1987/06/237]
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
~ ESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
POLICE CHIEF: Jimmie Kennedy
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
A ¢o~.plete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 10:15 a.m. on June 19, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
~ll items as shown herein.
'5'~UEST FOK CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Sense.on 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.
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).
CO~U,:ilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay
~o-~ded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:15 p.m.)
RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
p.m.)
~;~'~ATION: Captain Joseph Huttenlocker, Salvation Army, gave the Invocation.
SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
.%31egiance to the Flag.
~.9~. LETTER OF COMMENDATION - UTILITY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES: Mayor Bay first
¥~.d a letter from Gordon Hoyt, Utilities General Manager, commending the
~i].ity Department workers who were involved in working through a weekend
~m~rgency on June 6 and June 7, 1987 due to an electrical outage. Fifty-one
~oyle were involved totalling 1,045 hours. After reading the letter, Mayor
54O
City Hall, Ao~heim, C~l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Bay also added his thanks as well as that of the Council for the kind of
effort put forth by the Utility Department employees under the conditions with
which they were confronted.
119: PRESENTATION - MOTHER OF THE YEAR 1987: Mrs. Fran Mauck presented to
the Council Mrs. Georgette Shabash, Anaheim's 1987 Mother of the Year. She
first read the letter which gained the coveted title for Mrs. Shabash written
by her 13 year old daughter.
Mayor Bay then presented Mrs. Shabash with roses and congratulated her on his
behalf and on behalf of the Council.
119: EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION: An Expression of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City uouncil and presented to Michael Todd Wallace,
commending him for his prompt action and involvement in an emergency situation
on the morning of July 3, 1986. Mr. Wallace knocked on doors of an apartment
complex off the 91-Freeway, warning of the danger relative to a fire he saw
starting on one of the roofs of the complex.
Mayor Bay, on behalf of the Council and the City, expressed their deepest
appreciation to Mr. Wallace for his unselfish action and for becoming involved
in an emergency situation and helping to save lives.
119: EXPRESSION OF CONGRATULATIONS: Expression of Congratulation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to A1 Merriam, Fleet
Manse.er, upon his retirement from the City after 20 years of employment in the
Mechanical Maintenance Division.
All Council Members personally wished Mr. Merriam well and a large contingent
of fellow workers were present in the Chamber audience to honor Mr. Merriam.
119: EXPRESSION OF CONGRATULATIONS: An Expressions of Congratulations were
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the following
Firefighters on the occasion of their retirement from the City: Bill Allen -
Firefighter I (over 13 years), Ralph Chester - Fire Captain II (over 25
years), Bob Johnson - Firefighter I (over 23 years), Bill Jones - Firefighter
I (over 19 years), Larry Lutz Fire Captain IV (over 30 years), Bob Schroeder -
Fire Engineer IV (over 23 years), Bob Stuart - Fire Engineer I (over 28
years), Bill Swain - Fire Engineer II (over 28 years), Bob Wilkinson - Fire
Captain I (over 30 years), A1 Williams - Fire Engineer III (over 25 years).
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular and
adjourned meeting of June 2, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVE~ OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler 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. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
541
69
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,893,180.65, in
accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offezed Resolution Nos. 87R-243 through 87R-248, 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 Dorothy J. Bronson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 15, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Deborah Mallard for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 16, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Friendly Village Mobile Home Park (George Adams,
Field Claims Representative) for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 3, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by John G. Lauff for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 21, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Silviano Ibarra for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 2, 1987.
Claim filed - recommended to be accepted:
t. Claim submitted by Paul Bunyan International Inn for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 2, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105; Special Joint Meeting of Community Services Board and Park and
Recreation Commission, Minutes of May 14, 1987.
b. 105: Special Joint Meeting of the Senior Citizens Commission and
Anaheim Youth Commission, Minutes of May 14, 1987.
c. 105: Senior Citizens Commission, Minutes of April 9, 1987.
3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Charles Post, dba C. V. Enterprises
Concessions, paying the City 15% of gross sales up to $40,000 and 20% above
$40,000, to operate food and beverage concessions at La Palma Park, Glover
Stadium, Pearson Park,'Peralta Canyon Park and Yorba Regional Park, to
terminate May 31, 1990.
542
7O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Anaheim Union High School District, at
a cost of $1,208.92 per month, for space at Trident Junior High School to
operate the West Anaheim Senior Citizens Center, for the term January 15, 1987
to June 30, 1987.
5. 150/106: Accepting funds donated through the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Foundation by Target Stores and Anaheim Arts Council;
increasing the appropriation for the Revolving Opportunity Fund by $4,936 in
Account No. 01-372-6341 and $1,043 in Account No. 01-372-6101; and increasing
Revenue Account No. 01-372-3226 by $6,979.
6. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to Agreement with Schema Systems,
Inc., for consulting services in connection with the Police Automated Systems
Development, extending the term to June 30, 1988 at a cost of $70,000.
7. 123: Approving a letter agreement dated June 8, 1987, stating terms and
conditions of employment of Ted W. Lewis as Convention Center Operations
Manager effective July 13, 1987.
8. 123/175: Authorizing a Reimbursement Agreement with Craig and Eve Miller,
7688 Calle Durango, for the Mohler Drive Drainage Reimbursement Area.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $25,099.74 for
rubberized railroad crossing material at La Palma Avenue, west of East Street,
at the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Crossing ~26-642N, in
accordance with Bid No. A-4458.
10. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to Wang Laboratories, in an amount not to exceed
$167,533 to cover maintenance contract costs for all Wang equipment city-wide.
11. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of $62,118.70 for one each, 50-foot aerial device.
12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Uarco Business Forms, in an amount not to
exceed $43,917 for FY 87/88 computer printout paper requirements, in
accordance with Bid No. 4460.
13. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of $12,628.84 for two
flat bed bodies with hoist, in accordance with Bid No. A-4465.
14. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $25,126.24 for two
1000 K.V.A. Three Phase Umfused Padmount Transformers, in accordance with Bid
No. A-4452.
15. 150: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Challenge
Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $79,550.77 for additional work in
connection with the Anaheim Wetlands & Santa Ama River Bike Trail, Account
Nos. 01-933-7103 and 17-798-6325-E8020.
543
67
Cit7 Hall, l--hetm, California - COUNClL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
16. 101: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-243: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (SIGNS WEST,
INC. ARTECH SIGNS, INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best
responsible bidder, Signs West, Inc./Artech Signs, Inc., in the amount of
~190,585, for Stadium Theme Tower, Account No. 61-512-7107)
106: Appropriating ~190,585 from 1986/87 Stadium Revenue Account Nos. 61-3451
and 61-3452 into Expenditure Account No. 61-512-7107.
17. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-244: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (SULLY MILLER
CONTRACTING COMPANY) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible
bidder, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, in the amount of $101,538.42, for
Cerritos Avenue Street Improvement 659 feet west of Bayless Street to Euclid
Street, Account Nos. 12-793-6325-E3140 and 51-484-6993-00710)
18. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-245: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (R. J. NOBLE
COMPANY) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
R. J. Noble Company, in the amount of $279,740.23, for La Palma Avenue Street
Improvement, East Street to Anaheim Boulevard, Account Nos. 12-793-6325-E3110
and 51-484-6993-00710)
19. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(ANAHEIM WETLANDS AND SANTA ANARIVER BICYCLE TRAIL) (Accepting the
completion of construction of the Wetlands and Santa Ama River Bike Trail,
Account Nos. 01-933-6325 and 17-798-6325-E8020, Challenge Engineering, Inc.,
contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
20. 164: ~ESOLUTION NO. 87R-247: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(WEST STREET STORM DRAIN) (Accepting the completion of construction of the
West Street Storm Drain, Account No. 25-791-6325-E1530, Kershaw Construction
Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
21. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 33 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 07-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
SUPPLEMENT. (Approving Supplement No. 33 to the Local Agency-State Agreement
No. 07-5055, to provide funds in the amount of $206,338 towards the cost of
installation of pavement markings on certain arterials in the City)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-243 through 87R-248:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-243 through 87R-248, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
544
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
139: SB 151 (PRESLEY) air QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEMBERSHIP: Memorandum
dated June 11, 1987 from League of California Cities regarding SB 151
(Presley) relating to air quality management district membership.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that last Thursday after the League of Cities
meeting, the Committee did meet with regard to the subject bill. There were
four members of local City Councils appointed by the City Selection
Committee. Senator Presley is looking to bypass that. It was the feeling of
those still in attendance that it was extremely important for cities to have
that direct representation. (She read portions of the memorandum). One of
the things they are looking at in SB 151 was to have one member appointed by
the Governor, one appointed by the Assembly Speaker, one by the Senate Rules
Committee and four appointed by the Governor as nominated by the Boards of
Supervisors of each County. Obviously the Boards of Supervisors would be
nominating Supervisors and not City Council Members. The one change they were
looking at as a possibility, instead of a member appointed by the Governor
that it be a permanent seat for the City of Los Angeles based on their
population. If Anaheim is willing to go along with that, that information
would go to the Orange County League of Cities so they would know how to
proceed. They wanted to know the feeling from each of the 26 cities.
