The Anaheim City Council’s Final (Regular) Agenda of the Term: What are They Privately Doing with Paul Emery?

.

.

.

Anaheim’s last agenda for a regular meeting of its current term was posted online on Friday at roughly 4:15 p.m.   (The Council can still have special meetings on specific topics, each with 72 hours notice, but it is an understatement to say that any such meetings would be met with suspicion and alarm — and likely much more.)

This is probably Jordan Brandman’s last meeting as a member the City Council — unless he’s reappointed, moves to a new district to run in 2018, runs for Mayor, or performs a future Allan Mansoor/Jose Solorio-style rebound into a lower position after failing to climb the political ladder to desired heights.  There’s a saying that “it’s hard to keep a good man down” — and, while it obviously doesn’t apply here, it’s even harder to keep down a man whose career has long been pushed by the Democratic Party of Orange County “Old Guard” (led by Frank Barbaro and ably served by new DNC member Melahat Rafiei); the big money people at the Democratic Foundation of Orange County; the bipartisan chupacabras at Curt Pringle & Associates; the Building Trades Council; the local sports franchises and car dealerships and hoteliers; and …  I think I’m forgetting someone … oh, yes! — the owner of the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) itself, the Walt Disney Corporation; because you never know when you’ll need someone entirely obedient and amoral to do your bidding in public office.  (Just kidding — you usually do know.)

After the holiday graphic, let’s have a look at a version that I’ve annotated IN RED.  Attachments are IN MAROON

Why is Anaheim’s new not-at-all-Mickey-Mouse-resembling mascot a boy (mouse-boy?) named “Andy”?  “Ana” is RIGHT IN THE CITY’S NAME, which means “ANA’s HOME!” That’s a perfectly good first name.  Why isn’t the character “Ana Anaheim”? It’s already wearing what literally appears to be an A-line dress!  Maybe Lucille Kring can fix this next year.  (It even looks a little like her….)

Call to order the Anaheim City Council.

ADDITIONS\DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION:

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

Recess to closed session.

3:00 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)

Name of Case:  Estate of Manuel Diaz; Genevieve Huizar, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. City of Anaheim, a California municipal entity; Nick Bennallack, Officer, Defendants-Appellees., 9th Cir. Case No. 14-55644

Are we comfortable with THIS council making a final decision on how to proceed with this case?

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)

Name of Case:  Michael W. Moore, et al., v. Flatiron West, Inc. and City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2013-00683680

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)

Name of Case:  Talmadge Price, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court, Civil Complex Center Case No. 30-2016-00869305-CU-WM-CXC

The STRs lawsuit.  Same question as above!  And a reminder: you can speak to this!  (And someone from the audience can video it!)

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9:  One potential case.

Let your imaginations run free on this one

5. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

(Section 54957 (b) of the California Government Code)

Title:  City Manager <=== (REMINDER: YOU CAN SPEAK ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE CLOSED SESSION!)

6. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS

(Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code)

Agency Designated Representative:  Jason Motsick

Name of Employee Organizations:  City Manager

IS THE MAJORITY TRYING TO CRAM IN MORE BENEFITS TO EMERY BEFORE IT’S GONE??!!

Reconvene the Anaheim City Council.

5:00 P.M.

Invocation:              Pastor Mark Bove, Calvary Chapel Anaheim

Flag Salute:            Council Member Jordan Brandman

Presentations:        Recognizing the Miss Anaheim Fall Festival Scholarship 2016-2017 Recipients

Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):

Proclaiming November 26, 2016, as Small Business Saturday

Proclaiming December 2016, as Impaired Driving Prevention Month

Proclaiming December 1, 2016, as World AIDS Day

Proclaiming December 7, 2016, as Pearl Harbor Day

Proclaiming December 10, 2016, as Human Rights Day

Call to order the Anaheim Public Financing Authority (in joint session with the City Council).

ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearings):

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE:

Recess the Anaheim City Council.

5:00 P.M. – PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

CONSENT CALENDAR:

1. Approve minutes of Public Financing Authority meeting of August 9, 2016.

Just establishes meeting times for upcoming year:  http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/8403/8421/8422/11860/11877/APFA%202016-08-0911877.pdf

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

2. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY consenting to the transfer of its outstanding Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Arena Financing Project) 2003 Series A; approving a Supplemental Indenture; and authorizing the execution of related documents and certificates and the taking of related actions ($25,000,000 principal amount of Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (from HS Partners Holdings III, L.P. to Nautilus I, LLC, a California limited liability company).   HMM?

