1987/03/31City Mall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
VACANCY:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on March 27, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at
12:14 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46.2; Van Antwerp vs.
City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 42-48-75;
City of Anaheim vs. Carter Engineers, et al, 0.C.S.C.C. 43-69-01;
City of Anaheim vs. State of California, 2nd Appellate, B017415.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:14 noon)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
Being present. One Vacancy. (2:10
INVOCATION: Dr. Ernest Furness, Seventh Day Adventist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESF~;TATION: Mr. Bob Anderson of the Southern California Chevrolet
Dealers Association (SCCDA), stated the Association makes contributions to the
Anaheim Police Department to assist the Department in reducing crime and
getting kids off the street as well as directing them to a better way of life
than doing drugs (Cops for Kids).
250
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Gina Connell, Conuell Chevrolet. They asked the SCCDA to help support a
program presented to them, "Be an Original" which was started by the Anaheim
Police Department. They appreciate the Police Department supporting their
program. She then presented a check in the amount of 35,000 to the Chief of
Police to be used by the Police Department, in the "Be an Original" Drug
Education Program.
Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy thanked the Association for their generous
contribution. He then briefed the subject program for the Council and those
in the Chamber audience.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the contribution and increase
Account No. 01-192-5115 in the amount of ~5,000. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Anderson and Miss
Connell commending the Southern California Chevrolet Dealers Association for
their outstanding contributions making the "Cops for Kids" program and other
such programs possible through their generosity.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
911 Appreciation Day in Anaheim, April 4, 1987,
Earthquake Preparedness Month in Anaheim, April 1987,
Taekwondo National Championship Week in Anaheim, April 1-4, 1987,
Fair Housing Month in Anaheim, April 1987.
Terry Ware and Captain Stan Kantor accepted the 911 Appreciation Day
proclamation; Kathy Williams accepted the Earthquake Preparedness Month
proclamation; Chan-Yong Klm accepted the Taekwondo National Championship Week
proclamation and Frank Campion accepted the Fair Housing Month proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held March 10, 1987. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One
Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances aha resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,941,357.29, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
251
Cit~ Ha!!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M...
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 87R-107 through 87R-116, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Jose Jorge Camarillo & Yellow Cab of North Orange
County (Main action: Patricia Ann Nelson vs. City of Anaheim) for indemnity
for loss sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 7, 1986.
b. Edwin C. Kraemer, Jr. for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about October 1, 1986 to November 21, 1986.
2. 123: Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with the City of Brea to
allow an additional antenna and small receiver on City property located at the
Metropolitan Water District Yorba Linda site.
3. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to Canvas Specialty in the amount of $28,389 for
sideline/outfield fence crash padding.
4. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of $38,711.20 for eleven parking cashier booths, nine for the
Convention Center and two for Anaheim Stadium.
5. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to Xerox Corporation in the amount of $28,467.35 for
lease rental charges plus copy costs for a period of 60 months.
6. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of ~175,920.78 for ninety
three single phase subsurface U.R.D. transformers, in accordance with Bid No.
A-4421.
7. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $27,829.24 for two 750
KVA three phase fused padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid No. A-4422.
8. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING THE NECESSITY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
29576.5 TO CONTRACT FOR THE CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF ALL RANK GROWTH AND WEEDS,
AND REMOVAL OF RUBBISH REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL
PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALLING FOR BIDS
THEREON, AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE THEREFOR, ACCOUNT NO.
252
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
01-202-6320. (1987-1988) (Declaring the necessity pursuant to Government
Code Section 39576.5 to contract for the cutting and removal of all rank
growth and weeds, and removal of rubbish, refuse and dirt upon any parcel or
parcels of real property or any public streets within the City, Account No.
01-202-6320; and opening of bids on April 30, 1987, 2:00 p.m.)
9. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (SAFETY STRIPING
SERVICE, INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible
bidder, Safety Striping Service, Inc., in the amount of $19,153.30, for the
installation and replacement of signs throughout the City, Account No.
01-263-6340-SG301)
10. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-109: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(LINCOLN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT GILBERT STREET TO DALE AVENUE). (Accepting
the completion of construction of the Lincoln Avenue Street Improvement,
Gilbert Street to Dale Avenue, Account Nos. 17-792-6325-E2370 and
51-484-6993-00710, Nobest, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the
Notice of Completion therefor)
11. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-110: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(LINCOLN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT E/O DAHLIA DRIVE TO ALADDIN DRIVE).
(Accepting the completion of construction of the Lincoln Avenue Street
Improvement, 133 feet E/o Dahlia Drive to Aladdin Drive, Account No.
