Loading...
1998/03/17ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 17, 1998 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION MGR: John Lower ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Lisa Stipkovich COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPERINTENDENT: Steve Swaim PURCHASING AGENT: Diane Hughart A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:35 p.m. on March 13, 1998 at the Civic Center Bulletin Board, (outside and inside of the entrance to City Hall) containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the Council meeting of March 17, 1998 to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance (3:12 P.M.). City Manager, James Ruth. Today's workshop is on the $5 million Neighborhood Improvement Program. This is a project his office has been working on with staff and the community for some time. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss with the Council the proposed fund and the recommendations for expending the funds on capital projects to enhance neighborhoods surrounding the resort. Should the City Council concur with the conceptual approach for implementing the fund, staff is prepared to move ahead with plans to discuss these projects with the residents living in those neighborhoods. In the original negotiations, staff wanted to be sure there was a public benefit that resulted from the Anaheim Resort to improve surrounding neighborhoods. With this in mind, the resort fund was created and included as part of the sales of bonds for resort expansion. Five million dollars was set aside for this purpose. In accordance with the agreement, the funding must be used for neighborhood improvements in the immediate vicinity of the resort. To develop a strategy for expanding the resort fund, the City Manager's office directed City departments to collaborate on the conceptual allocation of funds. The projects being proposed are being recommended by Executive and Administrative Managers, neighborhood services committees and reviewed, discussed and approved by his office for recommendation to the City Council. Steve Swaim, Community Services Superintendent and Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development will discuss specific neighborhood improvement projects including a summary chart showing the specific projects, resources devoted to the projects and completion time lines for the resort fund. He then introduced Mr. Swaim and Mrs. Stipkovich who will give the balance of the presentation. 150: $5 MILLION NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Steve Swaim, Community Services Superintendent. He first referred to the documentation submitted (see booklet - Anaheim Imagination at Work - Anaheim Resort Neighborhood Fund - made a part of the record) which contained hard copies of the slides to be presented. He then briefed the Council on the fund background and outlined the boundaries of the project area. He also briefed the following in his presentation -- neighborhood fund goal (to increase the livability in neighborhoods surrounding the Anaheim Resort), the fund project recommendations criteria (neighborhoods must be adjacent to resort area, remain as quality places to live, public improvements, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 highly visible projects with community "buy-in", leverage funds where possible), project recommendations, proposed projects in each of the areas (Haster/Orangewood Phase II, Guinida Lane, Provential/Citron, Jeffrey/Lynne). At this point in the presentation, Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development spoke to the proposed Jeffrey/Lynne revitalization, an area probably needing the most revitalization. Staff has issued a request for qualifications for developers or a team put together by developers to come in from the private sector to assist in dealing with this revitalization plan. Three submissions have been received and are currently being reviewed. Staff will be analyzing those and coming back in the next 30 days with a recommendation. The proposed amount from the Anaheim Resort fund for the area is $1 million with additional funding coming from a variety of sources for a total of $2,878,500. This area will need a significant amount of funding in order to make some meaningful changes in quality of life. Mr. Swaim, in concluding, briefed the summary sheet ($5 Million Anaheim Resort Neighborhood Fund) which listed the areas involved, improvement descriptions (i.e., sidewalks, street lights, revitalization, etc.), bond funds proposed to be devoted to the effort(s), proposed leverage funding, and time lines. City Manager Ruth. With respect to the next steps, they have performed a lot of initial work in assessing the capital improvements that need to occur. It is important to get back to the residents and get their response and support for the kinds of improvements being proposed. That should be done within the next several months. It is staff's intent to solicit feedback from the public to address the issues and make sure they are on target in terms of the proposed priority of spending and subsequently come back to Council with a game plan for their consideration. Staff is open to any thoughts and recommendations by the Council. The areas described today are not in a Redevelopment area. As they move further west in the community, those areas have been designated as Redevelopment areas and there are other funding sources proposed to be utilized in the very aggressive program to work with the residents of west Anaheim to address those issues as well. The subject plan is the result of the commitment made when they entered into an agreement with Disney for the Anaheim Resort program that a minimum of $5 million would be set aside to address the neighborhood issues surrounding the Resort Area. He reiterated, relative to west Anaheim, there is major planning in process which will continue to address the issues in the west end and staff will be coming forward to the Council with recommendations for that area as well. A line of questions was then posed by Council Member Zemel which were addressed by the City Manager relative to the funding at the conclusion of which, Council Member Zemel stated his concern is that the $5 million be spent on new and different things. He would hate to see new money out of the Resort Plan funds used for things the City is supposed to be doing regardless. Discussion/questioning followed by Mayor Daly with the City Manager relative to street lights, those neighborhoods that have them and those that do not (historically), how lights are normally funded and why, etc. Council Members then posed additional questions for purposes of clarification which were answered by Mr. Swaim, City Manager Ruth and Mrs. Stipkovich. In concluding, Mayor Daly stated the presentation and the proposal is a great plan outline and a great first step. The Council will look forward to the results of the conversations with neighborhood leaders. Some of the neighborhoods have been in existence for 40 years. They need to retain the highest standards in those residential areas. They also look forward to the details on the Jeffrey-Lynne area as well which the City Manager indicated would be available within 60 days. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to Closed Session items. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association, and IBEW Local 47. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71. GOVERNMENT CODE (and 18 related cases) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation: Name of case: Hutchinson v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 76-82-79. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9: one potential case. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT: Title: Special Prosecutor RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:42 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:28 p.m.) INVOCATION: Reverend David Koll of the Anaheim Christian Reformed Church gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Zemel led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: Recognizing March 23 - 27, 1998, as NDT Week in Anaheim. Recognizing March 20, 1998, as Hug Day in Anaheim. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,396,230.33 for the period ending March 9, 1998 and $3,300,704.72 for the period ending March 16, 1998, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation meetings. ( 5:32 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:35 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. Mayor Daly announced for any persons who would like to speak to Item C1. this evening, that they wait until the Council arrives at that point on the agenda which should be fairly quickly. He asked if there were any public comments on any other topics at this time; there were none. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items. MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of March 17, 1998. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A19: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-47 through 98R-49, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management. The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended: a. Claim submitted by Munira Jilani for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 3, 1998. b. Claim submitted by Michael T. Gilbert for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 4, 1997. c. Claim submitted by Cambrett Electrical Construction, c/o Ernest Oviedo, St. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1997. d. Claim submitted by Arabella Zuniga for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 4, 1997. e. Claim submitted by Maria G. Cardenas for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 1, 1997. A2. A3. A4. A5. A6. A7. A8. A9. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 105: Receiving minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission meetings held February 4, 1998, and February 18, 1998. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held January 9, 1998. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held February 4, 1998. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held January 29, 1998. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held January 22, 1998. 173: Receiving and filing correspondence from Farano & Kieviet regarding an application filed with the California Public Utilities Commission by PCSTC, Inc., dba Pacific Coast Sight Seeing Tours and Charters, seeking authority to extend its existing passenger stage certificate to operate in the Orange County community, Los Angeles International Airport and the Orange County Airport communities. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for seven months ended January 31, 1998, as presented by the Finance Director. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Henkels & McCoy, Inc., in the amount of $687,989.77 for Underground District No. 26 - Euclid Street; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the amount of $893,324.12 for I-5 Segments B, C & D - Electrical Facilities Relocation; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders. 169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, All American Asphalt, in the amount of $234,124.75 for Nohl Ranch Road Street Improvements from Anaheim Hills Road to Imperial Highway; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders. 158: Approving the Right of Entry Agreements with Wait Disney World for the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project, Phases I and II. 123: Authorizing Hammett and Edison, Inc., to perform a Television Signal Reception Study of the neighborhood adjacent to the Anaheim Convention Center for a fixed fee of $23,692. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 98R- 47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY. 160: Accepting the low bid of Energy Services, Inc., in the amount of $31,230 for the rewind and repair of a G.E. dry type transformer, in accordance with Bid #5755. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 A10. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order to Fisher Pierce, c/o Matzinger-Keegan, Inc., in the amount of $51,574.50 for 150 fault indicators for Warehouse stock. All. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the first renewal of the purchase order to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $276,145 for a period of one year commencing in April, 1998, with options to renew for an additional two years. Co. Tait expressed his concern and questioned why this item is not being bid out and if money could not be saved by doing so rather than taking the option. Diane Hughart, Purchasing Agent explained the process used in this case. In doing so, she confirmed for Council Member Tait that the per unit price would remain the same and there is actually no cost increase in exercising the first renewal of the purchase order; Council Member Tait stated in that case, he had no problem with the recommendation. A12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise a renewal option to Dooley Enterprises, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for Winchester ammunition as required for the period April 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise renewal options for two additional one-year terms, in accordance with Bid #5625. A13. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R- 48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (City Clerk's Office.) A14. 137: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO REMOVE DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT INSTALLMENTS FROM TAX ROLL WITHIN MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 1989-1, 1989-2, and 1989-3. A15. 140: Accepting a grant for $500 from the California Council for the Humanities, and authorizing the Library Services Division to expend that amount so that the Canyon Hills Library can present a discussion program, Gold Rush: A Literary Exploration. 106: Increasing the Library Services Division budget, in the amount of $500 in revenue and expenditure account no. 217-213-4259. A16. 123: Approving an Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the Families First Collaborative for after-school recreation programs at Rio Vista and Glenview Elementary Schools. 106: Increasing the revenue and expenditure appropriations in Fund 101, Program 4277, by $6,000. A17. 135: Approving a request from the Anaheim City Golf Championship Tournament Committee to waive the tournament surcharge of $10 per golfer per day for the 1998 tournament, as it has in past years. A18. 123: Approving Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. SYP-9701 between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) in the amount of $11,468 to provide work experience and related academic enrichment activities for youth participants for JTPA services. A19. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held February 10, 1998, and February 24, 1998. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R -47 throuclh 98R-49, both inclusive, for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-47 through 98R-49, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. END OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. Chairman Daly reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting (5:42 P.M.) A20. 161: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING (CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SHORB WELLS SITE): To consider a resolution (i) approving and authorizing execution of the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, the City of Anaheim, and La Palma/Yorba Linda Ltd.; (ii) finding and determining that transfer of the Shorb Wells property to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to be in the best interest of the City of Anaheim; (iii) authorizing conveyance of the property to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and (iv) authorizing the execution of other documents related thereto in connection with property located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road. See joint Staff Report dated March 17, 1998 from the Community Development and Public Utilities Department which recommended approval of the subject agreement. Agency/Council Member Tait stated that his firm has done some work for one of the parties on Item A20. and also on Item B1. He will, therefore, be abstaining on both of these items. (Tait temporarily left the Council Chamber- 5:42 P.M.). Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development briefed the staff report which explained the proposal and the recommendation. Mrs. Stipkovich then answered questions posed by Chairman/Mayor Daly relative to the time frames for submission of plans by the developer. She feels they are reasonable and also clarified that, although potential uses for the property were discussed, they do not have actual signed agreements. There would be commercial uses, something serving the neighborhood, probably retail similar to that in the Savi Ranch area. Agency/Council Member McCracken noted that the site is physically depressed. She asked if the company will be doing landfill in order to make it a site that is not below the level of the river. Mrs. Stipkovich answered, yes. One of the problems with the site is the requirement for significant landfill. They will be required to do that and meet all engineering requirements. They will be required to show the Agency/Council the final site plan and to obtain approval of that plan. Chairman/Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Chairman Daly offered the Agency Resolution No. ARA 98-2 approving and authorizing executionof the Disposition and Development Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. ARA98- 2 (AGENCY) A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (i) APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND LA PALMA/YORBA LINDA Ltd., AND (ii) AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. ARA98-02 for adoption: AYES: CHAIRMAN/AGENCY MEMBERS: McCracken, Zemel, Lopez, Daly NOES: CHAIRMAN/AGENCY MEMBERS: None TEMP.ABSENT: CHAIRMAN/AGENCY MEMBERS: Tait The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA98-02 duly passed and adopted Mayor Daly offered CityCouncil Resolution No. 98R-50 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 98R- 50 (COUNCIL) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i) consenting to and authorizing the execution of the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, the City of Anaheim, and La Palma/yorba Linda LTD.; (ii) finding and determining that transfer of the Shorb Wells property to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to be in the best interest of the City of Anaheim; and (iii) authorizing conveyance of the property to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and (iv) authorizing the execution of other documents related thereto. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-50 for adoption: AYES: NOES: TEMP. ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Zemel, Lopez, Daly None Tait The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-50 duly passed and adopted. B1. At the City Council meeting of March 3, 1998, Mayor Daly requested that the matter of referral of this item to the Planning Commission for further consideration be placed on this Council agenda. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3983, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: J.D. Gantes Airport Properties, P.O. Box 80340, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 AGENT: Jack Abi, 170 N. Maple Street, Suite 103, Corona, CA 91720 LOCATION: 8295 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Bur.qer Kin.q. Property is 2.33 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. To construct a second story 1,309 square foot indoor playground for an existing drive-through restaurant (3,724 square feet total) within a commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3983 GRANTED (PC98-1) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. Informational item at the meeting of January 27, 1998, Item B1. Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Council Members Lopez and Daly. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 At the City Council meeting of February 24, 1998, Item D1, a public hearing was held on this item, and consequently, Conditional Use Permit No. 3983 was denied by operation of law since there was a tie vote and the fifth City Council Member was not voting (2 yes votes, 2 no votes, 1 abstained.) Mayor Daly noted that the Council previously considered this item at a Public Hearing on March 3, 1998 (see minutes that date - Item D1.) which ended in a tie vote with one abstention; thus, the CUP was denied by operation of law. He would like to suggest that the Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. It is his understanding the City Planning staff has been in contact with the owner and there have been some possible redesigns considered. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the subject request for Conditional Use Permit No. 3983 be referred back to the Planning Commission for their consideration and action. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated since the Planning Commission will have to hold another hearing, is the Council's intent to waive any fees that would otherwise be necessary. Mayor Daly incorporated the waiving of fees in his motion; Council Member Zemel was agreeable in his second. City Attorney White then explained for the Mayor that since the Council had taken a final action, the decision was final and the process would then dictate a new application be filed. This will be handled in the nature of a new application which would ordinarily require a new fee. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including waiving of the fees. Council Member Tait was temporarily absent (abstained). MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber (5:54). C1. 