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT City of Anaheim FINANCE DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: FINANCE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF OUTSTANDING TAXABLE LEASE REVENUE BONDS (ANAHEIM ARENA FINANCING PROJECT) 2003 SERIES A AND RELATED MATTERS ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 02 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority (Authority), by Resolution, consent to the transfer of the $25,000,000 principal amount of Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Arena Financing Project) 2003 Series A (2003 Bonds) which remain outstanding from HS Partners Holdings III, L.P. (HSP) to Nautilus I, LLC, a California limited liability company (Nautilus). DISCUSSION: HSP is a charitable remainder trust which by its terms must distribute all of its assets prior to January of 2020. Accordingly, HSP would like to contribute the 2003 Bonds to Nautilus. As such, HSP has requested the Authority’s consent to the transfer of the 2003 Bonds to Nautilus. The Honda Center opened in 1993 and is owned by the City of Anaheim and managed by Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM). The Honda Center is home of the NHL’s Anaheim Ducks along with a diverse range of sporting and entertainment events. In November 2003, AAM took over management of the facility and all financial burdens, including the outstanding debt for construction of the Honda Center. As required by the Facility Management Agreement (FMA) between the City and AAM, in the event that cash on hand from the Honda Center operations is insufficient to pay operating expenses, debt service, or other amounts payable, AAM is to make or cause an affiliate or third-party lending institution to make loans for such purposes. Such funds will be repaid from gross revenues or adjusted net revenues, if any, as defined in and in accordance with disbursement priorities established in the FMA. In connection with AAM’s becoming the manager of the Honda Center, on December 16, 2003, the Authority issued the 2003 Bonds to refund the existing Authority bonds on behalf of AAM. HSP, a related entity to AAM, was the sole purchaser of the 2003 Bonds.

The 2003 Bonds were issued pursuant to the Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 2003, between the Authority and BNY Western Trust Company (the Indenture) and are the only Bonds issued under the Indenture. The 2003 Bonds are non-recourse debt to the Authority and the City and are payable solely from the amounts pledged under the Indenture, primarily the net revenues generated by the Honda Center and amounts due under the FMA. Neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Authority or City is pledged to the payment of the 2003 Bonds. The 2003 Bonds are not general obligations of the Authority or the City. While certain funds relating to the Honda Center are currently pledged under the Indenture, there are no credit enhancements that secondarily pledge other existing or future resources of the Authority or City to secure the 2003 Bonds and accordingly it is not reflected in the basic financial statements of the City. IMPACT ON BUDGET: There is no budgetary impact. The 2003 Bonds are to be repaid from amounts related to the Honda Center, primarily facility net revenues and amounts to be paid under the FMA. Neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Authority or City is pledged to the payment of the debt. Respectfully submitted, Deborah A. Moreno Finance Director/City Treasurer

Adjourn the Anaheim Public Financing Authority.

Reconvene the Anaheim City Council.

5:00 P.M. – CITY COUNCIL

MOTION: __________ Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the consent calendar.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

3. Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting of September 28, 2016.
4. Approve the Investment Portfolio Report for October 2016.
5. Approve a recognition at a later date recognizing Nancy and Ray Reese, community volunteers for over 33 years of service to East Anaheim Little League, Anaheim and Katella High School.
6. Appoint Trung Le to the Anaheim Workforce Development Board, representing the public sector, to a four year term ending November 21, 2020. Seems innocuous, rather than cronyism.
7. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Kordich, Inc., in the amount of $1,952,790, for the Citywide Sanitary Sewer Improvement Program/Projects, authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement and determine the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (Crescent Avenue – Euclid Street to Loara Street; Loara Street – Westmont Drive to North Street; and North Street – Loara Street to West Street).  I don’t know of any objections to 7 through 10, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those with more knowledge did.
8. Accept the lowest responsive bid from La Habra Relocations, Inc., in the amount of $62,620, for as-needed moving services for Public Works for a one year period with up to four one-year optional renewals and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, in accordance with Bid #8781.
9. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to FARO Technologies Inc., in the amount of $73,287.89 plus applicable tax, for the purchase a 3D Laser Scanning System for the Anaheim Police Department.
10. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Sigmanet, Inc., in the amount of $170,364.28 including sales tax, for the purchase and installation of video storage equipment at the Anaheim Convention Center.
11. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to TASER International, Inc., in the amount of $359,572 plus applicable tax, for the purchase of 335 tasers and related accessories for the Anaheim Police Department and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue future purchase orders for devices, accessories and related services and execute any and all documents necessary to complete the transactions, subject to available budget appropriations.  This should not be on the consent calendar.  Buying 335 tasers for the APD seems like a big deal and warrants public discussion and the opportunity for questions.  (I don’t necessarily oppose it, by the way.  I’m torn.)
12. Approve, authorize and direct the City Manager to execute the Traffic Analysis Agreement with Angels Baseball, L.P., contingent on receiving no legal challenges against the LT Global Project through November 27, 2016, for continued assessment of traffic conditions in the Stadium area of the Platinum Triangle for a term that shall be concurrent with the duration of the term of the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement and determining that Addendum No. 6 to the previously-certified Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, along with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, together with other previously-approved environmental documentation, serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed agreement.  YOO-HOO, CYNTHIA!
13. Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by PT Metro LLC, that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 2005-00008 for the 2016 review period for the A-Town Metro mixed-use project consisting of approximately 1,746 residential units, approximately 50,000 square feet of commercial area, and two public parks located at 1404 East Katella Avenue in the Platinum Triangle.  I’d really prefer that this Council not make this sort of determination.
14. Approve agreements with Property Specialists, Inc. dba CPSI and with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., each in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for on-call relocation services for a maximum period of five years.

