1985/02/19City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
BATALLION CHIEF: Bob Young
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Steve Swaim
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CIVIL ENGINEER - OFFICE: Jay Titus
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
WATER ENGINEER MANAGER: Ray Auerbach
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Holland Lewis, Pastor, 1st Nazarene Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: UNITED WAY AWARD PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Roth first presented a replica of
a check in the amount of $53,'47"3.'96' ~o Merritt Johnson, President of the
Orange County United Way, representing the total amount of contributions by
Anaheim City Employees to United Way; Mr. Johnson gratefully accepted the
check noting that Anaheim was the first City in Orange County to exceed a
contribution of $50,000.
The Mayor then presented individual plaques of appreciation to United Way
Department Coordinators representing all City Departments. He also presented
a plaque to Garry McRae, Human Resources Director, honoring the Human
Resources Department for the highest number of overall employee participation
with 68 percent participation.
The Mayor, on behalf of the Council and the City, commended all involved in
the program, those responsible for making it such a success, and those
contributing to such a ~ine cause. (Note: Th~s yearts campaign was a
tremendous success with contributions totalling ~53,473.96, nearly ~10,000
over last year's total and the highest city campaign in Orange County. A
total of 932 full-time employees participated in the campaign which is a
51 percent involvement rate.)
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
137
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1.985, 10:00 A.M.
"American History Month" in Anaheim, February 1985,
"Cover Expo Days" in Anaheim, February 23 and 24, 1985,
"Orange County Performing Arts Center Day" in Anaheim, February 22, 1985.
Mrs. Kulczynski accepted the American History Month proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to James Robinson for
his bravery in rescuing an elderly couple from a burning building on January
8, 1985.
The Mayor, on behalf of the Council and the City, highly commended Mr.
Robinson emphasizing that there could be no higher form of giving than risking
one's life to save the lives of others.
119: PRESENTATION - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC) - BEACH
BOULEVARD SUPER STREET DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: Mr. Stan Oftelie, Executive
Director, Orange County Transportation Commission, briefed the Council on the
subject project, the first such project in the super street program, i.e. a
concept to create a county-wide system of high flow arterials using a
combination of strategies such as access limitations, parking restrictions,
traffic signal synchronization, intersection widening and intersection grade
separations. He explained that the study relative to the project was
scheduled to begin March 11, 1985 continuing to April, 1986, at which time it
would be appropriate to put together a very extensive series of improvements
along Beach Boulevard costing an excess of $30 million to be funded from a
number of sources. Specifically the plan was to take the 19 miles of Beach
Boulevard and turn it into a super street. Anaheim had approximately one mile
of Beach Boulevard within its limits but containing three critical
intersections, Beach and Lincoln, Beach and Orange and Beach and Ball. In the
future, Anaheim was going to be asked along with 11 other cities to sign a
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU). Presently the City's participation would
be to have a staff member committed to attending the Technical and Policy
Advisory Meetings in order to keep the City informed and subsequently the City
would adopt the MOU. (Also memo dated February 11, 1985 from the City
Engineer entitled - Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project
attached to which was a copy of the proposed MOU dated February 19, 1985
detailing the project including Attachment "A" giving the project description
in work program as well as the background and details of the super streets
demonstration project).
Mr. Oftelie then answered questions posed by Council Members at the conclusion
of which, Mayor Roth thanked him for his informative presentation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held February 5, 1985. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
138
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
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 Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,690,495.96, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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. 85R-84 through 85R-89, 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 Sherri Lynn Jewell for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers on or about November 18,
1984.
b. Claim submitted by Zelda Mae Poat for personal injuries sustained due
purportedly to actions of Anaheim Police Department on or about October 26,
1984.
c. Claim submitted by David Scott Holub for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Department on or about
January 27, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Mansour Mir-Hosseini for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of City on or about July 30, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by James Dwyer for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to fall on City property on or about November 24, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance for Clarence Cornell for
property damage sustained purportedly due to an auto accident on or about
November 7, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Walter & Linda Stalnecker for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 13, 1984.
Claims filed against the City - recommended to be accepted:
h. Claim submitted by Doug Cool for property damage sustained due to an
auto accident on or about October 2, 1984.
139
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
i. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company for Robert Bell
for loss of property due to actions of Anaheim Police Department oh or about
December, 1984.
J. Claim submitted by Rigdon & Associates, a California Corporation, for
property damage sustained due to an auto accident on or about October 26, 1984.
k. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property damage
sustained due to actions of City work crew on or about December 6, 1984.