Councilman Pickler confirmed that was the consensus that there be some
selection from cities so there is representation on the Air Quality Management
District.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve changing the City selection
committee meetings in order to obtain representation on the SCAQMD Board and
to accommodate the continued appointment of local elected officials to the
Board. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the memorandum dated June 11,
1987 from League of California Cities regarding SB 151 (Presley). Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: P~EVIEW OF CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: To consider and review all
existing individual appointments to Council appointed Boards and Commissions.
Mayor Bay first stated if there are moves for any removals from Boards and
Commissions that the sooner the removals are known, the sooner the openings
can be advertised. That should be done as soon as possible so that (1) Boards
and Commissions will know what is going to happen and, (2) so that the process
of created vacancies is known and advertised and those vacancies can be filled
in a reasonable amount of time, perhaps the first week in July or anywhere
near that point. The subject is open for discussion or action at this time.
Councilman Hunter moved to terminate Len Lawicki and Glenn Fry from the City
Planning Commission. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated Mr. Fry's term will
expire next week and Mr. Lawicki's expires in 1989. She asked the reason why
Mr. Lawicki was being terminated at this time.
545
65
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler stated Mr. Fry's term ends at the end of the month and
questioned why force the issue now.
Mayor Bay asked the City Attorney if on removals from Boards and Commissions
there was anything requiring that reasons or explanations be given with regard
to those actions.
City Attorney White answered that the Charter specifies the manner in which
members are appointed to Boards and Commissions, but it does not require a
reason for removal. It requires that a majority of the Members of the Council
vote in favor of any such removal. Ail Commissioners and Board Members serve
at the pleasure of the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that out of common decency and respect, her question
required an answer.
Councilman Pickler reiterated a concept broached at the previous meeting (see
minutes of June 16, 1987) first proposed by Councilman Hunter was that each
Member of the Council appoint a Commissioner to the Planning Commission with
the remaining two Commissioners to be appointed at large with the idea that
each appointee would have to get the approval of at least three Council
Members. He (Pickler) favored that idea.
Councilman Hunter again referred to Charter Section 902 which did not outline
any procedure that each Council Member has the right to appoint a Planning
Commissioner.
A vote was then taken on the termination of Mr. Lawicki and Mr. Fry as
Planning Commissioners and carried by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
A~SENT:
COUNCIL H EMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
Pickler and Kaywood
None
Councilman Pickler stated he felt that the actions were being taken because of
the campaign that had just ended. He did not believe in being vindictive by
punishinB enemies and rewarding friends.
Councilman Ehrle then discussed the Economic Development Board. He
recommended that there be an expansion, or elimination of the presently
existing Industrial Development Board and creating a new Board called the
Econ¢.mic Development Board which would incorporate many of the duties and
responsibilities of the present Industrial Board (IDB) but expanding that
Board. It was necessary to do a lot of things to increase revenues. He was,
therefore, proposing a new Board or Commission called the Economic Development
Board that would be advisory to the Council to assist in directing the Council
and bring about Anaheim's economic recovery. The people on the current IDB
are fine people and he would hope that they would also want to be on the new
Board which should be expanded to nine members.
546
City Hall, An-helm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay, speaking to the City Attorney, stated that the 1DB was mostly
centered around Industrial Development Bonds and handling the revenue
generated from those as they came in. He asked if it would be sufficient that
the Council merely ask that he (City Attorney) take a look at changing the
Charter or whatever was necessary in order to establish an Economic
Development Board.
City Attorney White stated it would be by ordinance; the Mayor then stated if
the majority of the Council was in agreement on the matter then the current
ordinance could be changed to broaden the concept to an Economic Development
Board and increasing the membership by four members from five to nine, thus
creating four new openings as well as asking the City Clerk to contact the
members of that Board to find out if they were in agreement to continuing to
work on the Board.
Councilman Pickler asked that a report be submitted relative to the proposed
concept so that the Council would have an opportunity to review it in order to
determine if they should proceed with it.
Councilman Ehrle agreed to provide additional info~mation on the concept in
one week; Mayor Bay asked that it be supplied to the Council and the City
Attorney.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue further discussion relative to the
proposed Economic Development Board concept for one week. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to remove William Ranney from the Community
~edevelopment Commission. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Rauney's term
expires in 1988. She requested a reason for his removal.
Mayor Bay stated he did not intend to give any reason since it would merely
add to the rhetoric. He called for a Roll Call Vote.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
C0UNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL HEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
Pickler and Kaywood
None
MOTION: Councilman Ehrle moved to remove Kenneth Heuler from the Public
Utilities Board. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated Mr. Heuler's term expires
in 1989. She asked for a reason for his removal.
Mayor Bay stated they have explained they do not intend to answer questions
relative to reasons for removal.
547
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler stated Mr. Heuler has not even been involved in an election
and a campaign but another member of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has been
involved and politicized the campaign, Mr. Joe White. He could understand the
moves by Councilman Hunter and Bay but not Mr. Ehrle who did not even know Mr.
Heuler. He asked if it was because he (Pickler) nominated Mr. Heuler to that
position.
A Vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to remove Mr. Heuler from the
Public Utilities Board and carried by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Councilman Pickler stated he chose not to vote because he did not want to
dignify the action in any way.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to remove Joe White from the Public
Utilities Board because of politicizing the last election, getting involved in
the campaign with a sign on his lawn, signing nomination papers and making
derogatory remarks about the Council, some of the same reasons given for the
removal of Charlene La Claire. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. The
motion failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler and Kaywood
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
None
Councilman Bay moved that the review of Boards and Commissions be continued
for one week and that the matter again be placed on the agenda at that time.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted no. MOTION
CARRIED.
Before concluding, additional discussion followed between Council Members
Pickler, Ehrle and Kaywood.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4843 THROUGH 4845: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance Nos.
4843 through 4845 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4843: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 65-66-59(8), CO, 561 So. Harbor Blvd.)
ORDINANCE NO. 4844: 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 80-81-40, PR, east side of West Street, north of
Orangewood Avenue)
548
City Hall, ~-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4845: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP P. EFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-13, P~M-3000(SC), east of Imperial Highway,
south of the southeast terminus of Frontier Court)
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, Anaheim. He submitted a
communication to the Council to be made a part of the record taking exception
to the escalated predictions for the years 1988/89 relative to the City
budget. It urged that the City be more prudent in its fiscal process and pay
attention to budget constraints while agressively managing down municipal debt
service.
Barbara Selleck, 2080 Della Lane, Anaheim. She was concerned that the
campaigning was still continuing on an election held three months ago and that
one of the first things the Council had done after the election was to fire a
Planning Commissioner who had given 12 years of dedicated service to the
City. She asked that the Council not use their power as a weapon to exercise
their personal whims and for reprisals. She was shocked also at what
transpired today and hoped that the public would be able to find out what was
happening.
Sally Horton, Central City Neighborhood. She is excited about the fresh blood
on the Council and is looking forward to the future economic development in
the City.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:29 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Counctlwoman Kaywood. (3:40 p.m.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 87-4A: In accordance with application
filed by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of the north side of Center Street, formerly Lincoln
Avenue, west of Philadelphia Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 87R-249, duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated May 19, 1987, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
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.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-249 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 87-4A. Refer to Resolution Book.
549
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-249: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF CENTER STREET WEST OF PHILADELPHIA STREET.
(87-4A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Bay
None
Kaywood
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-249 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chambers (3:42 p.m.) and cast her yes
vote stating that she had heard the proceedings.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 87-10A: In accordance with application
filed by Bowie Development, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
a portion of an electrical public utility easement on the south side of Ball
Road, west of Knott Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 87R-250, duly published
in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated May 19, 1987, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
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 ELR.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-250 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 87-10A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. (87-10A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-250 duly passed and adopted.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - REFORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
1981-1: To consider objections to the reformation of Street Lighting
Assessment District No. 1981-1 on Hampshire Avenue in Tract Nos. 151§ and 1653.
55O
City ~,~]l, An-heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Submitted was report dated June 23, 1987 from the City Engineer, Gary Johnson,
recommending that the Council declare that there was not a majority protest
against Street Lighting Assessment District 1981-1 (Tract Nos. 1516 and 1653)
after the public hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 11, 1987.
Posting of property June 8, 1987.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the reformation of
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1981-1; there was no response.
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-251 for adoption, declaring
that there was not a majority protest against Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1981-1 (Tract Nos. 1516 and 1653) either written or oral. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-251: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1981-1, TRACTS 1516 AND 1653.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-251 duly passed and adopted.
104: PUBLIC HF~RING - RR~ORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
1981-5: To consider objections to the reformation of Street Lighting
Assessment District No. 1981-5 on Margate Drive and Hill Avenue in Tract
No. 2090.
Submitted was report dated June 23, 1987 from the City Engineer, Gary Johnson,
recommending that the Council declare that there was not a majority protest
against Street Lighting Assessment District 1981-5 (Tract No. 2090) after the
public hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 11, 1987.
