department, presented the staff report. He said there were four options that the Council could consider. First, to uphold the Planning Commission action for denial of both the CUP and the waiver which would require either the demolition of the unit or the removal of the northerly five foot of the unit that encroached into the set back area and convert the remainder of the unit into non-livable space. The second option he mentioned would be to deny the CUP for the granny unit but approve the waiver which would allow the building to remain, but would require conversion of the building to a non-livable use. The third option would be approve the applicants' request for a CUP with the waiver subject to a condition that the breeze way be detached or the square footage of the unit reduced to comply with state law. The last option would be to approve the CUP for the granny unit without the waiver, which would require the removal of the northerly five foot of the unit encroaching into the set back, but would allow that particular unit, plus any addition to it, to be used as a granny unit. He said if Council chose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommended inclusion of a condition of approval that was contained in the April 21,2003 staff report to Planning Commission. Mayor Pringle asked how far back the granny unit was from the property line. Greg Hastings said the granny unit was actually at the property line. It fronted on Academy, where the main house fronted onto Benwood Drive. Mayor Pringle asked what was missing from the pictures that were provided by the applicant, asking if the property line was in from the street. Greg Hastings said the property line was right at the wall of the building, there was a section that was public right a way, from the curb Council could see there was no sidewalk and no evident parkway. Mayor Pringle mentioned that the property line did not come to the street and Mr. Hastings responded, correct, it came up to the wall of the building. Mayor Pringle said that it was stated by the applicant that the square footage of the property was included in the square footage of the home and that they were paying ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 20 property tax on that through their ownership. Mayor Pringle asked Greg Hastings if he had been able to verify if in fact that was true. Greg Hastings said he had not. Council Member Tait asked if the last option mentioned was possible to do, removing five foot of the structure and still have a livable space that met Code. Mr. Hastings said that the applicant would most likely have to add on to the remainder of the structure to make that livable. He said structurally he did not know if that were possible to remove five foot without damaging the building, it would cut into some existing areas necessary to be used for the granny unit. Council Member Hernandez said he wanted to address the Mayor's question about the assessed value based on square footage, he said that in order to have a home re- assessed due to an addition, it would be triggered by a permit. Greg Hasting said that was one way it was figured, by a building permit. Council Member Hernandez wondered that if a person did not have a building permit, how else would a house be re-appraised with more square footage. Greg Hastings said he did not know of any other way that would occur unless the applicant went to the assessor on his own and volunteered the information. Council Member Hernandez noted that the Planning Department's first contact was in 1972, based on a complaint. Greg Hastings said that there was evidence in the Building Division file that in 1972 the Building Division had requested the owners remove five foot from an illegally constructed playroom on the property. He said he did not know how that was originally brought to the attention of the City. Council Member Hernandez said that it was his understanding that they have full utilities, running water, electricity and sewer. He asked how someone connects to the sewer, wouldn't they have to have a certificate from the County or the Sanitation District in order to tie into the sewer. Greg Hastings said that they had checked with the Sanitation District and they have no permit on file for the second unit to be attached to the sewer system. Council Member Hernandez said that if the Council allowed the granny unit to stand, there were still certain requirements that still had to be met. He said from reading the staff report, the owner was willing to make some concessions. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. Doug Plazak, attorney for the owner, Kenneth B. Isenhart, said the appeal he filed had a number of exhibits that may answer many of the questions that Council might have regarding the proposal. He said that up until two months ago, Mr. Isenhart's mother lived with him at the home on 302 S. Benwood. It was at this time that the Isenhart's were notified by the City that the granny unit, which had been on their property since they bought it in 1988 and by all accounts had been on the subject property since at least 1960, did not have any permits on file. He said there were no permits on file for the Isenhart's residence as well as a number of the surrounding residences in the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 21 neighborhood since 1972. The permits had all been apparently lost or misplaced and there was no way to verify whether or