Loading...
2005/12/06ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 6, 2005 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met on December 6, 2005 to call to order the special session of December 6, 2005 at 2:15 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez and Harry Sidhu STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder A copy of the agenda for the special meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on December 2, 2005 at the City Hall exterior bulletin board. BILLBOARD WORKSHOP: C200 Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, advised Council of the history and other facts related to billboards in Anaheim. She explained billboards were identified as a free standing signs rented for advertising that could be oriented to arterial streets and freeways and that business identification signs were not classified as billboards. The billboards in Anaheim ranged from the smallest at 72 square feet with larger displays covering 300 square feet, being single or double faced and ranging in height from 27 to 36 feet. She also pointed out there were occasionally back-to-back billboards in differing sizes. She indicated billboards located on arterials could be seen by up to 27,000 vehicles a day, whereas freeway billboards could see that number climb to about 245,000 drivers per day remarking the freeway billboards at 1,200 square feet were generally larger than those found on arterials and typically were 60 feet in height. She showed an example of a billboard which had generated a number of complaints to the City, clarifying the content of billboards was protected by free speech laws and the City could not impose restrictions as to the type of advertising to be displayed. Another issue, she commented, had to do with political campaigns as Anaheim had regulations for temporary signs as to how soon before an election they could be put up and when they were required to be removed, noting those City regulations did not apply to billboards. Ms. Vander Dussen talked about the history of billboard regulations since the freeways first created opportunities to reach a large number of drivers back in the Fifty's. In the 1950's, Anaheim grew by 18 percent in terms of size from 11 to more than 13 square miles and the population had increased by six-fold. The construction of the Santa Ana Freeway and Disneyland began to change the face of Orange County and in response the City of Anaheim decided in 1958 to prohibit freeway billboards. Five years later, she stated, Anaheim more than doubled and the population grew by 52 percent. The Riverside ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 2 Freeway was constructed from State College to the western city limits and by this time, there were 97 billboards in the City and despite prohibition on freeway advertising, 38 of those billboards were adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway. She verified most of the billboards were on land the City annexed. In 1965, the City Council faced a lot of pressure from the outdoor advertising industry to allow billboards somewhere in the City and that year Council voted to permit billboards by right at certain locations but retained the prohibition on freeway-oriented billboards. Because land Anaheim had annexed included so many nonconforming billboards, Ms. Vander Dussen reported the City adopted an amortization plan to require the removal of all freeway-oriented billboards which was effective as all freeway billboards were removed under that plan. She indicated regulations adopted in 1965 allowed billboards in commercial or industrial zones at sites within 200 feet of the intersection of two highways and were limited to a sign area of 300 square feet per face and the height dependent on the distance from nearby residential uses. She stated billboards were prohibited if they were located in the center City area to protect the downtown. She believed the prohibition of billboards on Harbor was intended to protect the downtown and what became known as the Resort area and also believed the prohibition on Katella was intended to preserve the gateway to the City from advertising. Billboards were also prohibited within 75 feet of any residence. She noted the Code did allow the submittal of conditional use permit applications to allow billboards in areas where they were not expressly permitted and/or if a billboard were to be mounted on a roof or a wall but that the Code continued to prohibit freeway-oriented billboards. She stated most of the billboards in place today were installed under 1965 regulations. In 1989, she pointed out, Anaheim was 66 percent larger in terms of land area and the population had increased by 92 percent. By now there were four freeways in town and the number of billboards had grown to 141 and that included six freeway billboards. Again, Ms. Vander Dussen reported, most of the freeway boards resulted from annexations, except for one which had been constructed on stadium property to fund the Amtrak station which is still there and controlled by the Anaheim Angel's. As mentioned earlier by Ms. Vander Dussen, the outdoor advertising industry had participated in discussions during the Sixty's that resulted in the City allowing billboards in certain areas by right since freeway billboards were prohibited. In 1989, Regency submitted a request to amend the Code to allow freeway billboards and Council appointed a blue ribbon committee (comprised of representatives from the business community, citizens, the outdoor advertising community and staff) to study the issue. She added Council ultimately decided to deny the Code amendment