1992/08/25City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Dave Morgan
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 1:50 p.m. on August 21, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding 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; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs.
City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No.
44-81-74.
Richard and Dawn Theobold vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange
County Superior Court Case 64-01-86.
Cole vs. City of Anaheim, Southern Pacific Transportation Co.,
Inc.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1).
e. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess
indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed
session.
By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:07 p.m.)
593
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
INVOCATION: Dr. Jarrell W. Garsee, First Nazarene Church, gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member William D. Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
International Personnel Management Week in Anaheim
August 30- September 5, 1992
Rideshare Week in Anaheim, September 14-18, 1992
American Business Women's Day in Anaheim, September 22, 1992
Dave Morgan, the City's Human Resources Director accepted the International
Personnel Management Week proclamation; Gary Johnson, Public Works
Director/City Engineer and Kathleen Reavis, Transportations System Specialist
accepted the Rideshare Week proclamation and Margaret Argos accepted the
American Business Women's Day proclamation.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Louis Masciel,
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, upon his retirement from
the City after more than 35 years of dedicated service.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members commended Mr. Masciel for his long and
dedicated service to the City and citizens of Anaheim.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mary Turner, City
Treasurer, upon her retirement from the City and her career in government
spanning 32 years.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members commended Mrs. Turner and will be recognizing
her at an upcoming event as she leaves the employ of Municipal Government and
recognizing her expertise in bringing millions of dollars to the City of
Anaheim through shrewd investment policies.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,692,586.86 for the
period ending August 21, 1992, in accordance with the 1992-93 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:15 p.m.)
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:17 p.m.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: A number of people spoke under Item C2 and C3
and are listed under those items respectively.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Keith Olesen. He spoke to the issue of the dismissal of Glen Hellyer from the
City Planning Commission by the Council at its meeting of August 18, 1992.
There was not much communication between Council Members and Mr. Hellyer which
he feels was blatantly unfair. What was done, was done to address a
perception of wrong doing and not a reality. It is dangerous to start taking
594
c~it¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
action based on perceptions. It makes the action look like an excuse for what
was done and not a reason. If the Council is concerned with perception,
especially with Council or Commission members, it is necessary to look at the
entire Planning Commission. He feels what was done should not have been done.
The incident raised a lot of questions that he feels need to be answered and
things that need to be looked at. He hopes the Council will address those
sometime in the future.
At this point, Council Member Pickler brought up the issue that anyone running
for City Council while serving on a City Board or Conunission step down from
that position; Mayor Hunter suggested that a more appropriate place to discuss
the matter would be later in the meeting when Council Members have an
opportunity for comments. (The matter was discussed after the last public
hearing; see title, Consideration of Prohibiting Members from Serving on
Boards and Commissions if Running for City Council).
Paul Kott, 504 N. State College Blvd. As a concerned citizen, he has written
a letter which he would like to read relative to the dismissal of Glen Hellyer
from the Planning Commission. He thereupon read the letter which was directed
towards the Council Members who voted in favor of removing Mr. Hellyer from
the Planning Commission (Council Members Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter). He
admonished them for their action which he feels was unconscionable and what he
considers an unwarranted attack on Planning Commissioner, Glen Hellyer.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Hunter, seconded by Council Member Daly, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member Hunter
offered Resolution Nos. 92R-183 and 92R-184 for adoption. Council Member
Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5327 and 5328 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution/Ordinance Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution
Nos. 92R-183 and 92R-184 for adoption; Ordinance Nos. 5327 and 5328 for
adopt ion. )
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions
and ordinances. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Ri~k Management..
a. Claim submitted by Joyce Marie Cook for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 6, 1992.
b. Claim submitted by Shari Lyn Miles, Aulton Miles by his guardian ad
litem Marie Adams, c/o Albert W. Jones, for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 3, 1992.
c. Claim submitted by Shirley Gerdon for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 11, 1992.
d. Claim submitted by Dorothy Weber for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 16, 1991 through
July 16, 1992.
595
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
e. Claim submitted by Glenn Goss for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 10, 1992.
f. Claim submitted by Barbara McBride for indemnity sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about March 26, 1992.
g. Claim submitted by Ted O'Toole, cio Richard D. Mickelson, for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
May 20, 1992.
h. Claim submitted by Mercury Insurance Group, Attn: Dayne Kangas, for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about February 12, 1992.
i. Claim submitted by James E. Hartung for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 17, 1992.
j. Claim submitted by Rene Monzon for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 18, 1992.
k. Claim submitted by Babcock Display Products, Inc., for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 20,
1992.
1. Claim submitted by Barbara Velucci, c/o Thomas J. Hanrahan, for bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
February 10, 1992.
m. Claim submitted by Dan J. Overton for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 14, 1992.
n. Claim submitted by Winifred McKinnon for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 11, 1992.
o. Claim submitted by Nick Layana and Sandi Layana for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 7, 1992.
p. Claim submitted by Annette Pickens for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 20, 1992.
q. Claim submitted by Pamela Jean Cerny for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on 'or about June 28, 1992.
r. Claim submitted by Kari-Jo Young for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 18, 1992.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting held June 24, 1992.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance
Analysis for the month of July, 1992.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting
held July 9, 1992.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting
held July 9, 1992.
596
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
A3. 150: Approving a Notice of Completion of' the construction of Stoddard
Park Security Lighting by Building Energy Consultants, and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A4. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement (91-12E) with Kwikset
Corporation, for the placement of a subsurface pipeline for groundwater
recovery and treatment within the alleys north of Broadway, Melrose Street and
Santa Ana Street.
A5. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-183: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FUEL EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION.
A6. 150: Approving Contract Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $10,100.28
in favor of J.H. Rives Company, for additional construction work on the
Pearson Park restrooms and recreation checkout buildings.
A7. 160: Accepting the low bid of Heli-Dyne, Inc., in the amount of $22,450
for one main rotor hub assembly for Police Helicopter, in accordance with Bid
#5078.
A8. 123: Approving an Agreement (Banners) with Renee Petropoulos, in the
amount of $62,000 for completion of Anaheim Arena Artwork services.
Council Member Pickler voted no on this item.
A9. 123: Approving the submittal of a Section 213 letter supporting the
Housing Authority's application for 300 Section 8 Housing Certificates and
Vouchers under the Section 8 Existing Program, and authorizing the Mayor to
sign said letter.
Al0. 177: Approving the submittal of a letter supporting the Housing
Authority's application for Section 8 Certificates available under the Family
Unification Program, and authorizing the Mayor to sign said letter.
Ail. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-184: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED SUBLEASE WITH MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY RELATING TO THE ALLEN-MCCOLLOCH PIPELINE, AND
AUTHORIZING USE OF INFORMATION IN AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT.
Al2. 123: Approving the Third Amendment to Agreement with Cycom Data
Systems, Inc., for computer support services, and authorizing the City
Attorney to sign said agreement on behalf of the City.
Al3. 123.' Approving a Third Stipulation and Agreement Regarding Tolling of
Time Limitations in connection with the Taylor Woodrow Construction California
Limited/Taylor Woodrow Construction Corporation claim relating to the
Convention Center Betterment III Project.
Al4. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 5327 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 4.18.050 THROUGH 4.18.060, INCLUSIVE, OF CHAPTER
4.18 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ENTERTAINMENT
PERMITS. (Introduced at the meeting of 8/18/92, Item A8.)
Al5. 171: ORDINANCE NO. 5328 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON FULL CASH VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1992/93. (Introduced at the meeting of 8/18/92, Item Al2.)
597
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Al6. 153: Approving the appointment of Charlene C. Jung to the position of
City Treasurer, effective 8/28/92, and approving vacation accrual at five
hours per pay period.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-183 and 92R-184 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-183 and 92R-184 duly passed and
adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5327 and 5328 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5327 and 5328 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A17. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION:
Appointment to the Housing Commission to fill the unscheduled vacancy of Elmer
Thill for the term expiring June 30, 1993. This matter was continued from the
meetings of August 11 and August 18, 1992 to this date.