1. Claim submitted by Bum-Soo Lee for property damage sustained due to
actions of City work crew on or about December 1, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of January 23, 1985.
b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Report for January 1985.
3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Personnel Research Center in an amount
not to exceed $31,645 to conduct a Position Classification and Compensation
Study for all Clerical job classifications, including a full service three
year maintenance program.
4. 175/123: Authorizing the First Amendment to the agreement with Viriginia
L. Oleson to provide organization and productivity studies for the Public
Utilities Department, increasing the cost by 510,500 to a new total of 531,500.
5. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Walter and Mary Messick and
Allen and Alice Space to allow the encroachment of 4" rigid steel conduits 3
feet below La Cresta Street, west of Red Gum Street, to house computer
cables. (84-2E)
6. 179: Authorizing a one-year extension of time for Reclassification No.
81-82-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2259, a proposed change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to CR, on property located at 2111 South Manchester Avenue
(Orangewood Acres Mobilehome Park), to expire March 13, 1986.
7. 160: Accepting the bid of Pac Power in the amount of 5117,414.34 for one
new 1985 tilt cab truck with aerial device and appurtenances, in accordance
with Bid No. 4182.
8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Great Pacific Equipment Company in the
amount of 558,994.16 for three aerial manlifts with service bodies, in
accordance with Bid No. 4183.
9. 160: Accepting the low bid of Royal Truck Body in the amount of
~11,114.10 for one service body, in accordance with Bid No. 4186.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Profire, Inc., in the amount of 517,953.41,
for Scott Pressure Pak Breathing Apparatus, in accordance with Bid No. 4187.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februa.r~ 19, 1985, 10.:00 A.M.
11. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
MANZANITA PARK IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
25-803-7103-03060. (Opening of bids on March 21, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
12. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (83-20A) (Declaring intent to abandon a former
Southern California Edison Company public utility easement acquired by the
City, as successor~ located north of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of Orangethorpe
Place and setting a date for the public hearing therefor, suggested date:
March 19, 1985, 1:30 p.m.)
13. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAliEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENT. (84-4A) (Declaring intent to abandon a right of way
easement for pole and pipe lines lying within the Redevelopment Project,
located north of Broadway, between Harbor Boulevard and Helena Street and
setting a date for the public hearing therefor, suggested dated: March 19,
1985, 1:30 p.m.)
14. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENT. (84-11A) (Declaring intent to abandon an electrical
easement to allow the building of additional rooms to the present facility for
senior citizens at 525 West La Palma Avenue and setting a date for the public
hearing therefor, suggested date: March 19, 1985, 1:30 p.m.)
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
16. 186/128: AUTHORIZATION OF ~4,585,000 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION~
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT B.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAMEIMAPPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT, TRUST
AGtLEEMENT~ AGENCY AGREEMENT, AND CERTIFICATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ~
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO.
Lease agreement relating to capital improvements by and between Anaheim
Public Improvement Corporation, as lessor and the City as lessee, dated as
of March 1, 1985.
Trust Agreement relating to capital improvements by and among Security
Pacific National Bank, as Trustee, the Corporation and the City, dated as
of March 1, 1985.
Agency Agreement relating to acquisition, construction and installation of
capital improvements, by and between the Corporation and the City, dated
as of March 1, 1985.
141
4
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Purchase agreement dated February 19, 1985 relating to the Certificates of
Participation evidencing a proportionate interest of the owners thereof in
lease payments to be made by the City as rental for certain property
pursuant to lease agreement with the Corporation, by an among Merrill
Lynch Capital Markets, the Trustee, the Corporation and the City.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-84 through 85R-88:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-84 through 85R-88, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 85R-89:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-89 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
108: DENYING APPLICATION FOR AN ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT - FLASHDANCE: Denying
an application for an Entertainment Permit submitted by James Lawrence
Schumann, for Flashdance, 2810 West Lincoln Avenue, for entertainment 7 days a
week from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., in accordance with the recommendation of the
Chief of Police.
Mr. Gregory L. Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA. 92633,
stated he was present with Mr. James Schumann who had applied for renewal of
his entertainment permit. He referred to letter submitted by Mr. Schumann
(received February 19, 1985 - on file in the City Clerk's Office) stating he
is aware of only one arrest that took place in his business which was traffic
related as well as being aware of two other arrests in the parking lot area.