17-792-6325-E2390, Nobest, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the
Notice of Completion therefor)
12. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-111: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 579 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 64R-523 NULL ANDVOID.
13. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-112: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED
TO THE GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (Creating the classifications of Traffic Signal System
Engineer, X1768 and Traffic Signal System Operator, 1628, effective April 3,
1987)
14. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-113: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED
PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITH FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS. (Amending
Resolution No. 87R-080 which established rates of compensation for
unrepresented part-time ~ob classifications with full-time equivalents, adding
the classification of Part-Time Laborer, C964, effective April 3, 1987)
15. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 8YR-114: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-1A) (Declaring intent to abandon
irrigation easements, located on the east side of Red Gum Street, south of
Coronado, Abandonment No. 87-1A, and setting a date for the public hearing
therefor. (suggested date: April 28, 1987, 3:00 p.m.)
253
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - C0ONCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
16. 158: KESOLUTION NO. 87R-115: A~ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN ~EAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
17. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-116: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
OF AN INSTATJ.MENT SALE AGKEEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR
CERTAIN HEALTH FACILITIES. (Providing preliminary approval of the execution
and delivery of an installment sale agreement in an amount not to exceed
36,000,000 for the purpose of providing financing to California Lutheran
Homes, Walnut Manor Facility, 891 So. Walnut Street, for acquisition and
construction of certain health facilities)
Authorizing an agreement with Jones Hall Hill &White to provide legal
services therefor.
RoLl Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-107 through 87R-116, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
139: SUPPORT FOR SENATE BILL 97 (SB 97) AS AMENDED RELATING TO SCHOOL
DEVELOPER FEES: Submitted was report dated March 31, 1987 from the Community
Development and Planning Department recommending that the Council express
support for Senate Bill 97, as amended, relating to school developer fees and
transmit their support to the City's appropriate representatives.
City Attorney, Jack White, first recommended that the Council waive the recent
provision of the Brown Act finding that the need to take action on the subject
issue arose after the meeting agenda was posted.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved first to waive the provisions of the Brown
Act finding that the need arose after the Council's printed agenda was
posted. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to support Senate Bill 97 as amended relating to
school developer fees and transmitting that support to the City's appropriate
representatives. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
108/117/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4816 RELATING TO RETURNED CHECK FEES: Adding new
Section 1.01.400 to the Code, relating to returned check fees, civil action.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4816 for first reading.
254
City H~ll~ A-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4816: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
1.01.400 TO CHAPTER 1.01 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
RETURNED CHECK FEES.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4817 (URGENCY) AND ORDINANCE NO. 4818 - ISSUANCE OF
BUILDING PERMITS DURING ZONING REFERENDUM PERIOD: Amending Section 18.02.026
of Chapter 18.02 relating to issuance of building permits during zoning
referendum period and also first reading of the same ordinance less the
urgency provision. This ordinance was requested to be prepared by the City
Council.
City Attorney White first stated that the urgency ordinance would require four
affirmative votes to adopt and also requires that the text be read in full.
The ordinance relates to an issue in the Building Department that has arisen
with regard to the issuance of building permits during the period of time that
a zone change has been approved but prior to the time that it takes effect,
i.e. the 30-day referendum period. The need for the change is that developers
are not able under the existing language in the Code to obtain building
permits without a change in the ordinance which would give them that
authorization. In exchange for obtaining their permits at the discretion of
the building official the developer would be required to post a
"hold-harmless" agreement with the City, that in the event the ordinance never
became effective due to referendum or otherwise that any actions taken by the
developer would be removed from the property and the City would be held
harmless with regard to whatever expense had been incurred by him.
City Attorney White then read the proposed urgency ordinance in its entirety.
Upon completion, Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4817 for adoption
which will take effect immediately. Refer to Resolution Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4817: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING SECTION
18.02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING, DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF, AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT
IMMEDIATELY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Urgency Ordinance No. 4817 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4818 for first reading (the same
ordinance but with no urgency provision).
ORDINANCE NO. 4818: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.02.026 OF CHAPTER 18.02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO ZONING.
255
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
105: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointments to fill two terms
created by vacancies (Leo and Stanton). This matter was continued from the
meeting of March 24, 1987, to this date.
Mayor Bay stated that requests from people who wished to be appointed to the
subject Commission were still being received. He felt, therefore, that it
would not create any major problem to continue appointments to the
Redevelopment Commission for two more weeks to give time to receive additional
applications.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue appointments to fill the vacancies
on the Redevelopment Commission for two weeks. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
113: AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY EECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS
OLD: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-117 for adoption
authorizing the destruction of certain City records as outlined in Exhibit A
listing the record series eligible for destruction under the Records Retention
Schedules prepared for City Clerk Programs 132, 133 and 134 with the exception
of File Ref. No. 108 - correspondence - Re: Proposed Bingo Ordinance - in
favor and in opposition. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-117: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHOR/ZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS OLD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBEKS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-117 duly passed and adopted.