and amended the Code to further require a conditional use permit for all billboards in the City which was a departure from the practice of the prior 24 years when billboards in designated areas had been permitted by right. She stated in 1992, Regency Advertising submitted an application to allow 15 new billboards of up to 950 square feet in sign area in industrial zones adjacent to the Santa Ana/Riverside and Orange freeways. Their proposal was sweetened with offers to allow two free months of advertising for three community organizations, to give priority to Anaheim businesses in selling advertising and to contribute to freeway landscaping funds. About the same time, Council received a proposal from Adams Advertising that would have allowed 15 billboard leases on City property with two billboard faces to be made available for advertising at the City's discretion. The deal was estimated to generate ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 3 $420,000 in annual revenue to the City; and at the end of the 20-year lease, the City would retain ownership of all the billboards. In response to both of these proposals, Ms. Vander Dussen reported, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that would have allowed freeway billboards subject to approval of a conditional use permit including criteria for distances between billboards and that the signs would have to be removed after 10 years. She noted Council did not adopt either proposal submitted by Adams or Regency or the draft ordinance that they asked staff to prepare which meant the ban on freeway billboards continued. In 1994, Regency submitted another proposal to remove 13 billboards along arterials in exchange for permission to construct 10 new freeway billboards. She indicated there was community opposition to the proposal and it was rejected by Council. Ms. Vander Dussen explained the theory behind an exchange program was to remove billboards from neighborhoods and replace them with new signs in areas adjacent to freeways. Ideally, she added, the program would improve the visual character of the City's neighborhoods by eliminating or reducing billboards, however, it was also important to consider the impact of signs along freeways. Anaheim had worked extensively with Caltrans to beautify freeways and had invested significant amounts of City funds as well to create welcoming gateways and enhanced landscaping along the freeway transportation corridors. She emphasized while the removal of billboards from neighborhoods was something City staff would support, there were concerns about the potential impact of billboards along the freeways. In 2002, in response to discussions with outdoor advertising industry representatives, Ms. Vander Dussen stated the City Attorney commissioned a study to compare the revenues associated with billboards along arterials and freeways. A consultant had calculated the cost associated with both types of billboards and well as the potential revenue to be generated; and the study concluded that the annual profit from a billboard on an arterial was approximately $3,800 and the annual revenue from a freeway sign in a high visibility location would be approximately $126,000 revealing from a revenue perspective, one new freeway billboard could generate as much revenue as 33 arterial billboards. She related the City of Los Angeles had considered a freeway billboard exchange program in 2002 and LA city staff at that time recommended a complicated exchange rate that would allow a new freeway billboard of 672 square feet subject to the removal of approximately 15 billboards including three of the same size of or greater and a combination of smaller billboards containing 8,566 square feet. She affirmed Los Angeles staff wanted to determine which billboards would be removed but the advertising industry wanted to be able to make that selection and in the end, their City Council rejected the proposal. She indicated both of the studies and analyses support Anaheim's earlier denial of the exchange program that would have removed 13 arterial billboards in exchange for 10 new freeway billboards. Today, she verified, in Anaheim billboards were conditionally permitted in certain industrial and commercial zones and were prohibited in all other zones. Billboards were prohibited in the same locations where they were prohibited in the 1965 ordinance: in the center city within 200 feet of Harbor Boulevard, near freeways, within 200 feet of the easterly portion of Katella and within 75 feet of any residence. Since the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 4 Anaheim ordinance was amended in 1989 to require a conditional use permit for billboards, the City had received several permit applications but all had been denied and today, there were 91 billboards of which five were adjacent to freeways. To summarize, Ms. Vander Dussen remarked the City had banned freeway billboards since 1958 and the existing billboards were generally nonconforming in that they were erected pfl0r t0 annexation. She indicated Anaheim also banned billboards in key areas of the City and had consistently denied applications for new billboards in other areas but commented the outdoor advertising industry continued to express interest in exchange programs that would remove existing billboards along arterials in exchange for new billboards along freeways. She added various studies had documented that freeway billboards generated significantly more revenue that arterial billboards and staff believed the economic benefits needed to be carefully balanced with the community goals to eliminate blight and enhance the appearance in