1987/06/30219
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: ~rle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of theAnaheim City Council was
posted at 1:30 p.m. on June 26, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at
12:00 noon.
RECESS FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
46-96-59; City of Anaheim vs. Grant Corp., et al, O.C.S.C.C. No.
41-32-50.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c.).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:01 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(1:47 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Bob Beeson, 1st Christian Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
582
220
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
119: PRESENTATION - qUEEN'S TROPHY: Mrs. Earlene Jones presented to the
Council and the City the Queen's Trophy won by Anaheim's float entry in the
Garden Grove Strawberry Festival on May 23, 1987, which he hoped would be put
on display for all the citizens to see.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Ail Star Baseball Week in Anaheim, July 5-10, 1987.
119: EXPRESSION OF WELCOME: An Expression of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council and presented by Mayor Bay to Sherry Smith Mancini,
Regional Vice President, who accepted on behalf of the Woman's Council of
Realtors.
119: EXPRESSION OF CONGRATULATIONS: An Expression of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Lt. Louis F. Molina,
Anaheim Police Department, upon his retirement after 26 years of service with
the City. Mayor Bay and Council Members personally congratulated Lt. Molina
and expressed their appreciation for his 26 years of dedicated service in the
Anaheim Police Department and to his community.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Xaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held June 9, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CAI~ED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIe.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,440,829.81, in
accordance with the 1986-82 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT C~I.~NDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay,
seconded by Councilwoman Kenwood, 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 Bay offered
Resolution Nos. 87E-256 through 87R-267, 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 JWM Engineering, Inc. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 28, 1986 through
March 6, 1986.
583
217
Ctt7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 30~ 1987~.1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Taylor Lumber Company for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 25, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by James Sepulveda for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 7, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Beverly, Klm & Nicole Frohling for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 11, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Tsu-Tsair Chi for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 4, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by Danny Michael MeElwain for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 13, 1987.
g. Claim submitted by Teresa R. Blankmeyer for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 28, 1987.
h. Claim submitted by Cory E. Anderson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 5, 1987.
i. Claim submitted by John & Irma Andreassen (Main Action: Orin Tyler
Clentimack vs. Pic 'N' Save, et al.) for indemnity due to injuries sustained
by Orin Tyler Clentimack, purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
June 11, 1986.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
J. Claim submitted by Michael W. Fipps for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 30, 1087.
k. Claim submitted by Gary J. Hall for property d~,mge sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 30, 1987.
1. Claim submitted by Pasquale Mancini for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 30, 1987.
m. Claim submitted by John R. De Lucia, D.D.S. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 28, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Gas
Company Notice to Customers of Filing of Application and Public Hearing in
Application No. 87-06-021.
3. 123/161.123: Authorizing an agreement with Savi Ranch Associates,
Redevelopment Agency, and the Orange County Flood Control District, to provide
for the construct/on of a levee by SAVI Ranch Associates within the River
Valley Redevelopment Project Area (Weir Canyon Road).
4. 128: Receivin~ and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the ten
months ended April 30, 1987.
584
218
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
5. 179: Granting a one-year extension of time to Reclassification No.
85-86-19 and Variance No. 3541, for a change in zone from RS-7200(SC) to
CO(SC) to construct a 2 and 3-story commercial office building with certain
Code waivers on property located at 7777 Santa Ama Canyon Road, to expire on
April 22, 1988.
6. 123: Authorizing agreements with Computer Systems & Applications of
California, Sizemore Computer Services, Cappelletti Associates, Mini-Systems
Associates, DPCS, Inc., Computer-Tek, Inc., MNB Systems, Inc., flarte
Enterprises and Business Consulting Associates, for contract programming
services, for the term July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988.
7. 128: Approving the FY 1986/87write-off of uncollectible miscellaneous
accounts receivable totalling 541,303.
8. 175: Approving the 1986/87 write-off of uncollectible Utility Accounts
totalling 5704,657.22.
124: Approving the FY 1986/87 write-off of uncollectible Convention Center
Tenant Accounts Receivable totalling ~?,263.99.
10. 123/106: Authorizing an agreement with Laventhal and Horwath, CPA's, at a
cost not to exceed 330,000, to conduct a msrket and economic analysis study
for a proposed major sports and special events arena to be constructed near
Anaheim Stadium; and authorizing the appropriation of ~30,000 from the Council
Contingency Fund for said purpose. (Council Members Bay and Pickler abstained)
Mayor Bay announced that he was abstaining on two Consent Calendar items
(Agreement - Laventbml and Horwath; and the contract between the Inter-County
Airport Authority and First Southwest Company).