106: PROPOSED PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - FISCAL YEAR 87/88 AND 88/89 AND
1986 MANAGEMENT BENCHMARK SALARY SURVEY: To consider and provide direction to
staff on the proposed Program Goals and Objectives for FY 87/88 and 88/89; to
discuss the process used ~or the 1986 Management Benchmark Salary Survey.
(These matters were discussed at and continued from the meeting of March 24,
1987, to this date). Previously submitted was report entitled City of Anaheim
- Program Goals and Objectives - Resource Allocation Planning for Fiscal Years
1987/88 and 1988/89 under report dated March 10, 1987 from the City Manager,
report dated March 3, 1987, subject; 1986 Management Benchmark Salary Survey
and subsequently report dated March 27, 1987, subject; additional information
requested on the 1986 Management Benchmark Survey.
Mayor Bay. The Council has had some discussion on the proposed program goals
and objectives. In reviewing them, he finds it very difficult to approve the
goals and objectives without knowing the costs attached to them. He has a
long list of what the priorities are in his mind but feels if the Council
intends to become involved in the makeup of the budget under the goals and
256
170
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
objectives, that a workshop meeting is required. The best way for the Council
to be told of the problems relative to the budget and the alternatives is to
have a workshop and then to try to give staff some direction.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that a budget workshop be set for Monday,
April 6, 1987 at 9:00 a.m.
Before action was taken, Council Members discussed other dates and times as
well since April 6th was not a suitable time for Council Members Kaywood and
Pickler.
During the discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out and read from the
Strategic Planning Newsletter the Council received dated February 19, 1987
relative to the Vision 2000 Program noting that the City was going to be
planning the budget based on the outcome of Vision 2000. Therefore, nothing
was coming as a surprise or to be holding up the process.
Mayor Bay. The intent is not to hold up the budget process but so that the
City Manager can clearly tell the Council what the problems are in the next
year's budget. As far as following Vision 2000, there is no objection to that
on the Council. The point is if the Council wants to be involved in the
makeup of the budget process, they are going to have to have a meeting to do
it or wait until the budget is presented in early June and make all changes
throughout the month of June which will put the staff in an uncomfortable
position and redoing a budget if there are major disagreements.
Councilman Bay thereupon changed his motion that the budget workshop be held
Friday, April 10, 1987 at 10:00 a.m. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley stated what staff could present
on April 10, 1987 is a view of where they think the City will be on June 30th
and what they will be looking forward to in the next two fiscal years in
overall numbers for major revenue sources and also to the extent that they see
problems about what staff thinks the expenditures are going to be. There is a
substantial deficit. At the start of the hearings, there was a deficit for
the two years in excess of $30 million. For him to balance the budget and
present it to the Council on June 1, 1987 will require a number of substantial
policy Judgments on items to be removed from the requests, revenues to be
recommended to Council and other major policy issues. What could be
accomplished by meeting six or eight weeks prior is to give a broad overview
of Departmental requests in aggregate about where each Department is today and
its normal growth and items they do not believe they can change without some
expression of the Council on service levels and what major revenue sources are
so the Council can have an appreciation of the overall problem which amounts
to approximately $15 million or $16 million a year.
Mr. Talley continued that the Council is going to have to make the decision as
to whether staff brings a budget in that has increased revenues to make up
what cannot be reduced from prior service levels or if Council wishes staff to
bring in a budget with reductions in service levels in some Departments and
approximately the extent of the service levels where reductions would be made
and how much money they are talking about to do that. With that kind of
257
:i 67
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
direction, staff could go back and in a matter of another few weeks report to
Council with more definite figures so that by the time the Council receives
the budget document on June 1, 1987 it would be a document that had Council's
Policy, if there is a policy change, with the new directions in it. If the
policy remains the same, then obviously it would not take a great deal of work.
Mayor Bay agreed that was exactly the point of having the workshop. He also
clarified that all he was looking for at this time were round rough numbers;
City Manager Talley then outlined the type of presentation that would be made
at the workshop and the estimated amount of time that would be necessary.