He (Schumann) also indicated that he does not sell take-out alcoholic
beverages~ he does not have an off-sale license~ but the market next door did
have such a license. In concluding his letter, Mr. Schumann pledged his
absolute cooperation not only with the City of Anaheim, but also with the
Anaheim Police Department in alleviating any problem that might be
attributable to his business. In his discussions with the Police Department
since writing his letter, the police indicated there is a loitering problem
and if he posted no loitering signs, that would assist the police in giving
them a little more authority to go in and remove those who were loitering. He
(Parkin) had a picture of the sign now posted on Mr. Schumann's business
pursuant to the request of the police.
The letter also noted that he (Schumann) had never been cited at any time for
serving alcoholic beverages to minors or been cited for anything. The
Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) had just concluded their annual inspection
142
City Hall, An~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
of his business, and his kitchen, and passed him for another year commenting
that there were no problems. He emphasized the kitchen because in the
recommendation for denial, it indicates there is no kitchen. Page 2 attached
to the letter showed pictures taken inside the kitchen. Over one half of Mr.
Schumann's revenue is derived from the sale of food or non-alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Parkin then noted from recent newspaper article a statement made by Vaughn
Herrick, one of the City's Code Enforcement Officers, as saying, "according to
what I've seen, there is no reason why the Club shouldn't be allowed to
continue. I haven't heard anything from other agencies about denying the
license. It takes quite a bit for the ABC to deny someone a permit on those
types of things. I see no problem with anything." He pointed out that also
attached to the letter was a petition containing approximately 750 names of
patrons and neighbors of Mr. Schumann's indicating their support of the
business and urging the City Council to consider renewing the permit. Mr.
Schumann also provided him with letters from the two businesses closest to his
establishment in the shopping center, the clothing store and market, also
indicating their support. The denial came as quite a surprise to Mr.
Schumann. There has never been a disturbance in his business whatsoever.
Based upon that, Mr. Schumann booked live entertainment for future dates
requiring guarantees, some of which were part of a tour. If the entertainment
permit is not granted, it would in all likelihood result in his bankruptcy.
He reiterated that Mr. Schumann was willing to cooperate in any way and to
accept any condition the Council would place on his permit and he was willing
to confer with anyone in any City department relative to the operation of his
business. He urged the Council to consider renewal and if they felt it
advisable, to place other conditions on that renewal. The business was one
where young people went to listen to music and dance and more than one half of
the sales that occurred in the business were non-alcoholic related.
Frank Murray, 20665 Calle del Madra, Yorba Linda, spoke in favor as a
representative of the people who patronized the Club age 16 to 20, it was a
great place. The negative things he heard people talking about just did not
happen and there were no problems in the business. Those outside could be
alleviated by having the police arrest people or making them leave since
loitering is a problem. The Club is well supervised. There was no problem
relative to alcohol. People over 21 were able to get their alcohol if they
desired to do so and those under 21 were not allowed to purchase it. He felt
Mr. Schumann and the rest of the people at Flashdance showed a dedication to
the people of Orange County, especially the young to give them a place to
meet, listen to music and have fun. He hoped that the Council would consider
giving the requested permit. The business was a definite benefit to the
community and everybody in Orange County.
Mayor Roth stated that the Council understood the situation but it also had a
responsibility to the citizens. The Council was also particularly responsive
to the recommendations of staff and the Police Department.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to uphold the denial of the entertainment
permit in that the Police Department feels that the activity is detrimental to
the public welfare of the City of Anaheim. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
143
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
123: AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT DELIVERY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE VEHICLE:
Submitted was report dated February 11, 1985 from Fire Chief Bob Simpson,
recommending that the Council approve the acceptance of the "Super Fund"
vehicle and authorizing him to execute the subject agreement and to approve
the expenditure of funds to train fire personnel to staff the vehicle.
Fire Chief Simpson then gave a slide presentation which illustrated the need
for the specialized training and for another such vehicle in the north county
area due to the increase in hazardous materials problems, including industrial
spills, commercial carrier accidents and illegal dumping of hazardous wastes.
After answering questions posed by Council Members relative to the proposal,
Chief Simpson introduced those members of his staff who were responsible for
producing the presentation including the Battaltan Chief Bob Young who
reported on the expertise of the personnel who would be giving the training
which included representatives from all over the nation.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the Fire Chief to execute an
agreement with the State Department of Health Services for delivery of a
hazardous materials response vehicle at no cost to the City and approving
expenditure of ~48,422 in the 84/85 budget and ~68,561 from the 85/86 budget
to train fire personnel to staff subject vehicle, as recommended in memorandum
dated February 11, 1985 from the Fire Chief. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
186: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - ANAHEIM PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION:
Councilman Roth moved, that as the Code reviewing body for the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation, to approve the proposed Conflict of Interest Code for
the Corporation as submitted correcting the value of a gift from ~25 or more
to ~50 or more. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay
abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
142/114: ORDINANCE NO. 4579 - REHEARING PROCEDURES: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Ordinance No. 4579 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4579: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SUBSECTION .040 OF SECTION 1.12.100 OF CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROCEDURAL MATTERS.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss pending litigation.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's
Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.B1 relative to significant
exposure to litigation.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:20 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:42 p.m.)
