1991/04/02City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Ehrle
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Aghjayan
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER: Dale Pohlman
POWER RESOURCES: Dave Cook
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
SENIOR REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Richard Santo
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:40 p.m. on March 29, 1991 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle opened the Council meeting, the first order of business
being the workshop portion, for two presentations.
UPDATE ON I5 WIDENING AND STATUS - MEASURE #M# FUNDS:
City Manager James Ruth introduced Mr. Stan Oftelie and Lisa Mills,
representatives of the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) who will
give an update on the I-5 Widening and status of Measure M funds. (Measure M
was voted on favorably by the electorate in the November 6, 1990, election
approving a 1/2 percent sales tax to be devoted to transportation and
transitway improvement projects).
Mr. Stan Oftelie, Orange County Transportation Commission. (Documentation was
submitted in booklet form entitled, Measure M - made a part of the record). He
first referred to page 2 of the booklet which was the single page included in
the voters pamphlet. It is the guideline which they have to use for spending
Measure M monies over the next 20 years. For Anaheim's specific interest, in
the freeway portion of the plan, 3/4 of all funds are being spent within the
corporate limits of Anaheim or 970 million to 1 billion dollars. In general
terms, even though Anaheim represents approximately 10% of the population
involved, the guideline approved by the voters indicate approximately 1/3 of
the entire program will be spent in Anaheim. Anaheim has an investment in
Measure M that transcends all other communities.
Mr. Oftelie's presentation (supplemented by slides) was an explanation of the
data contained on pages 3 through 11 of the documentation submitted and what
has thus far been accomplished. (Issues briefed were Measure M local
jurisdiction apportionment estimates for the cities and county portions
185
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
involved, streets and roads program eligibility requirements, action plan
summary, purchase of Old Pacific Electric right-of-way, commuter rail expansion
and high tech rail, growth management and congestion management and an early
action plan status report). He noted in closing that the Santa Ana Freeway
will be the number one priority within the freeway priorities, i.e., Interstate
5 fast track design of I-5/I-405 confluence (the E1 Toro Y) and I-5 portion of
right-of-way for the segment between SR57 and SR91.
Lisa Mills, Director of Planning and Programming, OCTC. She is pleased to give
the Council an overview relative to I-5 Improvements and right-of-way
acquisition. (Her presentation was supplemented by slides). Since the 1980's,
I-5 has been the County's number one priority. Her presentation covered the
history of I-5 funding, the Measure M expenditure plan, the charge of the I-5
ROW (right-of-way) six-member task force, the parcel takes that will be
required for the improvement/widening, the difficulties/complexities involved
with right-of-way acquisition, acceleration of right-of-way acquisition, etc.
In terms of being able to meet schedules, three things are necessary, the
completion of the environmental document, the final design and the funding.
The EIR has received certification as of two days ago and the record of
decision on the document will be May 15, 1991. On May 15, they can start
buying property along I-5. In concluding, she briefed the project schedule and
what would happen under different funding scenarios.
At the conclusion of both presentations, questions were posed by Council
members revolving around the Cal Trans commitment through the 1990's to keep
putting money into the widening project from the I-5 to the 22, whether
Measure M monies will be used to correct construction deficiencies in
interchanges off the I-5 and what can be done to accelerate such improvements,
whether transitway interchanges will be provided to serve high occupancy
vehicles attracted to the Anaheim Stadium Business Center and the City's C-R
area, the possibility of getting people mover funds, etc.
Further discussion and questioning of both Mr. Oftelie and Ms. Mills followed
wherein they relayed the following: The success they have had in attracting
money into Orange County from various sources is the attractiveness of the I-5
Project, not only locally but also on a statewide basis. Cal Trans has no
commitment greater than the funds being ear marked for the I-5. It is a prime
project in the state if not the premier project. Cal Trans is committed and in
the strategic plan this is going to be the number one project. They have
accelerated schedules on the project tremendously from 7 years to 4 years and
11 months for the first segment so that they can open up the portion in the
Disneyland area. Relative to expediting interchange projects, in Irvine they
worked with Cal Trans to pull a particular interchange and accelerated design
on their own. Those interchanges have been built much sooner. Relative to
transitways, Cal Trans has agreed to pick up the transitway portion up to
Pacifico which would pay for construction. Relative to obtaining people mover
funds, 340 million dollars is allocated for a high tech advanced guide way. It
is in direct competition with the Six-City Monorail project. How it is divided
will make a difference. The Anaheim people mover is in the document but will
have to 'slug it out' with other projects.
186
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle and Council members thanked Mr. Oftelie and Ms. Mills for
their informative presentation.
175: PRESENTATION - SAN JUAN UNIT ~4: Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities
General Manager. Dale Pohlman, Assistant General Manager, Power Resources and
Dave Cook, Power Resources, are present and will make the presentation
regarding the proposed purchase and participation agreement for San Juan
Generating Station Unit #4.