Mayor Bay stated that what he did not want to do, unless it was absolutely
necessary, was to tie up all Department Heads for the workshop. He did not
want to see every Department Head in the City tied up on Friday when the
Council might not need all of them. He would like to hear the position on the
status of the revenues and what they are looking at for the end of the first
year and the figures roughly without going down to every control center. It
does not need to be that detailed. He felt it was necessary to separate
utilities, revenues and costs and a separation for major enterprise functions
and talk about them in larger groups of dollars across the major objectives.
After further discussion of the time frame for the workshop, Councilman
Pickler suggested that the meeting start at 1:00 p.m. on April 10, 1987.
Councilman Bay amended his motion to reflect that a budget workshop session be
held on Friday, April 10, 1987 at 1:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (3:20 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC ~AR!NG - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-61 (READV.) AND NEGATIVE
DECTARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-28 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Reclassification No. 66-67-61 (Ready.):
APPLICANT:
City of Amaheim
200 So. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider amending and/or deleting conditions of
approval of Resolution Nos. 67R-310 and 75R-655, on property described as the
Commercial RecreationArea consisting of approximately 900 acres generally
bounded by Harbor Boulevard and the Santa Ama Freeway on the east; Orangewood
Avenue on the south; Walnut Street on the west; and Ball Road, the Santa Aha
Freeway and Vermont Avenue on the north.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 20, 1987.
Posting of property March 20, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 20, 1987.
258
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Reclassification No. 86-87-28:
APPLICANT:
City of Anaheim
200 So. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to C-R Zone,
Area A, approximately 0.9 acres on the southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard, described as 901 and 909 South Harbor Boulevard; a change in
zone from RS-A-43,000, GL, CG and CH to C-R zone, Area C-l, on approximately
5.5 acres on the south side of Katella Avenue/Katella Way between Haster
Street and Mountain View Avenue, described at 100-220 East Katella Avenue,
300-320 East Katella Way and 1825-1839 South Mountain View Avenue; and a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000, CL and ML to C-R zone, on approximately 8.4
acres on the south side of Katella Way between Mountain View Avenue and
Manchester Avenue, described as 330 East Katella Way, 1809-1833 South
Manchester Avenue, 1845-1901 South Manchester Avenue and 1929-1931 South
Manchester Avenue.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication inAnaheim Bulletin March 20, 1987.
Posting of property March 20, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 20, 1987.
Relative to Reclassification No. 66-67-61 (Readv.) submitted was report dated
March 24, 1987 from Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, recommending:
(a) that the Council by motion approve a negative declaration on the
proposal: (b) adopt a resolution amending and deleting certain conditions of
approval as follows: Amend Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 67R-310, as
amended by Resolution No. 75R-655, to read: "That prior to issuance of any
building permit, dedication shall be made to the City of Anaheim for all
street rights-of-way in the area hereinbefore described in accordance with the
Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan", and; Delete Condition Nos. 5
and g of Resolution No. 67R-310."; (c) introduce an ordinance
[Reclassification No. 66-67-61(108)] to finalize C-R Zoning for all properties
which are not yet zoned C-R "Commercial, Recreational".
Relative to Reclassification No. 86-87-28 submitted was report dated March 16,
1987 recommending: (a) that the Council by motion approve the negative
declaration on the proposal: (b) adopt a resolution approving
Reclassification No. 86-87-28 reclassifying the subject properties to
"Commercial Recreational" zoning; and (c) introduce an ordinance to rezone the
subject properties.
Mayor Bay first asked that staff explain the proposed actions, both of which
were merely clean-up or housekeeping actions, but due to the large number of
people in the Chamber audience, there was undoubtedly a need for clarification.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
The subject reclassifications are two public hearings basically
pertaining to the area indicated on the posted Exhibit (also see
the two foregoing staff reports which explained the requests in
extensive detail) which is commercial recreation area as shown
259
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
on the General Plan. Reclassification No. 66-67-61 (Readv.) was
originally approved in 1967. The current proposed amendment to
that reclassification is to finalize CE zoning on the entire CE
area including Disneyland. She then briefed the extensive
information contained in staff report dated March 24, 1987 at
the conclusion of which, she emphasized that the proposed
amendment has no effect whatsoever on the land uses in the area,
and a number of uses already complied but were developed prior
to the zoning being established in the 1960's. The yellow area
indicated on the Exhibit has never been rezoned and the purpose
is to bring those areas into conformance with the General Plan.
Relative to Reclassification No. 86-87-28 this would initiate CR
zoning on the property and that would be finalized as well
today. Staff report dated March 16, 1987 lists the businesses
shown in the colored area on the posted map. When public
notification was made on both zoning actions, in addition to
notifying all underlying land owners, a notice was sent to
everyone within 300 feet of the boundary which is a very large
area. The effect on adjacent properties is nil altogether and
Just about every one of those properties can do what staff is
requesting Council to do today without a public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked for clarification that anyone living in the subject
area will not be affected whatsoever.