123: DISCUSSION PROPOSED TERMINATION OF CONTRACT RAVI MEHTA, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Discussion requested by Council Member Lopez at the meeting of March 3, 1998, Item C4., regarding the proposed termination of the contract with Ravi Mehta, Special Prosecutor, and the substituting of a local prosecutor to handle the cases that still exist. Mayor Daly. In his discussions with the City Attorney, the City Attorney has consistently and clearly instructed him that he should not comment in any way at Council meetings on the subject. He will continue to follow his instructions and while in previous meetings he has continued to sit in his seat during the discussions, he believes that creates awkwardness all around, including himself, because he is unable to speak while being talked about. In the best interests of the City, he will continue to abstain and leave the room. He thereupon turned the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tern Lopez. Council Member Tait stated that since he ran in the last election, he has also been instructed not to participate and will be abstaining. Mayor Daly and Council Member Tait temporarily left the Council Chamber (5:55 P.M.). Mayor Pro Tern Lopez stated at this time it would be appropriate to receive public comments. The following people spoke to the subject issue (many having done so at previous meetings as well). Comments are summarized. Steve Mather, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church/Anaheim. This whole sequence of events began with the mailing of a "hit" piece against two Council candidates mailed a week before the 1996 election. He then briefed what occurred thereafter to this point. TEA (Taxpayers Expecting Accountability) urges the ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Council to terminate Mr. Mehta's contract and direct the City Attorney to assume jurisdiction of the case. In meeting with the City Attorney a month ago, TEA members asked what would happen if the prosecutor was terminated. Mr. White said the Council could direct him to appoint a staff prosecutor to investigate any charges pending and bring them to a speedy conclusion thus saving the taxpayer's thousands of dollars over the alternative of appointing a new special prosecutor which, they understand, is part of Mr. Lopez's motion tonight. At every meeting he (Council Member Zemel) threatens the City Attorney with notice that he serves at the will of the Council majority. If they do not believe his office can finish the investigation fairly, let him go, but do not continue the rhetorical flourish of threats. Let Mr. White or his appointed surrogate finish the job. Victoria Brady, Sisters of Mercy. Addressing her comments to Mr. Lopez -- some of the issues having to do with justice and fairness she feels have been disregarded and instead given political placement rather than the moral alternative. She questions if the best interests of the City and citizens have been served and also if this isn't the time to drop all of the litigation that has been going on. Mayor Daly has made a recent announcement he is withdrawing from the Supervisorial campaign because of the tremendous cost in time and money. What person would take on the task of being a Council Member in the future especially when they are met with such political ploy and techniques as in this case. Dr. John Baird, 3239 W. Ravenswood, Anaheim (41 yrs.) He first reiterated what has brought the matter to this point (also see Dr. Baird's testimony previously given at the meetings of 2/10 and 2/24/98). Since they last spoke to the Council, it was revealed by the Register that Mr. Mehta was employed by two different governmental agencies -- the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange -- at the same time and received pay from each agency for the same pay period. This action to him seems highly questionable if not illegal. The State Bar Association might want to look into this "double dipping". He asked if the City was informed by Mr. Mehta that he was an employee of the County at the same time working for Anaheim; City Attorney White. Mr. Mehta informed him that he was doing a special project for Supervisor Steiner. Dr. Baird also asked, in that case, did he inform the City it was going to pay his travel expenses coming from Sacramento to come down to Anaheim to work for the County; City Attorney White. The question assumes that the City is paying for that. To the best of his knowledge, the City has not paid any travel expenses for Mr. Mehta's travel while he was working for the County of Orange. Joe Carter, 1945 Bayshore Drive, Anaheim. Since he addressed the Council about a month ago relating to the outrageous charges being billed by Mr. Mehta, which for October, November and December, 1997 amount to $118,000 with a projected total expense through February of 1998 of $200,000, two strange things have happened. It has been learned Mr. Mehta was under contract with the County of Orange for the same days he was working for Anaheim bringing into question the cost of transportation to and from Sacramento. The second, when they asked the City Attorney's office for Mr. Mehta's bill for January and February, neither had been submitted as of yesterday. He asked, could it be that Mr. Mehta has been directed not to submit any more bills for his services to the City until this affair blows over and, if so, who would be in a position to give such advice to Mr. Mehta. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He finds in the midst of all the controversy it is quite amusing that a group of people would suddenly come forward and have such a degree of concern about an expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars as it affects the quality of life in the City. It seems odd to him that these people who have been in the City for so long, have had the opportunity to go to many budget hearings and hearings involving major expenses for City projects and yet be so silent on those issues when such large amounts of money were involved. He suspects ulterior motives in this case. Bob Cirince, 223 S. Atcheson, Anaheim. It greatly concerned him when he heard about the investigation of Council Members of campaign violations and errors. Council Member Zemel has argued that no one is above the law and that government officials should be held to the same standard to which all citizens are held. He was disillusioned when he discovered that the Council without precedent in Orange County hired a special prosecutor to investigate these errors and violations and that the special prosecutor has a dubious if not unremarkable record of civil litigation and there is a Fair Political Practices Commission 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 (FPPC) that could have investigated these errors or violations with little or no cost to the taxpayers. He also discovered that some Council Members were subject to investigation while others were ignored and that several Council members had fines levied against them which exceed the amounts the FPPC has levied in the past. He urged the Council to terminate its connection with the special prosecutor and to focus their energies on more positive pursuits. In concluding, he asked if a special prosecutor is hired, to whom would that prosecutor be accountable. City Attorney White prefaced his answer with a detailed explanation distinguishing between civil litigation and criminal litigation. In summarizing, he explained the answer to the question is -- that while a prosecutor may be hired at the discretion of the City, in this case, the prosecutor works for the people of the State of California and the City Council cannot give orders to the prosecutor on what to do with regard to any particular case. Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim. She has paid her dues in volunteering her time in Anaheim to bring to light the living conditions and blight they have in west Anaheim. As a member of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) and the BBCC (Better Business and Concerned Citizens), she has come to speak before the Council many times about conditions in west Anaheim. Tonight she is speaking as an individual because she is very concerned about the spending of this money (for a special prosecutor). She is concerned that the Council did decide to do so for a situation that could have been handled by the FPPC at no cost to the City. The sum which could be approaching $200,000 could have been devoted to west Anaheim neighborhoods where many programs are vitally needed. She then elaborated on the many issues that could have been addressed and what could have been provided instead with the funds. In concluding, she stated that a proposal may be made to hire a local attorney. She urged them not to do that either. There is another avenue for handling the matter at no cost to the City. She does not know of a person in her community who has been hurt by these minor infractions, but she does know of a lot of people, especially seniors and children, who are being affected on a daily basis by the lack of services this money could have provided. Candy Nunno, 2655 Keys Ln., Anaheim. The money has been expended, but she believes if the reason for the expenditure wasn't there in the first place, the breaking of the law, it would not have had to be spent. She also believes it was the City Attorney who said it was too personal a matter for him to continue so it was the agreement of the City Council, or the majority vote, to hire someone else. It was the infraction of justice in the first place, by the leadership in the City that is the root cause. She does not think there is enough money to keep the foundation of the City pure and undefiled. She gives Council Members Lopez and Zemel a badge of honor for hiring this person but not stopping the prosectuion. In her opinion, obstructing justice is not justice. Phyllis Greenberg, 603 Gaymont, Anaheim. Tonight she is speaking as a private citizen whereas before she has ddressed the Council as a representative of a community organization. A recent Los Angeles Times article reported that Anaheim is the first and only City to have a Special Prosecutor of its own. She then elaborated on the issue, the cost involved and, similar to Mrs. Wallace, briefed many of the things the money could have been used for in the west Anaheim community as well as for economic development of the area. They need Council Members with a concern for the needs of the community. She feels they will not be able to attract good people to run for office in the City if they feel that they will be needlessly accused and attacked. She asked that they please fire Mr. Mehta and get back to the important purpose for which the Council was elected -- serving the citizens of Anaheim. Jerry Jackson, 9922 Harvest Lane, Anaheim. He commended Council Members Lopez and Zemel for bringing this up because it seems like everybody wants to break the law. The law is in place relative to campaign contributions. The investigation is not about costs but it is about trying to be above the law. The problem is people trying to be above the law. The investigation should go on until the matter is resolved. If not, maybe they need to recall the Mayor. lan Skidmore, 1348 Amberwick Lane, Anaheim. He referred to the manual from the FPPC which he had with him and which, in part, indicates that the FPPC has primary responsibility for the interpretation and administration of the Political Reform Act, that the