Councilman Pickler asked if there was a reason for the Mayor abstaining on
those two items, and if it was something the Council should know.
Mayor Bay stated he was merely abstaining on the vote. He did not intend to
lengthen the meeting by having to explain his reasons for doing so; City
Attorney Jack White confirmed that there was nothing in the City Charter or
the Code requiring that an abstention be accompanied by a reason.
11. 175: Approving the Southern California Edison Company (Edison) 1987-1991
Total Nuclear Capital Budget/Forecast for SONGS and directing the appointed
City representative or alternate to the Board of Review to approve said
budget/forecast.
12. 170.123: Approving the assignment of Special Facilities (pumps and
reservoirs) agreement with Texaco Anaheim Hills Corporation previously
assigned to Municorp of California and now reassigned to Charles Wade,
relating to Tract Nos. 8513, 8515, 8516, 7587 and 8075 in the Anaheim Hills
area.
13. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Fred S. James & Co. of California,
the City's Broker of Record to provide various professional insurance
585
as
215
Ctt7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
brokerage services at an annual fee not to exceed 550,000 for the five-year
period July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1992.
14. 123: Authorizing a Juvenile Court Work Program Agreement ~lth the County
of Orange Probation Department to provide work crews, an average of 10 to 12
Juvenile probationers, at 5200 per work crew day, for the term of one year
starting July 1, 1987, w~th annual automatic renewals.
15. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing A~ent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of 531,291.52 for 2,785
feet of 15KV URD 1000 KCHIL cable, in accordance with Bid No. A-4461.
16. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of 548,539.52 for 1,728
single phase meters, in accordance with Bid No. A-4451.
17. 106.150: Receiving and filing report on the call for bids for George
Washington Community Center Improvements, Account Nos. 25-848-7107 and
16-848-7107.
18. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-256: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (D. W. JENSEN
CORPORATION) (in the amount of $125,900 for the Peralta Canyon Recreation
Center Improvements, Account No. 16-805-7107)
19. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87K-257: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (GOODMAN &
PELOQUIN INC. in the amount of 5124,763.02, for Little People's Park
Improvements, Account Nos. 25-846-7103 and 16-846-7103)
20. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87E-258: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (GRACO
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION in the amount of 5265,940, for Pearson Park
Grandstand and Volleyball Court Improvements, Account No. 16-820-7107)
21. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-259: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (HENRY
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. in the amount of $491,900, Manzanita Park and
Recreation Building Improvements, Account Nos. 25-803-7107 and 16-803-7107)
22. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-260: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (GOSH
CONSTRUCTION CORP. in the amount of $104,745, for Sanitary Sewer
Modifications, Account No. 11-790-6325-E0630)
23. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-261: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIMAWAKDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (PETER C. DAVID
CO.) (in the amount of 5478,306, for Commercial Street Storm Drain
Improvement from e/o Lemon Street to w/o Part Street and w/o Part Street from
Commercial Street to n/o the Riverside Freeway, Account No. 24-791-6325-E1500)
586
ZI6'
City Hall~ A~abeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
24. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-262: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHOR/ZING TERMINATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH STEVE PANZA
CONSIRUCTORS AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (Terminating
the contract with Steve Panza Constructors with reimbursement of $3,652.60 for
costs incurred for construction of water improvements in Avenida De Santiago
from H/dden Canyon Road to 1900 feet easterly)
25. 174: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-263: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM TO CONTINUE A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PROGRAM FOR ALL PROJECTS
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIMILECEIVING UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING AND ESTABLISHING A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GOAL OF 10.52%
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1988.
26. 131: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-264: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM INFORMING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
OF CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
ON THE GENERAL PLAN.
27. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-265: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (MILLER - 87-7A) (Declaring intent to
abandon a former Southern California Edison Company easement located
southeasterly of Santa Aha Canyon Road, west of Martin Road, Aban. 87-7A, and
setting a date for the public hearing, therefor; suggested date: July 28,
1987, 3:00 p.m.)
28. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-266: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
CREATING THE INTER-COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND APPROVING CERTAIN CONTRACTS OF
THE AUTHORITY. (Amending the Joint Powers Agreement that created the
Inter-CountyAIrport Authority to provide for termination of the contract
between ICAA and Inter-County Air Management Systems and approving a contract
between ICAAand First Southwest Company to act as financial consultant)
30. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-267: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIMACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. (Accepting Deeds of Easement)
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-256 through 87R-265 and 87R-267:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle,
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Hunter,
Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-256 through 87R-265 and 87R-267, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 8~R-266:
587
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-266 duly passed and adopted.
