1987/06/16179.
City Ha!l, An-heim, C-l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, H~e~, Pickier, Kaywood and Bay
ABSENI: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None~
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & AUDIT MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
CHIEF OF POLICE: Jimmie Kennedy
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2:45 p.m. on June 12, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at
12:01 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership, 46-96-59; Deborah Costa Colombo vs. City
of Anaheim Case No. 51-69-47.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:01 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.
(1:47 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Dr. Ernest Furness, Seventh Day Adventist Church, gave the
Invocation.
508
I80
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEES CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENT: The following
employees were presented with Certificates of Achievement issued by the
Employee Involvement Program Board of Directors along with monetary awards
ranging from 530 to 51366.50: Sharon McCamon, John Fazzio, Sheri LaRoche,
Michael McKernon, Leonard Chapman, Richard Steenbergen (51,366.50), Debbie
Fank and Karen Moreno.
Overall, the suggestions submitted would save City costs, improve service to
the public or prevent possible hazards.
Mayoz Bay and Council Members congratulated each employee for their
contributions.
119: EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION: Mayor Bay, on behalf of the Council and the
City, expressed appreciation to the East Anaheim Rotary Club for the generous
donation to the Anaheim Parks, Recreation and Community Services Foundation of
51,417.22 to assist in the purchase of bingo equipment for the west Anaheim
Senior Citizens Center as well as for their continued involvement in the
community.
Representatives of the club were present and indicated that the donation was
merely a token, and in the coming months and years additional monetary
assistance will be forthcoming.
119: EXPRESSION OF CONGRATULATIONS: An Expression of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the following: (1)
Jack Scott, President of Cypress College, for his many years of service to
Cypress College and the community, (2) the City of Buena Park on their
Centennial Celebration, (3) the Anaheim Post Office on the occasion of their
125th anniversary in Anaheim.
MINUTES: Presented for approval were the minutes of the adjourned regular
meeting of June 2, 1987 and the regular meeting of June 2, 1987. Mayor Bay
stated since he did not have an opportunity to read the minutes, that approval
be continued for one week. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,552,343.62, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
5O9
City Hall~ An-hetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 87R-236 through 87R-241, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Shaun Patrick Shawda for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 23, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Norris Jamie Mayes for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 16, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Mary Cean Malcolm for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 26, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Joseph Droessler for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 27, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Tae-Won Kim for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 20, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by Mildred Adams for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 17, 1987.
g. Claim submitted by Janice Edith Steinbach for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 15, 1987.
h. Claim submitted by Elsie Mullen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 28, 1987.
i. Claim submitted by Doyle & Dailene Van Osdol for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 23, 1987.
J. Claim submitted by Frank Lozenzen for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 7, 1987.
k. Claim submitted by Robert F. Burtscher for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 15, 1987.
1. Claim submitted by Claire A. Duval for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 6, 1987.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
510
178
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
m. Claim submitted by Francois & George Benham for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 15, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of May 20 and 28,
1987.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of April 30, 1987.
3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Orange County Sanitation District No.
2 to provide for the design and construction of a portion of the Euclid Street
Trunk Sewer between the Anaheim Barber City Channel and Broadway.
4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the nine
months ended March 31, 1987.
5. 123: Waiving Council Policy No. 401 and authorizing the City Manager to
execute a letter agreement with Jones and Stokes Associates Inc. in an amount
not to exceed $12,500 for professional consulting services associated with the
proposed Long-Term County Jail Facility and appropriating an amount not to
exceed $15,000 from Council Contingency Funds for said agreement and
anticipated additional consulting services.
6. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $39,273 for three
each, eight-yard dump bodies installed on cab/chassis furnished by the City,
in accordance with Bid No. A-4464.
7. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (INLAND
CONSTRUCTORS) (in the amount of $14,182, for Orange Avenue Street Improvement
S/S, 795 feet west of to 950 feet west of Western Avenue, Account no.
17-792-6325-E2450)
8. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-237: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) (in the amount of $46,800, for Pearson Park
Picnic Shelter Improvements, Account Nos. 25-820-7107-20060 and
16-820-7107-20160)
9. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (ROYAL OAK ROAD STREET
IMPROVEMENT) (Account No. 17-792-6325-E2190, Nobest, Inc., contractor, and
authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
10. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-8A) (Declaring intent to abandon a sewer
access road easement within Tract No. 10474, Abandonment No. 87-8A, and
setting a date for the public hearing therefor; suggested date: July 14,
1987, 3:00 p.m.)
511
City Hall~ A~beim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (north side of Ball Road, west
of Knott Street)
12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-236 through 87R-241:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-236 through 87R-241, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - DOWNTOWN SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Awarding a
contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Steiny and Company, Inc.,
$257,700, for Downtown Signal Improvement Project - Phase I, Account No.
46-795-6325-E5300.
Mayor Bay. He received calls from citizens stating that although the City is
spending a great deal of money on traffic signals, they do not see any
improvement in them. He would like to know what central computerization is
going to do for the City.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer. The computer system that will be installed this
year will interface with two different types of controllers (T-1 Controller
and the Caltrans Controller). Throughout the City there are many old fixed
time traffic signals and controls that cannot be interconnected and automated
with the new system. There is an effort in east Anaheim in the downtown area
to change out those old controllers in order to effectively move traffic
through those areas. In addition, there is a large Federal Aid Urban Project
that will be coming up for west and central Anaheim in the next couple of
years, in the vicinity o£ Il million. Ail interconnected cable is in place.
Once the computer is in place, timing plans will be established which will
bring about a 20% to 30% increase in efficiency - savings in time and fuel for
people traveling through the City.
Mayor Bay. He removed the item from the Consent Calendar so that the public
could understand since the City is spending millions of dollars for traffic
light improvement in the City they should be fully aware of the situation on
the day of approval of the contract, since there is a great deal of public
interest and concern relative to traffic signals.
Mr. Johnson then confirmed for Councilman Ehrle that plans did include the
traffic signal at Lincoln Avenue and East Street since improvements will be
made with the grade separation project Council will be asked to award in July.
512
176
City M~ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-242 for adoption, awarding a
contract for the lowest and best responsible bidder, Steiny and Company, Inc.,
$257,700, for Downtown Signal Improvement Project - Phase I, Account No.
46-795-6325-E5300. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (STEINY AND COMPANY,
INC.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-242 duly passed and adopted.
115: COUNCIL CHAMBER SOUND SYSTEM: Mayor Bay requested that the sound system
in the Council Chamber be checked to provide better microphone amplification
on all microphones.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held May 27, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2912: Submitted by HavadJia Holdings Inc.,
(Farmer Boy Restaurant), to permit a drive-through lane and on-sale beer in an
existing restaurant on ML(SC) zoned property located at 4150 East La Palma
Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-113, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2912, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3660: Submitted by Kimco Corporation to construct an
addition to an existing shopping center on CL and CH zoned property located at
648 West La Palma Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-114, granted
Variance No. ~660, and granted a negative deelarati0n status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2916: Submitted by Miraloma Avenue Partners,
to permit automobile repair within an existing industrial building on ML zoned
property located at 2818 East Miraloma Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-115, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2916, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1808 (READVERTISED) - EXTENSION OF TIME:
Submitted by John R. Townsend, requesting a 2-year extension of time to retain
an automotive repair facility on CL zoned property located at 3174 West Ball
Road.