After a brief discussion relative to the fact that only two applicants have
thus far expressed an interest in this position, by general consent, the
Council continued the subject appointment to September 15, 1992.
ITEM BI FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1992:
DECISION DATE: AUGUST 13, 1992 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
AUGUST 28, 1992:
Bi. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3531 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, 2399 Michelson Drive #200, Irvine, CA
92715
AGENT: MARIA FOSKARIS, 4457 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 5645 East La Palma Avenue, #220. Property is approximately 4.4
acres located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Imperial Highway, having approximate frontages of 60 feet on the north
side of La Palma Avenue, and 708 feet on the west side of Imperial
Highway.
To permit on-sale beer and wine within a proposed enclosed restaurant to
be located within a previously approved commercial retail center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CUP NO. 3531 APPROVED (ZA92-34).
Approved Negative Declaration.
ITEM B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1992:
DECISION DATE: AUGUST 13, 1992 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
SEPTEMBER 4, 1992:
B2. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 92-03:
598
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
OWNER: CARMEN AND TRACY WILLIAMS, 706 South Bruce Street, Anaheim, CA
92804.
LOCATION: 706 South Bruce Street. Property is approximately .15 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 109 feet on the west side of Bruce
Street and being located approximately 340 feet north of the centerline of
Stoneybrook Drive.
To permit a large family day care home involving up to twelve (12)
children.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Use Permit No. 92-03 APPROVED (ZA92-35).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
B3. 170: ORDINANCE NO. 5329 FOR ADOPTION: Amending Chapters 17.08, 18.04
and 18.12 of Titles 17 and 18, respectively, of the Anaheim Municipal Code
transferring authority to approve tentative parcel maps to Planning Commission
and Zoning Administrator. (Introduced at the 8/18/92, BI0.)
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5329 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5329: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTERS
17.08, 18.04 AND 18.12 OF TITLES 17 AND 18, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE TRANSFERRING AUTHORITY TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS TO
PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5329 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5329 duly passed and adopted.
B4./B5. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5331 AND 5332 FOR INTRODUCTION:
Ordinance No. 5331 for introduction, amending Sections 18.44.050, 18.45.050,
18.46.050, 18.61.050, 18.63.050 and deleting Subsection 18.63.020.040 of
Chapters 18.44, 18.45, 18.46, 18.61 and 18.63 .respectively, of Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code relating to automotive vehicle repair facilities.
(Proposed code amendment relating to auto repair facilities within commercial
and industrial zones - from the Planning Commission meeting of 7/27/92.); and
Ordinance No. 5332 for introduction, amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 87-88-48 located at 220 North Coffman Street from
the RS-7200 zone to the RM-1200 zone.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5331 and 5332 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5331: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
18.44.050, 18.45.050, 18.46.050, 18.61.050, 18.63.050 AND DELETING SUBSECTION
18.63.020.040 OF CHAPTERS 18.44, 18.45, 18.46, 18.61 AND 18.63 RESPECTIVELY,
OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE
REPAIR FACILITIES. (Proposed code amendment relating to auto repair
facilities within commercial and industrial zones - from the Planning
Commission meeting of 7/27/92.)
599
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUOUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 5332: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO
REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-48 LOCATED AT 220 NORTH
COFFMAN STREET FROM THE RS-7200 ZONE TO THE RM-1200 ZONE.
Cl. 108: ROGER MORRIS INN AT THE PARK (RAMADA MAINGATE), TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX DISPUTE:
Submittal of the recommendation of the Hearing Officer denying the appeal
of the Roger Morris Inn at the Park concerning transient occupancy taxes
and upholding the determination of the City Audit Manager that the sum of
$39,224.70 is due the City as of December 7, 1991. Also submitted was
report dated August 17, 1992 from the City Attorney recommending that the
City Council adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Officer denying the
subject appeal and upholding the determination of the City Audit Manager
that the sum of $39,224.70 is due the City as of December 7, 1991.
(Recommendation ok the Hearing Officer dated August 10, 1992 was also
submitted. )
Mayor Hunter. He noted that Mr. Tom Kieviet, Attorney for Roger Morris was
present. He asked for confirmation that this was not a public hearing but the
time for the Council to make a decision on the recommendation of the hearing
officer.
City Attorney White. This matter was referred to a Hearing Officer, Honorable
Phillip A. Petty, who conducted a hearing in ~he case and has rendered a
recommendation to the City Council. In accordance with the Council's own
ordinance, once the Hearing Officer conducts the hearing and the hearing is
closed, no additional testimony will be taken but the findings and
recommendations presented to the City Council for determination. Those are
before the Council tonight and staff recommends that the Council by motion
adopt the findings and decision as recommended.
Tom Kieviet, Attorney, Farano and Kieviet. If possible, he would like to make
a statement in regard to the penalty issue.
City Attorney White. It is at the discretion of the Council. If Mr. Kieviet
would like to stipulate that his statement not be deemed part of the record of
the proceeding, he would not see a problem. If Mr. Kieviet intends to use it
as supplemental evidence or part of the record, it would violate the City's
own ordinance.
Tom Kieviet. He will stipulate that it be deemed not a part of the record.
He is present on behalf of Ramada Main Gate and is addressing the one issue
concerning the 50% penalty on top of the tax due. He gave reasons why he felt
this was not justified and in concluding stated that the code authorizes the
Council to waive the penalty provisions of the bed-tax ordinance if imposition
of the penalty would result in a substantial injustice to the operator. In
their opinion, the penalty imposed creates a substantial injustice to the
hotel and he stated the reasons why. They are requesting that the Council
grant relief of the penalty amount of $13,233.11.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to adopt as the City Council's findings
the findings contained in the hearing officer's recommendations and denying
the appeal of Roger Morris Inn at the Park (Ramada Main Gate) appeal
concerning transient occupancy taxes and penalties. Council Member Daly
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
600
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
C2. 153: PRIVATIZATION STUDY - TASK FORCE REPORT:
This matter was continued from the meeting of August 18, 1992 to this date.
Submitted was report dated August 11, 1992 from the City Manager, James Ruth -
subject: Privatization Update Report recommending that the Council direct
staff to continue studying contracting out opportunities consistent with the
criteria included in the April, 1992 Privatization Task Force Report. Also
submitted was a booklet - Privatization Report-Update dated August 25, 1992
prepared by the Office of the City Manager.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Ron Bengochea, 1751 S. Nutwood, Anaheim (representative of Local 47 IBEW). He
would like to see privatization stopped and the situation evaluated without
setting a time limit. Quality of service is a key issue and the employees
provide that quality.~ Some of the issues he had previously brought forward
relative to the contracting out of the Water Meter Shop appeared to be
materializing. He explained some of the concerns which he feels affects the
City's revenue negatively. The whole situation has had a negative affect on
the families involved and on him personally as a representative of the
employees. It is difficult to do a job with the threat that someone is going
to underbid you. Neither the employees or the residents need to have this
happen. With City employees, there is credibility and accountability- they
do a good job as a whole to the benefit of the citizens because they have a
stake in the City. It is a serious issue and one that is not a matter of a
price tag. If the job is not getting done, the Council knows where to go. Me
urged that they keep control.
Sheryl Lasco, Anaheim resident since 1957. She relayed an incident which
occurred on her street involving a transformer that went out. That is when
she became aware of the privatization situation. She called in and City
employees were on site in about an hour, corrected the problem and also
determined that the transformer caused the phone system to shut down as well.
After fixing the transformer and finding the problem with the phone system,
the workers were right there to handle it. If an outside source was handling
the emergency, she does not feel it would have been corrected as expediently
as it was. If there was a disaster emergency and they needed assistance, how
would it be handled if not by City employees.