139: AB 2191 - ELECTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES BY TRUSTEE AREA:
City of
Hawaiian Gardens Resolution No. 30-87 Supporting Assembly Bill 2191 Relating
to Election of School District Trustees by Trustee Area. Submitted was letter
dated June 11, 1987 from Mayor Sagr of Hawaiian Gardens, requesting support of
their Resolution 30-87 requesting support of AB 2191.
Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against the request to support the subject bill.
She felt that people would be more concerned with getting re-elected to their
districts forgetting that they represent the entire Clty~ County, District etc.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to oppose support of AB 2191 and that the
correspondence from Hawaiian Gardens be received and filed. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106/123: ACCEPTANCE OF BID FOR FURNISHING SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS - A?.r. CITY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES~ INC.: Accepting the low bid of All City Management
Services, Inc., and authorizing the execution of a contract for one year,
July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988, in the amount of 3296,988 plus options to
renew for two additional years, to provide school crossing guards, in
accordance with Bid No. 4459. Submitted was report dated June 19, 1987 from
the Purchasing Agent, Diane Hugart, recommending acceptance of the iow bid by
all City Management Services, Inc.
City Manager William Talley, stated that representatives from Colman Crossing
Guards were present and wished to speak to the issue.
Cynthia Colman, President, Colman Crossing Guards, and Herman Hendricks,
Vice-President of Marketing, were present. Hr. Hendricks then explained that
Colman has been performing the crossing guard service in the City of Anaheim
for the past six years and throughout that period, have received many
commendations from the school districts for more than satisfactory
perioImance. There ia a bid before the Council today (all Clty Manasement
Services) indicating that firm will perform the work at a price that will save
the City money. The bid appears to be cost effective based on other bids
submitted. Mr. Hendricks then made an extensive presentation comparing the
bid submitted by Colman and others as well as that of City management. He
also explained the latter company's relationship with the City of Los
Angeles. In concluding, Mr. Hendricks stated that his company had never come
before the Council to supplement their contract and they have weathered the
storm of the increase in costs and insurance. They are a minority-owned, run
and managed company; they provide a caring, hands-on operation and also
provide services in ten-school municipalities. They have served the City of
Anaheim well and are giving the best product for the best price. They are
able to manage the program effectively and still make it cost effective.
588
214
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987; 1:30 P.M.
Cynthia Colman. Overall, Colman is the lowest most qualified bidder and no
other bidder has the experience that Colman has.
Curt Munson, All City Management. His company is fully aware of what the bid
called for and they are capable of providing the desired services. They do
provide such services to the City of Los Angeles and also Huntington Park.
They are specifically in the business of providing crossing guard services.
He and his partner Ron Farwell were once part of Colman and he (Munson) was
the person who put together the crossing guard program. He has 7 years of
crossing guard experience. They are both retired Los Angeles Police
Officers. They are ready to take the contract and do the work that has to be
done.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to accept the low bid of All City Management
Services, Inc., and authorize the execution of a contract for one year,
July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988, in the amount of $296,988 plus options to
renew for two additional years, to provide school crossing guards, in
accordance with Bid No. 4459. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
179: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2738: Submitted was letter dated June 16, 1987 from Gregory W.
Sanders, attorney representing the Euclid Street Baptist Church (Hope
University), requesting a one-year extension of time to comply with certain
conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2738, which was approved
by the Council on July 1, 1986 (Resolution No. 86R-305).
City Manager Talley referred to staff report dated June 24, 1987 from the
Community Development/Planning Department, Zoning Division, wherein it was
explained that the item came in late and further, recalling that there was
substantial neighborhood discussion and extensive presentations at the time of
approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Also received was communication dated
June 29, 1987 from Gregory Sanders to the Council regarding the requested
extension of time to comply with conditions of approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2738 (made a part of the record).
Mayor Bay stated that a request for extension of time is normally a routine
item. He asked for a show of hands of those who wished to speak to the issue;
there was only one person who wished to speak.
City Manager Talley explained the reason why it was presented for separate
consideration by the Council, staff has not had an opportunity to review the
conditions for compliance or to advise the community the matter was before the
City Council.