Dale Pohlman, Assistant General Manager, Power Resources. The Utilities
Department is requesting approval of three agreements as well as approval to
start preparing financing documents for a 10% share of San Juan Generating
Station Unit ~4 in Northwestern New Mexico. This will be requested at the 5:00
p.m. portion of the Council meeting (see Item Al8 under City Council Agenda
this date). Submitted were hard copies of documents presented as slides during
Mr. Pohlman's presentation (see, City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department,
San Juan Unit $4 presentation, file ref 175 - made a part of the record). The
presentation covered the City's existing power resources, options available and
recommended resource acquisition strategies to meet Anaheim's needs through the
late 1990's. Mr. Pohlman also explained what the agreement between Anaheim and
Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) would entail, cost involved, the
extensive analysis that took place relative to San Juan Unit #4 and the results
which showed that the unit is in very good condition mechanically and operating
with no major flaws that would unnecessarily expose the City to financial
risk. Before concluding, he explained the risks involved. Public Service
Company of New Mexico is presently in poor financial condition. The sale would
assist them. If they were to file bankruptcy before the deal is closed, the
City would have the option of getting out of the project. If after, it may
impinge on the City's ability to do a reasonable financing job. The City could
again get out of the project. One of the other "risks", they are going to be
buying the project a couple of years ahead of need. As to why they are doing
so, the seller has made that a condition of the deal - they need the cash now.
The Utilities Department/City have done a good job of protecting themselves but
the Council should be aware of those points.
At the conclusion of Mr. Pohlman's presentation, questions were posed by
Council members which were answered by Mr. Pohlman and Mr. Cook.
The workshop presentations were then concluded.
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.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
187
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
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. (4:10 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council
meeting. (5:40 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Pastor Jarrell Garsee, Anaheim First Nazarene, gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Simpson led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PRESENTATION - NEW MISS ANAHEIM/MISS AMERICA - JILL NIEMELA: Earline Jones,
Director, Miss Anaheim/Miss America Pageant introduced the new Miss
Anaheim/Miss America, Jill Niemela.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle and Council Members welcomed and congratulated Miss Niemela
on having been crowned Miss Anaheim/Miss America and wished her well in the
forthcoming competition for Miss California in June. Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle
presented Miss Niemela with flowers.
119: DECLARATION OF WELCOME AND CONGRATULATIONS: A declaration of welcome and
congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to
Frank Feldhaus, Jr., member of the Golden Oldies Softball Team, welcoming all
the participants of the Golden Oldies Softball Festival and congratulating them
on their efforts to enhance international sports competitions. Mr. Feldhaus
was accompanied by Barbara Nierman from New Zealand representing that country's
softball team in the United States.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A declaration recognizing Federation of
Women's Club Day in Anaheim, April 24, 1991, was unanimously adopted and
ratified by the City Council recognizing the outstanding contributions of the
General Federation of Women's Clubs to the community.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Pro Tem
Ehrle and authorized by the City Council:
Weight Loss Month in Anaheim, April, 1991
188
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS: A declaration of
recognition and congratulations recognizing James W. Hund, Equipment Mechanic
in the Maintenance Department upon his retirement from the City following 34
years of service. Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle and Council members congratulated
Mr. Hund who was accompanied by his wife. The Mayor Pro Tem and Council
members commended Mr. Hund on his long and dedicated service to the City and
its citizens.
MINUTES: Council Member Simpson moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned
regular meeting of January 8, 1991 (held January 15, 1991) and regular meeting
of February 26, 1991 and March 5, 1991. Council Member Pickler seconded the
motion. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,072,649.30 for the week
ending March 22, 1991 and $9,983,270.04 for the week ending March 29, 1991, in
accordance with the 1990-91 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle recessed the City Council meeting until after the
Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:40 p.m.)
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:43 p.m.)
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos.
91R-89 through 91R-99, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance Nos. 5208 and
5209 for adoption and Ordinance No. 5211 for introduction.)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions
and ordinances. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, 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 Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 91R-89 through 91R-99, both inclusive, for adoption.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 5208 and 5209 for adoption and
Ordinance No. 5211 for introduction. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
City Manager Ruth also announced that there are two additional items to be
acted upon as part of the Consent Calendar relating to resolutions Opposing
Senate Bill 144 and Opposing Assembly Bill 1819 (Items A33 and A34).
He noted that citizens were also present to speak on Item Al5.
Al. 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 Jeffrey D. White Sr. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 17, 1990.
189
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Joseph and Nancy Jerus for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 15,
1990.
c. Claim submitted by Doris Marie Markle for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 14,
1990.
d. Claim submitted by Sal H. Almilli for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 27, 1991.
e. Claim submitted by Magnolia School District for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 10, 1991.
f. Claim submitted by Tricia Tyner for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 19, 1990.
g. Claim submitted by Sergio Rodriguez Reyes for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 4, 1990.
h. Claim submitted by Betty Hoffman for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 25, 1990.
i. Claim submitted by Lonnie Banuelos for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 9,
1991.
j. Claim submitted by Jeffrey Powell for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 9, 1991.
k. Claim submitted by Jean Bill for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about January 11, 1991.
1. Claim submitted by Campanula Properties, Inc. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 15, 1991.
m. Two claims submitted by Charlotte Dubos for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 13, 1990.
n. Claim submitted by Jack Dubos for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about September 13, 1990.
o. Claim submitted by Antonio Valdez for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 20, 1990.
p. Claim submitted by Anaheim City School District for indemnity
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 7, 1991.
q. Claim submitted by Joshua Chidekel & Andrew Strickland for bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 27, 1990.