David Hoskins, 1715 E. Santa Ana Street, Anaheim. He is present representing
the employees of the City having been an employee himself for 29 years. He
was offered and took early retirement and has a small gardening business which
he can turn to. He is concerned that other employees who have been with the
City 20 and 30 years and are approaching 50 years of age will not have
anything else to support them. They will be too young to retire, but job
prospects will not be good. He is hoping that the Council will consider
seriously the people who could lose their jobs through privatization.
Robert Briggs, 809 W. Wilshire, sub-station electrician. He would like to
address the intangible assets of having City employees on the job. He just
purchased a home in the redevelopment area. He could not take a demotion in
his job, but would have to go whereever the jobs are. He then relayed an
incident that occurred at the sub-station with a contractor on a fencing job
whose life could have been jeopardized if a fellow employee electrician had
not taken the time to stop the contractor from possibly being electrocuted
because of the way he was performing the job.
Randy Barlow, 230 S. Monument, Sub-Station Technician Supervisor, 20 year+
employee. He has seen many changes and programs implemented but nothing so
601
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
devastating to employee morale or productivity as privatization. He has
worked with numerous contractors over the years and without exception there
has never been a time when he did not have to give some input in a major way
relative to the plans either before or after construction usually requiring
several man hours to redo what the contractor had done.
Marilyn Hauk, Second Vice President of AMEA. Her husband is a line mechanic
for the City and she cannot say in 22 years the number of times he has been
called out to work in the middle of the night for whatever emergency that may
have occurred. The same is true with Water Meter crews. They leave their
families to report in order to put the City back on line. Contractors would
not do the same. She then addressed specific items in the report some of
which she felt were an attempt not to go through the promotional process,
recognize employee rights, or an attempt to break the unions. She felt there
are no checks substantiating statements made and that the s=andards evaluating
contractors are different than those for City employees. She would like to
see change orders, invoices and extra work by contractors copied for or
approved by the Council. Some Councilmembers say they have a responsibility
to the 277,000 residents. Approximately, 50% of the membership of the AMEA
live in Anaheim, as well as a good percentage of the IBEW membership. They
also have friends and relatives who live in the City. Of executive and
administrative managers, only 25% live in Anaheim.
Gina Hainline, Employee Representative for AMEA. She first showed pictures of
examples of contract work either in progress or in some cases where it should
have been in progress but never was. One example is a concrete contractor at
Pearson Park were they laid the concrete and it did not pass City inspection.
It had to be taken out and relaid. City employees are taken for granted and
it is thought that anyone can do the job. In some cases that is true, but
others do not have the same dedication as City employees and the same stake in
their work. Employees care and continue to care. They do not question their
bosses but what they are starting to question is when they have to go out and
check on what a contractor is doing and to fix or replace work done by a
contractor. She then gave an example of a contract where there were
additional charges of over $26,000 over and above the contract in 1991 and
$11,000 in additional charges for the first seven months of 1992. Those
charges are not a part of what the Council approves. They are asking in the
future when decisions are made to contract out, which they hope will not be
the case, that a thorough evaluation is made of the contractor. Contractors
say that they are going to give the world and once they get the contract,
prices go up and service goes down. They would be happy to provide
information at another time explaining about the company that libraries are
contracting with for their technical services when the decision gets to the
Council. They will a~k that they not make a decision to contract with that
company or any other company and let the employees continue to do the work
with the expectations that the citizens have. She urged the Council to not
make the decision to contract out their people's jobs anymore.
Sharon Ericson, President, AMEA. For the past year, she has been talking to
both management and Council about the effects privatization has on
non-management employees of the City. There are serious morale problems which
are getting worse everyday. One of the biggest fears is job loss.
Privatization is scaring the employees to death and is used as a tool by some
supervisors. She knows the City Manager does not condone such behavior. She
then explained how that fear is affecting their lives privately. Employees
are even afraid to take a promotion outside of their departments because they
will lose department seniority which takes precedence over City seniority.
She is tired of the battles that never end concerning people and their
602
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5.'00 P.M.
livelihood. Everyone listens but no one hears or cares. As well, City
employees are expected to come to the aid of citizens in time of disaster and
to leave their families to do so. They have done so and will do so in the
future, but contractors won't. She is asking one more time for help. They
care about the City and citizens more than the Council will ever know. They
do not want to join the 15 million in the United States who are out of work.
Only the five Councilmembers can change that.
Dave Johnson, resident since 1962 and an employee of the City. He relayed an
incident wherein he assisted a citizen in a small manner but who was most
appreciative. Employees don't just do a job for the City, they serve the
City. They do their best with dedication and diligence day in and day out.
Bob Villalobas, Electrical Worker's Local 47. There are intangibles involved
in the Water Meter Shop Repair Contract. If anybody had a high bill
complaint, they could have had a test taken and the results given first hand.
Now a customer has to go to Santa Fe Springs to the contractors. He also
referred to the situation in the Water Meter Shop relative to temporary meter
replacements and because the contractor does not get to the job in a timely
fashion, the City is losing revenue. When Southern California Edison (SCE),
the largest electric utility, had revenue problems, the first thing they got
rid of were the contractors. They are doing everything they can to keep
employees on board.
Ofelia Murphy, 6577 E. Canyon Vista, Anaheim - 30 year employee. With
privatization, the losers are the citizens of Anaheim since they are the ones
who will be effected tremendously.
John Betag, President, Anaheim Police Association. He has served the City
proudly for 28 years. In the past two years he has watched some things happen
that are distasteful and alarming. He understands that much has to do with
economics. He has watched privatization at work and not at work in the County
and the State. The County is a good example of'how little services are
provided with privatization. Usually the only motivation is money. It is
necessary to take a very hard, diligent look at any actions and changes they
make and to look at the long-term effect of those changes in the City and the
ability to provide service to the public in the future. City employees are a
tremendous resource and too often they end up as adversaries rather than
partners. It is incumbent upon the City to allow the employees to be part of
the process if they are talking about privatization, delivery of service,
anything that effects how they serve the community. He urged that they not
put employees in an adversarial relationship. What the City may save today,
ten years from now may cost more money and they won't be able to go back
because it would ¢0~ ~00 much, They have an obligation to the employees to
consider their welfare as well.
Willy Stewart, 4056 Lombardy, Chino, Represent'ing IBEW Local 47. He urged
that the Council put an end to the privatization efforts in the City.
Anaheim's electric rate compared to Southern California Edison is 13~ percent
below Edisons. It is an important statistic and says it all. Utility
Department employees are a part of the reason why Anaheim's Utility rates are
lower than SCE. He then referred to articles contained in the SCE news
relative to productivity of their employees. Although they are very proud of
the employees who work for SCE, Anaheim employees do a lot better relative to
revenue produced per employee. He also relayed other statistics that serve to
show that Anaheim's Utility employees compare more favorably than other
Utilities in California in kw hours sold, customer service as well as other
areas. The employees should have the Council's congratulations and
603
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5.'00 P.M.
appreciation, not told that they are going to sell their jobs. The Utility
Department is not broken - do not try to fix it. What can and will happen,
they can break the department that is operating productively and efficiently
by contracting out their jobs. The figures are just as applicable to all of
the employees of Anaheim. Further, he does not believe the City is going to
recover the money spent on privatization studi'es. Anaheim is known as a fine
City nationwide. The employees have helped to establish that leadership role
as well as the leadership of the City. There is a commitment between
employees and management. They will not meet that commitment with'
contractors. He urged that they cast a vote for their employees and for their
City.
Mayor Hunter. The City is already contracting out over $125 million dollars
between the General Fund, Public Utilities Department and other areas.
Privatization is not the way for Governments to pay for operational deficits.
Selling the family silver to pay for current consumption is a terrible way to
handle a fiscal problem. The City used to have 2,200 employees but because of
the budget crisis is down to 1,900. The City cut 22.5 million dollars out of
the last budget. He believes it is time that they say enough is enough as far
as privatization. The first and foremost response they should have to the
budget problem is talking about what the last speaker said - public management
- public employees working together to identify and implement alternative
working conditions that will lead to greater efficiency rather than using
privatization as a hammer to force certain items on the bargaining table which
he totally disagrees with.