513
1.73
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1808 (Readv.), to expire September 14, 1987, and previously
certified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2843--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by
Demetrios Georgantopoulos, requesting an extension of time to permit a
drive-through restaurant on property located on the southeast corner of Howell
Avenue and State College Boulevard,, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2843, to expire August 3, 1987.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She noted that the staff report indicated that Code
Enforcement site visitation on May 19, 1987 found an inoperative vehicle and
an accessory shed which does not have a building permit which is within the
required setback and portions of the building appear to be occupied for living
and sleeping. She is concerned with granting an extension while there are
outstanding questions relative to the property.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Code Enforcement staff was working
with those violations as a side issue. The extension is only approved through
September 14, 1987. The applicant indicated that another use would be going
onto the property and it would be terminated prior to, or by September 14,
1987. The Planning Commission was not particularly concerned and Code
Enforcement was working on those other items separately.
6. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF SANTA ANA RIVER CHANNEL: Submitted by Orange
County Flood Control District, to determine if proposed improvement to the
Santa Aha River Channel is in conformance with the General Plan.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-117, declared a
determination of conformance to the proposed improvement of the Santa Aha
River Channel.
7. KJkTEIJ.& REDEVELOP~fENT pI~a.N: Submitted by Community Redevelopment
Commission/Redevelopment Agency, to determine if proposed Katella
Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with the General Plan.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-118, recommended
adoption of the Katella Redevelopment Plan.
8. WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE; TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10981:
Submitted by Crosby and Associates, requesting waiver of the requirement of
the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to location of lot lines within Tract
No. 10981, property located within the East Hills area, south of Monte Vista
Road and West of Weir Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval to the Waiver of Hillside
Grading Ordinance, Tentative Tract No. 10981, and public hearing is scheduled
to be held at a later date.
514
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987'~ 1:30 P.M.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REVIEW OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISIONS:
1. VARIANCE NO. 3657: Submitted by Elio C. and Kathleen Falcone, to
construct a room addition to a single-family residence located at 142 Avenida
Palmers, with Code waiver of maximum lot coverage.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA 87-02,
approved Variance No. 3657. The decision date was June 3, 1987.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined 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.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3658: Submitted by Jon Raymond Bright and Lorraine Alloys
Bright, to construct a room addition to a single-family residence located at
700 North Westwood Place, with Code waiver of minimum sideyard setback.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA 87-03,
approved Variance No. 3658. The decision date was June 3, 1987.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined 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.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3662: Submitted by Clifton J. and Roberta S. Tatro, to
construct a two-story, 30-foot high single-family residence on RS-HS-22,000
zoned property located at 6912 Avenida De Santiago, with Code waiver of
maximum building height.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA 87-05,
approved Variance No. 3662. The decision date was June 8, 1987.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined 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.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3663: Submitted by William H. and Carolyn S. Tabb, to
construct a two-story, 30-foot high single-family residence on RS-HS-22,000
zoned property located at 6930 Avenida De Santiago, with Code waiver of
maximum building height.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA 87-06,
approved Variance No. 3663. The decision date was June 8, 1987.
515
City Hall~ A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined 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 EIK.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 87-01: Submitted by Fidelity Development,
to retain 24 two-bedroom apartment units with square footages of 803 and 813
square feet (825 square feet required) on property located at 3633 West Ball
Road.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA 87-04,
approved Administrative Adjustment No. 87-01. The decision date was June 2,
1987.
No action taken by Council on the above fine Zoning Administrator's
decisions. For informational purposes only.
108: APPLICATION FOR TAXI SERVICE: Request by William R. Hart, Attorney for
West Coast Cab Service for permit to operate a taxi service. Submitted was
report dated May 27, 1987 from the Community Development & Planning
Department, recommending approval of the application.
Mayor Bay asked to hear from the applicant or his representative.
Mr. William Hart, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 East Sandpoint, Santa Aha,
representing West Coast Cab Company. He has Just given the Council a lengthy
document, the reason being the issue of need and necessity has Just come up
particularly as voiced by certain members of the Anaheim community (see
document entitled, "Application for Taxi Cab Permit submitted by West Coast
Cab Company" - made a part of the record). It was essential to provide the
information contained in the document particularly the comments from the
hotel/motel industry. It contained approximately 90 individual, separate
expressions of need from Anaheim citizens and business persons who were
primarily in the hotel/motel business in Anaheim which he wanted to bring to
the Council's attention. He explained for the Mayor the only reason the
document was prepared was because of a letter received and copied for the
Council from an attorney representing Yellow Cab Company of North Orange
County who raised questions about the need and necessity and appropriat~na~
of the Council's ability to approve the permit at this time. (See letter
dated June 12, 1987 from Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet attorneys for Yellow
Cab Company of North Orange County).
Mayor Bay stated they received a letter protesting the issuance of the
requested permit and although this is not a public hearing, he would like to
hear from the representative of Yellow Cab Company.
Mr. Floyd L. Farano, Farano & Kieviet, representing Yellow Cab Company of
North Orange County. He has read the applicant's statements but he has not
seen the document just distributed. However, the size and magnitude and the
existence of that kind of testimony in the public sector makes it all the more
important that the concept of public convenience and necessity be pursued. He
516
17'2
City Hall, An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
is aware that a public hearing is not required under the ordinances of the
City at this time. A transportation system is of vital importance to the
commercial/recreational area, elderly citizens and everyone who uses the
facilities. If the City wants to explore the potential of an additional
franchise to provide such services, the City should make itself available to
all information. Because of the importance and complexity of the concept, he
suggested that the City consider an adversarial type proceeding whereby the
witnesses and evidence produced by each side could be subject to cross
examination and that the matter be turned over to and heard by a Hearing
Officer as provided by Code. He reiterated if the Council does want to
examine the advisability of introducing additional cab service, that it be
done in a manner calculated to produce the maximum information.
Jack White, City Attorney. He explained for the Mayor that the Anaheim
Municipal Code does not require that the City Council's decision on issuance
of taxi permit be conducted as an adversarial hearing. The term hearing is
not even used as the vehicle to grant or deny such permits but that the City
will listen to the applicant and his testimony and will make its decision
based upon certain findings specified in the Code. The Council has the right
to conduct the proceeding in a similar manner as other proceedings are
conducted on similar requests. On the other hand, in his opinion, there is
nothing to preclude the Council from making an order of reference to a Hearing
Officer who will stand in place of the Council for the purpose of receiving
evidence. The final decision will still be the City Council's. If there was
a reference to a Hearing Officer, it is his belief that it is more appropriate
for an adversarial hearing since the Hearing Officer would in all probability
be a retired judge or someone who had extensive experience in administrative
hearing matters and could devote the time necessary to give a full and proper
consideration to the matter. If it is referred to a Hearing Officer,
currently the City does not have budgeted in its annual budget an amount
necessary to cover the cost. Depending on a number of variables, he estimates
that the cost would be about $2,000 for the hearing together with a transcript
by a certified court reporter.
Mr. Hart. The reason why Yellow Cab is seeking what he regards as a delay is
because the busy summer season is approaching and Yellow Cab has a view to
protecting its interest in the City which is a monopoly to the exclusion of
all other cab companies. As the City Attorney stated, there is no procedure
or authority in the Code for a hearing and the Council can at its own
discretion do what it needs to do. There is also no groundswell of opposition
to West Coast Cab Company coming to the City but there are some very strong
statements from business people in Anaheim about the status of the cab
situation and lack of service in the City. Lack of service is a function of
not enough cabs or competition. It is their goal to provide that competition
and service for the benefit of tourists, residents and business people of
Anaheim. The proposed proceeding will result in at least 60 days delay and
substantial expense to all parties concerned. He is asking that the Council
accept the recommendation of its staff and approve the permit forthwith.
Mayor Bay reiterated the options the Council has today, one being a hearing
before a Hearing Officer at a cost of approximately $2,000 plus the
517
69:
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
transcript. He asked if the protesting party was willing to pay for those
hearing costs if the Council decides to refer it to a Hearin§ Officer.