Posting of property June 9, 1987.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed Street
Lighting Assessment District 1981-5 (Tract No. 2090); there was no response.
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 87R-252 for adoption, declaring that
there was not a majority protest against Street Lighting Maintenance District
No. 1981-5 (Tract No. 2090) either written or oral. Refer to Resolution Book.
551
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-252: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1981-5, TRACT 2090.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-252 duly passed and adopted.
155/179: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1 (INCLUDING A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PLAN), FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
STAN~0ARDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOKT NO. 273 (SUPPLEMENTAL):
APPLICANT:
Southmark Pacific Corporation (So. Pac., Inc.)
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
Pasadena, Ca. 91101
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 PC87-9~; recommended that EIR No. 273
(supplemental) be certified with a statement of overriding considerations.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMF~TS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin ~lay 14, 1987.
Posting of property May 1§, 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 meetings of May 26, 1987 and June 16, 1987, to this date.
Mayor Bay.
As he recalled, the developer requested to work with staff in
attempts to negotiate the issues not resolved at the last
hearing. The Council received a new list of staff recommended
552
6O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
conditions of approval on the Highlands Just before the meeting
and he has not had an opportunity to review them. He asked that
staff summarize the current position on negotiations.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
He explained that memorandum dated June 22, 1987, subject: Staff
recommended conditions of approval - Highlands at Anaheim Hills,
encompassed all the changes previously presented to the Council
now incorporated into one document. One exception is Condition
No. 91 which was discussed extensively at the last meeting, that
involving the Weir Canyon/Serrano circulation link. The City
Engineer will give an update on the progress made in that regard.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
Staff met with representatives of Oak Hills and the Highlands
project on two occasions which included representatives from the
Planning Department, Engineering and the City Attorney's
Office. The recommended language before the Council (see Page
15 and 16, Condition No. 91, (a), (b) and (c) satisfies the two
general objectives the Council set forth at the meeting of
June 16, 1987 - that the three Ranches would share in the costs
of the improvements to Serrano and Weir Canyon Road, and that
the regional traffic circulation needs and permanent safety
access be installed at an early date to assure reasonable
development of the area. It is his understanding that both Oak
Hills and the Highlands representatives are in conceptual
agreement with the condition but that they have some
modifications they would like to have considered today.
Joel Fick.
Since the last meeting all other conditions discussed are
resolved, leaving only the resolution of Condition No. 91.
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 1151 Dove Street, Newport
Beach, representing the Highlands and Wallace Ranch
Developments. They do agree with all of the conditions but with
the understanding that their recommended modification of wording
of Condition No. 91 would affect other conditions, about two or
three. Condition No. 95 would be affected as well. In other
words, the modified wording they are going to propose today
would have an effect on other conditions but related to the same
items. Based upon a statement made at the last meeting by Jim
Dennehy of Oak Hills, who gave his commitment to construct his
portion of Serrano, there was a meeting with staff for the
purpose of eliminating the Highlands from being solely
responsible for the bonding and/or construction requirement with
the connection of the road subsequent to the 401st unit. At the
last meeting, they also proposed that the timing of construction
for the temporary fire access road be prior to occupancy of the
first unit. Staff suggested it be prior to placement of
combustible materials on the property. Other items discussed
553
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
were staff's position regarding the Highlands participation in
the financing for Fire Station #9. Those were the items worked
out with staff in the last week. On Wednesday they specifically
discussed Condition No. 91 regarding exactly how that Serrano
Weir Canyon Road connection would be made and at what time.
They met themselves as well as the Oak Hills Developer before
hand and agreed to a condition worded essentially indicating the
following:
That the Highlands developer would post a bond prior to the
approval of the first final map to guarantee the construction of
Serrano on site and if not provided by the Wallace Ranch agreed
to bond for half of the construction of the Serrano/Wetr Canyon
Road connection within the Wallace Ranch prior to the occupancy
of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands project. The
same condition was concurred by Hr. Dennehy. It was also
indicated at that time that they (Highlands) would agree to
Condition No. 74 as currently worded indicating that a temporary
access road would be placed prior to the placement of
combustible materials. They believe that the wording they
mentioned a moment ago would enable the road to move forward and
the two Ranches to move forward which was acceptable pursuant to
Council direction. At a meeting later that day, the City
Engineer suggested two additional sub-items - if the Highlands
and only the Wallace Ranch project developed, that there would
be a splitting of the bonding and cost to construct Serrano
through the Oak Hills property which Highlands thought was
reasonable and consistent with Council direction as well. The
City Engineer also suggested an additional sub-condition, (c)
requiring the Highlands project to complete the entire roadway
link prior to the 401st unit occupancy which was the same
condition recommended by staff last week. The reason they
concurred with the continuance last week was to provide a
condition which would not allow that condition to occur to have
one developer building the entire roadway link. In that regard,
they object to sub-item (c) for the same reasons as communicated
last Tuesday (see minutes that date). The Serrano/Weir Canyon
connection is not recommended in the EIR, a previous condition
was negotiated with staff providing other circulation subsequent
to the 401st dwelling unit, and the connection is not needed to
provide access to the project. They are, therefore, proposing
amended wording. Hr. Elfend then submitted document entitled,
Revised Conditions, June 23, 1987 containing their proposed
wording of Condition No. 91~ (a), (b) and (c) attached to which
was an Exhibit entitled - Circulation Systems Subsequent to
401st Residential Unit, The Highlands at Anaheim Hills (made a
part of the record). Mr. Elfend briefed the proposed wording of
the condition. Highlands believes that the wording as indicated
in Condition No. 91 (c) would be consistent with that negotiated
previously as well as that which is identified and recommended
in the EIR. With that modification, they recognized that
Condition Nos. 90, 95 and 110 will require some type of
¢it~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
revision as well. In order to be good neighbors and to move
forward, a remaining item before the Council last week, they
will also agree to Condition No. 79 regarding the financing for
Fire Station ~9.
In concluding, Mr. Elfend stated they are comfortable with
Condition No. 91, (a) and (b) but (c) as recommended by staff
would put Highlands where they were last week. They suggest the
condition negotiated previously with staff be adopted. A copy
of the document Just submitted was given to Mr. Fick yesterday.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
He clarified for Councilman Pickler the difference between Mr.
Elfend's and staff's recommendation. For the area to reasonably
develop and handle the area-wide traffic and safety service
access, each of the Ranches, if only one of the three Ranches
developed, should share the responsibility to place the backbone
arterial system and be reimbursed when the other Ranches do
develop. It is consistent with the recommendation the Planning
Commission gave the Council which required the Highlands project
to be responsible for the full arterial, should other Ranches
not develop and also in agreement with the staff recommendation
to the Council that Highlands bear that responsibility. This
would only occur if the Wallace or Oak Hills Ranch were not to
develop in a reasonable manner and staff believes that not to be
the case.
Mayor Bay.
He asked staff since sub-item (c) could encourage throwing all
the front money on the Highlands for the entire development of
the extension of Serrano, what their problems are, if any, with
the revised and recommended wording in subsection (c) as
submitted by the Highlands.
Gary Johnson.
It was his understanding from the discussion last week and also
discussions at the Planning Com~tission there was a desire to
have an assurance that the Serrano/Weir Canyon connection would
be in place. That is something the City should be looking for.
If the City does not have that assurance, the Highlands could
fully develop, ierrano would be constructed through their
property and access in the area would then not be as good as it
could be if they had placed the arterial roadway.
Mayor Bay.
It is the Council's hope that the developers they are dealing
with today, basically all three, are committed to go ahead with
their project. He has no doubt that all three are going to take
place and that Serrano will be built and each developer will pay
their share. The issue now is that Highlands cannot live with
the wording of Condition No. 91 (c) as recommended by staff
555
55
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1~30 P.M.
because it might even encourage someone to make them come up
with all the front money for the whole road, whereas revised (c)
as proposed by the Highlands gives a certain amount of insurance
as to circulation and does commit to develop Serrano over to the
edge of their property and across their property before they
occupy the 401st unit.
City Manager William Talley.
It also gives the option if they want to, to expand Fairmont
Boulevard for the construction of hundreds of units over years
of time since their trucks would be using that road with the
attendant problems that would bring. If Council approves (c)
they should also recognize they are committing that neighborhood
to years of construction vehicles driving up and down that
severe grade.
Discussion followed between City Manager Talley and Mr. Elfend
relative to the wording of (c) specifically the last sentence as
recommended by Highlands, "construction trucks shall be
prohibited on Fairmont Boulevard, unless it is widened to its
ultimate."
In concluding, City Manager Talley stated, if the Council would
consider it, he would recommend that the last sentence only be
removed (the foregoing sentence) and that it say, "construction
trucks will be prohibited on Fairmont Boulevard period. Mr.
Elfend assumed that a construction truck would be a major truck
carrying materials to the site that would use a temporary road
and not an automobile that would be parked on the site.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
There is an existing ordinance prohibiting trucks on Fairmont
Boulevard over 6,000 pounds. Those trucks are prohibited now.
Jim Dennehy, Oak Hills Development, 1535 Orangewood, Anaheim.
Oak Hills is agreeing to the same requirements as Highlands.