Mayor Hunter thereupon moved to direct the City Manager and City staff
including the Utilities Director and all people working in the City that they
indefinitely place a moratorium on any and all further privatization in the
City.
Before further action was taken, Council Member Ehrle stated as he had said
before that Public Employment should not be construed to guarantee anyone a
job for life. The Country is in a recession. He agrees that privatization
should not be used as a threat over the heads of public employees during
negotiations. There is already a great deal of privatization in Anaheim. The
quality of service given by City Employees is beyond reproach - it is the
Anaheim way. He wants to see that continue and will, therefore, second the,
Mayor' s motion.
Council Member Pickler. He is going to oppose the motion. He wants to stress
that they have been working with the AMEA and the unions trying to solve the
problems. He feels the City will also be losing many dollars when the State
budget is finally adopted. It is necessary to keep options open. He does not
want to lay anybody off and nothing should be used as a threat. If they close
the doors today relative to privatization, that option will no longer be
there. The ~ossibility is always there of a savings to the citizens of the
community in thousands of dollars. They can always change and go back to
hiring more people and eliminating the contractors. Ninety (90%) of the
contractors have done an excellent job. It is not being fair to the people
they represent if they do not keep their options open.
Council Member Daly then questioned the City Manager relative to the total
number of employees that have been terminated .or laid off versus the total
number of positions.
City Manager James Ruth. Dave Morgan will speak to the issue, but the City
was at 2,200 employees and is now approximately 1,900+ at this time. In the
604
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
last two years, they have abolished 142 full-time positions and an equivalent
of about 30 part-time hours that would be the equivalent of 30 full-time
positions so at least 172 positions over the last two years. Those are
positions - the number of employees that had to be actually terminated were
ten. Out of that, two were hired back, two took a voluntary termination and
the severance package so there were six that had to involuntary be terminated.
The way that was accomplished, management worked diligently with all the labor
unions in the City attempting to accommodate those employees and put them into
vacancies they had maintained in the last 2~ years. Thus, the impact was
minimized.
Dave Morgan, Human Resources Director. The total number actually laid off was
ten - two did come back. Approximately another forty came forward on their
own for voluntary severance which precluded the need for more people to go out
involuntary. Close to another 50 employees were impacted due to bumping,
reassignment and demotion. That is part of what the impact has been as well.
City Manager Ruth. Of the ten people, not all that was attributed to
privatization. Some were just cuts as well. He furthered explained for
Council Member Daly that the number of jobs contracted out/privatized in the
last two years were ten in the Water Meter Repair Shop, fifteen in the Cement
Crew, and in Maintenance, around fifteen. Further in the trades area, there
was a possibility of fifteen more employees being terminated. However, the
employees came in with a proposal of their own for the maintenance of City
Hall West, City Hall East, the Library and the Police Department. As a
result, they competed successfully with the private sector. He will be coming
back next week with a recommendation of retaining those services in house.
The same with the Meter Reader Proposal. Positions involved are fifteen in
the Building, Maintenance trades and approximately eleven in Utilities (Meter
Readers). It is a compliment to the employees to be able to look at those
operations and be more efficient and more competitive with the private sector.
The goal was to reduce costs, not eliminate employees.
Council Member Daly. He is asking some of the questions to illustrate what he
believes is a yoeman's job City Manager Ruth has done in the past couple of
years to balance the City budget. He is also very sensitive to the needs of
employees, he is careful and responsive. He does not think anyone can say he
(Ruth) is privatizing for the sake of privati~ing. He trusts Mr. Ruth to be
very careful and fair to the City's employees. He believes it would be a
mistake to tell him not to look for cost efficiency and productivity
improvements. He then read excerpts from the City Manager's report and
elaborated on the findings and recommendations. In concluding, he stated he
will be supporting the City Manager's recommendation while watching
privatization very closely. He has talked to employee representatives and
assured them there are many parts of City government that will not be
productive or fruitful for privatization. However, they owe it to the
citizens to find the best way to deliver services.
Council Member Simpson. The reason he is going to support the motion, he does
not like the term privatization as a philosophy for the City. If it had been
couched in terms of the recommendation made by City Manager Ruth that they
continue to study the potential of contracting out, he probably could have
been supportive. He has a feeling the City is divided along labor -
management lines and he has a problem with that. As he has said before, he
does not like to be cast in a position nor should Council be cast in a
position that supports management to the detriment of labor or vice versa. If
they are going to contract out, often times the people who have the most
expertise are the people who do the work. Those people do have good ideas,
605
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5.'00 P.M.
not to his surprise. They should continue to do that and never totally close
the door on anything. From a budgetary stand point, they do not know what the
State is going to do. The recession is not over and he does not believe'they
have even begun to turn the corner. He reiterated his problem is in the
philosophy of privatizing. Because of that difference in philosophy and the
connotation it gives to him, he will support the motion.
Mayor Hunter clarified that the motion is to have a moratorium on
privatization.
City Attorney White. Directing the City Manager to do that is tantamount to
directing other City staff and to avoid possible conflict with the City
Charter on interference with the manager, if the Mayor would deem his motion
to be a direction to the City to do that, the manager controls all of the
other non-Council appointee positions in the City which include the Utilities
Director.
Mayor Hunter. He will amend his motion to direct the City Manager and not
City staff.
Council Member Daly. He asked what the City Charter advises or requires in
terms of direction to the City administration in this area.
City Attorney White. He is not aware that there is a specific Charter
provision that would apply specifically to this particular area. The Council
and the public need to be mindful as a matter of general principal, the
Council cannot bind subsequent Councils indefinitely even though the motion is
framed in terms of indefinitely. Being a moratorium, the term indefinite is
exactly what it says - without a specific length of time. It could be the
next meeting or many years from now depending on what any five members deem it
to be. The Charter does not place a limitation in this area. It is a series
of limitations and not an impairment. Without that limitation, the motion
could be made and adopted but with a caveat that they need to be mindful that
this Council is not in a position to bind subsequent Councils.
Council Member Daly. He questioned then if this Council can direct the City
Manager not to pursue cost savings in certain areas; City Attorney White. He
does not believe the Council can do that and if that is the intent of the
motion it should be discussed. He did not hear that the motion was to direct
the City Manager not to study anything if he thought it would result in a cost
savings. He thought he heard it to be that it was directing the City Manager
to place a moratorium on any privatization in the City. He did not hear
anything directing the City Manager not to study anything in particular and
certainly if there was a cost savings involved.
Additional discussion and questioning took plave between Coun¢£1 Member Daly
and City Attorney White on the issue wherein Council Member Daly concluded the
way he interprets the word moratorium, it means to cease all activity and that
is the end of the discussion and consideration. He questioned then if that
was a way to run city government.
Mayor Hunter. What his motion said is to direct the City Manager to have an
indefinite moratorium on any further privatization.
Council Member Ehrle. He understands the City Manager always has the
responsibility to bring forth potential savings of many dollars by contracting
out and that those could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
606
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
City Manager Ruth. He stated that would be contrary to the Mayor's motion.
He would like to be able to do that, but he would then be in conflict with the
motion if he did so.
Council Member Pickler. Council Member simpson said earlier that the matter
is one of semantics and he does not like the term privatization as a
philosophy for the City. Perhaps there can be a substitute motion offered
since a moratorium closes the door on further opportunities.
Mayor Hunter. He has offered his motion and at this time is calling for the
question.
A roll call vote was then taken on the motion that the City Manager be
directed to place an indefinite moratorium on any further privatization in
this City and carrie~ by the following vote:
Ayes: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
Noes: Pickler and Daly
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:25 p.m.)
C3. 107: CONSIDERATION OF THE STREET VENDOR ISSUE:
Originally requested by a group of citizens (NOVA) and their concerns
presented at the meeting of August 11, 1992. At the August 11, 1992 meeting
after public input, staff was directed to submit regulations devised by a task
force that was formed when the issue was previously considered in 1989/1990.