Floyd Farano. On behalf of Yellow Cab Company, they are willing to pay for
one-half the cost. It is not a matter of whether the City wants a cab
company, the question is, is this the right one. If the applicant wants a
franchise in the City, it seems that the sharing of expenses should be part of
that. He reiterated Yellow Cab will pay for one-half of the cost.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed a line of questions to Mr. Hart; Mr. Hart
reported that West Coast Cab Company is licensed and has permits to do
business in several cities - Huntington Beach, Yorba Linda, Stanton, Garden
Grove, Buena Park and Newport Beach but not in Santa Aha. Their business
address is in Santa Aha at 1236 West 5th Street. They are not operating cabs
in the City of Santa Aha currently, but are in the process of making an
application and it is the base from which they operate in all the other cities.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor. He has contacted the City of Santa
Aha who informed him they will not allow a permit for this company to operate
taxi cabs in that city until they correct zoning violations which exist on
their property but he does not know what those are.
Mr. Hart. This is the first he has heard and he has no idea what the
violations are.
Councilman Hunter moved that there be a continuance of three weeks to July ?,
1987 relative to the subject application to give the Council an opportunity to
review the material submitted and in order to make a more informed decision on
the request. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler noted that the application stated
the company had eleven vehicles, it already served seven cities and were
trying to service two more. He questioned the adequacy of the number of
vehicles.
Mr. Hart. The company will be able to service the cities and he is willing to
have oral testimony or otherwise on how they ~rlll proceed. His client intends
tO provide on a daily basis ten cabs to the City of Anaheim for service on an
as needed basis. His client intends tO service the needs of the other cities
simultaneously and will provide for and purchase additional cabs to expand the
number of cabs available to service those cities.
At the conclusion of further discussion, City Attorney White stated the City
is under no legal obli§ation to approve applications for a second cab company
at this time to other taxi cabs. The reason the Council has an application
before it today is because a company wished to apply. They were not
solicited. On the other hand, there is no legal constraint that would
prohibit the City from soliciting publicly the fact that the City is
considering additional permits at this time. He feels that by doing so, it
might over-complicate the process.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
518
1.70
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano asked that a copy of the material presented to the Council by Mr.
Hart be provided to him.
City Attorney White recommended that the Council consider instructing both
sides to submit all additional material that may be submitted on a date
certain prior to the date the matter is continued so there is not an influx of
material on that date, but at least a week in advance.
Mayor Bay directed that both Mr. Farano and Mr. Hart submit any additional
information by June 30, 1987.
105/114: ACTION TO REMOVE CHARLENE LA CLAIRE FROM THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION: To consider the replacement of Charlene La Claire as Planning
Commissioner, for the term ending June 30, 1987.
Councilman Hunter restated his motion from the previous meeting that Charlene
La Claire be removed from the City Planning Commission. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler reiterated he felt the Council was
being premature especially considering that Mrs. La Claire's term ends
June 30, 1987. Someone who has served on the Commission for 12 years deserves
consideration. He feels the reason for the action is because of the recent
campaign and the move is not doing anything to benefit the City. If the
Council does not want to reappoint commissioners when their terms are up on
June 30th, then it should be done at that time. He hoped that the maker and
the second of the motion would reconsider the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that last week when the issue was discussed it
was brought up there were violations of the law and she does not see that
anywhere.
Mayor Bay asked if she had a copy of the report to the City Council from the
City Attorney dated June 10, 1987 with reference to State law applicable to
receipt of campaign contributions by City Commissioners and Board Members;
Councilwoman Kaywood acknowledged that she had a copy. She continued that
when charges are made, it is important to follow up and if no violations have
occurred, to leave the matter hanging on the record that there were violations
is unfair to everyone involved.
Councilman Pickler stated they all received a copy of the City Attorney's
comments on the receipt of the Campaign Contributions and that he has examined
the campaign report statements. He has not examined the statements on behalf
of any candidates. The point coming across is that there is a violation of
some laws. He does not know whether or not that is the case and that is the
reason for his saying wait until the end of the term and then reappoint at
that time.
Councilman Hunter then repeated the reasons why he was making the motions to
remove Charlene La Claire from the City Planning Commission (see minutes of
June 9, 1987).
519
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay then reminded the Council that all Boards and Commissions serve at
the pleasure of the Council. There is absolutely no requirement to give any
reasons whatsoever for removals. If three members of the Council feel someone
should be removed, they can be removed any Tuesday it is put on the agenda.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was only one Planning Commission meeting
left to go for Mrs. La Claire and questioned why her tenure could not continue
until that period and then the Council can act accordingly.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to remove Charlene La Claire
from the City Planning Commission:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
149/142/107/179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4836 THROUGH 4842: Councilman Pickler
offered Ordinance Nos. 4836 through 4842 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4836: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
14.32.060 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 RELATING TO OPERATION OF BUSSES ON
NARROW STREETS.
ORDINANCE NO. 4837: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
15.32.020 OF CHAPTER 15.32 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO HOUSE MOVING.
ORDINANCE NO. 4838: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RwT.ATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-21, RM-2400, 1918-1932 E. Cypress St.)
ORDINANCE NO. 4839: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 79-80-25(13), OS(SC), Tract 10969)
ORDINANCE NO. 4840: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 79-80-25(14), RM-3000(SC), Tract 10969)
OKDINANCE NO. 4841: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 79-80-25(15), OS (SC), Tract No. 10970)
ORDINANCE NO. 4842: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 79-80-25(16), RM-3000(SC), Tract No. 10970)
Roll Call Vote:
52O
Git7 H~]!, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4836 through 4842, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Brent Jones, 7380 Stonecreek Lane, Anaheim. He read two letters which had
previously been submitted to the Council both dated June 16, 1987: (1)
Requesting that the City Council weekly meeting agenda be posted in the hill
and canyon area preferably at the Canyon Library and, (2) requesting that the
Council delay a decision on the Highlands and Oak Hills Developments and seek
involvement of the citizens living in Planning Area B before the projects
progress any further thereby demonstrating the Council's commitment to the
Hill and Canyon Area General Plan.
John Larson, Sr. 1810 Sycamore Street, across from Sycamore Jr. High School.
There are approximately 45 soccer teams in the City. Some teams play on the
Sycamore Jr. High School grounds. There is a problem of drinking on school
property. He was hoping that an ordinance Just passed relative to City parks
would also be enacted for park-run soccer matches. People throw and break
bottles, they do not use sanitary facilities, they drop dirty diapers, the
neighborhood is being disturbed from 8:00 a.m. until 9 or 10:00 p.m. The
neighbors have called the police who have responded with the availability of
labor they have. It is up to the Council, from what he understands from the
Parks and Recreation Department and the police, to do something about the
situation. The neighborhood is hurt and they would like to be heard and
recognized.
Councilman Pickler. The problem is something the Council is concerned with.
Both people (Mr. Jones and Mr. Larson), deserve an answer. Mr. Larson's
problem is one that the City and School District are concerned with and is
being looked into. The Council should get an update on the status of the
matter.
Mayor Bay. It is the practice to listen to anything anybody wants to bring up
any Tuesday but since under the provisions of the Brown Act the Council cannot
take any formal actions on non-agenda itemm, the most that end be done is to
refer people to information that is available to staff. He urged Mr. Larson
to check with staff because action is being taken with regard to City park
property but the City does not have control of school property.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:05 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:24 p.m.)
155/179: PUBLIC MKAI~ING - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1 (INCLUDING A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PLAN), FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS~ SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND D~VELOPMENT
STANDA~nS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (SUPPLEMENTAL):
APPLICANT: Southmark Pacific Corporation (So. Pac., Inc.)