Upon approval of their Final Tract Map (Oak Hills) or Parcel
Map, they would have to bond just as Highlands. It was his
understanding the conditions were going to be the same as
Highlands.
Gary Johnson.
The conditions would be the same with one exception, that the
Oak Hills Development, because it is landlocked, if it is the
only project that moves forward, they will have to bear the
obligation to construct an off-site construction of Serrano
merely to gain access to the property. Geographically, they are
in a different situation than Highlands.
Mayor Bay.
His feeling is that Highlands has gone far on the negotiations.
He is not that concerned about subsection (c)
556
City Hall, Anaheim, Cmlt~ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
other than as an insurance factor. If Council has anymore
questions on the last remaining discrepancy between staff and
the developer which is the revision on Condition No. 91, he
suggested that they be asked at this time.
Councilman Ehrle asked Mr. Elfend if he agreed with everything
other than the wording with regard to Fairmont Boulevard.
Frank Elfend.
They agree with Condition No. 91 (a) and (b). They are
proposing re-wording only of sub-item (c) as they have
indicated, but agreeing to the elimination of the last sentence
with regard to the construction trucks on Fairmont.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She still has a problem with Condition No. 11 with regard to the
Assessment District. She would like to see that it be left not
for two consecutive years, but that the mechanism remaining and
if there is no problem with the differential in the income and
costs, that no levy be established in that year but that it
remain in place so that the rest of the taxpayers are not going
to be stuck with anything in the building of a whole new City in
the hills.
Jerod Ikeda, Oak Hills Ranch.
Relative to Condition No. 91 (a) in the staff report dealing
with timing of the posting of the bond, they are requesting that
the last sentence be changed to say, "the 401st residential unit
on the Highlands project, or when grading commences on the Oak
Hills Rmnch," rather than placement of combustibles. The reason
is that essentially they would be building Serrano and grading
that area prior to putting combustibles on the property.
Gary Johnson.
That is acceptable to staff. Strike the words, "placement of
combustibles" and substitute, "commencement of grading".
Mayor Bay asked if there was any problem with that change from
Highlands, and received notice from the Highlands
representative, this change would be acceptable.
Dennis Cardoza, 3150 East Birch, Brea.
He is representing Vic Peloquin, owner of three acres along the
91 Freeway on which the storm drain for the development under
discussion will be splitting up to "Y" and crossing the property
in two locations. They are starting construction and grading to
develop an office building on their site and are concerned if
the City can ratify or stipulate to the development that the
verbiage they have now stating that they will place a storm
drain through their property has time lines or specific
guidelines of when they start since they are under construction
557
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
at this time. Otherwise, they will be handicapped if there are
delays starting the Highlands project. They are also installing
extensive road improvements and feel it would be inappropriate
to have part of the storm drain placed into the property now
through Santa Ann Canyon Road, have their Project improve the
road and then at a later date come back and dig up the road to
complete the storm drain and have a patch Job on Santa Ana
Canyon Road. They are requesting that the City stipulate that
the storm drain, at least through their section be done
immediately and deadlines set when it is to be completed so they
can complete their development.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
A condition placed upon Anaheim Hills around 1975 and now on the
successor to Anaheim Hills required the installation of the
storm drain when a downstream property owner concluded the
design of their facility and obtained all necessary permits. It
is his understanding that the Peloquin Development has almost
completed its design and is in the process of securing permits.
Once completed then the City will request that Southmark
(Highlands) proceed and construct the facilities. There is
already an existing condition that requires the improvements by
requiring the improvements be installed. If the Council desires
to put time limits other than the existing condition, they could
do that. Whatever the speed that $outhmark can proceed, staff
would expect that they would fulfill their obligation.
Dennis Cardoza.
He is aware of that but it is not specific on whether they will
start now or six months from now. He reiterated they do not
want to see a delay because of some problems where they would
not be able to start for another four or five months.
Jack White, City Attorney.
In 1975 when a grading permit was issued to Anaheim Hills Inc.,
one of the requests by Anaheim Hills was that the City waive the
then applicable requirement for the installation of the storm
drain at that time. A condition was placed upon their approval
of the grading permit that Anaheim Hills was granted which
provided in substance that the City would defer construction of
the storm drain until such time as the first development of a
downstream property which in this case would be Peloquin. There
was a condition imposed that was tied to a development by
another developer in lieu of requiring Anaheim Hills to
construct the storm drain in 1975. Southmark, as successor to
Anaheim Hills, is here today on the Highlands property and
Peloquin's property is developing at this time. Therefore,
notice has been given by the City Engineer to Southmark to
comply with the condition established in 1975. He suggested
that they hear from Southmark on the matter.
558
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNClL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Frank Elfend.
They have discussed the item with Peloquin and also had a
meeting with Jay Titus, Civil Engineer, Mr. Peloquin and
Highlands and went through the conditions which indicate when
the downstream developer develops his property, the first
developer shall prepare the necessary plans and obtain approvals
of all affected public agencies.
They advised Mr. Peloquin when he did get all the permits
necessary pursuant to the condition they would move forward. He
is surprised to find a representative here today when Highlands
has yet to get the permits from the Department of Fish and Game
and other agencies. When they get those permits, they will move
forward. No one is trying to get out of the condition.
Gary Johnson.
His Department has not seen the proposal from Southmark but
believe that the ultimate facility would be constructed to the
south side of Santa Aha Canyon Road. The run off is not
adequate to this point to extend it through to the south until
development occurs on the Highlands and they have conditioned
the Highlands project to construct the storm drain through that
reach. It is covered as far as the conditions are concerned.
When proposals come in, they will be reviewed to make certain
they will comply with the drainage needs in that area.
Mayor Bay.
This is an issue which Engineering is totally aware of. The
existing conditions are there, the law is there and it might be
best if Council lets the Engineering Department do their Job.
Mr. Cardoza.
He is quite aware of the conditions placed on them. As of this
afternoon, they have obtained the permits. Their major concern
is the language on the timing of when Highlands is going to
start - when it starts and when it is finished. He wanted to
know what will force Southmark acting toward that construction
quickly so that when the roads are in they do not have to be dug
up again.
City Attorney White.
The only thing that controls is the language in the condition in
1975 when the waiver was granted on the requirement to the
construct the storm drain. It merely provides that at the time
of development of the first downstream property that the storm
drain shall be put in and that plans and specifications be
prepared and all necessary permits be obtained by that property
owner. In legal terminology he believes the City would have the
right to enforce that condition, if the storm drain was not put
in within a reasonable time upon assurance that the development
was proceeding. What he heard from Mr. Elfend was that
Highlands would proceed expeditiously to put that in. Based on
559
51
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
that understanding, sta£f can proceed and work out the details
with the two property owners.
Mr. Elfend.
He concurs with what the City Attorney said.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She again referred to Condition No. 11 regarding the assessment
process so that there will be no burden on the rest of the
taxpayers of Anaheim to pick up any cost differential if
revenues do not come in as expected. She is concerned about the
two-year period. Many changes and unexpected things could
happen. If the City was losing money, it would be impossible to
set it up again.
Councilman Pickler.
He was under the impression that issue had been resolved and
there was a Council consensus that the two-year period was
acceptable.
Discussion took place between Mayor Bay and Councilwoman Kaywood
relative to the issue wherein Councilwoman Kaywood felt that a
ten-year period would be more suitable or even five; Mayor Bay
did not agree.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVII{0NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 273 (SUPPL~tENTAL) - CERTIFICATION:
Environmental Impact Report No. 273, having been reviewed by the city staff
and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City
and State guidelines in the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the
City Council, acting upon such information and believed as hereby certified on
motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, that Environmental
Impact Report No. 273 is in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and City and State guidelines and adopted a statement of
overriding considerations as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to receive and file the Fiscal Impact
Analysis regarding the Highlands Development. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-253 for adoption, approving
Specific Plan No. 87-1 including the Public Facilities Plan relative to the
Highlands project. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-253: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1 INCLUDING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN.
560
City ~a]l, An-helm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
YES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-253 duly passed and adopted.
Joel Fick.
There is a change requested by Oak Hills on Condition No. 91
(a), Page 15 of the staff conditions, second to last lime, the
first paragraph. Oak Hills is requesting the wording, "when
grading commences," in place of, "or the placement of
combustibles." Staff would propose that same wording apply also
in subsection (b) Page 16, the fourth line which pertains to the
event with Highlands the Wallace Ranch proceeding concurrently
without Oak Hills. For consistency with all Ranches the wording
should be - that, "placement of combustibles be replaced with,
"when grading commences."
Mr. Elfend indicated that was acceptable to Highlands.
Gary Johnson.
If they are replacing subsections (c) as proposed by Mr. Elfend
with deletion of the last sentence then the last two paragraphs
staff proposed on Page 16 stay as is. They are only dealing
with subsection (c) to his understanding.
Frank Elfend.
The wording Highlands provided also included some deletion of
other wordingwhich relates to revision of sub-item (c). When
taking out sub-item (c) it would take out wording that related
to sub-item (c) at the end of that condition. He concurs with
Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson.