The City Attorney was directed to prepare alternative ordinances to submit to
the Council for consideration. At the meeting of August 18, 1992 the item was
again discussed, and extensive public input received. Following the public
input, three alternate ordinances were introduced, Alternate A, B and C.
Alternate A- Amending Section 14.32.310 relating to vending of
merchandise/good by vehicle. (All street vending prohibited in residential
zones. )
Alternate B - Permitting street vending in residential zones but imposing
additional provisions.
Alternate C- Prohibit street vending in residential areas; permit in non-
r~id~ntial ar~a~ ~ubj~et to increased r~trietiong.
Mayor Hunter. In the last two weeks, the Council has heard over 3 hours of
public testimony concerning the vending issue. Even though the matter does
not require a public hearing, the City Council suspended its rules on the two
occasions limiting input to 3 minutes a person or 10 minutes total on the
subject. Much more time was given to those who wished to speak. While it is
the Council's intent to hear from anyone who wishes to speak again this
evening, discussion will be strictly limited on each side to a total of ten
minutes with that time being split however each side wishes to do so. The
City Clerk will advise when the time limit has expired.
The following people spoke in favor of the Ordinance (Ordinance No. 5330),
prohibiting street vending in residential areas, but permitting them in
non-residential areas subject to increase violations:
607
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Susan Kocsis. She discussed the matter with Bill Taormina who had
sent a letter to the Council urging that both sides meet and come to a
resolution of the issue. He (Taormina) wanted to know why NOVA did
not want to negotiate. When she told him exactly what the harassment
had been, his reaction was, "that is life threatening." She also told
him the vendors wanted to negotiate race and not the vendor issue. By
the time the phone conversation ended, Mr. Taormina had reversed his
position completely.
Connie Longmeyer. She would like to have the vendors removed from her
neighborhood. They are very noisy, dirty, park illegally and they do
not fit in where people live. She has seen several times that the
trucks are used by drug dealers to hide their drugs. She has told the
Police. The trucks are still there and she wants them moved now.
Ho Kum, representing the Korean/American Grocery's Association. He is
speaking on their behalf. Vendors work under a different standard
than the fixed businesses that have strict standards to follow. He
elaborated on the concerns with vendors such as trash that is left
behind, excepting food stamps for cigarettes and that street vendors
do not pay their fair share of assessments such as street cleaning and
taxes.
Edward Rodriguez, San Juan Market. He runs a legitimate, law abiding
business in Anaheim. They adhere to all health laws and tax
requirements. Their profits consist of what is left over after City,
State and Federal Agencies have been paid. As an Hispanic/American
citizen, he came to America to succeed by following all the rules.
Mark Thomas, 2130 Mallul. He finds the vendors a nuisance, offensive
to the senses and they leave a tremendous amount of litter on his
street. Over the past two weeks, the vendors have made a big effort
to clean that up, but he feels it will not last. Vendors do not
belong in residential areas. It is putting grocery stores on wheels
and setting up business. He does not know how the City Council even
allowed this to start. They do not belon~ in residential areas and
that is why the City has zoning.
It was here that a Benjamin Vargas spoke, but in opposition. His
comments are included with those in opposition.
Michael Blanco. This is a zoning issue only. He is from NOVA and
they do not condone or support any racist remarks whatsoever. They
regret any made by either side. Thig ig a quality of life issue. It
is putting the square peg of a commercial business in the circle of
residential. It does not fit. There is nothing to negotiate. They
are tired of being threatened, intimidated and harassed. For over
30 years, they have not had vendors in residential areas - why now.
He urged the Council when they vote tonight to do so on the zoning
issue only.
Chang Vu, Board Member, Korean Chamber of Commerce in Orange County.
He is urging adoption of the Ordinance banning vendors in residential
areas. The issue is very clear. The vending truck is a commercial
activity. It is hard to understand how a commercial activity is
allowed in a residential zone. He urged enforcement of the existing
zoning.
608
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Michael Brown. His father-in-law owns a liquor store in Anaheim.
This is not a racial issue. He has worked with Hispanics all day
long, everyday for eight years. He is tired of hearing the lawyer for
the vendors making it a racial issue. The people who are concerned
are residents. He does not know who the other people are. It is a
zoning issue. It does not make sense for vending trucks to be
operating in residential zones. They should not be there and it is
unfair competition to those with established places of business. He
thereupon submitted documents showing sales in 1989 and in 1992 for
the liquor store, the latter showing a substantial decrease. They
want the Council's positive vote on the issue and they want it
tonight.
The following people spoke in opposition to an ordinance that would prohibit
street vending in residential areas:
Salvador Samiento, Attorney, 950 W. 17th Street, Santa Ana. They are
talking about jobs. If the Council enacts an ordinance prohibiting
vending in residential areas, 115 people will be out of work. There
are laws against noise and trash. The problem has been one of
enforcement and lack thereof. NOVA members are saying they are afraid
to talk to the people because they have been threatened or harassed.
He offered to have them talk to him. They give innuendoes but no
facts. If somebody is threatening them, they should tell them. They
want to resolve the problem through mediation and negotiation. That
has not happened. Vendors have attempted twice to meet with NOVA.
That has failed. There are three ordinances to consider and if worse
comes to worse and the Council is going to act on one of three, the
vendors have indicated that they would be willing to live with
Alternate B, permitting street vending in residential zones, but
imposing additional provisions.
Benjamin Vargas, resident of Anaheim. He sees the argument on two
levels - one is economic and one seems to be racist. Some people do
not want competition and are forcing the other people who are working
and making an effort in contributing to the society out of town.
Tim Perlick, 6261 Courts Lane, Anaheim. Unemployment is the issue.
Hispanic unemployment is the highest of any ethnic group in Orange
County. He runs ice-cream trucks and such. There are more than 115
people that will be affected. There is a problem with enforcement.
John Poole's study cites over two-thirds of the problems are lack of
business license, push carts or health permits. No ordinance will
help those problem~.
Amin David. Option B is the most palatable and reasonable one. The
vendors have offered suggestions. They are very amenable to
increasing the fines and issuing bench warrants when these people do
not show up, they are amenable to impounding the trucks that are over
extending and breaking the rules of the ordinance. They are amenable
to painting the trucks sanctioned by Anaheim a particular color that
would give a visual approval that they are in the scope of the
ordinance. These were brought to the table that nobody shared with
them. They are asking for the Council's guidance and reasonableness.
He urged that they do not hurt one for the other. Both must be heard
and it is important to find that compromise.
609
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Sergio Rojas, Mexican Attorney in International Law. Speaking through
an interpreter he stated in this Country there is a tradition that the
right of the worker should be defended and moreso for the workers that
are the humble ones who look to resolve their own problems as well as
for those who need their business. They also pay taxes like the big
businesses. They give work to many people. They also have the right,
as has been resolved in various other cities in the United States, to
continue to work. He hopes that the vendors will have the right to
practice their business and not have their licenses suspended or
revoked.
City Clerk Sohl answered that the time frame for public input had just
expired.
Council Member Ehrle. Two weeks ago he said he would volunteer to head up a
task force. The Chamber offered their facility as a meeting place for NOVA
and the Hispanic vendors. There were two meetings, neither of which were
attended by anyone identified as being from the NOVA group. There was a
gentleman present to moderate the discussion and he is present this evening,
Mr. Rusty Kennedy, Executive Director for the Orange County Human Relations
Commission. He asked to hear from Mr. Kennedy and to share what could come
out of such meetings.
Mr. Rusty Kennedy, Director of the Orange County Human Relations Commission.
They offer an alternate dispute resolution program of mediation and
conciliation as an alternative to litigation. They were called to a meeting
on Thursday. Before he attended, he spoke to the people who were designated
as leaders and indicated he would be able to 6ffer a neutral third party
status at any location with a controlled number of people to allow some type
of dialogue to see if there was anyway a mutual agreement could be reached
where the interest of both sides could be served. The NOVA group declined to
attend for their own reasons - the same reasons reiterated tonight.