FPPC, State Attorney General and local District 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Attorneys have enforcement authorities under the act. This would indicate to him that Mr. Mehta does not have the authority to prosecute. He would like an opinion on that but based upon what it states in the manual, he believes Mr. Mehta should be dismissed and that all people fined to date should have all their money returned by the City and have the cases dismissed. Shirley Grindie, 5021 E. Glen Arran, Orange. She first referred to her previous appearances before the Council (see minutes of 2/24/98). Over the weekend there was an article printed by the Register which needs to be corrected for the record and for the seated Council Members except perhaps Mayor Daly who was on the Council at the time the Anaheim (Campaign Reform) Ordinance was adopted. There is a misconception that she was behind the adoption of the Anaheim Ordinance. She stated emphatically that is an absolute falsehood. She actually was not aware that the Council had adopted the ordinance until she read about it in the newspaper. Subsequently she got a copy and appeared before the Council to make some corrections to it having to do with retiring outstanding debt. The ordinance that was adopted was what she considers an emasculation of the County's Ordinance ("Tin Cup"). There were a number of things left out (in the Anaheim Ordinance) and to date, she does not know who initiated the omissions and changes but the City is living with the problems engendered by that specifically the section allowing for civil prosecution. That is one of the reasons for the "big mess" at this time. When the situation is settled, she hopes she can come back to the Council working in conjunction with the City Attorney and get the ordinance straightened out. She has a 20-year reputation in this business and tries to play fair with everyone. Ms. Grindie continued noting that when she appeared before the Council a month ago she pointed out that the violations charged on certain Council people had also been committed by others who weren't being charged. She has yet to see Mr. Mehta's explanation why there were targeted charges being made and she does not know if they will ever hear. She was interested to see that the case against the Business and Taxpayers for Good Government Committee has been settled which started the whole thing to begin with. In her 20 years of monitoring County elections and for the last five or ten years the Anaheim and Orange elections, that was the single largest violation she has ever seen in the County of a violation of local campaign laws. It no doubt had a serious impact on the outcome of the election. In her opinion, all the other things are nothing affecting the outcome of elections. Even when the FPPC assesses violations at the State level, they weigh whether or not such violations had a significant impact on the election outcome. What is dismaying is that the special prosecutor hired saw fit to charge $10,000 to one of the people who have already settled, Mr. Feldhaus, essentially for not including in the first filing the occupation and employer of six contributors out of probably several hundred and on the other hand, a committee who spent $32,000 on mailers using money that came from a gambling club and a local ambulance company who, she is sure, is very interested in seeking a contract with the City and who uses Mr. Sheldon as their lobbyist. She also wondered why Mr. Mehta settled this huge violation for only $9,355. It does not seem to her that the punishment fit the crime particularly when comparing the fines assessed to Mrs. McCracken, Mr. Feldhaus and probably the Firefighters Association. It is interesting to note as of 12/31/97 which ends the last campaign filing reporting period, Business and Taxpayers GGC had a balance of $9,369 in their bank account. What bothers her, early in the investigation by Mr. Mehta she had the opportunity to speak with him in this Chamber privately. He noted that the fines he was unilaterally assessing to Mrs. McCracken and others really weren't too much because they would use their campaign funds to pay for them. Mrs. McCracken had no money in her account so she loaned her campaign the $6,500 and Mr. Feldhaus had to give $5,000 of his personal money. She is sure they will get the money back from raising campaign funds. The Business and Taxpayers GGC has used up their money but, who paid the fine for them, the ambulance companies and the gambling clubs. She feels it is not anything to be proud of in this City. In concluding, Ms. Grindie stated just one last piece of advice, and she has not had the pleasure of giving this to Council Member Zemel personally. On more than one occasion, she has told Mayor Daly not to get involved in other people's campaigns and will tell him (Zemel) the same thing. It is no secret in Anaheim that he (Zemel) is pushing for Mrs. Kring to be on the Council and she is sure his friendship with Mr. Sheldon was very much a part of the independent expenditure that was made by this committee. She seriously doubts the independence of the expenditure. She feels if all of them would mind their own 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 business and run their own campaigns and stay out of other people's campaigns, none of them would be in the trouble they are in now. John White, 18642 Strong Place, Anaheim. Everyone is trying to get power. The Reverend (Mather) mentioned that this started back in the 1996 elections or with the appointment of the special prosecutor. He believes it started way before that. It is just the system. He feels what was done is nothing new and this is how business is done. Everybody is contributing money left and right for their own selfish reasons. After touching upon many issues surrounding the matter, he stated it is not Council Member Zemel but the law that has dictated the fact that they went ahead and appointed a special prosecutor. He reiterated it is the law but, in his opinion, it is the system itself that is corrupt. He hopes that the law is enforced. If they do not like the law, vote it out. He does not think anybody should get away with anything. If everyone settled, the Mayor should also settle and they should move on. Council Member Zemel first clarified relative to a comment made that he has never thought the City Attorney's advice was incompetent or not correct. He was trying to demonstrate what the City Attorney's conflict is that he has declared. The City Attorney has stated it and the Council has it in writing that he has decided in his professional, legal opinion that he has a conflict of interest and can neither investigate his bosses (the Council) nor prosecute them. City Attorney White. That is correct. He has given that advice to the Council for at least the last three weeks. In response to a comment by Rev. Mather, he did meet with him and other representatives and at that time, he indicated that one of the options if Council chose would be to refer the matter to his prosecution staff if he did not have a conflict. Issues have been raised in the existing case since that time that make it clear to him that there is a conflict. Once those issues were raised, he advised the Council he could not represent the people in this case because of that conflict and that the only option is to retain the existing special prosecutor or find someone else who could take over because the case has to go forward with somebody. The Council does not have as an option terminating everything and walking away. Once the case is existing, it has to be prosecuted and resolved by someone who has independent prosecutorial discretion on how to handle the case. Council Member Zemel then posed a particular question to City Attorney White; City Attorney White stated, as Council Member Zemel suggested might be the case, that he did not think it appropriate to answer because it gets into issues still in litigation. However, he did answer relative to Council Member Zemel's question as to who made the initial contact with Mr. Mehta. His recollection is that Council Member Zemel put forward the name and he believes there was even a vote to hire him subject to his (City Attorney's) assuring that Mr. Mehta was available and then working out a contract with him. He made the contact with Mr. Mehta and determined his availability and subsequently put together the contract. He also answered affirmatively Council Member Zemel's question that he gave the Council the advice that Mr. Mehta was (1) qualified, (2) available and (3) priced right. Council Member Zemel then addressed some of the issues broached in the comments made relative to what they could do with the money. This City Council as a whole has done more for west Anaheim in the last few years than has been done in perhaps the last 20 years. They are deeply committed to revitalizing west Anaheim and he is proud to be a part of that. The fact that he wants to uphold the law and voted the way he did does not mean there is a lack of commitment to the west end or to children's programs or any other opportunity. Relative to the American judicial system, there is still a judge that any prosecutor brings a case to. If there is no evidence and a judge finds a case to be totally unwarranted and politically motivated, the judge would dismiss the case and throw the prosecutor back into law school. It is the judge that decides those basic issues. Council Member Zemel continued that if the motivation is money as the reason why Mr. Mehta is being terminated at this time, up until recently, he does not think anyone has negotiated to try to get that figure lower. He will let Mayor Pro Tern Lopez speak to that. However, his (Zemel's) commitment to the City of Anaheim has always been his priority. He also believes in public safety, protecting taxpayers and improving neighborhoods. In this case, he is going to maintain his position and uphold his philosophy and integrity. He is not going to back down from a recall or any other issue that comes up. 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Mayor Pro Tem Lopez. The City Attorney made it plain even if they terminate Mr. Mehta's contract, the case does not go away. A new attorney will be appointed to finish the case. He supported the appointment of Mr. Mehta on his credentials. He assumed that in a very short period of time, perhaps three or four weeks, the matter would be concluded and everyone exonerated. Now, it is five months later and the matter is ongoing with no apparent end in sight. He has the same concerns as the citizens who spoke about parks and other community issues. The cost is a problem. With that in mind, they asked the City Attorney to see if a local attorney is qualified to take the case. He returned the name of three individuals one being, Derek G. Johnson. MOTION. Council Member Lopez thereupon moved that the City Council terminate the legal service contract with Ravi Mehta (Special Prosecutor) and retain the services of Derek G. Johnson to act as the Special Prosecutor on the remaining campaign finance case and for the City Attorney to give notice of termination of the existing contract upon acceptance of the position by Mr. Johnson. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Zemel expressed his concern relative to the motion -- the amount of money it is going to take to educate and bring a new special prosecutor up to date. Paying for the new and current prosecutor during this period will be approximately $450/hr. He does not see that is a savings to the taxpayer. In a recent meeting with Mr. Mehta, they discussed the problem with the fee and asked him to not charge for travel time, he agreed to cap the hours at eight hours a day and agreed to lower the fee to that of the person Mayor Pro Tern Lopez is suggesting. Therefore, if money is the motivation, the concern has been answered. Further, an arraignment is to take place on the case on March 27 so the training necessary would have to take place during the time until then. He urged that the independent prosecutor be allowed to continue. He feels if they start "monkeying" with the judicial system and deciding what is going to happen to an ongoing case they are wrestling with obstruction. City Attorney White, answering Council Member Zemel, explained that he has given the Council a written memorandum dated last Friday (March 13, 1998) partly on that issue (obstruction). Part of what he said is, clearly it would be improper for the Council to do anything that would attempt to influence or affect the prosecution itself. There is, however, a distinction between the prosecution and the prosecutor. Prosecutors do change and they are changed (all the time). The prosecutor in one of the five cases that his office had was changed from his office to Mr. Mehta at his (White's) recommendation. Prosecutors are promoted, retired, they resign, they are fired, and the cases go on. The thing that would be improper would be for the Council to change prosecutors for the purpose of influencing the case. He has no reason to believe that is what is happening here. He then answered additional questions posed by Council Member Zemel on the same issue. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez interjected and additionally outlined the cost issues involved and why he feels that a local prosecutor would still be more cost effective. He (Lopez) did agree to a cap of eight hours a day for Mr. Mehta just in case he did not get a second to his motion but since he got that second, he feels there is an opportunity to save even more. After additional discussion and debate between Mayor Pro Tem Lopez and Council Member Zemel on the issue, City Attorney White confirmed for Council Member Zemel that the motion as offered was that the termination would be effective upon the acceptance of the position by the substitute prosecutor. If a vote is taken on the motion and passes, this would be the final opportunity for the Council to act and there is no appeal. Council Member McCracken. Although she seconded the motion so there could be discussion, she has some concerns, one being if they fire Mr. Mehta, that the Council may be challenged in court for obstruction of justice and will then have additional litigation which will increase the ongoing cost to the City and delay the disposition of any case they have. They talked about issues with Mr. Mehta. Council Member Zemel did not mention they are still paying his plane fare and his vehicle, things they would not be paying for with a local attorney. There are also other costs because Mr. Mehta does not have a full 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 staff and does not belong to a team as Mr. Johnson does. Mr. Mehta types his own stipulation at $200/hour instead of clerks or secretaries who can do so more cost effectively. She believes they are in a very difficult position and particularly she is in a "no-win" situation whichever way she votes. If she votes to hire Mr. Johnson, they end up paying approximately $400/hour until the transition takes place. Also, they may face a challenge by Mr. Mehta of obstruction of justice. Speaking to the public in the Chamber audience, she does not want them coming back in two weeks saying that "Shirley McCracken cost them more money." Either way it will cost more money. The matter needs to be settled and settled in court as soon as possible. She has reservations as to whether hiring Mr. Johnson is going to delay the matter whereas the issue might be settled on March 27 where the judge will make the decision that will answer their concerns and questions rather than a prosecutor who (thus far) has been sitting as judge, jury and executioner. Miriam Kaywood made a comment at the podium that they should ask Mr. Mehta to go back to the beginning of the contract and reduce the entire amount not just as of now. Mayor Pro Tem Lopez called for a vote on the motion he previously offered. The MOTION CARRIED by the following vote: Ayes - McCracken, Lopez. No - Zemel. Council Member Tait and Mayor Daly temporarily absent (abstained). Recess: By general Council consent, the meeting was recessed for ten minutes (7:19 P.M.). After Recess: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (7:38 P.M.). D1. PUBLIC HEARING -VARIANCE NO. 4319 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5: OWNER: Leif and Mitzi Christensen, 2845 East South Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2845 East South Street. Property is 0.17 acre located on the north side of South Street, 560 feet west of the centerline of Rio Vista Street. Waivers of minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard setback to retain an existing 144 square foot wood trellis attached to the garage, and a 126 square foot patio cover in the side yard. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Variance No. 4319 DENIED (PC98-2) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Categorical Exemption, Class 5 DENIED. Informational item at the meeting of January 27, 1998, Item B2. Letter of appeal submitted by the owner, Leif Christensen. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by Leif Christensen and Public Hearing scheduled this date. Informational Item at the meeting of January 27, 1998. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - March 5, 1998. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 5, 1998. Posting of property - March 6, 1998. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 5, 1998. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 5, 1998 which outlined the subject request and supplemental report dated March 17, 1998. He also noted at the Planning Commission hearing, several residents appeared in opposition to the overgrown vegetation and unpermitted structures. The Commission denied the variance because no hardship could be found for the front setback and also asked for staff to work with the applicant on the non-conforming structures and trimming back on the vegetation. He clarified for Council Member Lopez that the Planning Department staff has worked with Mr. Christensen. 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Council Member Lopez. He told Mr. Christensen during the break to go back and work with staff. He hopes that can be done and that he/they can keep working on the matter until he can get it right; Greg Hastings. Staff has been working with Mr. Christensen and will continue to do so. Mayor Daly posed questions for purposes of clarification wherein Mr. Hastings clarified the following: The only item that came before the Commission was the front setback and that was adopted the way staff recommended. That was the only item that was before the Commission. Planning staff recommended denial of the front setback and maximum fence height. Since the one waiver was withdrawn, the front setback was denied. The Mayor asked if everything was now back on the table because this is a new hearing; City Attorney White answered yes. Mayor Daly stated, to summarize, the Planning Commission acted solely on the front yard setback issue because all the other requests had been withdrawn; Mr. Hastings confirmed that was correct. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing. Applicant's Statement: Mr. Leif Christensen. He first submitted photographs to the Council. He stated, the reason he did so is to show them that on South Street, the code calls for 25' from the sidewalk to the houses. There is not a single house except his that has 25'. He has 28'. With some of his neighbors, you cannot see their houses either. There are other houses on South Street that have just as much vegetation as he does. Relative to the wood trellis in the front of his house, he hopes he can keep it that way because if he has to cut the greenery down, there won't be any fresh air for anyone to breathe. He knows other people say it is an eyesore but he does not think it is. He wants to keep it because he thinks it looks beautiful. He asked that they think about the environment because that is the most important thing. Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone elso who wished to speak in favor. Jim Steel, 2851 E. South Street, Anaheim. He is the neighbor to the east and has lived there about 10 years. Mr. Christensen's front yard has basically been the same during that time. As far as the trellis, he put it up to keep the vines off the driveway and house. If none of the houses in that block have a 25' setback, he questioned why should he (Christensen) be penalized and have to take it down. The housing tract was built before the setback was established. His (Steel) house is set back only 18'5". He believes since it is Mr. Christensen's property and he likes the greenery he should be able to keep it. The flowers are pretty in the spring. He also has fruit trees. He trims the plants and shrubs that need to be trimmed and the ones that do not need trimming grow like they are supposed to. In his opinion, if the setback is not for all the houses in the neighborhood, why should he be denied his trellis. There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor, Mayor Daly asked to hear from those in opposition. Mr. Gary Sheatz, 2830 E. South Street, Anaheim. He lives across from the property. Mr. Christensen summed it up best when he stated that others call it an eyesore. He is not going to go through all of the material he presented to the Planning Commission since the materials (and his testimony) have previously been made a part of the record. He brought up the issue of the setback at the Commission hearing and would encourage any type of guidance the City Attorney could give. He again addressed the issue noting that nobody has made an addition or a building addition to the front of their property or their garage. All existing properties would be legal non-conforming uses. He then addressed the usual findings that need to be made to support a variance and in doing so relative to the subject case pointed out that the facts that need to be found to support the findings do not exist. In concluding, he noted that the variance process is a discretionary entitlement and a privilege. He feels it is insulting when an existing property owner comes in with existing code violations he has refused to clear up and asks for a discretionary act. Non-conformance should not equal