144
299
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
162: REQUEST BY ANAl[ElM BULLETIN TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RALPH ANDERSEN AND
ASSOCIATES REPORT ON THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Request of Mark Wray, Legal
Counsel for the Anaheim Bulletin, to receive a copy of the subject report.
This matter was continued from the meeting of February 12, 1985 to this date,
(see minutes of February 12, 1985).
City Attorney Hopkins stated his office had reviewed many cases concerning the
various legal technicalities involved in the matter and his recommendation was
that the entire matter be submitted to a Superior Court Judge for a
determination as to what parts of the report were proper for disclosure and
what parts were not.
Mr. Mark Wray, Legal Counsel, Anaheim Bulletin, respectfully objected to the
City Attorney's suggestion. He did not believe the purpose of the Public
Records Act was to require members of the public to go to court in order to
obtain a public record but that it was the obligation of the Council to decide
for itself whether the document was a public record and whether the public was
entitled to it. If the Council did not believe the report was a public
record, the Bulletin should know that and also which Council Members did not
believe that it was a public record. He asked for that record on January 25,
1985 and it was now February 19, 1985. Respectfully, the Bulletin believed it
was the responsibility of the Council who commissoned the report to make a
decision at this time. The Public Records Act required that the Council give
immediate access to the report rather than requiring them to spend the months
or even years that would be involved in superior court action to obtain a copy
of the report. The Act required, and they, as a member of the public, were
entitled to an immediate determination as to whether the Council was going to
provide them with the report.
City Attorney Hopkins explained the document had many aspects to it that were
privileged under various codes and that only after a thorough review of the
matter by a Superior Court Judge could the rights of all persons be adequately
protected. The type of litigation involved was given priority in the Superior
Court and he felt that 4 or 5 weeks would be reasonable time to expect that
decision. Mr. Wray did not agree. He also reiterated they were entitled to
know which persons on the Council were not allowing the Anaheim Bulletin to
have a copy of the report and the specific reasons - which members and under
which Code sections of the Government Code or Evidence Code the City was
relying on.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to endorse and support the recommendations
of the City Attorney that the matter be submitted to a Superior Court Judge
for a determination as to what portions of the report are proper for
disclosure and what portions are not. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay, referring to the last paragraph of
Mr. Wray's letter dated February 7, 1985 (on file in the City Clerk's Office)
stated on the advice of the City Attorney the problem was who decided what was
attorney-client and personnel information. He (the City Attorney) was
recommending that a Judge make that decision for many reasons and he (Bay) did
not think it was fair for Mr. Wray to request the Council to make those
technical/legal decisions. Otherwise, the City could be exposed to possible
145
300
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar7 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
law suits by the personnel involved or where attorney-client privilege might
be in error. It was not a matter of secrecy but the best legal position for
the protection of the City and the taxpayers.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
150: YOUTH NEEDS AND BEHAVIOR STUDY - DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY YOUTH TASK
FORCE: Submitted were reports from the Community Services Board Chairperson
Jackie Terrell dated February 5, 1985 and Joint report from Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Director, Chris Jarvi and Police Chief Jtmmie Kennedy.
City Manager William Talley stated the Joint Staff report by Director Jarvi
and Police Chief Kennedy recommended that the Council consider and approve the
development of a Community Youth Task Force naming 25 groups, organizations
and agencies which they believed could tentatively provide membership on that
Task Force. It did not recommend that all of the groups be included nor
exclude other group, nor set the size. Since that time, the Council had an
opportunity to consider both the report and staff review and under date of
February 5, 1985, Jackte Terrell, Chairperson of the Community Services Board,
indicated that Board wished its Chairperson to be present today to answer
questions of the Council. From a staff standpoint, the idea that they were
dealing with youth groups should be of concern to the Council. Whether or not
gangs existed or were involved in Anaheim was not an appropriate subject of
discussion at this time. Staff did not believe, and therefore did not
request, either the Chief of Police or Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Director to be present today nor did staff believe it would be
productive to engage in a dialogue on any other aspect of the issue until the
Council set its policy as far as their desire to have a Task Force look at the
matter, what the task force composition should be, and when their report might
be submitted back to the Council on what, if anything in the youth group study
should be implemented in the City. Mr. Talley then explained for Councilman
Pickler the reason he did not have staff present today to address the issue
was that he believed the report had generated different opinions in the
community and amongst staff. He reiterated his personal opinion was that it
would be inappropriate to air those opinions before the Council without having
an expression from the Council on how they wished to proceed. He personally
had different opinions himself.