190
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
r. Claim submitted by George R. Ekovich for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 4, 1990.
s. Claim submitted by Boyd M. Johnson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1990.
t. Claim submitted by Liling Chen for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 9, 1991.
u. Claim submitted by Wendy Weisel-Bosworth for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 5, 1991.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council
meetings held October 25, 1990, and January 24, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting
held February 14, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held
February 14, 1991.
107: Receiving and filing the Statistical Report Summary ending February 28,
1991, submitted by the Building Division.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meetings held
February 21, 1991, and March 14, 1991.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance
Analysis report for the month of February, 1991.
178: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 8312 from the Board of Directors of
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, urging immediate
adoption of State and local regulations to reduce water use.
148: Receiving and filing a Notice of Public Hearing (to be held April 22,
1991, 9:00 a.m.) regarding Orange County Transit District's proposed potential
changes in fares.
A3. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
R.J. Noble Company, in the amount of $350,845.92 for Harbor Boulevard Street
Improvement.
A4. 158: Authorizing the payment of $16,772.16 to James E. Perkins Jr., for
additional modifications to his building located at 311 North Anaheim Boulevard
- North Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening project (R/W 3500-2).
A5. 158: Authorizing the payment of $17,586 to Dorothy Gallardo and Herman R.
Gallardo, for additional modifications to their building located at 775 North
Anaheim Boulevard - North Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project
(R/W 3500-43).
191
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991t 5=00 P.M.
A6. 158= Authorizing the payment of $7,994.64 to the owner, William C.
Taormina, pursuant to agreement on file, for the cost of replacement of the
sign located at 401 North Anaheim Boulevard - North Anaheim Boulevard Street
Widening project (R/W 3500-4).
A7. 159= Authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute the Pavement
Management System Certifications.
A8. 170= Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 14072 and the Subdivision
Agreement with Baldwin Building Contractors, LTD., and authorizing the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Tract No. 14072 is located at the
southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Oak Canyon Road, and is filed in
conjunction with Variance No. 3991 and Specific Plan No. SP88-2.
Ag. 151= Approving an Encroachment License Agreement (91-1E) with Orange
County Water District for eight water monitoring wells at various locations in
Anaheim.
Al0. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5208 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 18.02.034 OF CHAPTER 18.02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (establishing interim zoning).
All. 173: ORDINANCE NO. 5209 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADDING CHAPTER 14.60 TO TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING FACILITY STANDARDS TO BE MET BY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENTS PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 14.60.040.
Al2. 123: Accepting the low bid of, and authorizing the execution of an
Agreement with Jack R. Winn, dba Western Counties Maintenance Company, for a
period of 19 months, commencing April 1, 1991, in the amount of $359,138 (plus
charges for added services and bonus clause) for custodial services at various
city-wide locations, in accordance with bid #4925.
Al3. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue change orders to Xerox
corporation and Eastman Kodak Corporation to allow for increased maintenance
and copy costs as negotiated annually, through fiscal year 1993/94 for copiers
located in Reprographics, Community Development, Police Department, and
Convention Center.
A14. 123: Approving an Agreement with R. W. Beck and Associates, at a cost of
$418,000 for the development, installation and purchase of a Power Scheduling
and Forecasting Computer System, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board
at their meeting of March 21, 1991.
A15. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A DROUGHT SURCHARGE.
Mr. John Passarelo, 2474 West Orange, Anaheim. He is the owner of Bluebell
Nursery which he started 33 years ago. The proposal under this item is a
192
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
tripling of water rates. (He also referred to Item A2 on the agenda today
which is a letter from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) notifying the City
that the MWD adopted a resolution urging immediate regulations to reduce water
use attached to which was a copy of the resolution). Mr. Passarelo referred
specifically to Item 2, page 2 of the resolution which urged each Agency within
the MWD service area to undertake an aggressive public information program to
inform consumers of the need to conserve and eliminate unnecessary water uses.
The subject proposal is asking for a drought surcharge. He conceded that there
is a tremendous drought problem and nobody suffers more than agriculture.
Anaheim has no more farmers but hundreds of little nurserymen, strawberry
growers and Christmas tree growers. The proposed rate schedule is a tremendous
increase in everybody's water bill. Whatever meter size someone has, they will
be classified by how much water they use. He called MWD in Los Angeles today
and next Monday and Tuesday there is going to be a meeting of MWD people. They
are going to add to water entitlements. Anaheim has been cut 50% which will
now be cut only 30%. They also told him that relative to what Anaheim is
doing, that no agencies they are familiar with use meter size and tripling of
rates as a way to conserve but are going back to last years' use asking
everybody to take off 10%, 20% or 30% or going back to 1987. It is across the
board for everybody. He then explained in his interpretation how the rate
increases will work in Anaheim and how they will affect the various classes.
In concluding, he asked that (1) the item be tabled until after the MWD meeting
next week in order to know the outcome, (2) if the matter is not tabled, that
someone else look at the rates again to determine if this is punitive on
consumers by tripling the rates. He agrees that water is no longer cheap.