more privileges. He encouraged the Council to 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 support the findings of the Planning Commission. He also complimented the Council on their excellent staff. Mr. Mike Freeman, 2844 E. Standish Ave., Anaheim, directly behind Mr. Christensen's property. He also testified before the Planning Commission. The subject location has been a problem for years and it is still a problem. For many years, they thought they were the only ones who felt the way they did but have found out many residents on South Street shared their concerns. They have had help from City departments particularly the Planning Department and Code Enforcement. The Planning Commission was very attentive and responsive in denying the request. He urged the Council to continue the good work done so far in denying the request. He also submitted photographs taken at 8:00 o'clock this morning -- the view from his property of Mr. Christensen's property (made a part of the record). Robert Bennett, 2829 E. South Street, Anaheim. His main concern is the appearance and aesthetics of the property and also the possibility of rodents living in that type of vegetation (on Mr. Christensen's property). He took two black and white photos that do not show anything that looks good about the property from the street. (He thereupon submitted the photographs - made a part of the record). The variance for the structure is not the main issue. To him, the main issue is the "jungle". There are rodents running on the wires in his back yard. Vector Control has been to his property three times in the last three years and they tell him rats like to live in that type vegetation. Someone from the Council should take a look at the situation and they will see what the problem is. Mary Ann Xanthos, 2839 E. South Street, Anaheim. She lives directly next door to the west. The structure is built contrary to the laws and as can be noted from the overgrown vegetation, that is going to be overgrown too. Mr. Christensen mentioned the trailer next door -- that is hers. It is up for sale. She will be selling it and does not plan to put another one there. She believes the front of the property is dangerous. At night time, the vegetation and the parkway tree make it very dark. In the daytime trying to walk by or riding a bike, the plants (sticking out) can cause eye damage. It is not possible to walk two by two on the sidewalk. She does not think it is fair. Summation by Applicant: Leif Christensen. Regarding the trailer standing beside his neighbor's house (next door), the first thing he sees when he goes outside of his garage is that "monster". When he built the wooden trellis for his vine, that was the main purpose. Another purpose when he built the trellis on the west side covered with all his roses was to try to cover the trailer next door. Somebody called his wood trellis an eyesore. If anybody could say that about all the flowers, something has to be wrong. It took him 20 years to develop the vine he has now and he still wants to keep it. There is more than one purpose for the wooden trellis. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Tait asked the basis for the staff recommendation of denial. Greg Hastings. Staff looked at the findings required and could not find any. Although Mr. Christensen had given information pertaining to other buildings on the block with a shorter setback, it was determined there was a wide range and they are legally non-conforming. However, they could not find a similar situation -- an addition to the front of a garage. He reiterated, there were no findings made for the variance and there were no variances granted to any of the other homes. Mayor Daly. They all have materials from the Planning Director pointing out the staff's strong opposition to the variance. It also points out approval of the variance might perpetuate existing code violations pertaining to overgrown vegetation on the property. There is a reference to other code violations that have existed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council determined that the proposed activity fall within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-51 for adoption, denying Variance No. 4319. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 4319. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-51 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-51 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Daly. They encourage the neighborhood to attempt to work together on these types of issues and appreciate that the citizens have had a chance to speak and everybody remained polite. D2. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 105 South State Colle.qe Boulevard - Insta-Tune and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street. To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair facility. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3966 GRANTED, for two years, to expire 1/21/00 (PC98-7) (4 yes votes, 3 absent). Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Review of the Planning Commission's decions was requested by Council Members Lou Lopez and Mayor Tom Daly at the meeting of February 10, 1998. Public Hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - March 5, 1998. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 5, 1998. Posting of property - March 6, 1998. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 21, 1998. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 21, 1998 which described the proposed project. The Commission approved the CUP for two years in order to determine at the end of that time if the Critical Intersection (CI) at State College and Lincoln will be funded which will in turn effect the amount of on-site landscaping that will be necessary. Currently, there is a 48 1/2' setback for the existing building to the existing right-of way line including an existing 7' planter adjacent to State College. That setback would eventually be reduced to 11 1/2' because of the 25' building expansion plus the 12' Critical Intersection dedication. Staff recommends that the entire 23 1/2' between the new building front and the existing right-of-way line be fully landscaped. This would eliminate an unneeded drive aisle in front of the building. Staff recently met with the applicant who is agreeable to this as well as closing the northerly driveway on State College Blvd. in exchange for the two-year time limitation being removed. He then gave some additional details 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 relative to the Planning Commission approval and in concluding stated that the Council may also wish to note that the billboard that exists on the property will remain as part of the project and is not located in the CI area. Mayor Daly asked Mr. Hastings to comment regarding the two-year nature of the permit approved by the Commission and also the statement that there was some swap that was proposed since the Commission hearing. Greg Hastings. The two years was predicated on the fact that the Planning Commission could come back and revisit the issue of the CI timing to determine how much landscaping would be necessary. The Commission approved a small amount of landscaping out front. The applicant is now willing to give more landscaping but wishes to have the two years removed. Mayor Daly noted that they have received one letter from a nearby resident (see letter dated March 12, 1998 from Michael A. Dejongh, 1938 E. Center Street) opposed to the expansion. He asked if staff had seen the letter and also if anyone was present in opposition at the Commission hearing. Greg Hastings. He has seen the letter but it was not received before the Planning Commission hearing but since. He does not believe anyone was present at the Commission hearing to speak. Council Member McCracken noted that the letter received was not concerned with the front but with the rear of the facility and the applicant is being required to put up a block wall rather than a chain-link fence. Greg Hastings. There were two issues. One had to do with the fact that the adjacent property which is residential is actually zoned commercial. There is a chain-link fence separating the two and the Planning Commission as a condition of approval required a 6' block wall. There were apparently car fumes affecting the residents; however, there is a condition imposed that uses on the property all be within the building which should help. Council Member Lopez asked if staff checked the soil around the fencing. The letter alleges that plants will not grow in the area; Mr. Hastings stated they did not do any checking because the letter was just received today. Council Member Lopez asked if it was appropriate to check the soil to see if there is contamination; Mr. Hastings answered that could be done. Council Member Tait. Regarding the 6' block wall, the site next door seems to be about two to three feet lower in elevation than the applicant's property. He would think that the block wall should be 6' from the elevation of the applicant's site, otherwise it might be effectively 3'. Mr. Hastings stated staff measured the height from the highest side but since there is no code requirement, they could measure from either side. If it makes more sense, they will have it measured from the lowest side. Council Member Tait stated it should be measured from the highest side so the fence height is 6' high from the applicant's side. Greg Hastings, answering the Mayor relative to the Commission's thinking in their approval of a two-year permit, he explained the Commission asked the question if the CI widening would occur in the near future. The Public Works Department indicated it was not in the current five-year plan but their estimation was in approximately the next two years it could be in the five-year plan. The Commission took that date as one when they would like to revisit the issue to determine if they would like to add more landscaping at that time since the amount of landscaping that the Planning Department was recommending was reduced by the Planning Commission for those two years. He then answered additional questions posed by the Mayor. 