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
Pasadena, Ca. 91101
521
16,5
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider adoption of a Specific Plan including
Zoning and Development Standards, and a Public Facilities Plan for the
proposed Highlands on approximately 816 acres located north of Canyon Rim
Road, east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by East Hills Planned
Community (Bauer Ranch), east by Wallace Ranch and Oak Hills Ranch, and
southeast by Irvine Company property, to provide for the development of up to
2,147 residential units, 8 acres of commercial uses, 285 acres of open space,
a 5 acre park site and a 15.3 acre elementary school site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Adoption of Specific Plan No. 87-1 (including a
Public Facilities Plan Section) in the Zoning and Development Standards for
Specific Plan No. 87-1 was recommended by the Planning Commission in
Resolution No. PC87-94 and PC87-95; recommended that EIR No. 273
(supplemental) be certified with a statement of overriding considerations.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May 14, 1987.
Posting of property May 15, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 15, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated March 30 and
April 13, 1987.
Also see related documents and data which have been made a part of the record
as well as the minutes of the Planning Commission hearings of March 30 and
April 20, 1987 where extensive testimony was given. This matter was continued
from the meeting of May 26, 1987, to this date.
Mayoz Bay asked for a staff update relative to the issues. He referred to
memorandum dated June 1§, 1987 from the Executive Director of Community
Development & Planning which the Council received as they entered the meeting
today involving Condition Nos. 11, 32, 70, 74, 91 and 95. He has not had an
opportunity to read the data.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
Following the meeting of May 26, 1987 where substantial
discussions took place (see minutes that date) the hearing was
continued until today to give sta~ and the developers the
opportunity to meet and attempt to resolve or address the issues
discussed at the last meeting. The issues previously presented
included the Four Corners Pipeline, street Maintenance Facility
and the City Park and Water Services. These issues have been
satisfactoraly resolved and there are now revised conditions
wherein the developer and staff are both in agreement. He was
Just informed that a representative from the Orange Unified
School District (OUSD) wishes to address the Council regarding
the park issue. An agreement was also reached on recommended
wording changes for Condition Nos. 52, 109 and 120 and a number
of other conditions they agreed would remain intact. Since the
staff report was written, there have been numerous meetings with
the developer and they have also been able to work through a
522
City Hall~ A~-be~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
number of other areas of concern. What were developer
objections to the wording and conditions for the open or natural
storm drain have been removed; they are in agreement on the
revised condition recommended by Engineering staff concerning
addressing improvements for Santa Aha Canyon Road, i.e., the
funding of a study and fair share participation by the
Htghland's developer. They are also in agreement now on
conditions regarding Fiscal Impact which is a safegard to the
City that the development would not be a burden to existing City
residents but at the same time any assessment district that
might be formed will be terminated when no longer needed to
offset deficits examined within the project. The further
revised conditions mentioned by Mayor Bay reflect the ongoing
effort by the staff and the developer to try to bring solutions
today rather than problems. The revisions incorporated in the
report also reflect full agreement between the developer and the
City staff. Mr. Fick then briefed Condition Nos. 11, 32, 70,
74, 91 and 95 noting the amendments that had been made - see the
attachment to the June 16, 1987 memorandum entitled revised
conditions, June 16, 1987 reflecting the amendments.
Mr. Fick then summarized the focused issues where the developer
and City's position were still at variance - the provision for
fire service for the Hill and Canyon Area, and the provision for
the backbone arterial highway system. The Planning Commission
recommended that the roadway link, Serrano/Weir Canyon link, be
in place prior to occupancy of the first unit. At the
Commission and Council meetings, the staff position primarily as
recommended by the Fire Chief was that this link be in place
prior to placement of any combustible materials on site. Staff
has come up with the presently recommended conditions which they
believe reflect a sound compromise condition that meets the
needs of all parties and also the technical needs of serving the
Highland's project by itself. The optimum City position for
regional circulation would be for the link to be constructed
prior to any construction taking place on the Ranches. Highland
has proposed not to construct that link at the last meeting.
gince the last masting and after substantial discussion and
negotiation with the developers, staff is now recommending that
the City accept construction of a temporary fire access road
going through the Highland's property and the Wallace Ranch to
Fire Station il0 on the Bauer Ranch prior to any combustible
materials being placed on site. This would accommodate
construction of the first 400 units within the Highland's
project and further that construction of the Weir Canyon link,
although bonded for, would be delayed until occupancy of the
401st dwelling unit if not already constructed by the adjacent
Ranches.
523
City ~811~ A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
This alternative provides the City with inter-ranch circulation
and temporary fire access durin~ the initial phase of
construction and guarantees the implementation of the City's
circulation element for the arterial highway construction with
the reimbursement agreement back to the Highland's from other
benefitting properties. For the Highland's this would delay the
upfront construction of a 34 million improvement until the
second phase of construction. For the other Ranches, and Oak
Hills will be coming back later this month, with the Wallace
Ranch to be submitted soon, regional circulation and fire access
would be slightly delayed than if not constructed immediately by
the Hlghland's project, but future implementation would still be
guaranteed. Staff believes that this benefit to the Highland's
further emphasizes the reasonableness to participate in the
construction of Fire Station ~9 especially since paramedic
service is provided to the Highland's from this station.
In summary, Mr. Fick stated he believes staff has been quite
successful in focusing the issues around one central theme and
that is the provision of fire protection services and
circulation for the Ranches.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern over the provision in
revised Condition No. 11, "When the assessment revenues reach
equilibrium for the two years, then it shall be terminated."
She can foresee some type of reason where it would be okay for
two years and then if a problem arose and if a shopping center
or large store closed, the City would be back in an adverse
position if the revenues are less than the expenditures. If the
revenues are terminated, she was concerned over what would
happen in that case.
Ron Rothschild, Program Development and Audit Manager.
It was felt that two consecutive years would indicate some
stability of the revenue streams and that the City would be
protected by that district at that point. The only sure way of
guaranteeing that is not to terminate the districts but leave
them intact and not levy a benefit assessment for any year.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would feel more secure with that
kind of feature included.
Mayor Bay.
It is his opinion and feeling, if assessment districts must be
set up, then it must be very clear how they will be terminated.
That does not mean temporarily terminated on the basis of some
failure of sales tax in an area that has been stabilized for two
years. He does not intend to support an assessment district
that is not clear cut as a stopping point once the balance is
met and stabilized for a two-year period.
524
164
City Ho]!~ An,h-~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter.
He also would not be in favor of any open ended assessment on
taxpayers.
After further discussion, Mr. Fick reiterated unless staff hears
otherwise, there is agreement on all conditions except for the
issues concerning timing of construction, the need for the Weir
Canyon/Serrano link and also the financing of Fire Station #9.
Mayor Bay asked to hear from the developer.
Mr. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 1151 Dove Street, Newport
Beach. He is happy to report that most of the items have been
resolved. He especially thanked Mr. Fick and Mr. Priest as well
as staff for the great amount of time spent with them in the
past few weeks. Mr. Elfend then submitted a booklet entitled -
The Highland's at Anaheim Hills - City Council Presentation -
June 16, 1987 which would follow the presentation he is making
today (made a part of the record).
He then broached those items still unresolved. The first item
is the Fire Department access consideration (Mr. Elfend narrated
the slide presentation - hard copies of the slides were included
in the booklet submitted). He briefed the Council relative to
what had occurred at the Planning Commission meetings on the
issue as well Fire Chief Bowman's presentations made both at the
Planning Commission and previous Council meeting referencing the
map exhibits that were presented by Chief Bowman. He explained
in order to move forward they met with Chief Bowman and agreed
to provide a temporary access road before building any units or
prior to the occupancy of the first unit with available water.