    Here’s the staff report: those of you concerned with abuse of the takings privilege can let me know what you think of it.

    DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ON-CALL AGREEMENTS FOR RELOCATION SERVICES WITH PROPERTY SPECIALISTS, INC. (DBA CPSI) AND WITH OVERLAND, PACIFIC & CUTLER, INC. ATTCHEMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 14 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, by Motion, approve and authorize and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreements with Property Specialists, Inc. (dba CPSI) and with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., each in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for on-call relocation services for a maximum period of five years. DISCUSSION: The City of Anaheim acquires right-of-way and property for various Capital Improvement Projects that require the relocation of residential and business property owners and tenants. This on-call agreement with the consultants will allow the City to provide relocation services in a timely manner and minimize delays to the impacted residents and business owners. On July 7, 2016, the Department of Public Works advertised a Request for Proposal for Relocation Services (RFP) on PlanetBids and in a major newspaper of general circulation. Four responsive proposals were received on July 28, 2016, evaluated by a Department of Public Works Review Board Panel, and are listed based on their final ranking: 1. Property Specialists, Inc. (dba CPSI) 2. Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. 3. Paragon Partners 4. Dokken Engineering The Review Board Panel recommends entering in an agreement with Property Specialists, Inc., (dba CPSI) and with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. based their proposals which were rated on the following criteria: an exceptional ability to perform the specific tasks within the RFP; their understanding of project processing; qualifications of staff proposed to perform the work; outstanding familiarity with state and federal procedures; their internal approach to complete projects in a timely manner; and proposed rates were fair and reasonable within the industry. On-Call Agreements for relocation services with Property Specialists, Inc. (Dba CPSI) and with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 2 The agreements will be in effect for a maximum period of five (5) years. If the services do not meet the Department’s needs, the agreements can be terminated with a 30-day written notice. IMPACT ON BUDGET: Relocation services are awarded based on available appropriations in the Public Works Department Budget and Capital Improvement Program. Respectfully submitted, Rudy Emami Director of Public Works Attachments: 1. Property Specialists, Inc. (dba CPSI) Agreement & Proposal 2. Overland, Pacific and Cutler, Inc Agreement & Proposal 3. City Request For Proposal

    Maybe these agreements are truly necessary.  Maybe they are simply greasing the skids for abuse.  I’d think that it deserves debate.  You wouldn’t have known what it was about without reading the Staff Report, huh?

15. Approve an agreement with INET, Inc. dba iParq, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for services to manage the residential permit parking system for a two year period with the option to renew for a maximum of three additional one-year terms and authorize the Public Works Director to renew the term of the agreement.
    
    With all of the discussion that residential (not to mention commercial) parking gets in Anaheim, you’d think that people might want to read the Staff Report and the proposal.  We’ll make it easy for you:

    DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO IPARQ ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 15 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, by Motion: 1. Approve the agreement with INET, Inc dba iParq for services to manage the residential permit parking management system for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 for a two-year period with options to renew the agreement for a maximum of three additional one-year terms and authorize and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to renew the term of the agreement on behalf of the City. DISCUSSION: On September 8, 2016, the City of Anaheim issued a request for proposal (RFP) to obtain a vendor to develop and manage a system for the City’s Residential Permit Parking Program, which includes services to issue and fulfill residential parking permits. The RFP was advertised through PlanetBids and the City received three responses. In accordance with the qualification based selection procurement per the City Council Policy No. 4.1, the Department of Public Works established a review board, conducted the evaluation of the proposals, and ranked the proposals. The evaluation criteria include the vendor’s understanding of the scope of work, innovative approach, the qualifications of the proposed staff, the consultant’s ability to provide permit parking management services, and the reasonableness of the fees. The scoring was out of a maximum of 100 points. Using these criteria, iParq is recommended for this service. The following is a list of the most qualified consultants based on their final scores from the review board: Rank Vendor Score 1 iParq 86 2 Turbo Data Systems 77 3 Parkmobile DQ* *Parkmobile was disqualified from consideration for submitting a proposal that was non-responsive to the City’s requirements in the RFP Award of contract for the Residential Permit Parking Management System to IPARQ November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 2 IMPACT ON BUDGET: Sufficient appropriation for the cost of the agreement is available in the Public Works FY 2016/17 General Fund budget and future years will be subject to City Council’s approval of budget appropriations. Revenue generated from the permit parking program is sufficient to cover the cost of the contract. Respectfully submitted, Rudy Emami Director of Public Works