The only change, in the staff proposal, the H±ghlands
Development was required to bear the cost of forming the benefit
districts. In the Highlands language, the expense of the
benefitting Ranches would be shared. It is minor but they
should know that exists.
Mr. Elfend.
They would feel more comfortable with the reimbursable language.
City Attorney Jack White.
The item is on the agenda as an ordinance and the ordinance has
not been prepared. He suggested that the Council direct staff
to prepare the ordinance with the conditions included and bring
it back for first reading. If there is doubt in anyone's mind
whether it is properly worded or there is a misunderstanding,
they will be all together in one place at one time to look at.
561
49
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay wanted the issue settled today so that the hearing
could be ended.
The City Attorney and Mr. Fick were ready at this time to
clarify the language. Mr. Fick clarified the changes as
follows: Condition No. 91 subsection (a) first paragraph,
second to last line replaces the wording, the placement of
combustibles with - "when grading commences." On subsection
lb), Page 16 line four, the same substitution occurs. On
subsection (c) use the revised conditions as submitted by Mr.
Elfend replaced with staff recommended subsection (c) with the
exception of the elimination of the last sentence of subsection
(c), "construction trucks shall be prohibited on Fairmont
Boulevard unless it is widened to its ultimate." The two
paragraphs that follow subsection (c), the first paragraph
remains intact with the understanding that establishment of the
reimbursement districts is a reimbursable item, and the second
paragraph is deleted because it is not applicable.
Frank Elfend.
He concurred with what Mr. Fick stated.
From the audience, Mr. Dennehy, in answer to the Mayor, noted
that he does not have any objection to the changes as
articulated by Mr. Fick.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance reflecting staff recommended conditions of approval (June 22, 1987
memorandum) but including changes made to Condition No. 91, subsections (a),
(b) and (c) as articulated. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3642 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
~ Reuben De Leon
11095 Meads
Anaheim, Ca. 92801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a 2-st0ry, 12 unit "affordable"
condominium on proposed RM-2400 zoned property located at 207 and 211 No.
Coffman Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum building site
area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site
coverage, (d) minimum structural setback, (e) required recreation-leisure area.
PIANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-96 denied Variance No. 3642;
approved ElK Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Hugo Vazquez, agent for the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE KEQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 11 and 13, 1987.
562
5O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Posting of property June 12, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 12, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 27, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo Vazquez, 619 South Live Oak Drive, Anaheim.
The project is a 10-unit condominium complex originally designed
for 12 units. Two units were eliminated from the rear allowing
a setback of 67-feet away from the rear property line. The
townhouse style units are 3-bedrooms with two and one-half baths
with an attached double car garage providing immediate access to
the unit. The units are designed so that no windows will face
Evelyn Drive and there will be no visual intrusion to that
property. The project is identical to the project brought to
the Council approximately a year ago, the 27-unit condominium
project at 1920 East Cypress Street. Young Lion Development
(Mr. Vazquez's Company), took the project over from Pierco
Development which was denied by the Planning Commission for
RM-1200 on the entire east and west side of Coffman Avenue.
Young Lion petitioned the proposal to the City Council for
ILM-2400 on the west side and RM-1200 on the east. There was no
plan brought before the Council at that time on west side but
only on the east side. They represented to the Council at that
time they would bring in the same project that was approved for
the 27 units under the RM-2400 zone approved by the Council on
Cypress Street. Mr. Vazquez then briefed the Council relative
to costs involved in order to build in Coffman and Cypress
Streets.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN FAVOR: None.
It was determined by a show of hands that there were
approximately 12 people present in opposition.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN OPPOSITION:
Kuth Motley, 203 Evelyn Drive.
She referred to the previous petition submitted in opposition
containing 61 signatures of residents on Evelyn Drive which
listed the reasons for their objections - waiver of minimum
building site area, creating too much density, waiver of maximum
structural height, thereby putting 2-story units too close to
single-family dwellings, waiver of maximum site coverage above
what the Code allows and waiver of minimum structural setback
and required recreation/lesiure area. The residents are asking
that the Council abide by the Code because of the density and
that all waivers be denied, and instead work toward a
development that will provide quality living in that area.
Since the east side of Coffman Street was approved for RM-1200,
47
__ Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 23~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
the residents feel they are being fair in asking that they stay
strictly to Code on this project.
Cruz Sandoval, 224 Evelyn Drive, (resident of the City since
1924).
The residents do not want to see a "Chevy Chase" created in
their backyard or a "Jeffrey/Lynn" area. There was such an area
very close to them already called the Village Inn, a high
density project. He urged the Council not to approve the
subject project but that the Code be adhered to.
Councilman Pickler.
Mr. Vazquez was going to build affordable units represented by
the two units above Code. As explained by Councilwoman Kaywood,
8 units are permitted. If Mr. Vazquez goes to 8 units instead
of the 10, it will eliminate the two affordable units. The idea
is to put something on Coffman Street that will revitalize the
area. Condominiums are better than apartments and the proposed
project is a start in that direction.
Cruz Sandoval.
He reiterated they are against the waivers and requested that
the developer build to Code. Even 8 units on the two lots would
be too much but the neighborhood would be agreeable to 8 units.
Lou Weimer, 173 Evelyn Drive.
Mr. Vazquez already has a project approved for 27 units next to
the church on Cypress and 27 units by the Village Inn. That
only accounts for one-third of the development potential. Ail
the residents are asking is that the west side of Coffman be
reduced and held to whatever Code calls for and nobody will have
any objections.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Hugo Vazquez.
He met with the neighbors and walked the site and demonstrated
that there was 67 feet from the property line. At that time,
they were very much in approval in their attitude but they
changed their mind and decided they were not going to be able to
agree. He could get a 10-unit apartment complex on the site
with a majority of one bedrooms, some two bedrooms but thought
that the west side of Coffman would be more preferable for home
owner units than on the east side. He assumes that the
neighborhood would rather see a 10-unit apartment building than
a 10-unit condominium project. There is no way he could bring
in a 10-unit condominium project to Code.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
564
City Hall, An~_beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked staff how many units could be developed if built to
Code on 3,000 square-foot lots.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
She answered at Code it could be 8 dwelling units at 3,000
square feet. She confirmed if the affordable units were left
out, they could reach Code.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She has a problem with talking about condominiums on 2,400
square feet. There is no way she could vote for a condominium
on less than 3,000 square feet. In viewing the plans, she is
concerned to see two master bedrooms and two and one-half bath
and say that is going to be one family. It is an invitation to
multiple families. The neighbors in the area are entitled to
have condominiums that are truly condominiums. By having 8 on a
3,000 square-foot lot there could be homeownership but not by
squeezing them in with all the waivers being requested.
Councilman Hunter.
He agreed. The density was too high and if the project were
built to Code, it would be a much better project. The 150-foot
away from single-family is down to 67 feet.
Discussion then followed between Councilman Ehrle and Mr.
Vazquez regarding the affordable units. Mr. Vazquez reported
that the price range for the affordable units would be between
$85,000 and $95,000 and the non-affordable appraised value would
be between $110,000 and $122,000. Whether they would sell for
that he would doubt it unless he is able to pick up the rest of
the block. With a lesser amount of unitS, he would have to sell
every one at market value and probably not get financing for the
project. What he would have to price them at would be the same
as Waterscape (the old Fremont Jr. High site) and that project
has not sold well. That developer is still trying to sell those
units. His only other alternative is to do an apartment complex
on the site to Code, and that way he would not have to be before
the Council at a public hearing because he would not need any
variances.
Councilman Pickler. He asked for clarification that is
mentioned by Mr. Vazquez he could build 10 apartment units on
the property without a public hearing if there were no variances.
Annika Santalahti.
She does not believe he could. The waiver that pertains to
structural height has a different standard in the condominium
zone vs. apartments. With condominiums it is possible to come
as close as 50 feet with 2-stories as long as the second-story
has no windows and is not visible to the single-family zoning.
That exception is not in the apartment RM-2400 zone and at Code
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
it is necessary to maintain a 150-foot setback. Effectively it
would be necessary to knock off almost another 100 feet of the
2-story portion of the building if it comes close to the
property line. She does not think in practice he can achieve
that. She believes he could build 8 units. The
recreational/leisure requirement is actually lower but the
height is a critical one.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Jack White.
To clarify the record, he explained that the Code allows 8
units. The development has been processed as an affordable
project, which means if it contained no other variances
whatsoever the applicant would still be entitled to a
density bonus which amounts to two units. He would be able to
build 10 if he were building to Code in all other respects.