(See sheet - City Council Fire Access Compromise). What is
important about them making the offer is they assumed all other
conditions which were negotiated with staff would remain
intact. The conditions which they have created represent
negotiations they had with the Traffic Engineer Paul Singer and
City Engineer Gary Johnson (see sheet - Staff
Position/Circulation). Those were very important items to the
Hi§hland's - the memorandum of June 16, 1987 from Traffic
Engineer Singer (Subject: Review of EIR No. 273 - Highland's at
Anaheim Hills) and Page 13 - 111 of the staff report to the
Planning Commission dated April 13, 1987. There was no process
or request made to them to have the Weir Canyon/Serrano
connection made in association with the project. They have
spent a considerable amount of time negotiating the issue. To
their surprise in meeting last week with Gary Johnson, he
indicated the conditions negotiated and outlined in those
documents were no longer applicable. Now, subsequent to the
400th unit, the developer was going to have to make a connection
of Serrano to Weir Canyon Road. The connection is not
necessitated by the project; therefore, they have taken the
position that providing the access road, as they have agreed
525
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
with the Fire Department that Condition Nos. 90, 91, 95 and 110
be modified. Mr. Elfend's suggestion was that the road be
provided prior to occupancy of the first unit rather than prior
to placement of building materials and they will provide water
on that site to mitigate the concern. They have indicated to
Council at the last meeting that there was a link between the
fire access compromise and the City's request for funding of
Fire Station ~10. At the last City Council meeting and some of
the Planning Commission meetings, it was suggested by personnel
in the Fire Department that Texaco/Anaheim Hills, the prior
owners, had offered to donate property at the corner of Serrano
and Nohl Ranch Road to the City for relocation of Fire Station
#9. To clarify the matter, they located a staff report prepared
by the Planning Department (see sheet - Staff Position/Serrano
Fire Station Site) indicating that negotiations were never
finalized regarding the property and there was never any
agreement to give the property to the City. Since there was no
formal agreement reached between the City and the developers and
since the maps which have been presented by Fire Chief Bowman
indicate the project w~ll not be served by Fire Station ~9, they
are requesting that the condition be deleted, Condition No. 79.
In concluding, Mr. Elfend stated his presentation represents
their comments on the two items as mentioned by Mr. Fick. With
regard to the fiscal consideration, they are happy to bring a
resolution in that item and are comfortable with the conditions
as noted. Therefore, the only items before the Council today
are the two - (1) the timing of the temporary access road; (they
believe it is reasonable to provide for it prior to occupancy)
and~ (2) that the conditions which were worded previously and
agreed to in a long, detailed negotiation process with staff be
the ones that are applied to the project as currently
submitted. He also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that
before a single unit would be occupied, the access road would be
in place. They would also provide water on the site for
purposes of fire protection. They feel confident if there was a
fire, Fire Station No. 9 would be able to reach it in a
reasonable manner via Serrano. Also~ in answer to Councilman
Hunter, it is currently their position that with the condition
to provide a Serrano/Weir Canyon connection, which they feel is
inappropriate, and do not wish to provide but if, in fact, the
conditions reverted back to the way they were as negotiated,
they would be prepared to donate the site at the top of the hill
(Serrano and Nohl Ranch Road) to the City and the City could use
it as it so desired which would be consistent with Condition No.
79. As the conditions presently read, they are not willing to
donate that property. They would do so if they were not
required to be responsible for building an off-site access road
- the Serrano/Weir Canyon connection for other developers.
526
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Discussion followed between Council and staff wherein staff
reported that the property at the top of the hill is presently
unzoned. It is at the terminus where sphere of influence
between Anaheim and the City of Orange exchange and the land use
designations alternate between commercial and open space;
Traffic Engineer Singer reported that a portion of the property
under discussion is going to be lost due to the necessity of
relocating Nohl Ranch Road in order to provide access across the
street towards the proposed future development of the
Highland's; John Roche, Maintenance Director, reported that the
property is worth approximately $10.00 a square-foot. The plan
was always to get three quarters of an acre for a fire station.
It is worth approximately $350,000.
Mr. Elfend.
He wanted to clarify a statement made by Mr. Singer. Their
Traffic Engineer indicated to them that the Southmark
Development Area 1, at one time when development was anticipated
at a greater density than what is presently proposed, there was
a proposal to realign Nohl Ranch Road as suggested. That
property has been sold and it is their understanding the density
would be far less than what was one time considered. It is his
understanding that would not be necessary.
Mr. Singer explained it is an offset intersection and regardless
of the density, the intersection will have to be realigned, not
necessarily widened.
Mr. Elfend stated it may not be necessary, based upon the number
of units that are currently proposed, to have a road coming down
in that area and thus the land would not be lost.
Fire Chief Bowman.
Relative to Fire Station ~9, based on the information he
provided previously, it is his opinion now that Fire Station ~9
is in the best position possible to serve Anaheim Hills. Mr.
Elfend commented that the proposed map he showed with the
station at the top of the hill would be best suited for overall
£ire protection. He believes that the slides he showed at the
last meeting very clearly depicted the need to keep Fire Station
#9 where it is because of the run response loads. Also, the
City of Orange was planning to place a fire station on Serrano
Avenue less than one mile from that intersection, the fire
station site under discussion. It would, therefore, not make
sense to construct a fire station at that location.
City Manager William Talley.
Today they are talking about where is the best place to put Fire
Station t9. The Fire Chief is saying that place is where it is
right now. When the fire station is built, they will take the
parcel that Highland's was formerly going to donate. Prior to
this they were going to donate that site, plus share in the cost
527
City Hall, A,-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
of the station. The City would not need the site at the top of
the hill, but if the Higland's gave it to the City in lieu of a
cash contribution for paying for part of the construction, the
City would back off. The City will use the existing space and
if the City gets the site at the top of the hill for another
purpose, take that in lieu of whatever cash the Council might
have decided was their fair share of paying for the
construction. The second item is the access road. The road is
going to be built some time. The Fire Chief's view is from a
property and life saving standpoint. He feels he should be able
to get in there the minute the developer starts moving on the
site. If there is a problem in the hills and a fire starts, it
is going to come down the hills and onto other property. It
cannot always be assumed that Fire Station il0 is going to be
occupied as it may be out on a call. Providing only one way to
get into that site, in his opinion, is putting the City at
risk. It is not a matter of if the road should be built, but
when. The Fire Chief wants the road when construction is
started and to protect property.
Fire Chief Bowman. The optimum position as a City is to
maintain exactly what the Planning Commission recommended - to
build the full roads through. The only exception the Fire
Department took was relative to the time of construction as
opposed to the time of occupancy. The bottom line being to make
sure there is access from two directions.
Gary Johnson, CitY Engineer.
It is fair to say that the fire access road timing is a point of
disagreement. The present condition as it relates to Serrano
still is proposed with occupancy of the 401st unit that Serrano
be extended..That is the best plan to meet the regional
circulation needs of the area, it is a master planned facility,
and it serves the area. After great discussion at the Planning
Commission, that is the conclusion that the Planning Commission
reached.
Frank Elfend.
He disagrees. There was a commitmant made by staff on that
item. When they negotiated in good faith on circulation, staff
came out with a report indicating the Serrano/Weir Canyon Road
connection was not needed for this project. The Highland's
project condition read when unit 401 was built, three things
would happen - either a connection out through the project to
the north to Santa Ama Canyon Road, a connection through the
adjacent property, the Wallace Ranch, or the widening of
Fairmont. That was a compromise that was negotiated. Right now
the difference is - when that temporary road would actually be
operable and also they do not believe that connection should be
a condition of the project - to build Serrano to Weir Canyon
Road.