not permits ever existed. He said to say that there were no permits was meaningless because there was no way to verify one way or another. At 6:45 PM, Mayor Pringle welcomed to the Council meeting, Council Member McCracken, who just returned from Sacramento and he thanked her for working hard on the City's behalf. Doug Plazak explained that a number of houses in the Isenhart's area were not originally part of Anaheim; it was annexed sometime subsequent to the development being built. He said he did not know if there was a correlation between that and the reason why there were no permits from 1972 and before that and that was why there was no sewer permits. Additionally, when they were instructed to get a CUP for the building which had been on the property since 1960, they were also being asked to get a waiver of the five foot set back in order to obtain the CUP. The granny unit has been there since 1960, he said, and had survived earthquakes, rainstorms and Santa Ana winds without incident. The unit was structurally sound and he said John Mancini would testify to that. It was true that it did not comply with all of the 2003 building codes and he questioned what building built in 1960 would. The building codes were constantly being updated and modified. He said the County had submitted that the proper standard by which the granny unit should be judged was the applicable building code of the time, which was around1960. He noted that Council was empowered by Government Code Section 65852.1 to grant the Isenhart's the CUP with the waiver of any zoning requirement, including any variance based on the five foot set back, or Building Code requirement. He explained that Council had continued to misstate the standard by which the Council and Planning Commission should be judging the granny unit, stating that the City has said they could only grant a variance or a waiver if in fact there was some hardship to the property, which was not the case, the Isenhart's were specifically applying for this unit as a granny unit. The California legislature said that the Council could grant a waiver not withstanding that there was not a hardship to the property and Government Code Section 65852 stated that there does not have to be a hardship. He said John Mancini would testify that the property has stood for 40 years and was soundly built. He said it would be a hollow victory for the Isenhart's to have a CUP granted and then to require them to perform extensive destructive testing or extensive modifications, which would not be cost efficient. Regarding the set back issue, he said Mr. Mancini will testify that pursuant to the applicable building codes at the time, because the granny unit was adjacent to a street, the property line could and should be measured from the center of the street and that would essentially dispense of the five foot set back issue. Mayor Pringle asked Mr. Plazak if the property taxes had been paid on the square footage within the unit since the present owner had occupied it and Mr. Plazak responded, yes, the current property tax bill was included in the other documents presented to the Council. John Mancini said he was an architect and had been in the construction business for 33 years. He said it appeared that the north exterior wall of the structure being on the property line was involved in two spheres of influence, one being planning regulations ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 22 and one would be building code regulations. Planning regulations when the house was constructed were not known, he said, that they did know there was a distance from the face of the wall to the curb and from the curb to the centerline of the street. He said from the standpoint of satisfaction of minimum side yard requirements by planning and because cities and counties adjust rights of way from time to time, he did not think the evidence was clear that at the time of construction there was not a fully compliant side yard when the building was built. When considering the building code impact of that wall, most of the emphasis was on fire protection and fire protection was for the protection of the adjacent buildings. He explained that typically when you have property lines and side yard set backs and five foot minimums, which were standard, the building code would allow encroachment into the minimum side yard requirement with some mitigating measures. He said the memorandum said that the structure did not appear to have the required foundation. He informed that they did not know what the foundation was, there were no drawings, and no building permits, and no documentation that would establish what the foundation conditions were. What was available, he explained, was evidence that there was no latent damage or damage or distress to the foundation. He said the finished floor level item having to do with usable space not six inches above grade, was a misinterpretation of the intent of the code, the six inches above grade had to do with the wood/earth separation and in this case, the boundary walls of this unit were concrete/masonry and not wood. There was no evidence of required moisture barrier under the unit's concrete slab, he said that was true, but there was no evidence that there was or not, but the building code did not require a vapor barrier unless the City had adopted their own superseding requirement for a vapor barrier, it would not be a function of the building code. The