Mayor Bay.
He asked for an explanation on non-conforming existing uses for
the benefit of the Chamber audience as well as the effect on
mobilehome parks.
Annika Santalahti.
She again clarified that the requested amendments will not
affect anyone living in the area and do not involve any
development proposals whatsoever. If a property wants to
develop something other than a permitted CR use in accordance
with Code, they would have to file a CUP or variance which would
involve a regular public hearing. Any commercial construction
in that area has several site development standards specifically
aimed to protecting nearby residential uses.
If a project were sufficiently large and a permitted use, staff
would probably propose a hearing in connection with an EIR if
there was major traffic generated by a certain use. A use like
Disneyland is not a permitted use.
The only permitted uses are hotels, motels, restaurants and
health spas. Some of the uses that are going to be
non-conforming uses are some small commercial centers that
include restaurants, barber shops, a laundromat and like uses.
Under CE zoning, they are not permitted to be a primary use but
260
City Hg!!~ A-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
are allowed as accessory uses. Those businesses under the
Zoning Code are allowed to remain as they are. They cannot
expand but they can change within the category of uses they are
similar to as long as they do not intensify the land use.
The two mobilehome parks are set back from the Santa Ana Freeway
and generally abut commercial, and a number of industrial
parcels developed with industrial uses generally conducted
entirely inside the building. Those are the large businesses on
Manchester Avenue and are permitted to remain but they are not
allowed to expand. Until they decide to redevelop with CR uses
they have to remain as they are right now unless they propose a
variance or CUP which would require a public hearing.
City Attorney White confirmed that the two public hearings could
be taken together.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
The following people then spoke to the proposed
reclassifications. Their concerns were relative to how their
property was going to be affected by the changes, questions were
asked regarding boundaries, i.e., the precise boundaries that
were involved; whether the changes would ultimately mean that
more traffic would be generated; whether property values would
be effected; why they were notified of the public hearing if
their property was not affected; why some people were notified
and others were not and whether they could receive a letter from
the Council certifying that their property is not affected in
any way with regard to the reclassifications.
Emil Schoening, 710 Lamark Drive, Anaheim; Elma Metz, 705 So.
Illinois, Anaheim; Dona Hinson, 2106 So. June Place, Anaheim;
Margaret Chaffee, 184 Hillcrest Drive, Fullerton (she spoke
concerning property she owned on Haster Street - she was
opposed); Donald Wragg, 1900 Cathy Lane, Anaheim; Carl
Duesterhoet, 2076 So. June Place, Anaheim; John Daugherty, 1116
Wakefield Place, Anaheim; Richard White, 1917 Jacqueline,
Anaheim.
After the foregoing presentations, questions were answered
either by staff or Council Members stressing that residential
properties, no developed housing was involved whatsoever
including the Sherwood Village Condominiums, it was not a
redevelopment project, any possible expansion of the Convention
Center was not a part of the reclassifications. Further, Miss
Santalahti clarified that any development that can occur by
right in the CE area does not necessarily take any zoning
actions. A development of large enoughscale that generates any
kind of impact, traffic being the typical one, would at least
have to have an Environmental Impact Report. The larger
projects staff has seen have come before the Planning Commission
or Council under various zoning actions. The proposed action
does not give anybody a right to develop in any way that exceeds
261
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU~S - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
what the Zoning Code allows. She can guarantee that there will
be a public hearing on any large development that generates
significant amounts of traffic.
City Attorney White also clarified that the sole purpose of the
public hearing was to conform the zoning on certain property to
what the General Plan already is for that property.
Before concluding, Miss Santalahti stated that she would send a
map to those who leave their names and addresses with her which
will clearly define the boundaries of areas included in the
reclassifications.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - (RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 66-67-61 (READV.): On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by
Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon
finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-118 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 66-67-61 (Ready.). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-118: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPR0VING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-61 (EEADV.).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBEES:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-118 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4819 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4819: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass. No. 66-67-61 C-R).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - (RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 86-87-28: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay,
the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has
considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial
study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
262
:164
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
project will have a significant effect on the environment. One Vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-119 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 86-87-28. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-119: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-28.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-119 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4820 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4820: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM HUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass. No. 86-87-28 C-R).
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:58 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (4:10 p.m.)
170: FINAL MAP--TRACT NO. 10970 (REV. 2):
DEVELOPER: Boulevard Development
TRACT LOCATION: West side of Stage Coach Road and Camino Grande and both
sides of Hackamore Lane, Langtree Lane and Palomino Lane, southwest of the
intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano Avenue.