Answering Council Member Daly, Mr. Passarelo explained his concern is that the
idea is to beat the consumer over the head with money out of their pockets to
force conservation. Before asking them to conserve, they have not set a
conservation level. Nobody has used meter size or money to punish over use but
have set a rate first. What he would suggest, he would pick a figure of 80%.
Then everybody for the next year or billing period will be allowed to use 80%
of what they have formally used and anything above that will be charged extra.
Mr. Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid, Anaheim. He would like to think he is
representing the single-family resident on a three quarter inch water line.
The issue is whether to emphasize conservation or consumption. In Anaheim, he
feels they are speaking to the issue of conservation and having a conservation
department while they have a pricing policy which encourages, consumption. He
has done a considerable amount of work on the issue. (He submitted some data
to the City Council). He broke down all the various rates for certain
categories, one being single family. If on a 2' water line looking at the
current rate per acre foot, the more water used, the cheaper the unit cost
because the customer charge is now being amortized over a larger number of
units that are being used which clearly encourages people to consume.
Comparing the residential consumer with industrial, municipal and multi-family,
the latter-are being subsidized by the residential consumer, as they have been
for many years. Even though the rates are going to go up, instead of the curve
going down for the cost of a unit, an acre foot, the cost is going to level out
and the consumer will be paying a proportional rate for consumption of water
and not a regressive rate which is in effect now. In his mind, they should be
doing what is best for conservation. He believes the City Council should
193
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
approve the resolution today and later on as they progress, even if the drought
ends, he personally feels the whole thing should be scrapped, revised and to
start over. A municipality should have a pricing system everybody can clearly
understand that has no relationship to the size of the line they are on. He
reiterated, the Council should approve this today. At least it gives the
public an idea they are willing to conserve. He confirmed for Council Member
Daly he is recommending that the resolution be approved, but that the Council
revisit the pricing structure later.
Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. There will be no tripling of
rates. There is one block that gets tripled because there are three layers of
the surcharge. The idea is trying to encourage people who have already, or are
willing to conserve, discouraging the large users and giving them an incentive
to conserve. There are three reasons for the surcharge - (1) to pay for the
cost of water conservation programs. Utilities is currently planning on
spending 2.5 million dollars over the next twelve months on conservation
efforts. (2) provide economic incentives and disincentives. It does not
amount to a tripling but about a 10% to 12% increase in total revenues. The
surcharge does not even kick in until 15 units per month. If using 20 units
per month which is average (14 in winter, 25 to 28 in summer) if a customer
cuts back 25%, their bill will decrease about 13%. If the bill goes up, it
will give the customer a signal. By showing samples, he then made price
comparisons in the cost of two types of bottled water and the same amount of
Anaheim water - $3.00 to $4.00 for the bottles and one-tenth of a cent for the
Anaheim water which will more than favorably compare with the other two in
quality. He emphasized that Anaheim water is a premium at the current prices.
Mr. Aghjayan then answered additional questions posed by the Council. He also
explained that relative to the MWD, if they change the percentage, it would not
make any difference. Effective April 1, 1991 MWD has cut Anaheim 50% which
works out to a 25% or 30% cut to customers depending upon how much well water
the City will get. He also stated if there are savings over the next few
months, water rationing will not be necessary in the future. He recommends
that they proceed with the proposed action and continue a study. If they do
not need as much of a surcharge and they are meeting their goals, they can
start decreasing to some extent to reflect changed goals realizing they are
still going to need to raise the money for the conservation program.
Al6. 123: Approving a Contract for Gas Service and Addendum (dated
February 1, 1991) with Southern California Gas Company for the City's
Combustion Turbine Peaking Plant, and authorizing the Public Utilities General
Manager to execute said documents.
A17. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
100 DAYS OLD. (Magnasync Voice Recording Tapes #536 through ~675 and #1
through ~44 - Utilities Department, Systems Operations Division.)
Al8. 175: Approving the Purchase and Participation Agreement with Public
Service Company, the Interconnection Agreement with Public Service Company, and
the Firm Transmission Service Agreement with PacifiCorp Electric Operations
Group, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said
194
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
agreements and other related documents and to prepare the necessary documents
to obtain the financing of $63,500,000 using Certificates of Participation, for
the purchase of the San Juan Generating Station Unit 4.
Jim Townsend, Chairman, Telephone Taxpayers Committee. He is all in favor of
enough power in the City to meet its needs. However, the time has come before
making anymore moves to do an audit to see exactly where the City is relative
to bonded indebtedness and subsequently make a report to the people of Anaheim.
Council Member Daly. An annual report has been submitted by the Utilities
Department which is done for all the citizens and taxpayers. All the
indebtedness of the Utilities Department is outlined in the report and is
available for anyone who wants to read it. The comprehensive report is done on
an annual basis. It is a report to the citizens of Anaheim.
Al9. 127: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, in the
amount of $40,590.70 for services provided by the County of Orange, Registrar's
Office, in connection with the November 1990 election.
A20. 114: ORDINANCE NO. 5211 - (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
A21. 123: Approving an Attorney Services Agreement with Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson, and Rauth to retain legal counsel for the City.
A22. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
TWO YEARS OLD. (City Attorney Department records.)