purpose of a vapor barrier, he noted, was to provide a capitulary break between the earth and any moisture in the sub grade. He said there was no evidence that graded lumber was used for the framing, which was true, there was no investigation and no record. What they did know, he said, was that it had a very simple roof design, there was no evidence of danger of collapse, water coming through the roof, there were no cracks in the ceiling line. There was also no evidence that there was any danger of the roof collapsing. Regarding evidence about the walls and ceilings not being properly being insulated, he said they would have to go back to the early code to determine what the requirements were at that time. Regarding the statement that the block wall fence was not designed for additional wall or roof loads, John Mancini said that he thought that was an assumption. He finalized that he had investigated the unit and felt there are no signs of stress on the concrete or masonry. It satisfied the code in terms of minimum requirements for the State and it satisfied the code for general planning. Ken Isenhart said he bought the property for the sole purpose of affording his mother independent living and yet be taken care of. He said he had no reason to believe that there was anything wrong with the property when he bought it. He paid for title insurance when he purchased the property and did everything he thought he was supposed to do. He said the improvements that he had made on the property, he purchased a roofing permit, which allowed him to re-roof the granny unit, and he got a concrete driveway permit, which the City could not find. He noted he had gone to the City and to the County many times to research his property and he could not find any records, adding that no one even had a floor plan of the property until he submitted one. He noted his mother and his family had lived at the residence for 14 years until last year ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 23 about this time, they thought everything was okay. He said if the Council said that the building had to be taken down, he did not have the finances or the ability to rebuild it and that would mean that his mother would have to return to another family member, in which she would be the caretaker instead of them taking care of her. He explained that he could not move her into the house because Code Enforcement informed him that he could not use half of the usable space in the house. He finalized by saying that he had no reason to believe that there was anything wrong with the house. Barbara McCallister, Mr. Isenhart's mother, said that she was physically disabled and elderly and Mr. Isenhart had the granny unit for her convenience and that she had enjoyed living in it since 1995. Mr. Raybeck said he lived across the street on Academy from the Isenhart's. He explained that he had been at this location for 25 years and the granny unit had been there for 25 years that he knew of and the granny unit did not bother him. He said he did not think that the Isenhart's should be made to have the expense to try to fix the granny unit. Carol Thorp said she lived across the street from the Isenhart's since 1975 and said that there was no problem with having the granny unit. Mayor Pringle asked when the property was annexed and Greg Hastings responded May 11, 1956. Mayor Pringle asked if the City went out to inspect when permits were issued. Greg Hastings answered that typically the underlying structure itself was not looked at to see what other permits had been pulled over the years. Council Member Tait said that one of the options was to remove five foot of the granny unit and he asked if that was feasible. John Mancini said the granny unit was rectangular and the five-foot in question applied to the bedroom and the bathroom. If five foot was removed out of the bedroom, he explained, it would no longer be code compliant for a bedroom, if five feet were removed from the bathroom, it would be removing the bathtub and the water closet. Council Member McCracken noted that there had been a structure of some sort there since 1972 and she had a problem with removing five foot from the granny unit. She asked if the heat came off the house and did the unit fit the basic granny unit standards. Greg Hastings said that there were two separate issues; the attachment to the house was by a breezeway, which attached it to the house for purposes of State law, which meant it was larger than allowed. If it was detached from the house, it could be a larger unit, he explained. If the granny unit was attached to the house, it could not be over 30 per cent of the square footage of the main house. Bill Sell explained that it did have an individual wall furnace. Mayor Pringle said that somewhere along the line permits were established when property was added and reflected in the assessors' rolls. He noted that it looked like there was a notice to the owners in 1972 that there was a problem, but the City never followed through on it, subsequent owners purchased the property and inhabited it the way in which it was built. He said there had been no outcry from the public against the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8,2003 PAGE 24 granny unit and he believed that compassion should come into play with how people live today. It was hard to say that this building should conform to today's building codes when it was built so many years