    And the proposal (which is apparently what we use here in Brea, and I do mostly like it)http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/8403/8433/8434/11756/11759/2.%20Proposal11759.pdf

16. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Agreement and a CalWORKs Vocational Training Program Vendor Agreement with Brem Industries dba California Career School, in amounts not to exceed $150,000 and $100,000 respectively, for the provision of occupational skills training through June 30, 2018 and authorize the Workforce Development Manager, or designee, to administer the agreements.   ???

17. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the Anaheim Performing Arts Center Foundation for the potential development of a performing arts center at the existing site of the City National Grove of Anaheim in furtherance of Resolution No. 2015-257.

    Uh, are YOU comfortable with THIS Council making ANY more decisions regarding what happens on the grounds surrounding Angels Stadium ?  Let’s read the report!

    DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: CONVENTION, SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM PERFORMING ARTS CENTER FOUNDATION FOR THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AT THE EXISTING SITE OF THE CITY NATIONAL GROVE THEATER ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 17 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, by Motion, approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) by and between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Performing Arts Center Foundation (APAC) for the potential development of a performing arts center at the existing site of the City National Grove of Anaheim in furtherance of Resolution No. 2015-257, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute and administer the ENA on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND: In October 2014, Council directed staff to explore the feasibility of developing a new performing arts center in the City of Anaheim (City) on the current site of the City National Grove of Anaheim (Grove) and to bring back a resolution of support for the development of a performing arts center at the Grove site. Staff first took the step of hiring a performing-arts consultant to provide a market and feasibility analysis to determine the viability of a new performing arts center in Anaheim. The study found that the Anaheim area is a very strong market for arts consumption and that local support for a new performing arts center was very strong with over 80 percent of respondents in favor. On October 6, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-257, which expressed support for APAC’s continued efforts to develop a new performing arts center in the City at the Grove site. DISCUSSION: In order to ensure the feasibility of the Project, the proposed ENA provides a series of fundraising milestones over the next four years that must be met in order for the project to move forward. Throughout the term of the ENA, the City and APAC will negotiate the terms of a conveyance agreement that will include a conceptual site plan, a scope of EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM PERFORMING ARTS CENTER FOUNDATION FOR THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AT THE EXISTING SITE OF THE CITY NATIONAL GROVE THEATER November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 2 55402.00039\29371686.3 development, and a construction schedule laying out the time required to complete the project. The ENA between the City and APAC establishes a negotiating period through August 31, 2020. APAC is required to seek community input within 180 days of executing the ENA and to propose a plan to the City within 360 days. At least once per quarter, APAC will submit progress reports to the City. APAC is also required to provide evidence of funding, in the form of bank statements or contractually binding commitments, in the amounts and by the dates that follow:  Milestone 1: by March 1 st , 2018 = $20M  Milestone 2: by March 1 st , 2019 = $50M  Milestone 3: by March 1 st , 2020 = 80% of total estimated project development cost  Milestone 4: by June 30, 2020 = 100% of total estimate project development cost The ENA also indicates that any agreement that might be reached between the parties should require APAC to fund any CEQA-compliance costs, secure any necessary entitlements, bear the responsibility of all pre-development costs, consider revenue sharing, and potentially widen the Katella and Stadium Crossing entry. In the ENA, the City agrees to not negotiate with any other person or entity for the sale or rehabilitation of the property. Any conveyance agreement produced under the ENA will be brought to the City Council for consideration at a later date. IMPACT ON BUDGET: There is no budgetary impact; the ENA only provides for negotiation of a definitive conveyance agreement that will eventually be brought to the City Council for consideration if the parties reach an agreement and APAC meets all its required milestones. Respectfully submitted, Tom Morton Executive Director Attachment: 1. Exclusive Negotiating AgreementMaybe this is a great idea, but I certainly think that there could be grounds to table this until December — to save the new Council the trouble of rescinding it.