A23. 117: Receiving and filing a Summary of Investment Transactions for the
month of February, 1991, as submitted by the City Treasurer.
A24. 123: Approving an Agreement with Centralia School District, in the
amount of $2,561 to provide Park Ranger patrols for Danbrook Elementary School
from April 5, 1991, through June 30, 1992.
A25. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE SECOND YEAR FUNDING FOR
THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CRIME RESISTANCE PROGRAM.
A26. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (One-time accrued vacation buy out to
provide a cash donation to a terminally ill employee.)
153: Authorizing a one-time accrued vacation buy-out for management,
confidential and nonrepresented part-time employees.
A27. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-95: A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
195
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Statement of the proposed chanqe: To provide Section 21266 (Post-Retirement
Survivor Allowance to Continue After Remarriage) for local miscellaneous
members and local fire members only; Section 20930.3 (Military Service Credit
as Public Service) for local fire members only and Section 20492.1 (To Remove
the Exclusion, Prospectively, for 'Management Intern').
153: Directing the City Clerk to certify compliance with Government Code
Section 7507, which requires that disclosure of the proposed increase in
benefits be made public at a public meeting at least two weeks prior to the
final reading of the Ordinance.
A28. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91R-48, WHICH ACCEPTED THE MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Amending, nunc pro tunc, Article 17,
Salary Relationships.)
A29. 173: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE FORMATION OF THE CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY FIXED
GUIDEWAY AGENCY.
City Clerk Sohl. The Agency has asked that the Council appoint a director and
two alternates to the Agency, all three being members of the City Council. The
Council can make those appointments this evening, or at a future meeting.
The Council determined that the subject appointments would be made at the
Council meeting of April 9, 1991.
A30. 174: Approving the expenditure of funds, in the amount of $15,000 under
the CDBG Program for the Julianna and Victor Avenue temporary street closures.
A31. 123: Approving the Subordination of the existing third trust deed
(Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, Inc.) now in favor of the City of Anaheim, in the
principal amount of $39,000 to the new Trust Deed, and authorizing the
Executive Director to sign the subordination agreement.
A32. 155: Approving a Negative Declaration, pursuant to CEQA findings, for
the construction of a new water production well No. 46 (in Boysen Park on State
College Boulevard at Wagner Avenue).
A33. 139: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSING THE ENACTMENT OF SENATE BILL 144 (LOCKYER) REGARDING
THE PUBLIC FUNDING OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES DEVELOPED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES
WHICH TOLLS ARE TO BE CHARGED.
A34. 139: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSING THE ENACTMENT OF ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1819 WHICH WOULD
ENACT SPECIAL AND NON-UNIFORM RULES PERTAINING TO CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR
SPECIAL PURPOSES.
196
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolutions:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Ehrle
None
Hunter
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 91R-89 through 91R-99, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinances:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Ehrle
None
Hunter
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance Nos. 5208 and 5209 duly passed and
adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. (Mayor Hunter absent). MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS BI - B7 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH llt
1991,INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 2, 1991:
Bi. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3378 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: DAH'S SERVICE CENTER, 519 W. Ball Rd., Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: ARTHUR H. SHIPLEY, 1728 W. Bay Ave., Newport Beach, CA 92663
LOCATION: 519 W. Ball Rd. Property is approximately .30 acres
located at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road.
To retain rental truck service as an accessory use to an existing
service station.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3378 DENIED (PC91-31) (3 yes votes, 1 no vote, 2 abstained,
and i absent).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B2. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-23 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: 928-1120 South Harbor Blvd. and 333-521 West Ball Rd.
Property is approximately 11.1 acres located at the northeast corner
of Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road.
For a change in zone from CL, CG & CH TO CR. City-initiated
reclassification of property.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 90-91-23 GRANTED (PC91-32) (5 yes votes,
2 absent).
Approved negative Declaration.
197
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
B3. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3389 AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: MECCA LEISURE (CAL), INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION DBA, Orlando
Entertains, 1556 E. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: L. A. ENTERTAINS, INC., Attn: Gordon Lucas, 1556 E. Katella
Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1859 S. Manchester Ave. Property is approximately 2.93
acres located on the southwest side of Manchester Ave. and
approximately 780 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way.
To permit a 750-seat theme-type dinner theatre with on premise sale
and consumption of alcoholic beverages, and conditionally permitted
signs, including two electronic, digital, changeable copy message
board signs with waiver of (A) minimum number of parking spaces, (B)
maximum number of wall signs, (C) maximum structural height adjacent
to single-family residential, (D) minimum landscaped screening
abutting residential property, (E) prohibited signs and (F) permitted
encroachments in front setback.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3389 GRANTED (PC91-33) (6 yes votes, i absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, with conditions that relate
to the sewer capacity problems in the CR area and that those
conditions require a payment of a fee to enlarge certain sewer lines).
Letter of appeal submitted by Elfend and Associates. Public hearing
is scheduled for April 9, 1991.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be held April 9, 1991.