Discussion £ollowed between Council Members and Mr. Talley relative to sSze
and composition of the Task Force during which Councilwoman Kaywood stated she
was very much in favor of having a Task Force make recommendations to the
Council. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to appoint a Task Force to make
recommendations to the Council on what parts of the study to implement.
Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he was the one who
had suggested that the list be expanded to include other groups such as the
Ministerial Association, the Board of Realtors, the Youth Commission and
Senior Citizens Commission since he considered those to be four significant
segments of the community that should have input. He was also concerned that
it not be too big; Councilman Pickler expressed the same concern.
Councilman Bay spoke in favor of a large Task Force. He felt there was more
to do with the subject than just study the report. He found very little
146
297
Cit~ Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1985, 10:0.0 A.M.
first-hand knowledge of the subject in the report and one of the things the
Task Force could do was to gather that first-hand knowledge from people who
had experience with the problem. He not only favored the four groups which
Councilman Overholt would like added, but also the Set Free Church because
there were people involved in that organization who had the first hand
experience about which he was speaking.
Councilman Overholt stated as did Councilman Pickler previously that he felt
at a loss not having involved staff present to answer questions; Steve Swaim,
Community Services Manager, then explained for Councilman Overholt that he
could not take credit for the names on the list. The Community Services Board
was very involved in getting names of organizations that could be involved;
questions were then posed by Councilman Pickler.
City Manager Talley interjected and respectfully stated that he represented
the administration and had a great deal of reluctance having the Council
discuss the matter with members of his staff and for his staff to decide who
speaks for what when there were differences of opinion on staff regarding the
value of the study, the composition of the group and the purpose the group
would serve.
He was directing staff not to speak on the subject until the Council said they
must. If the Council wanted to tell staff what they wanted the group to do,
staff would come back with the report as to who should be on that group. He
reiterated, he had a reluctance in pursuing the matter further because of the
differences in staff and felt they deserved the privilege of having honest
disagreements without having to air them in public.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that her motion was for staff to come back with
a workable list whether smaller or larger that would be action oriented to
solve the youth problems in the City of Anaheim. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion.
Councilman Overholt moved to continue the matter for two weeks for further
action by the Council. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he could not go along with the
first motion because it predetermined there was a problem.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
None
MOTION CARRIED.
139/177: LEGISLATION DEALING WITH DEFINITION OF SENIOR CITIZEN: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to authorize that Council pursue legislation dealing with the
definition of "senior citizen" for purposes of senior citizen housing
development laws as discussed at the meeting of February 12, 1985 stating
"qualifying resident" or "senior citizen," means person 62 years of age or
147
298
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
over and deleting the reference to 55 years of age or older in a senior
citizen housing development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
CARRIED.
MOTION
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10674 (REV.1) - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by Victor Palmieri & Company, Inc., requesting an extension of time
to Tentative Tract No. 10674, to establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned
subdivision on property located on the north side of Martella Lane, east of
Martin Road.
This item was submitted for informational purposes only. No action was taken
by the Council.
108: HEARING - DISNEYLAND HOTEL APPEAL OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Theodore
Teng, Disneyland Hotel, appealing the decision of the Hearing Officer denying
abatement of the Transient Occupancy Tax assessment and penalties due on the
Disneyland Hotel per Audit No. 84267. Submitted was report dated February 7,
1985 from the Hearing Officer, recommending that the Council uphold the
findings of the City internal auditors and the City Hearing Officer and
assessing the hotel management the additional tax penalty and interest of
$27,209.56. The petitioner requested a two week continuance of the matter.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the subject hearing to
Tuesday, March 12, 1985 at 10:00 a.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4580 AND 4581: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
Nos. 4580 and '~581 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4580: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAEHIMMUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(31), ML(SC) NW corner of La Palma Avenue and
Richfield Road)
ORDINANCE NO. 4581: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(79-80-31, ML Zoning, SE corner of Frontera and Glassell Street)
106/114: TRIP TO SISTER CITY - MITO.~ JAPAN.: Mayor Roth announced that he
would be leading a delegation of 60 people to Anaheim's Sister City of Mito,
Japan on April 20, 1985 returning May 4, 1985, the cost of the trip being
$1,727. He requested Council authorization for the expenditure.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to appropriate ~1,727 for Mayor Roth's trip
to Anaheim Sister City of Mito, Japan starting April 20, 1985. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9A and
54956.9B1.