18. Authorize the Director of the Community Services Department, or his designee, to accept a bequest from the Opal Kissinger Estate, in the amount of $20,000, for the Heritage Services program of the Library Division and increase the fiscal year 2016/17 revenue and expenditure appropriations in the Community Services Department budget by said amount.

    SEEMS innocuous — but maybe people should take a look.

    DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF BEQUEST FROM OPAL KISSINGER ESTATE ATTACHMENT (Y/N): NO ITEM # 18 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, by Motion: 1) Authorize the Director of the Community Services Department, or his designee, to accept a bequest from the Opal Kissinger Estate, in the amount of $20,000, for the Heritage Services program of the Library Division; and 2) Increase the FY 2016/17 revenue and expenditure appropriations in the Community Services Department budget by $20,000. DISCUSSION: The Anaheim Public Library has been given a bequest of $20,000 by the Opal Kissinger Estate. This generous bequest will be used to fund a digitization project of historic Anaheim newspapers, making these significant resources accessible to researchers worldwide via the Library’s webpage. IMPACT ON BUDGET: The FY 2016/17 Community Services’ revenue and expenditure appropriations will be increased by $20,000. Respectfully submitted, Brent Dennis Director of Community ServicesTHANK YOU, OPAL KISSINGER!!!

19. Approve and authorize the Planning Director to execute the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement, and any related documents, with Lilley Planning Group increasing the contract amount by $250,000 for a total not to exceed compensation of $1,000,000 over the three year term of the contract for as-needed consulting and staff services for the Planning and Building Department.No.  Let the NEW Council decide on this.three-year contract regarding City Planning!  The current council’s studies have not been credible.
20. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Scott Brown and Jacque Brown, in the acquisition payment amount of $13,200, for partial acquisition of property located at 1002-1008 East South Street for a permanent public roadway easement and a temporary construction easement for the South Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvement Project (R/W ACQ 2016-00744).
    
    So long the counterparties in 20-21 weren’t coerced into signing, fine.
21. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Thomas M. Boone and Carolyn S. Collins, in the acquisition payment amount of $22,300, for partial acquisition of real property located at 435 North State College Boulevard for a permanent public roadway easement and a temporary construction easement for the State College Boulevard/La Palma Avenue Intersection Improvement Project (R/W ACQ 2015-00558).

22. Approve Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. C-1-2958 with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to reduce funding by $313,590 and extend the agreement for six months to allow for the completion of final accounting for the Lakeview Widening South of the OC Bridges Grade Separation Project and Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. C-9-0413 with OCTA to increase staff overhead funding for traffic engineering services, police services, and project support services by $220,000 for Railroad Grade Separation Projects and increase revenue and expenditure appropriations in the Public Works fiscal year 2016/17 budget by $220,000.

    I read the Staff Report and found it a little confusing.  Maybe someone else wants to try?

23. Approve the Assignment and Assumption Agreement with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Torrance Pipeline Company LLC assigning the franchise for the right to maintain and operate a system of pipelines for the transportation of oil and gas in and across a portion of Jefferson Street between Atwood Channel and Orangethorpe Avenue from ExxonMobil to Torrance Pipeline Company as pertains to City Ordinance Nos. 5639 and 6119.Uh … how is Torrance Pipeline’s safety record?  Are they as solvent as Exxon Mobil,  in case some problems arose with this pipeline, or at least solvent enough that they couldn’t escape responsibility through bankruptcy?  Dp we have the option NOT to agree to this contract, which gains the City another whopping $150 per month?  And do we trust this Council to make this decision?  (No.)  Have any of the parties to the contract contributed to any local campaigns or independent expenditures?  (Haven’t checked, but hope not!)

    DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO CITY ORDINANCE NUMBERS 5639 AND 6119 ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 23 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, by Motion, approve the Assignment and Assumption Agreement by and among the City of Anaheim, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Torrance Pipeline Company LLC assigning the Franchise for the right to maintain and operate a system of pipelines for the transportation of oil and gas in and across a portion of Jefferson Street between Atwood Channel and Orangethorpe Avenue from ExxonMobil to Torrance Pipeline Company as pertains to City Ordinance Numbers 5639 and 6119 and direct and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. DISCUSSION: In August of 1998, the City granted a Pipeline Franchise to Mobil Oil Corporation by approving Ordinance No. 5639 which was amended in October of 2008, with the approval of Ordinance No. 6119. Ordinance 6119 recognizes the merger between Exxon and Mobil, doing business as ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (ExxonMobil), extends the term of the Franchise through August of 2018, and increases the Franchise fee from $400 per year to $550 annually. Torrance Pipeline Company (Torrance Pipeline) has acquired the affected pipeline facilities, while ExxonMobil presently remains as the Franchisee. The proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement would assign the Franchise from ExxonMobil to Torrance Pipeline, and all terms of Ordinances 5639 and 6119 would remain in full force and effect. IMPACT ON BUDGET: There is no budgetary impact. Respectfully submitted, Rudy Emami Director of Public Works

24. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain interests in real properties (City Deed Nos. 11998, 11999, 12000, 12001, 12002, 12031, 12032,12033, and 12034) (public right-of-way purposes for the BNSF Railroad Grade Separation project at Orangethorpe Avenue).
    