B4. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4115 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 90-107:
OWNER: BROOKHOLLOW APARTMENTS (ANAHEIM) ASSOCIATES, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 4490 Yon Karman, Newport
Beach, CA 92660; ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, 400 Civic
Center West, Santa Ana, CA 92701; City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim
Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: Property is approximately 5.59 acres located at the
northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height
and required elevators to construct a 124-unit, "affordable', 2 and 3
story, apartment complex and to establish a 2-lot subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4115 GRANTED (PC91-34) to include stipulation by
applicant to lease a certain number of 3-bedroom apartments with 2
cars; providing bus passes at a maximum cost of $340 per subject to
the changes; promotion of ride sharing; helping second and third floor
residents to move and to remove themselves as required (5 yes votes,
1 no vote, and 1 absent).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
198
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
NOTE: AT THE MEETING OF 3/19/91, THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK NO ACTION ON
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-107.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Anaheim City School
District and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B5. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3392 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: DAVID CHAVEZ, 4420 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: PAC TEL, Attn: Ernie Courter, POST OFFICE BOX 19707, Irvine,
CA 92713-9707
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 4420 East La Palma
Avenue and is approximately 1.8 acres located on the south side of La
Palma Ave. and approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of
Lakeview Ave.
The request is to permit a cellular telephone facility with a 60-foot
tower in an existing RV storage park with waivers of max. height,
minimum side yard and minimum rear yard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3392 GRANTED (PC91-35) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member Pickler. He has concerns with a 60-foot high tower at this
location. It is one of the areas the Council is trying to protect. A 60-foot
tower would not help towards accomplishing their goals in the area. The tower
does not belong on a high visibility corner such as La Palma and Lakeview.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The tower is to be located to the
rear of the property in the southwest corner. It is the furthest from La Palma
and Lakeview that it can be located. Answering Council Member Daly, she does
not know if there are any other such towers in that area but as she had
explained, towers can go up by right in the industrial area.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle. This is primarily an industrial area where he envisions
antennas would be. He has no problem taking a closer look.
Council Member Pickler requested that the matter be set for a public hearing.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the request and, therefore, a public hearing will
be scheduled at a later date.
Council Member Daly. He asked that staff submit an overview of how many of the
subject towers exist. He notes there are a couple to the west of Anaheim
Plaza. One is a tower with nothing on top but just steel frame work. There
are also towers by the high school district.
B6. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-24 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Initiated By The City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92803
199
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1680 West Broadway and
is approximately 0.49 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway
and Euclid Street.
For a change in zone from CG to CL. A City-initiated reclassification
of property.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs
Reclassification No. 90-91-24 GRANTED (PC91-36) (5 yes votes,
2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Answering questions posed by Council Member Pickler, Joel Fick, Planning
Director explained that this property involved an item previously acted upon by
the Council (see minutes of February 5, 1991 - Public Hearing on Conditional
Use Permit 3358). The item today more appropriately zones the property to CL
which has landscaping and setback requirements in the event the CUP the Council
previously approved is ever acted upon.
B7.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4111 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: NUTWOOD PARK APARTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA LTD. PARTNERSHIP, Costa
Mesa, CA 92626
AGENT: DON CHALK c/o The PRS Group, 27132 B Paseo Espada, Ste. 1222,
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 1668 South Nutwood Street. Property is approximately 1.0
acre located on the east side of Nutwood Street and approximately 325
feet north of the centerline of Tamara Lane.
Waiver of minimum structural setback, minimum number of parking spaces
and minimum floor area per dwelling unit to retain two illegally
constructed apartment units.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4111 DENIED (PC91-37) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
ITEM B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 25, 1991, INFORMATION
ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 5, 1991:
B8. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3299 (REV. 1), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
14406 (REV. 1), AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
AGENT: O.M.P. PARTNERSHIP, 1424 Victoria Way, Placentia, CA 92670
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1575 W. Katella Avenue
and is approximately 2.21 acres located on the north side of Katella
Ave. and approximately 314 feet east of the centerline of Carnelian
Street and West Street.
The request is to permit a two-lot, 40-unit, RM-2400 zone Condominium
Complex
200
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tentative Tract Map 14406 (Rev. 1) APPROVED.
NOTE: CUP NO. 3299 HAS A 22-DAY APPEAL PERIOD AND WILL APPEAR ON THE
COUNCIL AGENDA OF APRIL 16, 1991.
Council Member Daly asked what the revision is to the CUP.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. This is to split a single tract into
two tracts for financing purposes primarily. Even though they may wish to
develop the property in phases, all bonding and everything has to be done for
the entire project. They wanted to divide the property in two so they could
bond separately on both parts. Whoever goes in first constructs the entire
driveway. She confirmed that staff is comfortable with all the conditions.
End of the Planning Commission Items.
Bg. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-27 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3106 -
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME:
REQUESTED BY: RONALD E. WINKLER, IDM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, 5150 E.
Pacific Coast Hwy., Long Beach, CA 90804
LOCATION: 291 North State College Boulevard, Orange (IDM Business
Center).
Petitioner requests an extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval. Reclassification No. 88-89-27 is for a change in zone from
ML to CO. CUP NO. 3106 is to permit and govern the construction of
one 18-story, 269-foot high, 391,667 sq-ft commercial office building
and a 2,843 space, 6-level parking structure (City of Anaheim) in
conjunction with two 10-story, 250,000 sq-ft commercial office
buildings and two 18-story, 391,667 sq-ft commercial office buildings
in the City of Orange (IDM Business Center).