Because of the variance requests for (b), (c), (d) and (e),
Council has the prerogative, in this instance, to deny it on the
basis that they make the findings for the normal variance that
it does not comply with other properties im the same vicinity
and zone and is not denying a privilege afforded to other
properties in the same vicinity and zone. That should be the
basis for the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated another item not discussed today was
circulation and that is a situation that is very tight even with
Evelyn Drive closed off at Cypress. She did not want to see any
more units than Code permits.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-254 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3642 (Readvertised), upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Re/er to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-254: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3642.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated they have talked about
Coffman and Cypress Street for many years. Everybody who lives
on Evelyn Drive knows where City Hall is because they have been
here so many times. The Council has tried many times to make
something economically feasible happen on the so called
improvement of Coffman Street with the long deep lots and
possibly changes in that development. The Council said they
were going to allow a change over for improvement in new
development on the east side of Coffman - ILM-1200 and
566
City ~l 1, A_nsbeim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
apartments. On the west side, he assumed they were talking
about RM-2400 which means residential multiple but still within
ER-2400 or rentals. There is no intent of the Council to impact
the people on Evelyn Drive. They have tried to protect the
sanctity of their neighborhood and have not changed that view.
He is only cautioning when a developer comes in and attempts to
put in condominiums, ownership units, that they should look more
closely and negotiate with that developer from that standpoint
of a preference of having condominiums bordering their homes vs.
what a developer might be able to do even within code on rentals
on RM-2400.
A vote was then taken on the resolution of denial.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-253 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION AND DINNER BREAK: By general consent the Council
recessed to Closed Session and a dinner break. (6:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:05 p.m.)
106: PUBLIC HEARING - APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: To consider the appropriations
limit of $110,763,064 for the Fiscal Year i987/88.
Submitted was report dated June 16, 1987, from the Program Development & Audit
Department, recommending that the Council establish an appropriations limit of
~110,763,064 for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 1987 and ending June 30,
1988. Attached to the report were seven Exhibits showing the calculation of
the proceeds of taxes subject to limitation as well as the appropriations
limit and appropriations limit margin.
Mayor Bay stated the Gann Act in the State of California limits appropriations
based on population. It is almost an administrative act by the Council
setting the appropriation limit under the law. He them asked if anyone wished
to speak.
No one wished to speak.
Mayor Bay stated the information that is provided with the report is very
useful when looking at pure net numbers and he would recommend that anyone who
wants to do a serious study on the City budget obtain copies of the report.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
567
City Hall~ Amahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 87R-255 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-255: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR198?/88.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-255 duly passed and adopted.
106/108/142: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: To
consider the proposed 1987/88 and 1988/89 Resource Allocation Plan. This
matter was continued from the meeting of June 16, 1987, to this date.
Submitted was report dated June 16, 1987 from the Program Development & Audit
Department relating to the Transient Occupancy Tax and recommending that the
Council amend certain sections of the Code pertaining to such tax thereby
increasin~ the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 8% to 10% and to provide
specific instructions to the operators of hotels/motels for the determination
of the room revenue portion of special package rates effective August 1, 1987.
Mayor Bay announced that the first action then related to a proposed ordinance
amending Chapter 2.12 of the Code regarding the TOT to be effective August 1,
1987.
City Manager Talley.
In addition to raising the tax from 8% to 10%, in an effort to
accommodate the lodging industry, they also included as a
provi~sio~ that answers their need regarding how they will report
theii~'-~ on special packages. The language will help them
and also help the City in automating their efforts.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed ordinance
increasing the TOT; there was no response.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4846 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4846: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
2.12.010, 2.12.020 AND 2.12.050 OF CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX.
106:
COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY FUNDING FOR FY 1987/1988:
Mr. Steve Jimenez, Chairman of the Community Services Board,
(CSB) briefed his report dated May 14, 1987, recommending that
the Council approve a FY 1987/88 Community Service Agency
funding level of [124,471 (report made a part of the record - it
568
Ctt7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
was accompanied by a large booklet entitled, Community Services
Funding Agency Applications - Fiscal Year 1987/88 - included was
a budget request comparison chart covering the years 1985/86,
1986/87 and the 1987/88 funding requests from the 16 agencies
who submitted applications). Not knowing the exact amount of
money that was going to be funded, they came in under the
funding level established last year. There is an appeal of one
of the funding agencies which will be addressed by that agency.
An additional item of information is that the $10,000 funding
level recommended for the Orange County Center for Health (their
request was for $26,000) that Agency will also be receiving
530,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for
capital purchase of property for child care. The Board spent
considerable time on the entire issue.
Mayor Bay.
He thanked Mr. Jimenez. He knows he speaks for the whole
Council and thanking not only Mr. Jimenez but the entire Board
who take this very difficult process and handle it for the
Council. In the last two years, the Council has basically only
had to approve what the CSB has recommended. He commented
further to the agencies who do all the fine work that the
Council's decisions tonite on the funding, whether approved,
reduced or increased have nothing to do with any Council
Member's opinion of the very fine and good work the agencies do
throughout the County. Decisions are limited by looking at the
fiscal restraints upon the City which were quite binding this
year.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She also personally thanked everyone involved and was pleased to
see that the recommendation was unanimous on most of the
requests. She also noted the request from RSVP (Retired Senior
Volunteer Program) that if they do not receive the funding that
they requested, 516,849, the amount they have received since
1985/86 recommended to be cut to 510,000 this year, they would
not be able to continue to provide their services and they do an
outstanding Job with Anaheim people.
Council Members Ehrle, Hunter and Pickler also added their
appreciation to the CSB for the fine work they had done.
Mayor Bay opened the floor to appeals of the recommended funding
levels.
Sharon Phelps, Director of RSVP of North Orange County.
They maintain two small offices in Anaheim. The future of her
program is on the line. She requested that the funding to RSVP
for 1987/88 be maintained at the level it was funded and
requested in the past of 516,849. The 510,000 recommended level
is just above the level funded by the City in 1981/82. At that
time, they had only one 20-hour staff person in the City at a
569
41
Cit7 Hallt Am-he~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
lower level of volunteer support. The fate of their program is
important to her and her volunteers. The history of support
from the City goes back to 1974. The City has allowed RSVP to
grow, expand and provide services to many areas in the City.
The primary goal is to work with seniors to keep them involved
and that way the community benefits. Their volunteers are 60
years of age and over and they benefit. The cost of supporting
the program is relatively small when considering the funding
requested. Decreasing funding will negatively impact their
program. She urged the Council to maintain the previous funding
level of 316,849.
Doris Green, 1503 Rita Lane.
She gave over 200 hours to KSVP in 1986 in Anaheim. She asked
that the Council please help with any funding so that they may
continue their work.
No further persons wished to speak.
Councilwomau Kaywood.
She elaborated on the fine work of the RSVP and emphasized that
adding the 56,849 to the funding as requested by RSVP would keep
the program intact which is the same amount (516,849) they had
allocated in the last two years.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to add ~6,849 to the RSVP as requested by
the Agency bringing the total to 516,849. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay spoke against the motion,
relaying his previously stated opinions relative to his
opposition to government funding for any charitable
organizations regardless of the fine work they do, which he
felt, in effect, the Council was making a gift of public funds
to those organizations. Within the month he is going to
recommend strongly what he recommended in past years that they
set up a sunset on all of the community service agency funds
being funded in anyway by taxpayer money from the City. He does
not believe taxpayer money should be handed out by people
sitting in office particularly at the City level of government.
He was also intending to make a recommendation that they reduce
community service agency funding levels to ~100,000 this year,
cutting that level to $50,000 next year and making it zero the
following year as the County has done. He still feels strongly
that is what they should do.
Councilwoman Kaywood again spoke for her motion and the benefit
that would be derived from maintaining the funding level for
RSVP; Councilman Pickler did not agree with the concept of
sunsetting funding to community service agencies. The funding
is minimal compared to the budget as a whole. The RSVP, perhaps
more than anything, returns much to the Anaheim community.
570
42
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter.
He suggested that they get together after this year and have a
fundraiser. The City was not in the charity business. If they
are serious about having charity he proposed that all five
Council Members get together and have a fundraiser and give the
money derived from that to the community service agencies.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the motion by Councilwoman Kaywood that the
funding level of RSVP be increased from the recommended $10,000 to $16,849 as
in the two previous years. The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Pickler
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
None
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved approval of the Community Services Board
Fiscal Year 1987/88 Community Services Agency funding level of $124,471 as
recommended in their report of May 14, 1987. Councilman Ehrle seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle asked that the people who did not
gettheir increase to contact him personally and he would do whatever he could
to raise some of that money.
Mayor Bay noted that the money was not in the budget; Councilwoman Kaywood
asked the City Manager to explain where the money comes from.
City Manager Talley. Traditionally Council has directed that amount be
removed from the amount set up in the Council Contingency Fund which he
believes is $400,000. There was approximately $275,000 left in the fund.
They would take the money just allocated and place it in the Parks, Recreation
& Community Services Department for implementation through contracting with
the various agencies.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Councilman Hunter, allocating $124,471
to the Community Services Agencies, as recommended by the Community Services
Board and carried by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBEES: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL HFA~BERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
106:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS - BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE REPORT: Mayor Bay.
The Council has been presented with the Chamber of Commerce Blue
Ribbon Committee Report (see minutes of June 16, 1987) and have
.571
39
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
received a response to the Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) report
today (see - Response to the Chamber of Commerce Blue Ribbon
Committee Report - 1987/89 Resource Allocation Plan). He has
not had an opportunity to read the staff's response to the BRC
report.
City Manager Talley.