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: 62-1ot, RM-2400(SC).
STAFF INPUT: Report dated March 19, 1987 was submitted by the City Engineer,'
recommending approval o~ the Final Map.
MOTION: On Motion by, Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the
proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to
be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved
Final Map Tract No. 10970 (Rev. 2), as recommended by the City Engineer. One
Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT: Request by Jim Shab, Global
Telecommunications Corporation (GTC), to amend Section 18.61.020 of the Code,
to allow the installation, repair and sale of mobile telephones as a permitted
use in the ML "Industrial, Limited" zone. At its meeting of March 16, 1987,
the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the
263
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
requested Code Amendment on the basis that the businesses appropriately a
Conditional Use.
Mayor Bay asked to hear from Mr. Shab or a representative.
Darlene Fisher, Attorney, Hill, Farter & Burrill. The underlying issue is
whether or not GTC is going to be required to pay somewhere between $50,000
and $100,000 in development fees when its owner, Jim Shah was specifically
told he would not have to pay those fees. The second issue is whether or not
the GTC business operation, repair, installation and marketing of mobile
telephones should be a permitted use in the ML zone. (See letter dated
March 3, 1987 on GTC letterhead but with a closing indicating that the letter
came from Dean E. Dennis for Hill, Farter & Burrill, the information contained
therein which was briefed by Ms. Fisher). She then outlined the two reasons
why GTC should be classified as a permitted use in the ML zone, the first and
foremost being the letter received from the City of Anaheim dated June 13,
1986 stating, "This letter is to confirm that the herein described business to
be conducted by Global Telecommunications Corporation . · · is a permitted use
in the underlying ML, "Industrial, Ltd." zone." Relying upon that letter, GTC
expended a substantial sum of money but two days before Escrow closed, the
City suddenly reversed itself and took the position it was not a permitted use
thus requiring the payment of development fees. After citing a specific Court
Case which involved equitable estoppel and making an analogy, she stated that
the City cannot come back and take a different position later on.
A second reason why GTC should be a permitted use, the use itself is much more
analogous to uses which are presently permitted in the ML zone than it is to a
retail or commercial establishment. Based on all the facts, the
representation by the City and reliances by GTC on those representations, she
is requesting either one of two alternatives - that the Zoning Code be amended
so that businesses such as GTC are a permitted use or in the alternate, since
it is within the power of the City Council, allow GTC as a permitted use in
this case based upon the extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Jim Shab, 2545 West Woodland Drive, Anaheim. His current operations exist
only in Anaheim on Woodland Drive. There has been no impact in that area that
has harmed the public. He brought his business to Anaheim for freeway
exposure and checked to make sure he was making the proper move. He was told
one thing by the City and relying on that as being factual, he hired an
architect and put up monies which could have been refunded had he known that
the project required a CUP or that fees would have to be paid. He was told he
would qualify as an industrial use. He has 28 employees who are relying on a
move to a new location on May 1, 1987. The situation is not fair or proper.
Mr. Shab then answered a line of questions posed by Council Members; he was
notified of the need for a CUP before the purchase of the property closed
Escrow or approximately two weeks before, he could not have gotten out of
Escrow; he elected not to renegotiate a price and forfeit the $20,000; plans
were at the end of the stage of being approved and there were $30,000 in
architectual fees which would not have been refunded to him; the office area
is 6,105 square feet and within that area, only 5% of that space is showroom
space; they are not running a showroom or retail trade where people are coming
into a wide open showroom.
264
1.62
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney, Jack White. In response to the Mayor relative to the arguments
posed by Ms. Fisher, first assuming that there was a misstatement made by a
representative of the City upon which Mr. Shab relied, and he (White) is not '
stipulating to that, and Shah was led to believe his business was a permitted'
use, it is his opinion there is no reported California Court decision that has
ever mandated a city to zone or reclassify property based upon a misstatement
made by a City employee as to whether or not a use was permitted in that
particular zone or to force the City Council to adopt a Code Amendment
allowing that use based upon that statement to thereafter be considered a .
permitted use. Further, in his legal opinion, this case differs stgmificantly .
from the few and far between cases where equitable estoppel has been applied
against public entities. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is often used in
California but very rarely enforced against public entities. Courts recogni"-e
it would be very detrimental to the public welfare to allow statements made by
individual City employees to be used later as a basis to override what
otherwise had been the will of the people through their elected
representatives in adopting ordinances. He then went into detail relative
the case referenced by Ms. Fisher.