Representatives of HOME were also present. He spoke to them again on Monday
and the invitation extended to a number of individuals and again it was
declined on the part of one party so they were not able to conduct any formal
or informal conciliation. At the meeting, the representatives of the vendors
who were present expressed a willingness to compromise and bend and make
accommodations for all of the things that were identified as problem areas -
noise, trash, distance - even a restriction on zones where they could or could
not go. They were a fundamentally reasonable delegation that met looking for
new types of ways to negotiate a way that would help to police their group.
There were no illusions that they have control over everybody. He stands
ready if they wish as an organization to set up any type of session that would
be acceptable to the parties involved.
council Member Ehrle. The issue is one of government trying to meet and come
to some compromise among the people. Some of the suggestions that came out of
the meetings were that the vendors be permitted strictly in specific zones to
be determined by a task force but not in single-family detached residential
areas at all, they would not be permitted to use any noise devices,
restricting the length of time they could remain at the curb by reducing the
time from one hour to 1/2 hour, limiting what 'is sold to produce items which
was the original intent, no clothing, no cigarettes, citing "pirate" vendors
to the point where the vehicle could be impounded, etc. The vendors were
concerned about keeping their people. They want to be able to maintain their
private business even though very restricted. It is a matter of a recession
and jobs. It seems through compromise and further discussion the matter could
610
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINIF~ES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
be resolved. If not, the City is in for difficult times. It is necessary to
learn to live together.
Council Member Pickler. He is opposed. Everybody is "our people". It is not
their people or his people. It is not a racist issue, but a zoning issue and
an issue of neighborhood preservation and community protection. Workers have
their rights, but homeowners have their rights too. He does not believe they
should have street vendors roaming through residential neighborhoods. It is
necessary to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods and the
investment of the homeowners. Commercial activity should not be allowed in
residential areas. It is a straight forward issue. People have a right to
privacy in their homes. Vendor trucks do deteriorate an area - no matter who
is driving the trucks. Without question, he opposes allowing street vendors
in residential areas. He always has and always will. They should support the
homeowners and not the special interests.
Council Member Pickler thereupon offered Ordinance No. 5330 for adoption,
prohibiting street vending in residential areas, permitting them in
non-residential areas subject to increased restrictions.
ORDINANCE NO. 5330: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
14.32.310 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO SALE OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE BY VEHICLE.
Before action was taken, Council Member Daly stated it is primarily a zoning
issue for residential neighborhoods and the most important matter facing them
is taking steps to preserve neighborhoods for now and in the future. There is
a demand for the services that are being provided by street vendors. The City
is already spending a small fortune on Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement
staff has gone through years of frustration in attempting to police the
situation. A better solution is to attempt to nurture and encourage
neighborhood "mom and pop" stores that are now in the neighborhoods. They are
zoned as businesses or have a CUP to operate as a business. Vendors are in
competition with these stores. In residential areas were people live it is
necessary to keep them quiet, safe and free as possible of vehicular traffic.
Vending trucks add more traffic. If people need certain products and
services, the City Council should accommodate those in nearby retail zoning.
He cannot support vending trucks rolling through neighborhoods. Paramount is
to preserve the City's neighborhoods - the zoning, integrity and peace and
quiet of the residential neighborhoods. He agrees with Ordinance Alternate C.
Mayor Hunter. He has always felt there is room for compromise. He has talked
about the changing demographics in the City and the State. The life styles
are also changing. All people must work together. Present tonight are
Koreans, Caucasians, Latinos, etc. His neighborhood is multi-cultural. Some
people in NOVA say their minds are made up and they will not meet. He still
believes a task force should be put together to sit down and work out an
amenable compromise and come back to the Council with a recommendation. They
have got to start listening to each other. Whatever the Council does tonight,
the issue will not be put to bed. This issue is the most troubling since he
has been on the Council. It is not unique to the City of Anaheim. If they do
not start working together, he sees Mr. Kennedy's job getting bigger. He does
not understand why NOVA is not willing to come to the bargaining table. He
reiterated his belief that a task force should be formed and that
recommendations come back to the Council in 30-days.
Council Member Simpson. He does not like anything that does not bring a
resolution. He also ran his campaign on the side of the integrity of
611
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
neighborhoods. If there is not a willingness to meet now, perhaps there will
be a willingness if the ordinance is changed. The fact that an ordinance is
put in place does not mean it cannot be changed regardless of the action the
Council takes. His concern is on behalf of the integrity of neighborhoods
which he sees as a more pressing issue. He would hope that they will still
sit down and negotiate.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5330 for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 5330: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
14.32.310 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO SALE OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE BY VEHICLE.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Ehrle stated he was hoping there would
be a task force headed by Mr. Kennedy to at least come back beyond or before
the election. He would like to see two or three people representing each side
including Mr. Kennedy along with John Poole, the Code Enforcement Manager,
someone from the Police Department, etc., so that a brand new ordinance could
be devised that would do what he is attemptin~ to do - allow 116 to 140 people
to have employment but under very strict guidelines and preserve a way of life
for a group of people which is growing in the community. He was going to make
a substitute motion to assign a task force and perhaps within 30-days that
committee could come back with a fourth proposal that would tightly restrict
the vendors but would bring compromise on both sides.
Council Member Simpson. The ordinance does not go into affect for 30-days.
He questioned why he would still not try to put that task force together.
Council Member Ehrle. He asked Mr. Kennedy if he would be willing over the
next 30-days to work with the people and in 30-days report back any results.
No one from the Council will be sitting with the group.
Rusty Kennedy. He asked if that would include a City staff person.
Council Member Simpson. It would be more important to him that the people
from NOVA would be willing to sit down. If they do not agree to any kind of
change, the ordinance will go into affect in 30-days. He hopes they would not
take the position that "we have won" because nobody wins when there is no
resolution. He would hope that they will sit down and he will be most happy
to sit down in any kind of a mediation role he can play, to help bring some
resolution to the problem. He does not see what either side has to lose.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance and adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes: Simpson, Pickler and Daly
NOeS~ F. hrle and Hunter
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (8:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:31 p.m.)
D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-19 AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: The Fluor Family Trust, 4521 Perham Road, Corona Del Mar, CA
92625.
612
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
AGENT: Cecil C. Wright, 265 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 205, Orange, CA
92668.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1320-1382 Auto Center
Drive and is approximately 7.98 acres located at the southwest corner of
Auto Center Drive (formerly Taft Avenue) and Sanderson Avenue. The
request is for a change from the ML Zone to the CL Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 91-92-19 GRANTED (PC92-79) (5 yes votes, 2 no
votes) .
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the Fluor
Family Trust (agent, Cecil Wright) and public hearing scheduled and continued
from the meetings of August 11 and August 18, 1992 to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REOUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 30, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 30, 1992
Posting of property - July 31, 1992
City Clerk Sohl announced that a request has again been received from
Mr. Cecil Wright the agent for the applicant to continue the matter one
additional week to September 1, 1992.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present oppos, ed to a continuance of the
subject public hearing; there was no response.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 91-92-19 to Tuesday, September 1, 1992. Council Member
Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3523, CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
OWNER: Anaheim Country Inn, 856 S. Walnut Street, Anaheim, CA 92802.
AGENT: Salvation Army, 1300 S. Lewis Street, Anaheim, CA 92805.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 856 South Walnut Street
(Anaheim Country Inn) and is approximately 0.7 acre located at the
northeast corner of Beacon Avenue and Walnut Street. The request is to
permit a women's residential center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3523 GRANTED f for 18 months (PC92-85) (6 yes votes f 1
abstained) .
Informational item at the meeting of July 21, 1992, Item B6.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested
by Council Members Simpson and Hunter at the meeting of July 21, 1992 and
public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 13, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 13, 1992
Posting of property- August 14, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 29, 1992.