According to the schedule the City had with the Chamber, the
Chamber provided their comments a week ago Friday and delivered
the report last Tuesday. The agreement was to submit the City's
reply to the Council. In the event the Chamber wishes to
address the Council, he suggested as a courtesy that the Chamber
be asked if they have any comments so that they would not have
to come back to the Council meeting next week.
Dennis Hardin, Chairman, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Blue Ribbon
Committee.
One of the recommendations may have been misinterpreted. The
Chamber had recommended a hiring freeze at the current level of
full-time City employees. That is not to say people leaving the
City's employ should not be replaced. The Chamber is
recommending to keep the current employment levels at the same
level. Other than that, he cannot add anything more to the
report already submitted but make themselves available to the
Council if they wanted clarification on any of the points
brought up at the previous meeting or anything else in their
report.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Hardin if he had an opportunity
to review the responses to the BEC and if he had any comments;
Mr. Hardin answered that he had and he had no specific
comments. There are several areas where they agreed to disagree
and some areas where he stands corrected knowing the information
he now knows. Relative to the Police Department, had they known
the information that was presented last Tuesday (see minutes of
June 16, 1987) relative to the Public Safety Package, they might
not have taken such a hard line view on increasing the number of
people allocated to the Police Department. He is not certain
they would have gone along with all the people Chief Kennedy is
requesting but perhaps would have allowed for some increase and
also for the fact that some of the funding sources will not be
coming out of the General Fund.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN - GENERAL: Mayor Bay.
He prefaced his remarks on the budget stating that he had spent
many hours going through it. There is a built-in deficit to the
budget starting at about $3.5 million without taking into
account the close to $6 million payments the City is currently
making on the Hilton problem. The budget deficit with the
figures they started out with, not taking into account the
$6 million, started at approximately $4.2 million reduced by
572
4O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
$600,000 by the cross over of revenue sharing funds, reducing
that deficit of $4.2 to $3.6. There are now new figures as of
today with new estimates on the sales tax and now it will be
approximately $700,000 more than for the current fiscal year
ending June 30, 1987 raising the estimate on sales tax for the
coming budget year of 1987/88 to a new estimate that is $872,000
more than the current figures they have dealt with in the
budget. The balance in the General Fund is now down to
approximately $2.7 million without the Hilton issue. Mayor Bay
then gave extensive input relative to the budget as well as
items outside of the current budget, one in particular being
$29 million that had already been taken on in debt in
Certificates of Participation (COP) by the past Council majority
without addressing the revenue stream to make the payments
rapidly becom/ng due. That problem was not addressed in the
Chamber report because the issue was not addressed in the
budget. The COP cover improvements in the Police Department,
with the combination of auto centers including Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD), RMS Communications Center, office expansion,
office remodeling, the Jail addition, Jail remodeling and the
total police capital costs of approximately $22,424,000 and
spent to date out of that money is $6,474,995 which, regardless
of what the Council does~ is committed to find a revenue stream
to make the payment on what is spent. Of that particular group
of COP, $8.2 million is already spent or encumbered. He
reiterated his concern as he had in the past that to have
borrowed that kind of money, invested and spent it and not have
a revenue stream to pay it back is "fiscal insanity". It was
necessary to find a revenue stream and one of the choices is
whether to immediately stop encumbering another dollar within
that money or not. If they do, it will be necessary to stop all
the planned expansion in the Police Department with the
exception of the Communication Center since it is so close to
being completed.
The Mayor also broached the Public Safety Package issue received
from the Police Department through the City Manager (see minutes
of June 16, 1987) involving now approximately 42 additional
personnel with cost estimates around $4 million. He questioned
the Council on how they could possibly consider adding
$4 million to a budget already at a $2.7 million deficit, plus
$6 million and plus payments for COP as they start occurring.
It is his opinion there is not a consensus across the Council to
raise taxes in the City and that was perhaps the only solution
intended to be made. Investigating new sources of revenue with
new taxes in the City is an untenable solution as far as he is
concerned. He has spoken against the budgets in the City every
year for the past five years. This year he will make some
strong recommendations involving a reduction in spending across
the board in order to balance the budget. However, he did not
know how the Council was going to take the necessary cuts to
balance the budget with only tonight and one more meeting
573
Cit/ Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
without making mistakes in the way they do it. In his opinion,
the budget will not be balanced by June 30, 1987. He is
recommending that the Council take action to somehow put a hold
on spending and on hiring, not a full-blown hiring freeze. He
does not believe they should be considering raises affecting the
General Fund that the Council can control. Relative to
increases in the Police Department, he does not want to say they
are not goin~ to have any increases in the Police Department and
he does not want to hold back putting policemen or people in the
Police Department to work where they are needed. He does not
know how to balance the budget any easy way. He asked for
opinions from the Council.
Councilwoman Ka~wood: The Mayor has been apprised, Just as the
Council of the condition of the temporary buildings in the
Police Department. Relative to the COP, it is not only
$14 million or nothing. The Police portion is $11 million, the
auto centers represent the additional $3 million which does have
a revenue source. She suggested that they all put their heads
together relative to the problem and go to management for the
best positive and constructive ideas on how to balance the
budget. She suggested first that they use the proper figures to
work with.
Councilman Hunter: The answer to the budget shortfall is not an
increase in taxes.
Councilman Pickler: He does not believe the Council truly
understands the complexities of the budget. He feels they would
have an easier chance of solvin~ the problem if they would
listen to staff.
City Manager Talley: He agrees with the Mayor that the budget
is $3.6 million out this year and $1.1 million next year with
approximately $900,000 in additional sales tax revenue putting
the budget out approximately $2.7 million this year and
virtually balanced next year. Also this year, there will be a
minimum of $900,000 in additional Transient Occupancy Tax that
i~ not required in the budget because it was increased from 8%
to 10%. Also there are several funds which could be called
reserved funds, the sewer construction fund of $337,000, the
fleet maintenance equipment supply fund approximately $375,000,
and in the golf course funds approximately $200,000 staff had
intended for assisting in the channel reconfiguration work which
he believes can be covered by additional revenues from the sale
of land because of an updated appraisal that would be available
to balance the budget. That is approximately an additional
5912,000 that would bring the budget down to less than 51
million which, if he had a week to look at existing management
programs and backing off some hiring, that he could probably
bring this year's budget down to within a $500,000 overage and
create a surplus in excess of $500,000 next year that would make
574
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
the 2-year budget balanced with the exception of the Hilton
payments. It is his belief that in January of 1986 the existing
Council indicated to make the payment on that. They elected
again in July and in January of this year and again in July
another payment will be necessary, but it is nearing a
solution. It is his view they should not be penalized for
perhaps one more year with the most difficult of years because
of a number of circumstances to try to take those payments this
year out of the operating programs. He believes those payments
will be substantially less than in the past and believes they
are approaching a time of either being resolved through
litigation or compromise where an adequate program with a
revenue stream will be identified to solve that problem.
Mr. Talley continued that he does not believe because management
cannot be rewarded substantially in the good year such as last
year, when there was a ~5 million operating surplus used for
other things, management did not get rewarded even as much as
the bargaining units. He feels the Council could make some
modest adjustments in management compensation but it would be
unfair to give nothing. While he is willing to say that
management should shoulder some of the cost savings, in his
opinion, they should not be asked to subsidize the taxpayers.
There are many fine managers in the City earning their salaries
who deserve to be compensated as well as the bargaining units.
Discussion then followed between Mayor Bay and City Manager
Talley revolving around questions posed by'the Mayor and
Councilman Ehrle regarding the increased amount of dollars as a
result of the increase in TOT and the distribution of those
funds.
Councilman Ehrle: This is his first budget and he does not have
all the answers but a number of questions. As a philosophy they
have to have a program of austerity and to learn that they
cannot continue to spend and spend, especially relative to COP
without ever identifying a revenue stream in advance. There is
a deficit, it is necessary to know what the real numbers are and
what the solutions are. He is encouraged to hear what City
Manager Talley is saying that possibly in a week's time the
numbers can be put together. He announced that in the future he
will never vote for a COP without identifying a revenue source
to pay for them. He agrees it is necessary to have top quality
police service and fire service but he will not vote for a tax
increase. He also agrees with Mr. Hardin when he stated that
his managers do not get an increase every year if business does
not warrant it.
City Manager Talley: He believes the management of the City, if
the Council were to say they were going to knock everything out
of the management budget for compensation this year but if
management can generate those savings and deliver the same level
575
Ctt7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL K[NUTE$ - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
of service out of their budget, they could have those savings,
they could save all management salaries as long as they had the
ability to perform. What he did not want to do is not give them
an upside because a good manager responds to an upside. After
elaborating on the issue, Mr. Talley concluded if the Council
told the managers they were going to cut their budget but not
their participation, they would respond to that. It had to be a
challenge rather than something punitive and he would make that
commitment on behalf of the management team.
Extensive discussion then followed again relative to the Police
2000 Program and the debt on COP as well as the 5-year Public
Safety Package specifically with regard to the Police Department
which the City Manager presented to the Council at the meeting
of June 16, 1987. Council Members posed questions to the City
Manager revolving around these issues which were answered by
both City Manager Talley and Police Chief Jimmte Kennedy.