Council Member Daly moved to approve the requested extension of time to expire
April 25, 1993 as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Council Member
Simpson seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME ON VARIANCE NO. 3611 AND
RECLASSIFICATION 86-87-14:
Council Member Pickler re~erred to a letter received {rom the Orange Avenue
Homeowners regarding a proposed project at 2240 W. Lincoln. On March 19, 1991,
the Council granted request for extension of time to expire February 3, 1992
retroactive to February 3, 1990. The residents are asking that they be given
an opportunity for input regarding the Council's action approving the time
extension request.
Council Member Pickler thereupon moved that the matter be reopened for public
input.
Before action was taken, City Attorney White explained that the motion would be
to reconsider the previous Council action which granted the extension and
subsequently the matter would be again placed on the Council agenda for
subsequent action to either grant or deny the time extension. The extension
201
City Hall, Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2u 1991, 5:00 P.M.
itself is not a public hearing. It was not a public hearing at that time and
it will not be a public hearing in the future. The only thing that could be
acted on tonight is rescinding the action approving the time extensions and
reagendizing the matter on a subsequent agenda.
Upon questioning by Council members, City Attorney White explained that by
rule, an action to reconsider a previous decision has to be made at either the
same or the next subsequent Council meeting. Technically, this is the next and
subsequent meeting. If the Council continues the matter for a full Council
next week, it would be out of order.
Council Member Simpson asked for clarification relative to the project
involved.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She explained that this is the
34-unit project with four requested waivers. The Desais' were the property
owners. It is a land locked parcel and the requested extensions of time were
on previous Council agendas and continued a number of times before approved on
March 19, 1991.
City Clerk Sohl explained that the homeowners thought the item was on the
agenda this evening but in researching the issue, it was determined that the
Council had already taken an action on March 19, 1991.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to rescind the previous Council action
taken on March 19, 1991, approving extensions of time for Variance No. 3611 and
Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and reagendizing the request for extensions of
time for consideration at subsequent Council meeting. Council Member Daly
seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Daly stated he voted against the
requested extensions of time previously and to be consistent he will support
the request for reconsideration. The project had a number of waivers stemming
back to an approval in 1987.
Council Members Simpson and Ehrle both commented that since they had previously
voted to approve the requested extensions, they would not support the request
for reconsideration.
Council Member Pickler. The project is one with four waivers - waiver of
required lot frontage, minimum site area for dwelling unit, maximum building
height, maximum site coverage - and it is a 2 1/2 story project. He feels it
is important to hear from the residents. He also lives in the area and goes by
the property frequently. One of the buildings is already existing and it is an
eye sore. One of the same projects was built on the southeast corner of
Brookhurst and Broadway that is also an eye sore. It will not enhance the area
or the City. The people in the area who have been fighting these types of
developments deserve an opportunity to be heard.
Council Member Daly. This developer has built two projects elsewhere in
Anaheim and both are a disaster. To allow the same developer to build a third
project with four waivers is just not right. They should not repeat the
mistakes of the past.
202
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Ehrle. He does want to be consistent. He supported the project
previously. However, he does feel that the public has the right to be heard.
He will, therefore, vote in favor of a rehearing on the matter. It does not
mean he would change his vote but the public has the right to be heard.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to rescind the previous Council
action approving extensions of time for Variance No. 3611 and Reclassification
86-87-14 and reagendizing the request for extensions of time for consideration
on Tuesday, April 23, 1991. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES -
Daly, Pickler and Ehrle, NOES - Simpson, ABSENT - Hunter.
Bi0. 185: ORDINANCE NO. 5210 - ADOPTION: Approving Amendment No. 1 to the
Development Agreement No. 87-01 between the City of Anaheim and Hanover Real
Estate Associates, finding that the amendment is consistent with the General
Plan and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said amendment for and
on behalf of the City. (Introduced at the meeting of March 19, 1991 - Item
D5.)
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5210)
Council Member Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5210 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5210: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 87-01 BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND HANOVER REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, (ii) FINDING THAT THE
AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Ehrle
None
Hunter
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 5210 duly passed and adopted.
Bll. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5212 - (INTRODUCTION): Amending Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone property under Reclassification No.
63-64-62(27) located 650 South Webster Avenue, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the
RM-1200 zone.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5212 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5212: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
203
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTERESTs
Max Engel, 1181 N. Catalpa, Anaheim. He first commented on the Council pay
raise approved earlier and surmised it was determined that the City's "billion#
dollar budget has the money to fund the well deserved increase. However, he
does not understand why the same Council members have determined that there are
insufficient monies, specifically $7,000, to meet what he feels is the City's
moral obligation to the lunch program, Project TLC - Feedback Foundation for
Anaheim's seniors. The Council has decided against paying the City's fair
share to the Feedback Foundation even though all surrounding communities have
paid their full share. He asked the Council the basis for their decision.
Council Member Daly. The City consistently funds the Feedback Foundation and
last year when they asked for additional funds, those funds were allocated.
Recently when the Foundation came back with an additional request after the
Community Services Board (CSB) had allocated an additional $5,000 to the
program, the request was not approved.