613
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Major David Boyd, Administrator, Salvation Army, Lewis Street, Anaheim. He
has administered the program at the Lewis Street facility for the last three
years. While they are not necessarily in a residential neighborhood, they
have had very little difficulty or problems in that neighborhood. He has
experience dealing with medical and social models of recovery programs and is
experienced in administering centers in residential neighborhoods..Of those in
residential neighborhoods, they have had no problem with neighbors. They have
a women's program in the Sunset District in san Francisco which he
administered a few years ago with no problems. They keep their facilities in
good repair and do periodic upgrades. Their programs also have a good
recovery and success rate in Orange County where there are 100,000 women who
are addicted to alcohol and drugs. There are 50 beds solely dedicated for
women. What they are proposing is basically concentrating on women's
addiction. Their programs are not supported by tax dollars. They are
supported by the sale of goods in their thrift stores. The use they are
seeking in the house on Walnut Street is residential and it is not changing
the use of that facility as it stands and as it has been used today. It is
going to be used as a residents for women. He would like to have some people
give testimony as to what has happened to them.
The following people spoke giving testimony on the help they received and how
their lives were positively turned around through the Salvation Army and their
programs dealing with those addicted to alcohol and drugs.
Bob Tucker, Brian Bradford and Jim Turista.
Lois Allen, Lieutenant Colonel with the Salvation Army. She has been with the
organization for 40 years. She and her husband give direction to the adult
rehabilitation centers in the area. They recently purchased property in
Perris in Riverside County. They have four women's programs at this time.
Her task is to monitor women's programs. All four are in houses. They look
for a home in a neighborhood. It is difficult' to find a house for 12 or 15
women. They ask the women to make a 6-month commitment to the program. They
assist with family issues, physical problems, medical care, etc. They also
offer counseling services. It is important for the women to be in a house or
a home setting where they do some of the cooking and chores. None of the
programs house men and women in the same facility. The house on Walnut Street
is their kind of house. They move into neighborhoods that are appropriate and
safe. She emphasized that they are not in the program for the money - it is a
Salvation Army Service. It is a continuation of the service they have been
doing for oYer 100 year~. All of the women would be in the employ of the
Salvation Army in a work therapy program, 8 hours a day in the Army's
Rehabilitation Center. They would be transported to the center and brought
back to the home.
Paul Delaney, Salvation Army, Territorial Consultant. He was the director of
the men's program on Lewis Street. He briefed the Council relative to the
program and talked about addiction in general. Their program has tight rules
and is highly structured. It is well supervised. There is a restriction on
visitors and there are rules and regulations. They meet the needs of the
community. They provide an intervention before it starts costing the City
money.
Captain Southard, Administrator of the Adult Rehabilitation Center in San
Bernardino. They have had a number of experiences with residences located in
neighborhoods. They have a 67 bed residence Located in a neighborhood in San
614
C_it¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Bernardino County. There are no problems with the neighbors at all. They try
to be good neighbors. The center in Long Beach is located in its entirety in
a neighborhood. That particular residence is a highlight of the neighborhood.
He supports having a women's facility in Anaheim.
Barbara Ward, Real Estate Broker and Anaheim resident for 18 years. She is a
limited partner in Anaheim Country Inn, the current use of the property, and a
real estate broker who represented the owners when they purchased the house in
1983 and also the broker when they sold the property to the current purchaser.
The property is a stately Queen Anne Victorian built in 1910. When her
clients bought it in 1983, they wanted to make it a bed and breakfast and had
to go through the same process. The neighbors were concerned. The Council
approved the use and the owners have been good neighbors and a good business
for Anaheim. The property has been on the market for over a year. The buyer
who finally came to the table was the Salvation Army and she believes they are
going to be a good neighbor for the property as well. They will be caring and
responsible.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR.'
None
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN OPPOSITION:
William Penn, 1198 Beacon Street (southeast corner - Walnut and
Beacon). The current owners are good neighbors. Before they
bought the house, they talked to all of the neighbors and got
signatures on petitions. They first sold everyone in the
neighborhood that they would be good neighbors and the use of the
property would be beneficial not only to them but also to the
neighbors. The residents received cards announcing the public
hearing before the Planning Commission less than a week before the
hearing. It only indicated women's residence center and said
nothing about drug or alcohol rehabilitation. In spite of the
short notice, 50 people were present from the neighborhood at the
Planning Commission meeting which started at 1:30 p.m. By the
time the issue was heard at 4:30 or 5:00, many had to leave. The
neighbor's presentation was impromptu and not a polished
presentation as the Salvation Army. Such rehabilitation centers
should remain in a commercial zones where many are now located.
Th~£~ i~ a compact n~i~hborhood. They are all frisndg. There ig
already a home for developmentally disabled adults as well as an
old folks home nearby. They are doing their share. They are
concerned that this being a women's home, there will be men coming
to look for those residing there whether husbands, boyfriends,
brothers or whoever. The Council granted the central city area a
respite by not approving high density developments. They are
asking for similar treatment. He urged that they not bring a
problem to their neighborhood.
Susanne Dehut, 1178 W. Beacon. The issue is not the program the
Salvation Army offers but the location. She called the Salvation
Army to get more information before the Planning Commission
hearing and her questions were answered. However at the hearing,
she heard a lot of discrepancies with what the Salvation Army said
the facility was going to be. She then briefed the Council on
615
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5.'00 P.M.
those discrepancies. She also posed additional questions and
concerns. There are no other such homes like this in the Anaheim
area and thus they do not have access to direct experience with
those located in residential areas. They do not want to invite an
unsavory element into their neighborhood. They are fighting gangs
in their area. They bought their homes in a quiet, residential
neighborhood. The bed and breakfast as it is now does not need to
be upgraded. If they approve the request, she will have to say
she lives four doors down from a drug and rehabilitation center.
This is asking too much of a family neighborhood.
Larry Rogalla, 1184 Beacon. His concern as well as his neighbors
is real estate values. He contacted two appraisers and in both
cases they stated that there would be an adverse affect on
property values with a facility dealing with drug rehabilitation.
If they sell their homes, it is a law that they must inform the
buyer of any adverse conditions. The presence of the home would
have to be disclosed. Another issue to consider, is one of income
to the City. They are concerned that in giving up the bed and
breakfast facility which generates property tax, bed tax and sales
tax, the proposed facility will not produce any income for the
City.
Doctor Eric A. Pearlman, 1179 W. Beacon (29 year resident,
25 years three doors directly behind the Anaheim Country Inn). He
has seen a number of occupants come and go from the house but none
as lovely and quiet as the Anaheim Country Inn. Their quality of
life will be threatened by a substance abuse rehabilitation
facility. They already have a home for developmentally disabled
adult men and a board and care home three doors away. He
thereupon submitted a petition signed by 128 residents of the area
opposed to the Salvation Army Substance Abuse Facility being
established in their neighborhood.
Paul VanWagenen, 1185 W. Hampshire. He applauds the efforts of
the Salvation Army but the facility does not belong in a
residential neighborhood. If it is such a great idea to have them
in residential areas, they should be able to show facts how it
improves property values. They say they will not cause problems
and he believes them but they do not have control over other
people's lives. When buying their home, they mapped out streets
they could afford which was very limited. Hampshire is a great
neighborhood and they want to keep it that way. He agrees with
Council Members Pickler and Daly from the previous hearing that
residential areas should be protected and preserved as well as the
investment of the homeowners, the preservation of the
neighborhoods and to ensure peace and quiet.
Council Member Simpson stated he ran on .the integrity of
neighborhoods. He hopes that the Council will vote in the same
manner.
SUMMATION BY
APPLI CANT ~
Major Boyd. They sent out 142 invitations to the neighborhood and
people involved to attend in Open House so they could discuss the
issue and demonstrate what they do at their facility on Lewis
616
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Street and only two people came. The women are screened for the
program. There are rules and regulations for the house. There is
a curfew which is involved. If they cannot control people, they
are then referred to another program. They are trying to change
attitudes in the program and change the way that addicts live and
look at life and go on from there. They have had a high success
rate.