528
160
City Hall~ Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The negotiations Mr. Elfend is referring to had all taken place
prior to the knowledge that the Fire Department required access
other than what was available. Mr. Elfend talked to one
department at a time and one department did not know what the
other was doing. Since then the Fire Chief requires that a full
connection be made and circulation be accomplished following the
401st unit. Mr. Elfend also proposed that a road be connected
to the Wallace Ranch. The backbone system is needed sooner or
later.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Spencer Covert, Jr., Attorney representing Orange Unified School
District (OUSD).
He referred to his letter dated June 12, 1987 (previously made a
part of the record). His understanding from staff is that at
the previous meeting, Condition No. 82 was deleted. He is
requesting that condition be added - that the conditions OUSD
outlined in the June 12, 1987 letter be included in a written
agreement prior to approval of the Final Map or Parcel Maps.
They understand there is a proposal to utilize the District's
acres for a park site. In concept, the District is not opposed
to that but are opposed to any concept that would leave them
with only 8 acres for a site and not be able to use that park
site for school purposes. He has had an opportunity to discuss
the matter with staff this afternoon and understands they may be
addressing the issue as well. He has also spoken with Mr.
Elfend who does not object to the conditions except for Item
No. 2 which says, primary access which the District believes is
important. They do not want access to the school going through
the City's park.
Jerod Ikeda, representing Oak Hills Development.
With regard to the Serrano extension and Fire Station t9 and 10,
at the last Council meeting and prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, Oak Hills has been operating under the assumption that
the extension of Serrano would be a requirement for development
of any of the Ranches. Fire Station #9 provides paramedic
service to all three Ranches and ~10 provides fire safety
protection to all three. Oak Hills has operated on the basis
that the Highland's would provide that portion of Serrano up to
the boundary of Oak Hills and Oak Hills would then provide
development of Serrano through its portion of the property, and
Wallace Ranch would provide their portion of the Serrano
extension thereby providing both paramedic and fire protection
services to all three Ranches. It was their understanding that
Serrano would be extended all the way so all three Ranches would
have service and there would be a reimbursement agreement
established depending on the timing.
529
157'
City ~-]1, A-abe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
It is his understanding from what was Just stated the Planning
Commission agreement was the Highland's, Oak Hills and Wallace
Ranch would all be paying their share of the full extension of
Serrano from its termination now over to Weir Canyon Road by
their portions on their property without talking about upfront
money. He asked if there was a time element or agreement at the
time of the Planning Commission hearing from Wallace, Highland's
or Oak Hills, that they were all ready to contribute or bond to
do that at one given time.
Mr. Ikeda answered no. The direction of the Planning Commission
was that road had to be connected in order to allow the service
to be assured. He then confirmed that Oak Hills is willing to
develop their share of the extension of Serrano.
Councilman Hunter.
He suggested then that all the developers split the road at the
same time now; Mr. Fick explained that had been discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting and all three Ranches were there but
the difficulty lies in generating the upfront money. The level
of discussion at the Commission meeting was that each Ranch
agree to participate in their fair share as opposed to saying,
if they are not necessarily ready to develop tomorrow, they
would all guarantee to financially participate, whoever went
first. Before concluding, Mr. Ikeda asked questions for
purposes of clarification relative to the proposed road.
Mayor Bay.
If the City was going to say to all three developers that the
Serrano extension is to be built in its entirety at the outset,
it would solve many problems. If Oak Hills agreed to
front-money their portion of the road, the question is could
Wallace Ranch and the Highland's also front money their portion
without regard to the possibilities that the City may be able to
help in obtaining the front-money with the normal process where
the City is the middleman, but not getting involved in a debt,
i.e., getting the money at a low interest rate.
Frank Elfend.
He would say yes with respect to the Highland's. The timing
would be a consideration as it relates to final maps or when
development occurs. Relative to Wallace Ranch, the principals
are not present. Assuming things moved forward on that Ranch
and the entitlement is granted, he would speak on their behalf
as their agent and say yes. Their situation is a little
different than the Highland's as it relates to ownership. With
the opportunity for some type of bond or financing mechanism, he
would assure that they would move forward. What he hears
tonight, two developers are committed to bring that road down to
the Wallace Ranch in conjunction with their building permit.
That would be very positive.
530
t58
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Jim Dennehy, Oak Hills.
For the last nine months he has been sayin~ that and he is
making his commitment tonight.
Mayor Bay confirmed it is the portion of the extension of
Serrano on the Oak Hills property development at the time that
can be worked out but between the three developers involved. He
is going to assume that Wallace Ranch is going to be cooperative
in the action if Highland's and Oak Hills are cooperative for
the full extension of Serrano. He Just wanted to hear Mr.
Dennehy say what Mr. Ikeda said, that Oak Hills is ready to do
the same.
Jim Dennehy.
Oak Hills is ready to commit Serrano from their southwest
borderline to their northeast borderline.
Mayor Bay.
He suggested that the Council could continue the hearin~ and the
Oak Hills hearing until there is a definitive response from the
Wallace Ranch people.
Frank Elfend.
In light of the commitment made tonight by Mr. Dennehy as it
relates to the Wallace Ranch, they would like to see the
temporary access road to Fire Station ~10 remain as a condition
on their project. They would like the condition to then provide
with the 401st unit, if not provided at that time, that the road
would be in place as currently stated today. That would give
them the ability to move forward with the first phase
understanding when that 401st unit would be built, the road
would be there. The reason he recommends that is because the
timing involved with building Serrano will be much greater than
the timing involved in building the temporary fire access road.
Since the major concern, given the fact that after the 401st
unit the road would be in, would be the fire access and thus,
they would be able to provide that temporary access road to get
the first phase moving alon~. They would keep the condition
with the modi£ication to it whereby they would build Serran0 to
their project boundary with their 401st unit if it was not there
beforehand which they would do if that was the recommendation of
the City Engineer.
Mayor Bay.
Speaking to staff, trying to time three developments at a single
point to construct a $3.5 million dollar road perhaps $4 million
road, it was time to stop and specifically negotiate so that the
timing can be handled and a report back to the Council. If
there is agreement between the three developers on the extension
of Serrano as soon as feasible, that needs to be locked down
without the intention of holding up development on any of the
three projects. He feels there needs to be time to settle the
531
City Hall~ A--heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
specifics with all three developers and setting it up as a
specific condition on the timing and, if necessary, with help
from the City on the financing from the standpoint of being a
middleman only.
Frank Elfend.
He suggested a 10 or 15 minute recess. If it were negotiated
the way he understands it today, the condition could be provided
satisfactory to staff, prior to combustibles.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
It is necessary to look at each Ranch individually. In his
opinion, it is better to meet collectively with the Ranches and
make certain the situation is acceptable to everyone. He does
not believe it could be done reasonably and tied down in 10 to
15 minutes.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She would also like to have a resolution on the school park
property.
Frank Elfend.
It was his understanding at the last Council meeting that the
Council resolved that issue. They made a proposal to the OUSD,
the same one made the day they appeared before the Council. He
reiterated it is his understanding the condition is resolved and
that the Council voted on it. The direction from Council to
keep it, if possible, as it is and if not possible, to negotiate
it and that it then go back to the earlier configuration. They
are very comfortable in sitting down with the District and will
negotiate an agreement with them. They feel that is where it is
at right now and it would not require future action on the part
of the Council since the Council already acted on the conditions
(see minutes of May 26, 1987).
Spencer Covert, OUSD.