148
295
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's
Attorney to discuss pending litigation as requested.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:31 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:45 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-18 AND VARIANCE NO. 3453:
APPLICANT:
Arthur and Marjorie Stahovich,
805 Ramblewood Drive, Anaheim, CA. 92804
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400,
to construct an 8-unit apartment complex on property located at 3639 West
Savanna Street, with Code waiver of maximum structural height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution PC85-05 approved Reclassification No.
84-85-18 and Resolution No. PC85-06 granted Variance No. 3453. Approved
EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of January 29, 1985, review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 7, 1985.
Posting of Property February 7, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 7, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 7, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
William Phelps, Agent
1259 North Batavia, Orange, was present to answer questions.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Councilwoman Kaywood.
One of the major concerns is the construction of a storm drain
to be provided by the developer. Another concern is the request
of the residents for a left turn lane on Knott Avenue at Savanna
Street.
STAFF INPUT:
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He met with a spokesmen for the residents this afternoon on the
petition for the installation of a left turn lane on Knott
Avenue and Savanna. That could be accomplished since it was
within the right-of-way and the pavement is wide enough but
parking may have to be eliminated in front of some homes on
Knott Avenue and Savanna Street. The cost would be
approximately $1,000 to $2,000.
149
Ctt7 Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC INPUT: Joan Todd, 3620 Savanna.
She had asked Councilwoman Kaywood to request a review of the
project in order to give the residents an opportunity to present
their need for a left turn lane on the corner of Knott Avenue.
She had not received a public hearing notice. She does not have
a problem with the project but wanted the left turn lane. She
had a petition with approximately 225 signatures requesting the
left turn representing approximately 140 residents and the
remainder being service people and visitors to that street.
Mary Bater, 6701 Savanna (apartments to the west of the project).
She had no complaint with the project but was concerned with the
type of improvement to be made on the storm drain. When they
dedicated land to the City they were told it would be a
permanent storm drain concreted over and returned to them for
parking and nothing was ever done. She was concerned as to
whether or not the storm drain was covered. They were promised
a 27 inch RCP. They had dedicated the land to the City in
1976. They gave the land to Anaheim to construct the storm
drain and were promised that storm drain and that promise has
not been kept.
STAFF INPUT:
Jay Titus, Civil Engineer.
The storm drain would be underground reinforced concrete pipe to
be constructed from the street to the flood control channel,
that would take the water off the street into the channel.
According to the condition, it was to be bonded for at the time
of building permits and constructed prior to occupancy of the
unit. Dedication was made in approximately 1976 and this would
be the final construction of the storm drain. It was going to
be constructed with the development of the property. The
condition imposed indicated if the developer so desired, a
reimbursement agreement could be prepared to recover some of the
cost as additional property along Savanna developed.
Mr. Art Stahovich, 805 Ramblewood.
He wanted to know which properties drained into the flood
control channel since he was only aware of the properties that
drained into Savanna Street; Mr. Titus stated there is one
property on the north side that drains back into the channel.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: William Phelps.
The developer already agreed to construct the storm drain. He
confirmed that the storm drain will be covered. The left turn
lane is 1800 feet away and he questioned if it was fair for one
developer to be put in a position to have to pay for the whole
thing.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
A petition containing approximately 225 signatures requesting a
left turn lane on Knott Avenue at the intersection of Savanna
Street.
150
293
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ ~9, 198.5., 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 85R-90 and 85R-91 for adoption.
The first approving Reclassification No. 84-85-18 and the second, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 85R-91, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions with the stipulation that the required storm drain be covered and
that there be restriping of Knott Street to establish a left turn lane. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTINA ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3453.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-90 and 85R-91 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2653:
APPLICANT: Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints,
50 East North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 94150
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Request to construct a 165-unit senior citizens'
retirement facility on CL zoned property located on the north side of Medical
Center Drive, west of Euclid Street, with the following Code waivers: (a)
required lot frontage, (b) required type of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-09 granted the Conditional
Use Permit.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of January 29, 1985. Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood.
151
294
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 7, 1985.