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. There is a current project to acquire right of way on the east leg of the intersection. In June of this year, there will be a call for projects from the O.C.T.A. and the City will be competing for additional funding for improvements for that intersection. If funding is awarded, it will be 2002-2003 or approximately five years. Jeff Farano, Attorney representing the property owner, 2300 E. Katella, Ste. 235, Anaheim. He stated since he previously gave a detailed summary of the project in a letter he will not repeat the same tonight. The business has been there since 1975 and the current occupant as a tenant since 1983. There have been no problems and a Variance was approved in 1975 with no time limit. The owner now wants to modify the property which will be an improvement. When these businesses were built many years ago, they were very small and now there is a need for additional space. The expansion will allow work to be done inside the building. It will have an improved facade, landscaping, brick wall -- a number of improvements. After several continuances with the Planning Commission, they came to an agreeable set of conditions which included all the improvements he mentioned but the problem is with the two-year limitation placed on the approval. The property owner is planning to spend a great deal of money that will be passed on to the existing tenant but with a two-year limit, it is virtually impossible for him to obtain any type of funding or financing. It is not a two-year limit for the purpose of reviewing of the landscaping, but a two-year limit on the CUP and he will have to come in and reapply at that time just like a new business. It would, in fact, take away his business. He is going to lose his tenant and the City is not going to get the improvements they would like to see. Relative to the landscaping, his understanding is the landscaped area is all the way up to the building which will not allow any drive-through area. Greg Hastings. Staff would like to see the front of the building fully landscaped. It is a drive-through area that staff does not feel is necessary. Where the building ends going north there should be a landscaped area (as shown on the posted plan). Jeff Farano. The driveway is going to be eliminated from State College so there is a need for some additional way to get around the property. The owner is asking to allow the planter to stay where it is which will not have to be moved when the widening takes place. It is his understanding, that will be the full width of the widening and the drive-around between the building and the planter will still remain. Elimination of the driveway is fine and all the rest is fine. He is not sure what the complaint is in the letter since they have not seen it but hopefully the improvements will satisfy any concerns. He reiterated if they still impose the two-year limit, the owner cannot go forward. The proposal will be a substantial improvement to the property and they should be allowed to go forward. Public Input - in support: Mr. Walter Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Avenue, owner of the property. He met with John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager in an attempt to get the matter resolved. His understanding was, Planning Commission Item No. 7 in the staff report dated January 21, was deleted and what he agreed to with Mr. Poole, Item 7 would be reinserted into the resolution and in consideration, the City would eliminate Item No. 32 which has the two-year expiration. Mayor Daly stated regardless of the understanding, it was after the Planning Commission meeting. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He (Friedman) was not attempting to make any deals with staff. What he came forward with, at the Planning Commission, the two concerns they had when they imposed the two years, there had been Code Enforcement activity on the property and thought by limiting it to two years would help to address that. By expanding the building, the type of code enforcement problem they had in working outside, would resolve the issue. The two year limit came about because they did not want to close the driveway and install the landscaping as in Condition No. 7 because at that time, it was unknown when the street would be widened. They were working on enclosing the building so there would not be any outdoor activities and they would be willing to put the landscaping in as staff recommended. They just wanted to take the two- year limit away. He (Poole) made it clear if the matter is before the Planning Commission, it is the Commission's jurisdiction and if before the Council, the Council's decision. No deal was made. He told Mr. Friedman they would forward the information to the Council. 2O ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Mayor Daly. He asked why would expanding the building automatically resolve concerns forever into the future that Code Enforcement might have and the City might have for work done outside. John Poole. It would not do that forever, but for many years there were no problems at the site. The organization has now grown and the building is too small for what he is trying to do. By increasing it to the size he wants, there should be no working on vehicles outside the building and if he does, Code Enforcement has a process to correct it. Mr. Jeff Farano, in summation, stated as the property currently exists, it would be beneficial if the proposed improvements could take place, i.e., removal of the existing signs to a better looking sign, landscaping, fencing, expansion so that everything will be done inside, etc. Those improvements do not have to be made because the business is there legally and can continue. With a two-year limit, it would be impossible and financially unwise to make the improvements. The owner is looking for removal of the two-year limit. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hastings then answered questions posed by the Mayor for purposes of clarification at the conclusion of which Mayor Daly stated he did not feel they have enough certainty about what is being recommended and what the ultimate goal is in terms of the Planning Commission and staff and also he does not think there is enough detail to make a decision. Council Member Lopez. He has the same concerns but he would also like to look into the soil situation. Nothing seems to be able to grow on the resident's side. He is not ready to move forward at this time. Mayor Daly. He feels they should continue working with staff to try to come up with a more comprehensive package. Council Member Tait. Although this may be somewhat vague, he appreciates the applicant's concern about the two-year limitation. It is hard to expect anyone to make such an investment. Perhaps staff can look at a longer period or what it would take for staff to be comfortable, maybe a 5 or 10-year limit. Council Member Zemel. He echoes the concerns of Council Member Tait. Earlier, the comment was made that this property is not compatible with residential. Every business along State College has a residence backing up to it. This is not an unusual situation. The owner is going to expand his building so that work will be done inside and he will no longer have a problem with Code Enforcement. To ask for a soils analysis could be a hugely expensive proposition. Since it seems they are moving toward continuing this item, he asked staff to use some caution and sensitivity. Mayor Daly. He agrees that State College is a commercial street. The difference is, this is a seven-day a week tune-up business whereas other uses are restaurants, dental offices, churches, etc. It is a commercial zone and the subject business has existed there for 23 years. They have to keep State College Boulevard as nice as possible. The questions asked are legitimate especially because the area is changing, the intersection will be widened and the undergrounding project will be in progress in a few years. They need to try to improve and beautify State College to the best of their abilities. Council Member McCracken. The business can continue to operate as they are now and that is a problem. With this proposal, they will be making very positive changes -- a block wall (between the business and the residence) and a lot of soil will be taken up in order to install the foundation. The Planning Commission and staff want a landscape review in the future and it seems they can condition the project to have a review on the landscaping at a certain date or when the widening is done. That is done on a lot of other projects. It seems that is the only issue and the two-year limit. Perhaps they need to work out a condition so that the CUP can be granted and still get the answers needed relative to landscaping. 21 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Mayor Daly. As far as contamination, Council Member McCracken made a good point. When the foundation is dug, they are going to know whether there is contamination or not. It is redundant to make it a special condition because it will be addressed with the expansion. His main concern is the way the business looks today and the way it will look after the expansion. He asked that Council consider a two- week continuance so that the applicant and staff can confer one more time. He would like to know exactly what it is going to look like when it expands. The language about signage in the staff report leaves it up in the air about future signage and the Council deserves to know. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the Public Hearing be continued for three weeks (since no Council Meeting is scheduled in two weeks). Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Zemel stated he will support the continuance but he hopes that staff will reach out and help the businessman. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. D3. PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3994 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, Inc., Attn: Jay Swerdlow, 120 N. Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 AGENT: A. Terrance Dickens, P.O. Box 2488, Long Beach, CA 90801 LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street (formerly Anaheim Drive-In). Property is 24.95 acres located at the southeast corner of Durst Street and Lemon Street. To establish an outdoor swap meet marketplace with waivers of minimum parking lot landscaping and permitted encroachments in setback areas. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3994 GRANTED (PC98-10) (4 yes votes, 3 absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Council Members Tom Daly and Lou Lopez at the meeting of February 10, 1998, Item B5.and Public Hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - March 5, 1998. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 5, 1998. Posting of property - March 6, 1998. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 21, 1998. Mayor Daly noted it was he and Council Member Lopez that set the matter for a hearing before the Council. One question he had was relative to how much landscaping is the property owner proposing to install as part of the proposed three-year swap meet operation. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Plans approved by the Planning Commission indicate that the total amount of required landscaping is being provided. There was a waiver in terms of distribution. Landscaping normally required inside the parking lot will be connected to the perimeter landscaping. Along Lemon the proposed landscape setback will be 10 to 50' whereas the minimum requirement is 10'. Overall, staff felt comfortable with the amount of landscaping as provided on site. Mayor Daly asked if staff was comfortable with the design -- the quality of the design and the amount of landscaping and the way this project will look for Anaheim residents who drive by it. 22 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Mr. Hastings answered in terms of the Lemon Street frontage, staff is happy to see the amount of planting material proposed which could be applied to future use on the property and will be more established at that time; John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager then answered questions posed by the Mayor relative to the timing of the interchange improvements at Lemon and the 91 Freeway. He noted that the latest estimate for completion of improvements is December of 1999. Council Member Lopez. His concerns were also relative to landscaping and the impacts of the project (visually) along Lemon Street as well as on the east and north side of the property. There should be sufficient shrubbery or fencing to make sure it does not have an impact relative to noise levels and aesthetics. They are trying to beautify the City and yet are considering approving a swap meet. If so, it should be accomplished in such a way as not to impact surrounding development. Mayor Daly asked when the Planning Commission approved a three-year swap meet, did the property owner absolutely commit to no longer than three years; Greg Hastings. It was made clear that was their intent. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak, first, the applicant or applicant's agent. Terry Dickens, 4525 Atherton, Long Beach, representing Pacific Theatres. Mr. Jay Swerdlow, Vice President of Pacific Theatres is also present. He first commended City staff noting that Anaheim has one of the best staffs of cities in Southern California. They are present tonight to urge the Council to ratify the decision of the Planning Commission in approving the CUP. He gave an extensive presentation during which he explained the developability of the site currently, with the Lemon Street bridge missing, is very low. To generate the highest and best use, they concluded it would be best to put an interim use on the site and a swap meet seemed the most logical since Pacific is a swap-meet operator. Relative to the neighbors to the north and east, some time ago, he worked for Brian Industrial Properties (immediatly to the north) and has stayed friendly with Mike Hoyt of Bryan. Over the years, they have been outstanding neighbors and they have had an open line of communication with Pacific. At the Planning Commission meeting Mr. Hoyt had a representative there speaking in favor of the proposal and requesting that no further changes be made to Durst. He also spoke with owners to the east and they have no objections. One of the things he would like the Council to consider is a small number of conditions that were imposed that tend to have more of a long-term flair than an interim use. There is a requirement for a 6' high wrought iron fence to be placed along the Lemon frontage with chain link around the rest. He suggested a less capital intensive improvement -- a slatted wrought iron fence or a mesh screen fence. The three-year term will not allow for a lot of vegetation to grow up there and when the ultimate use comes, the fence will be unnecessary. Another issue was the lighting of the parking lot. The swap meet market place would be a day-time activity and he does not think there should be any requirement for lighting throughout the parking lot. If it is for security purposes in the building area, Pacific will do that with one or more temporary poles in the area so that before daybreak, there will be lighting for security. In terms of ultimate development, he is certain that will happen within the three-year period. The market drives that kind of development and if there is no market, it will not happen. Without the Lemon Street bridge, it will not be. Mr. Lower talked about Caltrans and the estimate relative to the ramp improvements, the current estimate is for the end of 1999 although he suspects it might be later. That was part of the consideration in setting the time. Regarding the signal for westbound traffic to southbound Lemon, it was discussed at the Planning Commission and he thought the conclusion was that it would not be required until the Lemon Street Bridge is constructed. Mayor Daly clarified that the condition relative to the light was that it be installed within three months prior to the completion of the bridge; Mr. Dickens acknowledged that was correct. Other issues broached included drainage, i.e., that a public sewer and storm drain improvement be completed. Currently about 1/3 of the site drains south and the rest of the water is retained on site. He would request that they allow that to occur during the interim use only. If it is raining, there is no swap 23 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 meet or if water is being retained on site. Relative to striping the lot, what they would like to do is move the selling area from the center to the back of the property and essentially allow them to grade now in a way that the grading could last and be set up for the future. He does not know if the approval was a specific site plan approval or an approval of the use. Lastly, there was no opposition at the Planning Commission. The only other individual who spoke was representing Bryan Industrial Properties and they are favorable. Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there was no response. He asked Mr. Dickens to summarize. Mr. Dickens asked that they uphold the Planning Commission decision of approval. Mayor Daly asked how the applicant would feel if the interim nature of the proposal was reduced from three years to two years so that the City can be assured it is a short term interim use as possible especially since he is requesting that the wrought iron fence not be a part of the project. Mr. Dickens. Perhaps they could work with the Planning staff to resolve the issues within the spirit of the approval. Relative to the two years, if it is two years from the time they open, probably June of this year, that would be adequate. It would not be entirely desirable, but OK if it would be two years from June. Mayor Daly. Perhaps they could just pick a date so that everyone is clear when the swap meet will no longer be a swap meet. He asked if it would be the Council's desire to hammer out the details this evening or ask him to sort out the fencing and timing issues. Council Member Lopez. He would like staff to work something out and come back in two or three weeks; Council Member Zemel. The issues are simple -- fencing and timing. Mr. Dickens stated the fencing, storm sewer and the lighting; Council Member McCracken added and whether or not the site plan is what they expect. Greg Hastings. A condition is that there be substantial conformance with the site plan. He does not see a problem moving the line around internally and it could just be a Report and Recommendation item. The lighting is a condition of the Police Department. He believes there is also a condition for a licensed uniformed security guard. Council Member Zemel noted that the applicant proposed temporary lighting for the predawn. He asked if that would meet the condition; Mr. Hastings answered it probably would since it is just a matter of the Police Department being able to see people on the property. Relative to the fencing, staff would be concerned about the aesthetics and would like to see the proposal first. Discussion then followed between Council Member, staff and Mr. Dickens relative to the outstanding issues, how those might be resolved, etc. Mr. Jay Swerdlow, Vice President, Pacific Theatres clarified that relative to the lighting, the intent was to light the sellers area because they would be the only ones on the property predawn. Mayor Daly. He would feel better if they had all the details pinned down before they approve the interim use. He realizes it might take three weeks but he is not comfortable approving a swap meet at all. However, because it will go away within two years, he is willing to consider the proposal. They need to have certainty on what it is going to look like because it is freeway frontage. The alternative, in his mind, is to not allow a swap meet at all consistent with all cities in Orange County. The property has been vacant for three years and they don't know what the future holds for the property. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the Public Hearing for three weeks in order to pin down all the details as discussed and to know with certainty exactly what is going to happen on the property. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. 24 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , March 17, 1998 Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly clarified that the issues are fencing, lighting, landscaping, and pinning down the closure date of the swap meet. There will be three weeks to finalize those issues. He asked if that was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Dickens stated the preference would be to have the matter resolved tonight but not resolved negatively. He is certain they can work out those issues with staff. A vote was then taken on the motion to continue the Public Hearing for three weeks. MOTION CARRIED. C3. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member McCracken. On behalf of Vietnam Veterans, she would like to agendize the issue of whether Anaheim flies the POW-MIA flag either on special occasions or year round. She noted that the American Legion and VFW do fly that flag. Council Member McCracken. There have been discussions in the past relative to Anaheim being part of COG or SCAG and they have been supplied with material on the organizations. She feels that a workshop would be in order to explore the value of Anaheim's possible participation in COG and/or SCAG. In Washington when she attended the League of Cities Conference in Washington, there were discussions and decisions being made around Anaheim and including Anaheim and the City was "not at the table". She would appreciate having a presentation on the issue. Mayor Daly. Council Member McCracken is requesting a workshop on the matter (the City's possible participation in COG and/or SCAG) and he also feels it is a good idea. Mayor Daly. He first asked for a clarification of the City Council meeting schedule for the next few weeks and into April; City Clerk Sohl stated meetings are scheduled for March 24, April 7 and April 28. None are scheduled for March 31, April 14 and April 21. Mayor Daly. There has been an attempt to schedule a town hall meeting on Sex Oriented Businesses. There have been four or five dates suggested that are workable for him but then he hears back from staff, those dates are no longer acceptable to somebody. He asked what they need to do to schedule that meeting and can it be on a Tuesday. Council Member Lopez asked to be excused and left the Council Chamber (9:21 p.m.). Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Council Member Zemel relative to the dates that had been proposed, Council Member Zemel explaining why they were not workable for him. At the conclusion, Mayor Daly noted that two dates are available in April (April 14 and 21) and suggested that the meeting could be held on either of those dates. Council Member Zemel stated he would check first thing in the morning and let him know if the 14th or 21st of April would work. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of March 17, 1998 was adjourned (9:25 P.M.). 25 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK March 17,1998 26