In concluding, Mr. White stated he would feel comfortable defending the City's
position that the harm to the public would be superior to that of the
individual property owner especially in light of the fact that Escrow on the
property had not closed at the time the property owner knew this was not a
permitted use in the zone.
Mr. Norm Priest, Director of Community Development and Planning, then briefeJ
the Council on his contacts with Mr. Shab where he was first in contact with'
him before the close of Escrow. He then relayed the chronology of events that:.
took place thereafter.
Extensive discussion and questioning then followed wherein Mr. Shab stated
that the 350,000 plus in development fees was a key issue as well as having tm
get a CUP for the use which will change parking standards and thereby affect .
all the tenants he will have in the other portion of his building.
Mayor Bay asked what would have to change in the use of the building from the
planned use to make it permitted under the existing ML.
Annika Santalahti. The fact that GTC has retail customers coming on the
premises is the primary difficulty in the ML zone. Some minimal amount o~
assembly of the product is done on the premises plus the installation in
vehicles.
Jim Shab. The actual product itself is not manufactured on the premises but
in a sense it is assembled there. Of the 28 employees, 7 are currently
involved in assembling the product; 9 are involved in retail sales. In the
new facility he intends to have quite a few more on the wholesale level.
Mayor Bay. That split shows a high percentage of retail operation. What Mr.
Shab is asking the Council to do is very difficult because there is no legal
argument for it. The business does not meet the requirement of the ML zone as..
a permitted use. Under a CUP, the operation would possibly be approved. The'
Council does not change ordinances to solve an individual case.
265
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Nr~ Shab. He is asking that he be put into the original ordinance which he
thought he was a part of. It is clear cut now that a CUP is needed but it was
not clear before.
Darlene Fisher. It is apparent there is some sympathy to Mr. Shab's
position. Given the circumstances, as an alternative, the Council has the
authority to waive the fees that would be required on this project based on
equitable consideration equal to the amount of reliance Mr. Shab had. She
does not disagree with the City Attorney's statement that he is not aware of a
California Court Case where under the theory of estoppel, the City actually
had to amend or modify a zoning ordinance. She concurs with that. She also
noted that the 9 employees involved in sales are mostly off premises and are
no: selling in the space Mr. Shab was talking about.
City Attorney White. In his recollection of the ordinance, it does not have a
provision to authorize the waiver of fees. Under permitted uses in the ML
zone, retail sales are allowed as an incidental use in conjunction with
manufacturing of products on the premises. To him the only option is whether
or mot the Council wishes to adopt an ordinance to allow as a permitted use in
the ML zone, the marketing, installation and repair of mobile telephones. He
does not see another option available as far as finding a way to fit what he
heard the use to be within the current zoning. If there is a question about
the definition of manufacturing, the Code contains a provision wherein in
cases of ambiguity, then the Planning Commission can, by interpretation,
determine whether or not a particular activity or use fits within a particular
Code provision and make a clarification that will then come to the Council for
th~J.r review as well. That is another option.
Councilman Hunter. He does not believe anyone has made a mistake. He feels
sometimes it is necessary to look at what is fair and equitable. He does not
wat, t to start a precedent but he believes the Council should allow Mr. Shab
and GTC to be in the area under a permitted use and not be required to have a
CUP. He clarified that he was not saying he wanted to change the Code but, as
~entioned by the Hayor, he is not sure that the interpretation of the
definition of Mr. Shab's business was not a permitted use under the ML zone.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, the whole point was that the business was not a
permitted use at all in that area and the change in the Code was that it could
go in by Conditional Use. She does not want to change the Code to allow this
as a permitted use.
Mayor Bay. He does not believe anyone wants to change or amend the Code. The
~atter should be referred back to staff for further study and clarification of
the definition under the manufacturing provisions of the Code and also inform
Mr. Shab on some possible minor changes he might make in the use of the
building under the ML zone as a permitted use without a CUP. If that can be
done, it will be covering both sides.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request of Jim Shab (GTC) to amend
S,~¢tion 18.61.020 of the Code, to allow the installation, repair and sale of
mobile telephones as a permitted use in the HL "Industrial, Limited" zone.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
266
1,60
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 31~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay then moved that staff review and report to the Council on the
interpretation of the Section of the Code on HL that specifically discusses
the right to have some percentage of retail sales involved with the
manufacture of the product.