Council Member Pickler. Feedback Foundation was funded for $50,000 dollars and
when they requested additional funding, those funds were approved. The CSB
recommendation was to give an additional $5,000 which was recently approved but
Feedback Foundation requested an additional $7,000 which was not granted.
Steve Swaim, Superintendent, Community Services is analyzing the situation
again and will becoming back with a recommendation.
Council Member Daly. A letter has been received from Shirley Cohen of Feedback
Foundation taking the Council to task for not allocating the additional
$7,000. It hardly mentioned the money the City has been giving to the
Foundation.
Council Member Pickler. Anaheim has always been there for Feedback
Foundation. The letter indicated 14 cities are supplying funds for Feedback
and 12 have paid their fair share. He does not know what their fair share is
but he believes Anaheim has been up front all along in supplying their needs.
They are looking at the $7,000 additional but he does resent the implication
that the City is not doing what they are supposed to do.
Mr. Engel assumed then that the matter is not closed; Council Member Daly. It
is year-to-year funding. It is never closed. Shirley Cohen always comes back
and asks for additional monies. He is certain in her mind the matter is never
closed.
Council Member Pickler. The Council has not committed to the $7,000 and he
does not know if the Council will do so.
City Manager James Ruth. The Community Services Board has spent a considerable
amount of time reviewing the many requests for funding they receive. Each year
there is a diminishing amount of funds. Mr. Swaim is re-evaluating the
situation and will come back to the Council with a recommendation.
Council Member Daly. The 21 member advisory committee on community services
funding have not recommended the additional $7,000.
204
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Marilyn Hauk, 6071 Camino Cotter, Anaheim. She referred to Item A15 acted upon
earlier in the meeting relative to the drought surcharge. She has information
which she feels would be helpful for the Council to look into. Anaheim
currently has 35 wells and all of those wells are pumping. All of the
connections to Metropolitan Water District (MWD) in the downtown area are in an
off position and the City is not getting water from them but the Eastern area
of the City is getting water. She then relayed rainfall figures for the last
30 years (1960-1990) with 12.9' being the total average over that period. To
date there has been 10.23 inches which is on a fiscal year basis the way Water
Engineering figures it. The City does not get any water from the Orange County
Water District - they simply do monitoring. All connections except for the one
that serves Disneyland and the downtown area designated as A3 is the only
connection currently in the 'on position'. When the Director of Utilities
talks in units, it would help if he talked in the acre foot. The average
family per year uses 1 acre foot or 325,900 gallons of water per MWD
information. Instead of the size of the meter it would be a much better system
to look at what an average family uses and what can be conserved. The truest
statement she heard tonight is that the Utilities Department has conservation
programs not budgeted for and they need to raise revenues.
Kim Oslins, 847 South Citron. He addressed the First-Time Homebuyers Program.
He lives just outside of the designated area. His house has been on the market
for 8 or 9 months. Initially there was a depressed market but now houses are
selling quickly. However, his is not getting a look. He wanted to know what
the findings were for the area designated and why the area has not been
continued down towards the freeway and terminated at that point. He also asked
why it is for first-time buyers and why can't he, in turn, buy into the area if
he so wished.
Council Member Daly. He suggested that staff get Mr. Oslins's name and address
and to explain the program to him; Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director
Community Development was in the chamber audience and would speak to Mr. Oslin.
D1. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 91-lA:
In accordance with application filed by Allen Brock, 6767 Forest Lawn Drive,
suite 120, Los Angeles 90068, a public hearing was held on proposed abandorunent
of certain easements for public utilities located on the east side of Anaheim
Hills Road within Tract 8905 between Nohl Ranch Road and Via Montanera (to be
replaced with new public utility easements on Tract 14353). Pursuant to
Resolution No. 91R-40 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated February 7, 1991, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent. Staff recommends approval of said
abandonment.
205
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being
no response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council
Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, 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. Council Member
Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 91R-100)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-100 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 91-lA. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN EASEMENT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES ON THE EAST SIDE OF
ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD BETWEEN NOHL RANCH ROAD AND VIA MONTANERA (91-1A).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Ehrle
None
Hunter
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 91R-100 duly passed and adopted.
D2. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 90-12A:
In accordance with application filed by the Hill Williams Development
Corporation, 175 Riverview Drive, Suite 200, Anaheim 92808, a public hearing
was held on proposed abandonment of a certain easement for electrical purposes
extending easterly from Fairmont Boulevard to Willow Creek Lane (a private
street) pursuant to Resolution No. 91R-41 duly published in the Anaheim
Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated February 12, 1991, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent. Staff recommends approval of said
abandonment.
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being
no response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council
Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Daly, the City Council ratified the
206
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, 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. Council Member
Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution 91R-101)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 91R-101 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 91-12A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN EASEMENT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES ON THE EAST SIDE OF
FAIRMONT BOULEVARD AT WILLOWCREEK LANE (a private street) (91-12A).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Ehrle
None
Hunter
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 91R-101 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Council Member Simpson moved to recess into closed
session, Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (7:01 p.m.)
Mayor Pro Tem Ehrle called the meeting to order, all Council members being
present with the exception of Council Member Hunter. (7:19 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent the Council adjourned.
(7:20 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
207