During the discussion, Clty Manager Talley, speaking of the
Public Safety Package involving the Police Department, he
supports the magnitude of the request. If the Council wanted to
establish a Blue Ribbon Liaison Committee to look at the issue
and the request, perhaps that could be put on the ballot. His
view is that 22 non-sworn personnel is what the City should have
to keep the people on the streets operating at an effective
level. They should do the Police 2000 Project and they should
do as much of the Public Safety Package as possible to protect
the City's citizens and to restore the way of life the City
enjoyed a few years ago. From the Council to the City Manager
on, the Police Department was led to believe this was going to
happen one day. The City's Police Department deserves what is
being recommended.
Councilman Pickler.
It was necessary to have a source of funds to pay for the
proposal and mention was made that possibly the issue be placed
on the ballot to give the people an opportunity to determine
whether or not the~ are willing to do it.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
At the time she approved the COP, the need was very clear on
Police 2000 relative to finding the funds to pay for it. She
had no doubt that the City Manager was going to come up with a
solution and she is still confident that he will do so. She
felt the smartest thing to do now is to build the police
building even if they did not have the bodies to put into it at
this point. She would also be very much in favor of putting the
issue on the ballot.
City Clerk Sohl reported that if the issue is to be placed on
the November 1987 Ballot, the County would have to be notified
by July 31, 1987 of their intent to hold the Election.
576
City Hall, An-heim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
He urged the Council and City Manager to consider what happens
when they get a no vote to an increase in taxes. There is no
argument about the need, but he would be very concerned about
even going to the ballot and he is not against doing that. If
there are voters who approve a ballot measure to raise their
taxes for a specific use to pay for what in his opinion is the
number one priority in the City, he does not have any problem
with that. He would be glad to lend his support to get them to
do it. However, he will not do so until he is assured or until
he has seen an exploration across the budget on what can be
reduced out of it to a full austerity program. He felt that
there are specific functions going on in the City which, in his
opinion, were pure luxuries such as a Public Information Office
or how much they could cut and improve on services that are
nearly as important as the police functions. They should have
been doing that in budget workshops for the last two or three
months ·
City Manager Talley.
He interrupted to report that the City Attorney advises if the
Council is contemplating a ballot issue for a specific purpose
such as raising taxes, it would take a 2/3 vote of the people.
He believes a majority vote might be feasible but he is not
certain about a 2/3 vote.
Mayor Bay.
He asked if there was a Council consensus that the Council could
put a Police 2000 Program on the ballot for a vote in November
of 1987 along with the water bond measure which is going to be
on the ballot and that there is a very high probability of
getting a 2/3 vote to approve taxes to do that.
Councilman Pickler.
He would like to see it on the ballot and let the people decide.
Councilman Ehrle.
He will always favor a vote of the people but was concerned that
the citizens would feel that the Council is shirking their
duty. He clarified he is not ready to raise fees. He would
vote for putting the issue on the ballot but he is not sure the
measure could get a 2/3 vote. He would support the issue since
police services are a number one priority as well as fire
protection.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She would be happy to write the argument in favor or in
combination with anyone to write it. She is also asking whether
the full Council will support the issue or if someone was going
to be fighting it because that would make a big difference.
577
City Hallt Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter.
Since citizens were going to look at all five Council Members
and say because of their mistakes (Re: the Hilton and Angels
litigation) you are going to raise my taxes to pay for this.
The City needed police services and the Police Department needs
to be redone and remodeled to go into the year 2000.
Hayor Bay asked what they would have to do to go on for a simple
majority.
City Attorney Jack White.
As a Charter City, it is his legal opinion the City of Anaheim
does not legally need to have voter approval of a tax increase
or a new tax that enters directly into the General Fund and is
not ear marked for a special purpose. That it is only in the
event that the tax is going to be used for a specific purpose
and that the increase is tied to that purpose that a vote is
required by law under the provisions of Proposition 13 as
interpreted by the State Supreme Court which would take a 2/3
vote. If it were to be an advisory proposition on the ballot as
a general tax increase, that would not take a 2/3 vote but a
simple majority because it would only be advisory in nature. It
is only when you go to the people and say that the tax increase
will be used for a specific purpose that it falls within the
legal interpretation of Proposition 13 that requires a 2/3 vote
to impose or increase any tax for a special purpose. He
reiterated as long as in the advisory vote the Council did not
say if this tax is increased, it will go to this specific
purpose, it would be a majority vote and only an advisory vote.
Even with the vote, the Council could still vote to not increase
the tax or if negative, the Council could still impose or
increase the tax because it would only be advisory.
Mayor Bay.
He feels the smart thing to do is go to an advisory vote on tax
increase that is specifically.designed how those will be
increased and that the money will be for the General Fund,
non-specific. In the meantime, there should be some austerity
"belt tightening" in specific areas and those recommendations
should be coming back along with new figures in the budget for
the next meeting on June 30, 1987 for potential approval by the
Council. The Council ought to have something back that says
they are toing to balance the budget for 1987/88 in the number
categories now so that the Council has something it can approve
or not approve next Tuesday. He personally feels there should
be cuts in training, seminars, travel and meetings, expense
accounts, and he would like to see more internal control over
expense accounts across the management organization. The
Council should be aware of the monthly costs involved with
travel and meetings by some kind of monthly reports so that the
Council or Council liaison can look at the costs of travel by
management and the Justification - when they are out of town,
why, and the cost of being there.
578
Cit7 Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley.
That can be done but it will require a great deal more reporting
that is not done now and it would be a substantial work load.
He explained the present procedure.
Mayor Bay.
He clarified he was not talking about mandated training and that
which was required. He was saying relative to staff
development, seminar expenses and traveling meeting expenses.
In his opinion, these were growing at a rate that indicates the
Council has not paid much attention to those costs and are not
doing anything about them.
City Manager Talley.
He is taking these as signals. If Council as a group is saying
this is not a good signal, he would like to know. If Council
gives him direction, that they want reductions to the General
Fund he would say the City Policy is going to be amended or
there will be "belt tightening" for all and not Just because
they are in a special fund.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
It was only looking at half of something. She would like to
know whether the time and travel expended brought benefit to the
City, whether it brought money in or whether it reduced money
going out. She did not want to see a huge report costing
thousands of dollars. If she were ever to ask for something,
she would like to know the price tag that goes along with it.
As an example, looking at the kinds of trips the Public
Utilities General Manager goes on, he saves hundreds of millions
of dollars for the City. She does not know of anyone going on
"Junkets" in Anaheim.
Councilman Pickler.
He has no problem looking at something. He is interested in
seeing the benefits that accrue to the City.
Mayor Bay.
It would be interesting if the Council knew how many of the
Executive Managers are out of town, when they are out of town,
where they are and why. He is talking about out-of-town trips
and whether those trips have more to do with the operations of
the City or with that manager's own career.
City Manager Talley.
He believes that can be done on a month or two basis and then
the Council can decide whether or not they want to
institutionalize that.
Mayor Bay.
Other new policies he would like the Council to think about, he
was going to propose the following: That the Council set up a
579
City ~all~ a--heim~ Californ~_a - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
policy that limits management contracts used in this City, set
up so that they expire without any penalty to the City at the
election of any new Council Member (i.e., a new policy that no
management contracts may be set up that do not expire
automatically at the next election); the prerogative for the
Council to pay some Executive Managers more than they pay the
City Manager; that the Council discuss who the consultants on
management pay scales report to, and that there should be a
clear-cut change in the policy dealing with consultants that
advise the City on management salaries, the HBO system, the PFP
system, that those consultants should be reporting directly to
the Council. It is his opinion that the present consultant does
not answer to the City Council and, therefore, he (Bay) is going
to be recommending that the Council change that or terminate
that consultant's contract and hire a new consultant and that
the Council also take a look at the whole HBO system as it is
presently set up.
There was one other issue, he spoke with the Fire Chief
yesterday who had some recommendations that may now be in his
mail. An issue that they talked about which he favors strongly
is the current hazardous material inventory requirements which
are set up for twice a year under the present program. He would
recommend that they reduce the full hazardous material reporting
from businesses down to once a year instead of two times a
year. By doing that on the full disclosure forms on hazardous
material, this would open up the Human Resources within the Fire
Department to do spot random audits in the time they are not
spending on the overall inventory twice a year. If it can be
handled on a once-a-year basis. He has received complaints from
businesses on the twice a year audit.
City Manager Talley.
The Fire Chief's report is due next Tuesday.
Mayor Bay.
Relative to Code Enforcement, there was a request to charge a
$35 fee for a third call back for Code Enforcement. He believes
that is a good idea where they have to spend more and more of
staff time on Code Enforcement and go back for a third call back
that a charge be set up for that. It is over and above the norm.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She suggested that there also be a fee charged when the Police
Department has to go back to a complaint on a noise party the
second or third time that the offenders be charged for that;
City Attorney White stated he would have to look into the
feasibility of such a charge.
580
City Hall, A-~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 23~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion. MOTION CARAIED. (10:58 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
581