Posting of Property February 7, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 7, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 7, 1985.
City Clerk Lee Sohl announced that Just prior to the beginning of the
afternoon Council session, a telephone request for continuance of the subject
public hearing was received from Jon Christienson, Westport Centers, Agent for
the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints.
Mayor Roth felt if the concerns could be answered today there would not be a
need for a continuance; Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her major concern was
the age limitation imposed by State Law on senior citizen projects and the
impact the lower age of 55 would have on parking.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2653 to Tuesday, March 12, 1985, at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2646:
APPLICANT:
Joe Pershing and Catherine Hilda Adele Lemons,
1808 West Chalet, Anaheim, CA. 92804.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Request to permit commercial use of a residential
structure on property located at 441 South Euclid Street, with Code waiver of
required location of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution PC85-12 granted the Conditional Use
Permit in part. Approved EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision by the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 7, 1985.
Posting of Property February 7, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 7, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 7, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Donald Reas, Doctor of Chirophractic.
He is planning to use the building for his home and office and
has the authority to represent Mr. & Mrs. Lemons, the owners.
The Planning Commission granted the request for Reclassification
and the Conditional Use Permit at their January 7, 1985 meeting
and at that time he requested to come back and speak about the
parking. The City is asking that all parking be in the back of
152
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, .1985, .10:00 A.M.
the building which will involve constructing the alley and
tearing down the existing garage. He was told he could keep the
garage until the entire block is converted to commercial from
residential. He referred to his January 25, 1985 letter (made a
part of the record) wherein he pointed out that the Planning
Commission resolution noted that strict application of the
Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the identical zone and classification. He is
being asked to close his driveways on Euclid Street and to park
only in the back thus denying him the privileges enjoyed by his
neighbors who had such driveways.
STAFF INPUT:
Paul Singer Traffic Engineer.
The petitioner is asking for three driveways on the property.
The two driveways closest to the intersection of Tedmar, since
they are off-set from Tedmar, could create a traffic problem on
Euclid Street. He could have one driveway on the southerly
portion of the property to be used for his parking lot but the
driveways closest to the intersection should be closed; Dr. Reas
has agreed with that and will close the circular driveway.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Robert Hunsinger, 500 South Falcon.
He had no objection to the rezoning permitting the doctor to
operate out of the building. His main concern is the vacant lot
which is directly behind his (Hunsinger's) house. His pool
suffered from dirt damage due to the maintenance of the wrecked
cars previously performed on that lot. He was not aware that
the doctor planned to use that lot or that the alleyway was
going to be extended across the width of the vacant lot which is
also the width of his property. His privacy was going to be in
jeopardy and his pool would again be subject to flying debris
and matter. He was opposed to the extension of the private
alleyway but he was also concerned over what was happening
currently.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Clarified that the current condition is worded so that it would
require improvement right now of the westerly alley~ and
improved meant paved. In this instance, the City was not
interested in taking responsibility for maintenance and that was
the reason for requesting the improvements to be done at this
time. If not, it was a matter of deleting that requirement.
SUMMATION BY THE APPLICANT: Doctor Reas.
He was in agreement with Mr. Hunsinger. He did not want the
alley either. He wants to keep it green as long as he can. He
understands when everything goes commercial the alley will have
to be constructed. He also had plans to put cypress trees
against the back of his vacant lot against the wall adjacent to
Mr. Hunsanger's property which will give him an added measure
153
292
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
of privacy, noise abatement and dust abatement. The parking lot
he is proposing will be paved or black topped. He stipulated
that he would improve the alley adjacent to his west property
line when needed.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-92 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2646, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission modifying Planning Condition No. 5 allowing one new driveway on
Euclid Street with angled parking spaces along said driveway; circular
driveway shall be closed - alley to be improved adjacent to the westerly
property line when needed. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2646.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
.Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-92 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (2:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:50 p.m)
105/114: JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: To discuss
regional water agencies' programs and their impacts on the Anaheim Water
Utility. Submitted was report dated February 13, 1985 from the Public
Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt.
PRESENT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Richard Haynie, Ken Keesee, Carl Kiefer,
Richard McMillan, Dale Stanton (entered 3:30 p.m.), Jim Townsend, Joe White.
Chairman Ken Keesee called the adjourned regular meeting of February 7, 1985
to order, all Board Members being present with the exception of Board Member
Stanton.