the community. Mayor Pringle requested a hard copy of the presentation be provided to Council for further review Mayor Pringle asked how Anaheim's ordinance compared to the adjacent cities of Yorba Linda, Fullerton and Orange and did they have a similar amortization program or similar restrictions; Ms. Vander Dussen indicated staff would research and provide those details. He also asked why there was a prohibition on billboards historically in the City center; Annika Santalahti indicated discussions that had occurred in 1965 referred to visitor experiences and the importance of protecting the resort area but there had not been a written explanation on the downtown area. She explained the downtown area at that time was more extensive consisting of residential and businesses and there was not much in the way of open space for billboards and that may have contributed to the ban. Mayor Pringle asked if there was a prohibition against billboards in Anaheim Hills and Ms. Santalahti confirmed there was a prohibition in the entire scenic corridor. Mayor Pringle asked for a map detailing the concentration of the existing billboards and staff indicated that information would be provided. Mayor Pringle remarked billboards was one of the first issues he had asked staff to consider when he was first elected which was how to address the entry corridors in the City such as Magnolia, Broadway and Lincoln. Undergrounding of utilities, median islands and removal of billboards would do much to improve those corridors, however, he was cautious in asking staff to research as he was aware of the history of billboards in the City, but he would now like to see what the City's options were in terms of an exchange program and what advertising firms would offer and then make a determination as to whether he could support moving forward with a plan or not. Council Member Chavez concurred stating he would like to see what the City's options were as well. He recognized that billboards was an emotional issue for the community, but wanted the opportunity to improve the blighted areas between State College and East Street as well as Magnolia. He ended by stating the City had done such a good job in trying to improve neighborhoods that considering options relating to billboards was the next logical step. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 5 Council Member Hernandez believed there should be some standard established as to content and context of billboards. He recognized the City could not regulate what the advertising message was but felt there should be a community standard the companies should consider. Mayor Pringle invited those in the audience to comment. Marsha Martinez, resident, read her letter encouraging consistency in improving all neighborhoods and removing billboards would create a more pleasant atmosphere in those neighborhoods. Michele Martinez, resident, took time off work to voice her opinion that the City should address residential billboards and relocate them along the freeway. Laine Lawson, Clear Channel Outdoor billboard advertising firm, pointed out there were State laws regulating that billboards could not be placed on landscaped freeways and that there were only certain segments in Anaheim where it would be possible to place freeway billboards. He commented he had been involved in the billboard exchange negotiations for the City of Los Angeles and his firm had pulled out because it was not financially feasible to participate at that time. Currently, he noted, Los Angeles had a supplemental use district wherein each Council Member had the opportunity to negotiate their own ratio of billboards in their own district and added that the only Council Member who had negotiated that ratio was the Council Member from the Hollywood district. He noted that district allowed two square feet for every one square foot of new billboard placed in the billboard overlay zone. He further added that within Anaheim's freeway system, all freeways were landscaped but there were segments within those freeways considered unlandscaped. In terms of billboard content, he stated, Clear Channel Outdoor did not include adult-oriented billboards and the firm would be willing to enter into an agreement with the City. With no other public comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the comment session stating he would interested in having industry representatives submit ideas to the City in terms of a billboard exchange program. City Attorney Jack White pointed out the City could utilize a Request for Information process that would not obligate the City to go forward once that information had been received. Mayor Pringle asked if Council had the ability to amend the current ordinance that could identify specific locations where billboards could be placed and Mr. White indicated an ordinance could be drafted that restricted to a finite area where billboards could be placed, limit the number of billboards in proximity to each other and identify areas which could be available for an exchange program and at a specific ratio of exchange. Council Member Galloway felt there should be a consensus from the Council as to whether the City should consider moving down this path. Council Member Hernandez indicated he was interested in formulating a request to the industry to ask them to share ideas back to the City. Council Member Chavez concurred, asking that a report of exactly where billboards could be allowed on Anaheim freeways be provided. Council Member Sidhu also agreed and requested staff provide information on which company had a billboard currently in the City and the specific locations on the freeways where there was a possibility of having a billboard constructed. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 6 Mayor Pringle concurred in requesting a staff report that showed very clearly where billboards could be acceptable and providing all requested details to Council before asking the advertising industry for proposals they would offer in a billboard exchange program and whether the company had policies to address billboard content and further suggested those issues be addressed by the first of the year. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None Mayor Pringle moved to closed session for the following items: CLOSED SESSION: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball, LP, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 050001902 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: Kocheksaraei v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 05000072 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: Small v. People of the State of California, etc., et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 050006368. 4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Number of potential cases: one or more. Existing facts and circumstances: significant land movement and property damage to the properties located at 357, 365 and 373 Ramsgate Drive; 4039 and 4043 Circle Haven Road, 4033, 4039 and 4045 Maple Tree Drive 5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: In re San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), California Public Utilities Commission Docket No. A.04-02-06. 6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: In re City of Anaheim and California Independent System Operator Corporation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. EL05-131-000. 7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 7 Name of case: Welch v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 030009927 8. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated representative: Joel Fick Employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters Association, Local 2899 9. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated representative: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association Invocation: Tawfiq Deek, Chairman, West Coast Islamic Society Flag Salute: Council Member Harry Sidhu Presentations: Recognizing the winner and nominees of the Orange County Business Journal and Cal State Fullerton's Family Business Council Family Owned Business Awards -The businesses recognized were Custom Comfort Mattress, Anaheim White House, California Career Schools, California Pools, LuLu's Desserts, Reborn Cabinets, and Cabinet Care Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date): Recognizing the Kennedy Commission Recognizing October 5, 2006, as the official anniversary date for the Sesquicentennial Recognizing Ben Lamas for his 50 years of service to the City of Anaheim Recognizing the Disneyland Ambassador Program on its 40th anniversary Mayor Pringle called to order the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO ANY OF THE AGENDAS: Item No. 24 was continued to December 20, 2005 and Item No. 32 was removed from the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS (ALL MATTERS EXCEPT PUBLIC HEARINGS): Lynn Spencer, resident, addressed parking concerns on her street, indicating patrons of business establishments on adjacent streets were causing problems; Mayor Pringle referred Ms. Spencer to Captain Sain of the Police Department and to Code Enforcement Division for assistance. Rachel Barron, resident, spoke of flooding which had occurred on her property resulting from heavy winter rains relating she had constructed a brick wall and drains recommended by the City so that overflow would drain to the City street. She commented the property behind her home was owned by a realty firm, Seven Gables, who did not maintain the hills and the drainage which caused mud to wash down and resulted in flooding of her back yard. She asked the City to assist in this matter. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 8 The City Attorney confirmed to Mayor Pringle of a pending legal dispute involving at least one property owner in that area and the Seven Gables Realty. Mayor Pringle commented on the challenge involved with legal disputes, however, asked Ms. Barron to share what information she wished to the Director of Public Works so that he could follow up on the issue. Joel Forrester addressed Council and was escorted from the meeting. Scott Darrell, Director of Kennedy Commission, thanked the City for recognizing Commission members for their work the last several years advocating housing for Anaheim's low and very low income working families remarking that Council Members Chavez and Galloway had attended their board meeting on December 1, 2005 to commend those members. James Robert Reade expressed Police Department concerns. Pedro Vasquez voiced complaints related to his truck vendor business. Jonathan Jones, resident, also expressed concern related to the Seven Gables property which caused a flooding to occur in his home last October. He indicated the hill had not been maintained and the vermin and gopher holes could cause flooding to occur this winter. He confirmed his property was not directly in front of the hills but that the flooding that occurred on his neighbor's property traveled beneath her fence resulting in eight inches of water surrounding his home. Jeff Reed, resident, also referred to the flooding that occurred last October and requested Council's assistance in protecting homes by enforcing ordinances and ensuring the property