Before action was taken, City Attorney White referred to the existing Code
Section (18.02.041) that provides if any use for any reason is found to . ~!f
contain an ambiguity as to what the appropriate classification is for that '~
use, it shall be the duty of the Planning Comm~ssion to ascertain all '~
pertinent facts and by resolutions set forth those findings. Such findings :Mi
and resolutions shall be referred to the Council and if approved by the ~
Council shall thereafter be the interpretation that governs. He suggests tha~A
the motion be that after staff has made its investigation and worked with Mr~c~
Shab, to refer the matter to the Planning Commission under this particular "t~
Code Section for their findings as to what the appropriate zone classificati~~
is for the use as proposed by Mr. Shab. Subsequently that resolution with the
findings would come back to the City Council for concurrence, non-concurrene'6?D
or change. ~
Councilman Bay thereupon amended his motion to incorporate the foregoing .~d
recommendation as articulated by the City Attorney. Councilman Pickler ,~w
seconded the motion. .'u~W
Before a vote was taken, discussion took place relative to the fact that Mr.
Shab already had a CUP in process to be heard before the Planning Comm~ssion~O'~
He was concerned relative to time frames.
City Attorney White stated the action today would not affect the timing for
the application that is pending before the Planning Commission. He would
suggest that the Planning Commission consider both items at its next meeting~;n
to continue tracking the Code interpretation and that Mr. Shah continue
processing the CUP with the understanding if there is a favorable Code
interpretation, the CUP becomes a nullity. If not, then there will be the
to fall back on without the loss of any timing. The City is not going to used=
the fact that Mr. Shab has applied for a CUP as a legal argument against an~
other argument that is raised here. The City is not trying to drag Mr. Shab'~
into a CUP and then use that against him.
A vote was then taken on the foreloin8 motion offered by Councilman Bay and a~~
refined by the City Attorney. One Vacancy. MOTION GAP, fLIED. '-~
119: LETTER OF CONDOLENCE - FAMILY OF KUTH CURRIER: Councilwoman Kaywood ~T~.
noted the passing of Ruth Currier. She asked that the Council send a lette£ ~-~
of condolence to her husband Bill Currier and her family. (Bill Currier is
the Convention Center Authority). Ruth was a delightful person and would be---
sorely missed.
139/144: JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEETING - EASTERN AND FOOTHILL CORRIDOR:
Mayor Bay reported on the March 27, 1987 meeting of the JPA, Executive
Committee, where discussion took place relative to their legislative program
which is faced with some opposition of the Orange County Transportation
Commission (OCTC) which seems to be coming from the Director without any Board
267
157
..... ~ Hall~ Anahetm~ California - C0~NCIL M/_F~TES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
~=etings on the subject to his knowledge. He hopes that the JPA, 0CTC and the
$uper Committee in the League intend to work together and do not run into
fa~ochial differences tMt might affect one or the other's legislative
p~:ograms in Sacramento.
2J4: DISCUSSION - COUNCIL MEETING TIME: Mayor Bay requested that at its next
~c~ting, the Council consider moving the Council meetings from a 12:00 noon
~;~art time back to the 10:00 a.m. start time. The Council should discuss the
l~ngth of the Closed Session noting that a complaint was raised today relative
~o the late start of the 1:30 p.m. public portion of the meeting. If the load
;~- closed sessions continues as it has been, it is not possible to handle that
icad from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. Starting at 10:00 a.m. would provide adequate
~:£me before the start of the public meeting. He asked that a discussion of
~? matter be placed on the agenda of the next meeting.
~i~,~cilman Hunter expressed concern with considering an earlier starting time
~0ecially relative to his own situation in running his full-time law
'i~w.~ctice. Changing to a later starting time (started in February, 1987), had
beneficial from his standpoint. He also feels that a later starting time
entice more people to run for Council since a person working full-time
v%~ld not have to give up one full working day.
'.io~;.,ncilwoman Kaywood. She did not agree at all with starting at 10:00 a.m.
Closed Sessions and having the public session remain at 1:30 p.m. with
blic hearings at 3:00 p.m. She felt that the new time schedule was working
well.
Bay assumed then that there were not three votes to agree to put the
~:tter on the agenda for discussion.
¢~uncilman Pickler felt that the Council was generally on time starting the
~i~0 p.m. public session. To ensure that they would be on time he suggested
~t in any case when 1:30 p.m. arrived, that the Council leave the Closed
~smion and start the public portion of the meeting; Mayor Bay stated that in
;'~.a future when 1:30 p.m. came, he would leave the Closed Session and start
~he public portion of the meeting on time.
further action was taken relative to changing the Council meeting starting
~me.
~,3J~IS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
items of public interest were presented.
FJ~CESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
i?o~ncilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:55 p.m.)
SFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (8:54 p.m.)
268
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1987~ 1:30
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn to 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
April ?, 1987. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywoo~
voted no. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (8:55 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
269 '