    I’m not touching the “accepting certain deeds” items in 24-26.  Anyone else want to?  Why decide these right now?
25. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 12027 and 12028) (State College Boulevard/La Palma Avenue Intersection Improvement Project).
26. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 12029 and 12030) (South Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvement Project).
27. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM expanding Permit Parking District No. 38 and designating Florence Avenue from Claudina Street to Philadelphia Street, Narda Street from Claudina Street to Philadelphia Street, Claudina Street from Vermont Avenue to Charlotte Avenue and Lorraine Drive from Claudina Street to the alley west of Claudina Street “Permit Parking Only” Street within Permit Parking District  No. 38 and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(b)(3).Anyone around here live around there?  Do you wonder if they know this is coming?  Same questions for 28 and 29.
28. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Permit Parking District No. 57 (“Gaymont Lynrose”) neighborhood and designating Gaymont Street from Rome Avenue to Ball Road, Lynrose Drive from Gaymont Street to Birchleaf Drive, and Elmlawn Drive from Gaymont Street to Birchleaf Drive as “Permit Parking Only” streets and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(b)(3).
29. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Permit Parking District Neighborhood and designating Reseda Street from 504/505 South Reseda Street to Virginia Avenue and Priscilla Way from 504/505 South Priscilla Way to Virginia Avenue as “Permit Parking Only” streets and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(b)(3).

30. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Fire Chief or his designee to submit a grant application on behalf of the City of Anaheim to the Office of Domestic Preparedness of the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such grant on behalf of the City and amending the budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 accordingly.

    Read it.  Seems fine.

31. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2014-092, which established rates of compensation for classifications designated as Executive Management (modifying salary range for City Clerk).Yes.
32. RESOLUTION NO.  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 (establishing the rate of bilingual compensation for the Senior Police Dispatcher classification).

    Yes.
    
    

33. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 338 for the Gramercy Park Trail Project and making the required environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).No idea.
34. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the dates and time of regular meetings of the City Council for the 2017 calendar year.

    DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUBJECT: 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 34 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, by Resolution, adopt the City Council meeting calendar establishing the dates and times of regular Council meetings for calendar year 2017. DISCUSSION: Near the close of each calendar year, City Council approves a council meeting calendar for the upcoming calendar year. City Charter Section 506 provides that the City Council shall hold regular meetings at least twice each month at such times as fixed by resolution. The proposed resolution establishes the dates for regular City Council meetings for calendar year 2017 and maintains the commencement time of 3:00 p.m. (workshops or Closed Session agenda; 5:00 p.m. for agenda items). Council has the authority to set, cancel, or reschedule any regular meeting by an affirmative majority vote. The advanced approval of a meeting calendar provides adequate time staff to plan and schedule the work of the city accordingly. IMPACT ON BUDGET: There is no budgetary impact. Respectfully submitted, Linda N. Andal City Clerk Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. 2017 CalendarThe proposed calendar is at this link.

    Maybe there’s a good answer to this, given that there’s not a whole lot of flexibility in the calendar anyway, but: setting the calendar that the NEW (and new KIND OF) Council will follow for the whole year just seems rude to me.  Setting the calendar for the first two months of the year seems sufficient.  But, as Duane Roberts pointed out years ago, the biggest issue with the scheduling of Council meetings isn’t their dates, but their times.  Meetings are still scheduled for 5:00 — before people on standard 8 or 9-5 work schedules can come home and then head off to a meeting.  Shouldn’t the new Council be given the chance to decide whether meetings should start at 5:30 — or, better, 6:00?  And shouldn’t they be allowed to do it before the schedule for the new year’s meetings is printed up and distributed?
    

35. ORDINANCE NO.  (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE  CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Section 3.32.090 of Chapter 3.32 of Title 3 (Business Licenses) and various sections of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the licensing, siting and operation of massage establishments and finding and determining that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a project, as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines (Zoning Code Amendment 2016-00135).
    