ago, he noted. The set back was a concern, he explained, but there was a public right a way of about five feet and it appeared that the owners had a private buffer on the property with the set back. He suggested the City figure out a way to specifically deal with the issue on an individual basis and create a CUP that restricted its use for specific purposes. In this case, he noted, the space was to be used for a granny flat that state law had provided. To say that this was built as a granny flat but did not conform to granny flat laws that were written 12 to 15 years ago was obvious because it was not built under those requirements. He noted that all four options were acceptable with him but he wished to create a fifth option which was to create a CUP and establish conditions on this property that addressed it's use and how it was used and created a variance on the five foot set back requirement. He said he was concerned about setting precedence but did not believe that Council was doing so. He encouraged staff to work on a set of conditions that would hold the property owner to a high standard but not include within that standard a requirement to tear down his property. Council Member Tait expressed agreement and he said his issue was with the set back and not wanting to set precedence. He said he felt the purpose for the set back was probably for public safety. He said to tear down the building would be an injustice. Council Member Hernandez said that the Council needed to take into consideration the neighborhood standard and what was acceptable to them, and he noted the petition signed from 23 people who were supporting the property owners. He mentioned that he did want to make sure that there was a proper sewer connection. Council Member Chavez said the Isenhart's bought the property in good faith and had done everything they thought they should with concern to meeting codes. Council McCracken agreed and said she was willing to work with the set back. She wanted to make sure that it was safe, the sewer, the water and the electric wiring was correct. Mayor Pringle asked that staff work with Mr. Isenhart in the next week and bring the item back to the Council and if he needed two weeks, that would be permissible. He said Council wanted a conditional use permit that addressed the health and safety issues and also allowed the unit to be used in its present use pattern. Mayor Pringle said that Item B3 would be continued until July 15, 2003. At 7:45 PM, Mayor Pringle recessed the City Council meeting and called to order the Housing Authority meeting. The City Council was called back to session at 7:47 PM. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 25 Report on Closed Session Actions: Assistant City Attorney Newberry reported that Council gave instruction to its labor negotiator with respect to negotiations with the Anaheim Police Association and with respect to Closed Session Item 2, Anticipated Litigation, declined to enter into litigation. Council Communications: Council Member McCracken explained that she had gone to Sacramento this date to testify before the Senate Transportation Committee regarding the Orange County Transportation Authority Board configuration proposal, AB71 O. AB710 created a board of 10 city members consisting of five supervisorial members by district and five large city seats, two at large members and five supervisors. Senator Dunn spoke to the Committee with regards to the bill and asked the Chair of the Transportation Committee, Kevin Murray, if he supported the bill if it would be held on the Senate floor for two months for negotiations among the cities in Orange County who were disagreeing on the particular structure. Assemblyman Correa said he would agree to hold it but he did not want it to disappear. After a question from Mayor Pringle, Council Member McCracken said the Mayor of Huntington Beach made it clear what the cities of Orange County had voted, and after a lot of discussion on AB71 0 it was moved to the Senate floor by a 9 to 0 vote. Council Member Chavez reported that the Orange County Water District reduced the percentage of water from the underground basin to 66 percent starting July 1, 2003 to protect the basin. They also approved their annual budget, which included an increase in the pump tax from $127 an acre-foot to $149, which will assist them to purchase water to replenish the basin. With the supplement from the Anaheim Public Utilities reserves, Anaheim residents would see less than a $1 per month increase in their rates, he announced. Council Member Hernandez said he wanted to talk about the structure of some of the boards and commissions and specifically the structure of the Sesquicentennial Committee. Mayor Pringle noted to Council Member McCracken that all of the nominations for board or commissions had been postponed until the July 15, 2003 Council meeting. Mayor Pringle asked that each Council Member consider two appointments to the Sesquicentennial Committee for next week's meeting. Mayor Pringle also stated that he would like to meet with Council Member McCracken regarding the creation of an Anaheim Cultural Board and to bring those ideas back the Council. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTUES JULY 8, 2003 PAGE 26 Adiournment: There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pringle adjourned the meeting at 8:01 P.M. Respectfully submitted: y:I~ jd~-L<~ Sheryll Schroeder, CMC City Clerk