They will be back next week if there needs to be further
clarification.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on Specific
Plan No. 87-1 (including a Public Facilities Plan), Fiscal Impact Analysis,
Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards and Environmental Impact Report
No. 273 (Supplemental) to Tuesday, June 23, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman
Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:55 p.m.)
AFTE~RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:12 p.m.)
106: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: To consider the
proposed 1987/88 and 1988/89 Resource Allocation Plan (RAP).
532
1:56
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
The Council received the Chamber of Commerce Blue Ribbon
Committee (BRC) report today. He asked to hear from the Chamber.
Mr. Floyd Farano, President.
He asked that the Council and members of the City accept the
recommendations made in the report in the spirit in which they
were given, mainly as constructive thoughts and
recommendations. The Chamber feels strongly in its loyalty to
Anaheim and wishes to let the City and the Council know the
recommendations are in that vein. Some of the sacrifices and
ideas that involve sacrifice are along the same lines business
has to address. The Chamber would not request the City to do
anything business would not do itself.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked which was the revised report. It was
her understanding that there were now two reports; Mr. Farano
answered that the latest copy indicated on the cover, adopted
June 15, 1987.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had not received the revised
copy as yet (see report Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Blue Ribbon
Committee Report on the 1987/89 City of Anaheim Resource
Allocation Plan - adopted June 15, 1987 - made a part of the
record).
Mr. Dennis Hardin, Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee. He
first complimented City staff for their excellent cooperation.
They have always been cooperative and were even more so this
year. He also thanked the 23 members who made up the Blue
Ribbon Committee. This year's budget is a real challenge as
presently presented with a 3.6 million shortfall the first
fiscal year and 4.8 in the next fiscal year. The Chamber is
concerned about that. The City cannot operate in a deficit
position. The budget is going to have to be balanced and
difficult decisions are going to have to be made. He noted,
however, that the level of taxation in Anaheim was as high as
they would like to see it.
Mr. Hardin then briefed the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Blue
Ribbon Committee Report on the 1987/89 City of Anaheim Resource
Allocation Plan presented June 1~, 1987. The areas included
involved the Chamber's recommendation on a hiring freeze at
current position levels for all non-enterprise departments, a
wage level freeze, recommendations for the Police Department,
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, special
assessment districts in the canyon area, improvements at the
Convention Center, the proposed increase in the Transient
Occupancy Tax (the Chamber is not opposed to the increase which
will benefit the Tourist and Convention industry), focusing
attention on redevelopment, bringing business into the City, the
Family Foresome, maintenance service, traffic problems in the
533
i53
City Hall~ A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
commercial recreation area, lack of reserves for critical
maintenance, Betterment III and the problem with servicing of
Certificates of Participation. Those and other items were
covered in the Blue Ribbon Committee Report. At the conclusion
of his presentation, Mr. Hardin invited the Council to go
through the report in detail. He was also certain that staff
would have comments on the Chamber's recommendations and they
would welcome those.
Following Mr. Hardin's presentation, the Council first thanked
him and the Committee for the time and effort spent in producing
the report and subsequently posed questions or gave their input
relative to specific recommendations contained in it which were
answered by Mr. Hardin.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION AND DINNER BREAK: Councilman Bay moved to recess into
Closed Session and a dinner break. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:55 p.m.)
106/156: PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT: City Manager Talley introduced
the Police Department budget (Resource Allocation Plan, Page Nos. 24 through
27, Page 18 and the Capital Improvement Program - no capital improvement funds
are being requested for the coming two fiscal years but funds are being
requested out in the future. The operating budget total for 1987/88,
$35,859,421 and 1988/89, $40,082,990.
Issue: City Manager Talley explained while the
communications/records upgrade portion of the Police 2000
Project are nearly complete, the remaining phases are dependent
upon new revenues. Staff has elected to present along with the
Police Department budget a proposed Public Safety Package for
several reasons. First, in view of increasing population and
population density, he felt that the Council should be presented
with a look at where public safety in Anaheim is going in the
next five years. A major commitment is required on behalf of
the Council to maintain existing service levels beyond the
City's capacity with current revenues. Secondly, it will be
pointed out tonight why the Council should authorize or
anticipate enhancing City activity in areas where new problems
have been identified. Lastly, there are some new capital
expenditures which are required for needed additional facilities
and equipment. He then introduced Bob Simpson, Deputy City
Manager to discuss non-Police Department aspects of the Public
Safety Package to be followed by a presentation from the Chief
of Police on the Police Department 5-year request.
Deputy City Manager, Bob Simpson.
He gave an extensive presentation on the non-police items
contained in the public safety package involving the Parks,
534
1'54
City Hall~ Am~heim, Califor~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Recreation and Community Services Department, the Fire
Department and the Engineering Department summarized as follows:
Parks, Recreation and Community Services - Park Ranger Program
Augmentation and the Youth Crime Reduction Augmentation (total
funding requested, ~117,000 in 1987 and $107,000 in 1988/89
increasing patrol hours from 2,556 to 9,390 hours to allow 7-day
a week coverage).
Youth Crime Reduction Pro,ram - Total funding requested,
$18,000 for 1987/88 and $19,000 for 1988/89 to continue the
program which will cover the 30-hour per week part-time staff
position to coordinate the program.
Fire Department - Fire Equipment - Two Fire Department vehicles -
A hazardous materials response unit operating out of Fire
Station il0 to replace a state provided vehicle - estimated cost
$200,000. Purchase of one vehicle to replace two existing
vehicles by combining aerial ladder rescue equipment with a
reading ear compressor carried on the existing low pressure
trailer. Cost analysis of the proposed unit, approximately
$250,000 fully equipped.
Engineering Department - Transportation Issue - Three
additional positions requested - Associate Traffic Engineer -
Transportation System Specialist - Senior Traffic Engineering
Aid - Total funding 1987/88, $176,000 and $149,000 for 1988/89.
Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy.
Chief Kennedy gave an extensive and detailed presentation on the
Police Department 5-Year Plan supplemented by a video
presentation and slides. He explained first that the 5-Year
Plan is a concept necessary to continue existing levels of
service to the citizens of Anaheim. The Council has before it
the 2-Year Police Budget which is an expenditure plan with
parameters determined by revenue. The 5-Year Plan is a
Statement of Needs. The Police Department must staff to meet
constantly changing challenges and demand for services that they
find occurring in the City of Anaheim. Anaheim has unique
police problems with a population of over 240,000 citizens and
also 30,000,000 visitors each year. It is necessary to maintain
a ratio of 1.4 police officers per 1,000 population to continue
to provide existing levels of service. (The video was the shown
at this point concentrating on the areas about which Chief
Kennedy spoke). He elaborated upon the City's changing and
expanding population bringing about a variety of social
problems, changes in the community, higher density resulting in
a greater use of public facilities, changes in case laws, court
rulings and procedures creating a negative manpower drain in the
Police Department. He also expanded on the necessity for
continuance of the Police 2000 Project and reiterated the
importance of maintaining the 1.4 ratio of sworn officers per
535
City Hall~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
1,000 population. He then, in great detail, "walked through"
the sworn/non-sworn positions that would be needed under the
5-Year Plan totalling $21,117,160 in personnel, $1,372,530 for
equipment and ~11,055,275 for Police 2000 Project totalling
$33,544j965. (See booklet entitled Anaheim Police Department -
Public Safety - 5-Year Plan submitted at the conclusion of Chief
Kennedy's presentation. The presentation also contained hard
copies of most of the slides that were shown - see page entitled
Police Department 5-Year Plan - Sworn/Non-Sworn giving the
detailed information relative to the personnel, equipment and
Police 2000 requirements from 1987 through 1992).