Council Member Daly then posed questions to Major Boyd relative to visitation
restrictions, that there be none at all should the permit be granted as well
as questions regarding the source of funds which support the program.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Council Member Pickler. He remembered people fighting the bed and breakfast
when it was proposed, but it turned out well. This would be a conditional use
permit and if there is something that the neighborhood cannot tolerate, the
Council would know immediately. If there was something detrimental to the
use, the CUP could be brought back for a hearing to show cause why it should
not be revoked. He has been to the operation on Lewis Street and it is a
beautiful facility. He feels the proposal for the Walnut Street house is a
good use and a plus to the neighborhood. A facility like this is very
important. If they become bad neighbors, he will be the first to bring the
issue forward.
Council Member Ehrle. This is a decision, no matter what it may be, that will
effect lives. He applauds the Salvation Army for all the work they do
throughout the community. However, tonight he is moved to vote against the
CUP because of what he has heard at this meeting. The bed and breakfast
facility has been zoned that way for many years. It is two blocks away from
the commercial recreation area. It has been a successful operation in the
past. He feels there is a place for the type of facility proposed but this
location is not appropriate. There are many ~omes on major streets on the
fringes of residential areas. The neighbors have pointed out that they
already have other community care facilities in their neighborhood and have
done their share. He feels it will affect property values and the area.
There is a need, the house is a great old home, but the Salvation Army must
find a more appropriate location.
Council Member Daly. With the new ownership, he feels the house may be
maintained in a better fashion than otherwise. They cannot predict what any
other owner might do in the future. He is counting on the Salvation Army to
be good neighbors and to preserve and protect the home as well as the
neighborhood. The Lewis Street facility is the best looking on the street.
He is counting on them to preserve the house just as nice or nicer than it has
been preserved and if not, the permit will be back again in 18 months or
sooner if there are any problems. He is willing to give them 18 months to
prove to the neighborhood and the City that the home will be better in the
future. He will be supporting the conditional use permit.
Mayor Hunter. It goes back to neighborhood integrity. This is a great
program but the wrong location. He has been to the bed and breakfast many
times. He knows as he drives around the City, there is the Spencer House on
Ball Road, the Hope House on Anaheim Boulevard and other programs throughout
the City. He worked drugs and alcohol for ten years in the City as a Police
Officer. He encouraged the Salvation Army to contact City staff, perhaps
Lisa Stipkovich to find a location that is not. so centralized in a residential
area. The house is located in a totally residential area. He has a problem
617
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
with that and feels there is a more appropriate location for the facility. He
will be voting against the conditional use permit.
Council Member Simpson stated he will also be voting against the conditional
use permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council
Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the City Council determined
that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01
Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-185)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered the Resolution to approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 3523; City Attorney White asked for clarification if the offering
is to include the additional condition incorporating the representations made
in the letter received by the Salvation Army dated August 21, 1992, especially
that visitors will not be allowed at the residence at all.
Council Member Pickler indicated that is also to be included.
A roll call vote was then taken on the resolution to approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 3523 and failed to carry by the following vote:
Ayes: Daly and Pickler
Noes: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-185 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 3523. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-185: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3523.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-185 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-185 duly passed and adopted.
127: CONSIDERATION OF PROHIBITING MEMBERS FROM SERVING ON BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS IF RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL:
Council Member Pickler. He first noted that Bob Zemel, a member of the City
Planning Commission was present in the Chamber audience and asked if he would
come forward. He wanted to know whether or not Mr. Zemel, who is running for
City Council, was going to stay on the Planning Commission even though seeking
a Council seat. He recalls talking to Mr. Zemel explaining that he had
concerns with anybody running for Council if serving on boards and commissions
and that they should remove themselves. He (Zemel) concurred and said he was
not going to run. However, he is now running. He (Pickler) can bring the
618
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
matter before the Council to determine what the Council wishes to do. He
asked Mr. Zemel if he still felt the same way.
Bob Zemel. In his opinion, the relationship between a Planning Commissioner
and Council has to be of the highest regard. There has to be trust,
confidence and they have to coexist. It has to go both ways. With all due
respect, when he was appointed, he made calls to every Council Member to try
to set up a meeting and they did not connect.
Council Member Pickler. Perhaps they did not meet, but they talked. A
perception is there and he does not feel it looks right. He asked if
Mr. Zemel is saying he will not step down.
Mr. Zemel questioned if Council Member Pickler was asking him to step down
because a Planning Commissioner should not run for City Council; Council
Member Pickler answered no. However, in 1991, Council Member Simpson and the
rest of the Council felt that way. He found the ordinance he was going to
bring forward at that time.
Bob Zemel. They did not have a meeting. He asked for clarification if
Council Member Pickler was saying that they met or discussed the matter over
the phone and at that time, Council Member Pickler indicated to him that a
Planning Commissioner should not run for City Council; Council Member Pickler
again answered no, but to run for City Council', if they are on a board or
commission, they should step down.
Bob Zemel. He stated he never spoke to Council Member Pickler as to whether
he would run or not. He knows that Council Member Pickler voted against his
appointment to the Planning Commission. If a conversation took place between
he and Council Member Pickler, it was subsequent to that and he never made a
commitment as to what his intentions were.
Council Member Pickler. There was no commitment. What he wants to do at this
time is set for discussion at the next meeting the possibility of reviewing
what the Council talked about before. It was his understanding the majority
felt the same way - that the City Charter should prohibit any member of boards
and commissions from running for City Council.
Council Member Ehrle. He asked who voted for it; Council Member Pickler
stated there was no vote. He then asked Council Member Simpson if he
remembered the conversation. He (Pickler) still feels the perception is there
and they should eliminate any perception of any wrong doing.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to agendize consideration of an
ordinance that would prohibit any member of a board or commission from running
for Council. Council Member Daly seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Hunter asked if. the motion was to discuss
whether or not a Planning Commissioner should or should not be allowed to run
for Council or just what they were going to discuss.
Council Member Pickler. At the meeting of September 10, 1991, he moved that
an ordinance be drafted which would provide any board or commission member who
files nomination papers would be deemed to have automatically vacated his or
her seat on the respective board or commission. It does not appear from the
minutes that any action was taken. He has had prepared an ordinance for
Council consideration similar to the one adopted on June 6, 1972 which was
subsequently challenged in court and upheld. However, the ordinance was
619
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
repealed in 1974. He would like to agendize the matter - the perception is
there and they should clear the air.
Council Member Simpson. He is at a loss relative to the perception issue;
Council Member Pickler. That dollars and cents are changing hands - the
possibility of not being able to function as a commissioner who is out raising
funds and maybe having to abstain.
Council Member Simpson. He would be more comfortable if the Council did not
do this so obviously in the middle of an election cycle. He noted that
Council Member Pickler was on the Orange County Planning Commission when he
ran for City Council. People have run from the School Boards and from the
Planning Commission. He reiterated it seems so blatantly evident to do this
in the middle of an election cycle. He would feel better if it were done
after that time and ~e might be supportive.
Mayor Hunter asked for clarification on what they are going to agendize.
City Attorney White answered to agendize for Council consideration the
ordinance previously drafted by his office and submitted to the Council that
would effect an automatic resignation by a member of the Planning Commission
who files nomination papers for City Council. It would prohibit a person
running for Council at the same time that person serves on boards or
commissions of the City once nomination papers are filed and that they would
vacate their board or commission seat.
Mayor Hunter. He recalled that Council Member Pickler and Council Member
Kaywood supported Charlene LaClaire for City Council, and at the time,
Mrs. LaClaire was Chairman of the City Planning Commission.
After further discussion and exchange between .Council Members, a vote was
taken on the motion to agendize consideration of an ordinance that would
prohibit a person running for City Council at the same time that person is
serving on a City board or commission once nomination papers are filed and
failed to carry by the following vote:
Ayes: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
Noes: Pickler
Abstained: Daly
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the Council meeting was adjourned.
(9:55 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
620