    Why, why, WHY does a decision of this magnitude need to be made by the current Council?  It can’t even go into effect until the new Council votes anyway!  (Or can it happen in a Special Meeting?)
36. ORDINANCE NO.  (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Subparagraph .05 of Paragraph .0602 (Conditionally Permitted Signs) of Subsection .060 (Business And Identification Signs) of Section 18.114.130 (Sign Regulations) of Chapter 18.114 18.114 (Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit an increase in the height of icon/themed signage elements for the Anaheim Gardenwalk Project, and finding and determining that this ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Adjustment No. 10 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1)) (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2016-00134) (to allow a water tower sign for the House of Blues).

    Yeah: no way.  If they want something like this, after everything they’ve gotten from the City, then they can damn well bargain for it.

37. ORDINANCE NO.  (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing Chapters 15.03 and adding new Chapter 15.03 to Title 15 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Building Standards Codes, and repealing existing Chapter 16.08 and adding new Chapter 16.08 (California Fire Code) to Title 16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Fire Code.Determine that the proposed ordinance constitutes a project falling within the definition of categorical exemptions, Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from environmental review and authorize and direct the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing on said ordinance for December 20, 2016 and publish notice pursuant to Section 50022.3 of the California Government Code.

    Let’s take a look at the report.  (Reads report.)  No, on second though, let’s not.  Someone with a better idea of the value and impacts of the amendments proposed here should look, though.

38. Approve minutes of the City Council meetings of August 30, 2016 and September 13, 2016.This is too hard for your humble author to assess.  But yes, it should be done this meeting!

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

39. RESOLUTION NO.  A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the execution and delivery of a lease agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp, as lessor, and separate schedules thereto for the acquisition, purchase, financing and leasing of certain equipment within the terms herein provided; authorizing the execution and delivery of other documents required in connection therewith; and authorizing all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Resolution (previously approved 800 Megahertz Countywide Coordinated Communications System).Authorize the Finance Director  to execute the Lease, in substantial form, with Banc of America Public Capital Corp so long as such Lease  is in substantial conformance, as determined by the City Attorney’s Office, authorize the Finance Director to take such actions as are necessary, advisable, or required to implement and administer the Lease, and authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreements approved hereby, as determined by the City Attorney’s Office.

    Out of curiosity, Dear Reader, do you have ANY idea what this is about?  Let’s look at the Staff Report — and there are several documents offered besides this one.  I am very sorry to be suspicious of anything that the Staff and City Council do — including what the City Attorney’s office assures us are unspecified “de minimus” changes — but they’ve earned that suspicion.  I don’t see anything wrong here — but then I wouldn’t, would I?

DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2016 FROM: FINANCE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF LEASE TO FUND APPROVED 800 MEGAHERTZ COUNTYWIDE COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM EQUIPMENT ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 39 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council, by Resolution: 1. Approve the attached Lease with Banc of America Public Capital Corp (BAPCC) with annual payments totaling $753,112 for 10 years for the acquisition of previously approved mobile radio equipment related to the 800 Megahertz (MHz) Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS); and That the City Council, by Motion: 1. Authorize and direct the Finance Director and City Clerk, on behalf of the City, to execute and attest the Lease between the City and BAPCC so long as such Lease, attached hereto, is in substantial conformance, as determined by the City Attorney’s Office; and 2. Authorize the Finance Director to take such actions as are necessary, advisable, or required to implement and administer the Lease. 3. Authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreements approved hereby, as determined by the City Attorney’s Office. DISCUSSION: On March 17, 2015, the City Council approved an Amendment to the Joint Agreement with the County of Orange for the Operation, Maintenance and Financial Management of the 800 Megahertz (MHz) Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS), as described in the attached agenda report. The 800 MHz communication system allows all police, fire, public works, and marine safety agencies in Orange County to share a common radio system, yet still provide agencies their own unique dispatch and tactical channel in addition to seamless interoperability throughout the County. Anaheim Public Utilities is also included in joint participation. The Joint Agreement with the County calls for the CCCS to be systematically upgraded in phases over the next four years, including replacement of three main components; the backbone equipment, subscriber equipment and dispatch consoles. The Joint Agreement requires the financial participation of all 34 cities as well as the County and participating agencies. The purchase of replacement consoles was approved by Council on September 15, 2015, and a Master Lease/Purchase Agreement was approved on November 3, 2015 which financed the purchase of a portion of the required replacement radios over a 10-year lease period at an interest rate of 1.98%. This Master Lease/Purchase Agreement also accommodates the addition of subsequent Leases. The proposed item will be included under the original Master Lease/Purchase Agreement and includes Equipment and Repayment Schedules specific to the radio purchase. Placing this order would provide Police, Anaheim Fire & Rescue, Public Utilities, Public Works, Code Enforcement, Park Rangers, and the Anaheim Convention Center with the remaining radios necessary to maintain compliance with the Joint Agreement entered into with the County. This will complete all the equipment purchases of 800 MHz components identified for replacement. Motorola Solutions is currently offering promotional pricing of a 50% discount if order is submitted prior to November 25, which results in a savings of more than $1.3 million dollars over future pricing. Financing options of varying terms were sought from several banks as well as Motorola Solutions Credit Company, the financing subsidiary of the radio equipment manufacturer. After assessing these options and analyzing the annual budget impact, staff determined that a 10-year lease-purchase financing to be most prudent. The interest rate of 1.87% provided by BAPCC for the 10-year Lease is lower than the other submitting bank as well as the rate offered directly by Motorola Solutions Credit Company. The radios are expected to have a useful lifespan of between 10-15 years, allowing the City to defray the cost of the purchase over time at a favorable interest rate. IMPACT ON BUDGET: Semi-annual lease payments of $376,556 (or $753,112 annually) over a ten-year period are to be paid by each participating department based on their proportionate share of the cost. Sufficient funds are included in the FY 2016/17 Budget. Respectfully submitted, Deborah A. Moreno Finance Director/City Treasurer