154
289
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth referred to letter dated January 9, 1985 from Mr. Gus Lenain, the
City's representative on the Orange County Water District, wherein he
recommended that Anaheim deannex from the Metropolitan Water District of
Orange County (MWDOC) along with Santa Aha and Fullerton, the reason being
what he considered an unnecessary increase in the cost of water of between
5100,000 and 3150,000 per year due to the imposition of a surcharge and
connection fee on the water purchased from MWDOC and because Anaheim's split
representation at the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is no longer
desirable. (See letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). As a result of
the letter, Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager submitted report
dated February 13, 1985 discussing the issue in detail along with Attachment
1, giving the history of MW-DOC and their fee structure.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, then explained that the two basic
concerns relative to MWDOC is the new fee structure implemented last year
which impacts Anaheim to the extent of approximately 576,000 per year, fees
paid through a surcharge to the MWDOC, and the fact that the City's Director
on the Metropolitan Water District Board, Mr. Joe Truxaw represented only a
small area of the entire City of Anaheim as indicated in yellow on the map
posted on the Chamber wall. The remainder of the City, or approximately 90
percent is represented by Directors appointed to the MWD by the MWDOC. The
Board Members on the MW-DOC were voted on by the residents in the areas they
represent and there was one Director who represented the majority of Anaheim,
Bill Davenport.
Mr. Auerbach then briefed the extensive and detailed report which discussed
the possible detachment from MWDOC. Staff's purpose today is to obtain
authorization to begin to prepare the necessary documents that would be
required in case the City decided to proceed with an application to LAFCO for
detachment. If so, it would be beneficial to join with Santa Aha at this time.
Mr. Hoyt then clarified the Utilities Department recommendation is that a
committee be formed which would include the City Manager, certain members of
the City Council and staff to meet with MW-DOC to try to negotiate satisfactory
conditions for Anaheim remaining a Member of MW-DOC. If unsuccessful in that
negotiation by the end of March, that Anaheim then pursue detachment or
deannexation from MWDOC.
Public Utility Board Member Dale Stanton entered the Council Chamber.
(3:30 p.m.)
Presentations were then made by Mr. Lenatn and Mr. Nell Cline, General Manager
and Secretary of the Orange County Water District. Mr. Cline compared the
views of his agency with the Metropolitan Water District and in concluding
stated he was not in a position to make a recommendation regarding the
question before the Council today.
Discussion and questioning followed the presentations between the Council,
staff and Board Members. Public Utility Board Members White, Keesee, and
Townsend expressed the fact that they favored deannexation for the following
reasons respectively: MW-DOC never chose anybody from Anaheim to be on that
Board, the 576,000 fee, (which could escalate) was exorbitant, and, it
appeared, based on the documentation that there was no need for MWDOC at all.
155
290
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 19~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Ray Auerbach commented that the issue of the need for MWDOC had been discussed
in the County and the Grand Jury looked at that matter a few years ago
relative to the possible consolidation of the agencies but basically nothing
happened. It was determined, however, that MWDOC is the agency representing
most of Orange County on the Metropolitan Water District Board and that
function needed to continue no matter who was going to do it.
In concluding the issue, Mayor Roth surmised as a result of Mr. Auerbach's
presentation that the benefits of MWDOC are the following: The School
Conservation Program which they conducted, the existing Board of Directors
allowed Anaheim to have more representation on MWDOC by providing specialized
engineering services that the City used on occasion. He was inclined to act
on staff's recommendation to first negotiate with MWDOC relative to the matter
of fees and better representation for the City of Anaheim.
MOTION - PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Board Member Keesee moved to approve staff
recommendation as follows: Authorizing staff to prepare the necessary
documents to file for detachment from MWDOC while simultaneously forming a
negotiating committee consisting of the City Manager, Staff members, and
certain Council members to negotiate with MWDOC relative to
reduction/elimination of fees and better/broader representation for the City
of Anaheim. Failing that, staff to come back to the Council to consider the
matter of detachment. Board Member Townsend seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve staff recommendation as follows:
~uthorizing staff to prepare the necessary documents to file for detachment
from MW-DOC while simultaneously forming a negotiating committee consisting of
the City Manager, Staff members, and certain Council members to negotiate with
MWDOC relative to reduction/elimination of fees and better/broader
representation for the City of Anaheim. Failing that, staff to come back to
the Council to consider the matter of detachment. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Public Utility Board continued their adjourned regular meeting.
CITY COUNCIL - RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into
Closed Session to discuss public security with no action anticipated.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:44 p.m.)
155/153: REORGANIZATION PLAN - PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Councilman Roth moved to
approve the reorganization plan for the Planning Department as recommended by
the City Manager. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:45 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
156