Before concluding, Chief Kennedy submitted a facsimile check to
the Council/City Treasury for $100,000 explaining that it
represented $35,000 authorized in 1975 to be put into a "flash
fund" for narcotics investigation, another $7,000 was added and
then another $25,000. With the interest that accumulated the
fund was now at $100,000. Due to the receipt of forfeiture
funds to the Police Department, the Narcotics Bureau and the
Police Department was now able to fund its own "flash" money.
In appreciation to the City for its original investment in the
Police Department interest, he was happy to return the
investment plus its accumulated interest. (The facsimile check
was submitted representing the funds which would be placed in
the City Treasury).
In summation, Chief Kennedy stated the Police Department has
managed to be a more proactive Police Department by the use of
surveillance, implementing a task force approach and
prioritizing respomse to calls for service. Also with the use
of technology, they are becoming more effective, but it is also
affecting the work hours required to do the Job. It was now
necessary to move to meet growth and demands for the changing
face of Anaheim. He encouraged the Council to consider the
long-range 5-year concept of the law enforcement package.
City Manager Talley.
To move ahead with the 5-Year Plan as presented will require
resources in addition to those included in the recently
submitted RAP. The Council, in the last few months, has
indicated a desire to be involved in City policies at an earlier
date. This is a departure in his il-plus years of presenting
RAP's to the Council - that is to show the Council not one year
or two years, but five years of need in public safety. The
reason for doing so, the problem could be solved by saying
31 million is needed in the next two years and lead the Council
into it but he did not feel that would be right. The Fiscal
Year 1987/88 Public Safety Package totals ~2,525,000 and 45 new
full-time positions for everything needed to do the Job that the
citizens of Anaheim expect. They must begin addressing the
horrendous transportation and traffic congestion problems.
536
152
City Hall~ Ap~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Increasing amounts of resources must be used for the narcotics
problem in the community. In one operation a value of
$120,000,000 in narcotics was seized. That kind of an amount
was not envisioned a few years ago. The increasin~ density in
the community is adding to the crime rate and it will continue
to get worse. Because of the court system, the crowding and the
narcotics, it is going to require more people to do the same
Job. It is not possible to use the same number of manhours to
do the same amount of work in police as a few years ago. The
real problem is not $1 million, it is $33.5 million. He
reiterated in 1987/88, $2,525,000 and 45 new full-time positions
would do it, the current budget has 25 of those positions in it
and $1,824,000. The additional 20 new full-time positions, by
the time they are hired, would only cost an additional $700,000
and $270,000 of that would be funded through a State grant and
another $120,000 would be funded through the narcotics
forfeiture fund meaning those people could be hired for
$303,000. Next year they are asking ~5.1 million and 11 new
full-time positions on top of the 45 positions. Of the $5.1
million and 45 plus 11 (56 positions), 8 of those 11 new
positions and nearly $3.7 million are included in the budget
already. $400,000 of that and six of the positions are a State
grant. In addition, $402,000 would be funded through the
narcotic forfeiture fund leaving $758,000 to be funded through
the General Fund. He could give the Council a plan that asks
for an additional $303,000 this year and an additional $758,000
next year and the program could be done but he wanted to show
the real cost over the years because that is what it is going to
be to keep Anaheimwhere it is today in view of the continuing
density, transportation, congestion, and court rulings they are
getting.
Relative to the Police 2000 Program of $239,000 this year, $1.9
million next year and then over the next five years $11 million,
if the program is not done, the Police Department is not going
to have the facilities needed in the Chief's opinion. There is
an inadequate staff and totally inadequate Jail at this time.
The police building is 24 years old and there are people working
in trailers designed to last no more than five years that are
now beyond their useful life. This is the commitment contained
in his budget message that the Council would have to address.
It is a difficult one, but if they are really to look at
long-range needs, it is the Chief, his staff and administration
staff's best guess on what they believe is needed for the next
five years, a total public outlay of $33.5 million, 48 sworn
positions, 79 non-sworn positions in the Police Department alone
and several other positions, very minor, in other departments
that would support the effort in transportation, Fire, Parks and
Human Resources. This defines the most significant City policy
that needs to be addressed. Council has told staff that public
safety is the most important reason the City exists and the
Vision 2000 program has said, solving the transportation problem
537
City Hall~ An~het% California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 16~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
is the most important problem that the community can address.
This will give a good start on that while maintaining
traditional Anaheim service levels but it will require
substantial funding beyond that in the present budget.
Mr. Talley stated this presentation concludes all aspects of the 1987/88 and
1988/89 Resource Allocation Plan.
Mayor Bay first asked how many new employees in the police
function and public safety area had been requested of the
Council each year for the last three years; City Manager Talley
answered that he could check the budget to supply that
information. The Mayor continued that he recalled there were.
very few in personnel or costs in that area. He would like to
get those figures by next week.
Extensive discussion then followed between Mayor Bay and City Manager Talley.
Mayor Bay expressed great concern over the fact that the City Manager is
presenting a public safety plan at a time when the City is in its most dire
need of money. He could not understand what prompted the City Manager to
choose this year to present the plan, considering the debts that have occurred
where there is no revenue stream to handle those debts. Subsequently, Council
discussion, input and questioning followed relative to the proposed safety
package specifically with regard to the Police Department as well as the
question of a funding source for the Police 2000 Project.
At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Bay asked if anyone else wished to
speak to the 1987/89 Resource Allocation Plan.
MOTiON: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on the 1987/89
Resource Allocation Plan for one week. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105/114: REQUEST TO REVIEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Councilman Bay moved that
there be a review of City Board and Commission Members at the Council meeting
of June 23, 1987. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler questioned why such a review could
not take place after the budget session; Mayor Bay stated that there were
advertising procedures for replacements on openings.
Councilman Pickler recalled when Councilman Hunter became a Council Member, he
mentioned that he would like each member of the Council to appoint a
Commissioner, speaking of Planning Commissioners at the time. He (Pickler)
recommended that that procedure be followed where each Council Member appoint
a commissioner and get majority approval of the Council and the remaining two
Commissioners of the seven could be appointed at large. The Council, at
anytime could decide to remove any commissioner as was done today as they saw
fit. He would like the Council to consider the recommendation that Councilman
Hunter had previously made.
538
City ~11~ Anahetm~ California - C0~NCIL ~INUTES - June 16, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter stated that was before the Election. City Charter Section
902 provides that members of Boards and Commissions shall be appointed by the
City Council from qualified electors of the City. Thus, the City Council was
goin~ to appoint pursuant to the Charter.
City Attorney, Jack White. The City Council has to appoint or approve the
appointment of all Boards and Commissioners listed in the Charter. How they
get to that point is up to the Council, whether the Council as a whole wanted
to nominate them or reach some other process. The only thing the Charter
requires is that in the end result, the City Council appoints each member.
Councilman Pickler. He expressed concern that a whole Commission might be
removed by only three Council Members. There may be seven new Planning
Commissioners. His suggestion, with the approval of the majority of the
Council, is that each appoint their own so that there will be at least some
semblance of selection and not Just three people determining those appointees.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She did not see why waiting one week would make a
difference. A great deal of caution should be taken relative to any thought
of removin~ even a majority of the Planning Commission or Redevelopment
Commission. She referred to the two large projects presented today for the
canyon area which in themselves represented the establishment of small cities,
all the work that had been done on each, the public hearinEs and the field
trips that had taken place. There was no substitute for the vast experience
that the Planning Commissioners had. It would be a mistake to remove that
kind of experience which could create mammoth mistakes that the City would
have to live with forever. She had served on the Planning Commission for
three years and was well aware of the dedication, effort and time that had to
be devoted to serving on that Commission.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Pickler and
Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJODRNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:59
LEONOKA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
539