 Motion: ________

40. Deny the Request for Rehearing submitted by Angels Baseball LP, relating to City Council approval of the LT Platinum Center Project and related development approvals for the project located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard (Public hearing held on October 18, 2016, Item No. 37).

Motion:___________

My sense from media reports is that this is now uncontroversial.  Would I bet money on that?  No.

5:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

41. This is a public hearing in accordance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding the proposed issuance by the Anaheim Housing Authority of its multifamily housing revenue bonds, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $38,000,000, to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation and equipping of the senior multifamily rental housing project consisting of 178-units plus one manager’s unit located at 225 South Western Avenue. 

RESOLUTION NO.                           A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 approving the issuance of bonds by the Anaheim Housing Authority for Miracle Terrace Senior Apartments.

More than I’m going to take on here.  Anyone else want to take a whack at it?

42. MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2013-00575
    TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 18046.

 18046 (DEV2013-00028A)

Location: 2726 West Lincoln Avenue

Request: The applicant proposes the following entitlements: (i) a City Council determination of conformance with the Density Bonus Code to construct a 35-unit condominium complex with affordable units and Tier 2 development incentives allowing reduced building setbacks; and, (ii) a Tentative Tract Map to establish a 1-lot, 35 unit attached condominium subdivision.

Environmental Determination:  The City Council will consider whether to find the project to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Categorical Exemption.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Motion to approve Miscellaneous Case No. 2013-00575, and Tentative Tract Map No. 18046 Vote: 2-4 (Commissioners Henninger and Lieberman voted yes.  Commissioners Caldwell, Carbajal, Dalati and Seymour voted no.  Commissioner Bostwick was absent.) Motion Failed.  Motion to deny the project. Vote: 4-2 (Commissioners Caldwell, Carbajal, Dalati and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Henninger and Lieberman voted no.  Commissioner Bostwick was absent.) Motion Carried. (Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 2016) (Appealed by AMG & Associates, LLC).

RESOLUTION NO.                             A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Miscellaneous No. 2013-00575 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2013-00028A) (2726 West Lincoln Avenue).

RESOLUTION NO.                             A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 18046 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2013-00028A) (2726 West Lincoln Avenue).

Land Use – Zoning

Have fun with this one.  You’re on your own here!

Report on Closed Session Actions:

Council Communications:

Adjournment:

Next regular City Council meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2016.

All agenda items and back-up materials are available for review at the Anaheim City Clerk’s Office, www.anaheim.net and the Central Library.  Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, located at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., 2^nd Floor, Anaheim, CA 92805, during regular business hours.

If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.

Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the City Clerk’s Office either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5166, no later than 10:00 AM on the day preceding the scheduled meeting.

TRANSLATION SERVICES:  Spanish interpreting services are provided at City Council meetings. Simultaneous Spanish interpretation is provided through the use of headsets and consecutive interpretation (Spanish-to-English) is also available to anyone addressing the Council by stating your request at the podium. The use of city provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter. Because many dialects and regionalisms exist the City cannot guarantee that interpreters will be able to interpret into a particular dialect or regionalism, and disclaims any liability alleged to arise from such services. For translation services in other languages, contact the City Clerk’s office no later than 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.

POSTING STATEMENT:  On November 18, 2016, a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted on the kiosk outside City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.  Internet Access to City Council/Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority agendas and related material is available prior to City Council Meetings at www.anaheim.net.

It’s very nice to think that, starting at the next scheduled business meeting, input from the audience might actually be heard.