owner maintained the slope. Mayor Pringle remarked that the Public Works Director had heard the comments made this evening and to the extent there was something the City could do, the appropriate staff would look into it. Dave Morgan, City Manager, added Council would be provided the latest information on the related pending lawsuit against the City. Roslyn Perell, resident, provided various complaints related to the Seven Gables Realty. John Lundgren, resident, provided background on the Seven Gables property. Alma Ramirez spoke on a variety of issues. Andy King, resident, remarked he had named the City in a lawsuit related to the property at Seven Gables Realty remarking if the realty firm did not clean up the drainage, flooding would occur again this year. Mayor Pringle thanked Mr. King and his neighbors for brining this issue to the attention of Council, also remarking on the challenges involved when the City was included as a defendant in the legal dispute which limited how the City could respond. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, commented on Eli Home operation. CONSENT CALENDAR: With the consent of Council, Mayor Pringle removed Item No's. 8, 25, and 35 for separate discussion and indicated he would abstain on Item No's. 19 through 23 due to a potential conflict of interest. Council Member Hernandez removed Item No. 9 for separate discussion. Council Member Sidhu stated he would record a "no" vote on Item No. 26 and would abstain on Item No. 31. Council Member Chavez moved approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar Items 5 - 38, seconded by Council Member Hernandez to waive reading in full of all ordinances and ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 9 resolutions and to approve the following in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. 5. Reject certain claims filed against the City. C118 6. Receive and file the Monthly Financial Analysis for August 2005; the minutes of the Public B105 Utilities Board meeting of August 4, 2005, Library Board minutes of the meeting of July 11, 2005, September 12, 2005, October 10, 2005; the minutes of the Golf Advisory Board meeting of September 22, 2005; and the minutes of the Budget Advisory Board meeting of May 18, 2005. 7. Review the need for continuing the Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency by D175 the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Anaheim issued on February 9, 2005, and the subsequent orders issued pursuant thereto, concerning land movement and property damage in the vicinity of 357, 365 and 373 Ramsgate Drive in the City of Anaheim, and, by motion, determine that the need for continuing the local emergency exists. 10. Approve the amendment to the agreement with Precision Rotors to extend the contract for 1667 one additional year for maintenance of Police Department helicopters. 11. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Abdul Azziz AI Hamad and Abdul Azziz 3815 AI Ghannam in the amount of $7,830 for the purchase of Real Property located at 1562 West Katella Avenue, for the Katella Avenue Smart Street project. (RNV ACQ2004-00200) 12. Approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Grant Deed with Ingram Yuen Sheng, in 3816 the amount of $288,000, for the purchase of remnant property located at 529 South West Street. 13. Approve and execute the Grant Deeds and Quitclaim Deeds per Cooperative Agreement P124 for Five Points, approved December 13, 2003, for the Lincoln Avenue-Phase II street improvement project. 14. Approve and ratify the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in Condemnation for the property P121 located at 1210 South State College Boulevard and authorize the final settlement payment of $75,000 to the owners, Dennis Look Boon Yue and Theresa Yue, as Trustees of the Terrence Sau-Hong Yue Trust dated August 28, 1986 (R/W ACQ2003-00147). 15. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, B. R. Day Construction, Inc, in the 3817 amount of $269,468, for the Northfield Avenue Water Main Replacement project and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 16. Approve the agreement with LAN Engineering, in an amount not to exceed $620,000, for 3818 engineering services for the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project from Humor Drive to Jean Street. 17. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, B.R. Day Construction, Inc., in the 3819 amount of $138,054, for the Katella Avenue and Canoga Place Water Main Replacement project, and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 10 18. Approve the First Amendments to annual service agreements with KFM Engineering, Inc., 3498 Lim & Nascimento Engineering Corporation, Boyle Engineering Corporation, and AKM 3499 Consulting Engineers, each in an amount not to exceed $175,000 annually, $350,000 total, 3500 for design on-call and support services. 3501 19. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Nalinee 3820 Klangtaweekunsuk and William Waisire, in the amount of $15,100, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 1, for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Freeway Highway project. MAYOR PRINGLE ABSTAINED. VOTE: 4-0. 20. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Lourdes 3821 Perez Paloma, in the amount of $7,200, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 24, for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Freeway Highway project. MAYOR PRINGLE ABSTAINED. VOTE: 4-0. 21. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Robert J. 3822 Quintana, in the amount of $19,550, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 143, for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Freeway Highway project. MAYOR PRINGLE ABSTAINED. VOTE: 4-0. 22. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Susana 3823 Palomares, in the amount of $29,900, for one mobile home located at 1844 S. Haster Avenue, Space 150, for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Freeway Highway project. MAYOR PRINGLE ABSTAINED. VOTE: 4-0. 23. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Anthony S. 3824 Fabian, in the amount of $12,700, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 27, for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Freeway Highway project. MAYOR PRINGLE ABSTAINED. VOTE: 4-0. 24. Find and determine it to be in the public interest to sell certain property without public 3825 bidding pursuant to Charter Section 1222; approve the Settlement Agreement between Southern California Edison Company and the City of Anaheim related to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Agreement and all related documents. CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 20, 2005. 26. Find and determine that it is in the City's best interest to convey City-owned land at 8323 3734 and 8375 East La Palma, without public bidding, in accordance with Section 1222 of the City Charter; and approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Disposition and Development Agreement, by and among the City of Anaheim, the Anaheim Redevelopment ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 11 Agency, and DWWH, Inc., for the purpose of improving the property (related to Agency Item #1). APPROVED. VOTE: 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER SIDHU) 27. Approve Amendment No. 1 to a Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Edge 2910 Engineering, for an amount not to exceed $150,000, for the provision of environmental assessment services on various projects and authorize the City Manager to execute. 28. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-223 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE D154 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, General Unit, and the City Of Anaheim. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-224 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Clerical Unit, and the City Of Anaheim. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 92R-17 which established personnel rules for management, confidential and non-represented part-time classifications. 29. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-226 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE D114 CITY OF ANAHEIM rescinding Council Policy No. 542 regarding sound attenuation in residential projects. 30. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-227 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P124 CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein. (City Deed Nos. 10882-10884). 31. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-228 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and easements. (Abandonment No. ABA2005-00116). Public Hearing date scheduled for January 10, 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SIDHU ABSTAINED. VOTE: 4-0 32. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY F130 OF ANAHEIM rejecting and denying one or more FCC Forms 394 relating to the transfer of the cable television franchise, and/or control thereof, to an entity controlled by Time Warner Cable or COMCAST Corporation. WITHDRAWN BY STAFF 33. ORDINANCE NO. 5999 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM M142 adding Chapter 4.22 to Title 4, adding Section 18.38.260 to Chapter 18.38 and amending Section 18.08.030 and 18.92.220 of Chapters 18.08 and 18.92 respectively, of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to smoking lounges. (Re-introduced, revised at the Council meeting of November 15, 2005, Item 27). 34. ORDINANCE NO. 6008 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF M142 ANAHEIM adding new Section 11.04.075 to Chapter 11.04 of Title 11 of the Anaheim ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 12 Municipal Code prohibiting certain vehicles on public property. 36. ORDINANCE NO. 6010 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF C280 ANAHEIM amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning. (Reclassification No. 2005-00166.) 37. ORDINANCE NO. 6011 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF C280 ANAHEIM amending the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning. (Reclassification No. 2004-00141). 38. Approve minutes of the Council Meeting of November 8, 2005; regular adjourned Council meeting of November 15, 2005 and the special meeting of November 15, 2005. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 8. Establish January 31, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. as the date and time for the fiscal year 2005/06 D116 mid-year budget workshop. Due to a conflict, Mayor Pringle requested the workshop begin at 3:00 p.m. on January 31St rather than 2:00 P.M; Council concurred. Mayor Pringle moved to approve revised workshop date and time, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. 9. Approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire D129 Protection for protection of wildland areas within the City of Anaheim, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and the Fire Chief to execute the operating plan on behalf of the City. Council Member Hernandez confirmed this agreement would fall under the State Mutual Aide agreement and that he had pulled the item to highlight the interagency cooperation that exists and had existed in Anaheim for a number of years. He pointed out California had been dealing with disasters for many years, not just solely as a single jurisdiction, but in conjunction with other agencies and this State would be able to respond efficiently to major disasters. Council Member Hernandez moved to approve Item No. 9, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 13 25. Approve Consent Request with Southern California Edison for Energy Field Project, a four D150 acre site west of Ninth Street, and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute all related documents. Terry Lowe, Community Services Director, announced the Energy Field project was to provide much needed open space for the youngsters of Hermosa Village area and would also showcase ways individuals could contribute to the environment as well. He indicated this project would be a playground for the youngsters and families who live in the area and was anticipated to be well used. Marcie Edwards, Public Utilities Department stated the original idea was to try to take the Council's interest in expanding green space and combine that with the efforts of the Utilities Department. The facility would include a 70 kw solar system and display tutorial information within the park and would also demonstrate the type of solar technologies now available. She commented that the National Park Service had provided a $350,000 grant when the idea was demonstrated to them and Metropolitan Water District contributed almost $8,000 towards the installation. She explained the item was a consent request as part of the property encompasses an Edison easement which requires Council concurrence. She further stated that approve the consent request allowed staff to move forward with the design process but did not commit to the project itself. Mayor Pringle moved to approve Item No. 25, seconded by Council Member Chavez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. 35. ORDINANCE NO. 6009 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF M142 ANAHEIM amending Title 3 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to business licenses. Sheri Vander Dussen stated Item 35 was a request to amend the Anaheim business code as it related to business licenses and how the City considered real estate agents. Currently, she explained, agents were treated as businesses and each agent was required to obtain their own business license. During the business tax holiday, she indicated, staff had received a number of questions about that practice and in response to that, had looked into the state's definition of employee and given that the real estate broker was required to cover their agents through workers compensation, concluded that it would be appropriate to consider real estate agents as employees for purposes of business license tax program. This amendment would change the fee agents pay from $102 to be added on as a $10 fee per employee for each broker that had agents working for them. Overall, she reported, the estimated loss to the General Fund would be about $32,000 per year. Mayor Pringle commented he thought this was a sensible move; Council member Hernandez indicated it was a good example of Anaheim being responsive to the citizens of Anaheim and would generate good will. Council member Hernandez moved to introduce Item 36, ORDINANCE NO. 6009 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Title 3 of the Code relating to business licenses. Council Member Galloway seconded. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 14 39. Consider a proposed amendment to the City Charter to prohibit the use of eminent domain M142 for purposes of economic development (continued from the Council Meetings of Sept. 27, 2005, Item #36 and October 25, 2005, Item #31) Mayor Pringle remarked this proposed charter amendment had been agendized on a number of occasions and the City Attorney had revised and drafted language for the amendment. Mr. White indicated the proposed amendment had been circulated through all City departments and with special counsel on eminent domain and the language has been revised to cover the possibility if the City entered into any public project where it was operating a facility where the property might be privately-owned or reflected a joint venture with a private property owner, those areas would still be allowed even with the charter amendment. He reported the amendment reflected Council's request to prohibit the use of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring property from a private owner for the purpose of giving the property to another private owner and that if Council approved, it would come back with ballot language at a later date for the November 2006 election, as the charter amendment must appear on a City-held election. . Council Member Chavez moved to approve Item No. 39, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. 5:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 40. This is a public hearing to consider an ordinance granting a franchise to Earthlink, Inc. to F130 mount, install, operate and maintain certain of its equipment in areas approved by Anaheim on certain streetlight poles, traffic signals poles and utilize Anaheim fiber to connect certain radio antennas to its Internet point of presence to create a privately owned and operated City-wide broadband wireless network. ORDINANCE NO. 6012 (INTRODUCTION) AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a franchise to Earthlink, Inc., to install, operate and maintain a City-wide wireless broadband communications network upon certain City-owned facilities located within the public rights-of-way in the City of Anaheim; and stating the terms and conditions upon which said franchise is granted. As this item had been continued from the previous Council meeting, Assistant City Manager Tom Wood recapped it was an opportunity for a private communications company to invest multimillions of dollars in the City to provide broadband access far the citizens for Anaheim at competitive market rate prices. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. Michael Dresser, resident, complimented Council and staff for their work in putting this program together. He recommended public libraries and schools being able to receive the same discount for service as the City. Mayor Pringle responded that the libraries were City facilities and as such would receive the City-based discount and services. He also indicated that he had discussed the seven school districts in Anaheim with Earthlink representatives and he believed Earthlink would reach out to them. Mr. Dresser added that liability had been addressed in the franchise agreement but that improvements to technology had not been and suggested that at five years, the City have an option of rebidding using the same criteria or with an additional rider if technology changed significantly. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 15 As no other speaker offered comments, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing stating this was a market-based system and that it was up to the individual businesses and residents to decide whether to get the service. He remarked that another provider could set up a similar system, using other facilities, private or public, to provide the same service, and that the broadband wireless service was not limited to Earthlink through this franchise. Mr. Wood added that the service level agreement which was a part of the franchise agreement would keep Earthlink up to date with technology in order to provide the most current and reliable service available. He indicated the market place and the service level agreement would be the ultimate assurance in keeping up with technology. Council Member Hernandez remarked that all his concerns were addressed and supported the agreement. Mayor Pringle believed this was a model agreement which other cities could use and having a private company come into a City without City subsidy, without a guaranteed City revenue and without any commitment of subscribers and having them install equipment to serve the entire community even in areas of Anaheim Hills where cell service was not available, indicated a strong commitment from Earthlink. He emphasized part of negotiations was to ensure enough time in the agreement to make sure Earthlink recouped their investment. Mayor Pringle introduced Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 6012 AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a franchise to EarthLink, Inc., to install, operate and maintain aCity-wide wireless broadband communications network upon certain City-owned facilities located within the public rights-of-way in the City of Anaheim; and stating the terms and conditions upon which said franchise is granted. Report on Closed Session Actions: None Council Communications: Council Member Galloway thanked staff for their efforts with the Care-A-Van project to bring toys to the children of the Gulf Coast who lost their homes to Hurricane Katrina and spoke of the impact of seeing the devastation and the needs of those families personally. She also thanked the community for their support as she reached her one-year anniversary as a council member stating she had a clearer vision of the privilege and honor it was to represent Anaheim. Council Member Sidhu wished everyone a safe and pleasant holiday season and expressed appreciation at the Christmas tree lighting ceremonies occurring in the City. Council Member Chavez commended restaurateur Frank Garcia who prepared Thanksgiving meals for thousands of needy residents and also talked about visiting New Orleans and Biloxi to bring toys to the children of that area. As a result of his visit and the dialogue he held with Biloxi city staff dealing with the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, he recommended that a component be added to the City's disaster plan to incorporate a liaison that addressed how interagency, mutual aid and outside assistance was handled during a major disaster; Mr. Morgan indicated steps had been taken to implement that component. Mayor Pringle suggested staff explore video streaming as a means of getting the Council Meeting out to non-subscribers of cable television. He also thanked all the committees involved for putting ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 16 on Christmas tree lighting events throughout the City. He further asked Council to provide their input to the City's Vector Control Board representative related to the vote for benefit increases for Vector Board employees. He did not support raising rates to pay for a higher level of benefit of Vector Control Board staff pointing out the Board had come to local cities to increase their rates stating it was necessary to address West Nile virus and fire ants and within the same few months period, the Board now requested a proposed increase in the level of salaries and benefits. Mayor Pringle asked Council Members to voice their opinion to Dr. Baird, the City's representative on the Vector Control Board. Adjournment: At 8:42 P.M., Mayor Pringle adjourned the meeting in memory of former Council Member Miriam Kaywood, who had served 16 years on the Anaheim Council. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ ~~ Sheryll Schroeder, MMC City Clerk