City Attorney Jack White. Normally under Code, there is no requirement to
give notice or hold a public hearing on an extension of time to comply with
conditions of approval. The matter was set for separate consideration based
upon his concern, knowing the history of the application and the extensive
hearings that were held. There is a body of case law that is developing
providing that property owners in the vicinity of any project that may be
adversely affected by a decision of the City are entitled to notice of actions
589
211
Citlr Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
taken by the City. Part of the testimony taken at the time of the hearings on
the matter was the need to have compliance with the conditions within a given
period of time. Therefore, he was concerned that there could be an
implication by extending the period without notice to the property owners,
those surrounding neighbors may be in a position to argue that they had
property interests that were adversely affected without due process. He
suggested at the time that the matter be continued to give notice to those
property owners because of the unusual nature of the case or to have a
stipulation obtained from the property owner and the potential purchaser of
the property, that by approving the extension of certain conditions without
giving notice to the neighborhood, that the property owner would be holding
the City harmless with regard to any litigation that may, in the future, be
brought by any of the surrounding property owners. That is the basis for the
recommendation of the last paragraph in the staff report.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, explained in answer to Councilwoman
Kaywood that there had been no complaints received from the neighborhood in
the past three months. However, his Department has been working with the
Euclid Street Baptist Church, to see that the conditions imposed under
Resolution No. 86R-305 are complied with.
Gregory W. Sanders, attorney for the Euclid Street Baptist Church, Nossaman,
Guthner, Knox & Elliott. He understands the recommendations of the City
Attorney but he is surprised that their request for an extension of time has
been singled out for special treatment and feels they should not have to enter
into such a stipulation. If it is the decision of the Council to so condition
the requested extension of time, then he would like to specifically address
what the terms and conditions of the stipulation would be.
City Attorney White. Mr. Sanders was advised by a representative of his
office last week, this would be the City Attorney's position on the matter
today. He would be happy with the stipulation made orally at the meeting
today that in the event surrounding property owners bring any litigation as a
result of having an action taken today to extend the time with which to comply
with the conditions of approval of CUP No. 2738, that the owner of the
property, the current owner or the new owner, would agree to hold the City
harmless and indemnify the City for any costs incurred.
Mayor Bay, At the time, he voted against the granting of the CUP but in a
sense of fairness, he believes it would be unfair now for the Council to go
back and overturn the decision made almost a year ago. He has no problem with
the recommendation of the City Attorney, because he can see where there might
be an opening for legal action and the Council would do better to have the
protection as outlined by the City Attorney. He urged the City Council to at
least request that stipulation.
Councilman Pickler. He concurred but on the other hand he felt that they are
setting a new precedent by having singled out a particular case whereas
extensions of time are normally routine items. He personally feels the
Council should approve the extension without any additional stipulations.
590
212
Cit7 R. 1i~ Anah-4m~ Ca14fornta - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
After further Council discussion on the matter, City Attorney White stated
that the Judgment he made in this particular matter was one based upon degree
- the degree of risk, opposition and likelihood of opposition from property
owners who were not notified this was taking place. He would feel more
comfortable requiring that noticed hearings be held in every case where the
Council might grant extensions of time to comply with original conditions of
approval. Up to now, he has not recommended that because he believes that the
amount of effort, cost and time required of any property owner or developer to
do that would apply in every case, if made an ordinance. The risk is probably
not worth applying it in every case across the board. It is only in those
rare cases where there is considerable controversy in the project that he
becomes considerable controversy in the project, that he becomes concerned
about the risk to the City. His recommendation is either to notify the
surrounding property owners or proceed only upon stipulation by the property
owner that the City would be held harmless from taking action today.
Gregory Sanders. He has consulted with his client and his client is prepared
to accept the recommendation of the City Attorney and enter into a hold
ha~nless stipulation. His understanding of that is the applicant is to
indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City in the event any legal action is
brought by a neighboring property owner as a result of action taken by the
Council at this meeting.
City Attorney Jack White
those circumstances they
Councilman ghrle that it
answered, that is correct; Mr. Sanders answered under
are willing to so stipulate. He also confirmed for
was for a period of one year.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the request for an extension of time for
one year to comply with certain conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2738, Euclid Street Baptist Church (Hope University) as requested
by the applicant.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler reiterated that he felt it was
wrong to have singled out this particular matter and to require a stipulation
from the applicant.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the foregoing. MOTION CARRIED.
123; DEP0$ITORYAG~EEMENT WITH FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: Councilman Pickler
moved to authorize the first amendment to the depository agreement with First
Interstate Bank of California to provide bank rates and prices for the term of
July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1989, as recommended in memorandum dated
June 22, 1987 from the City Treasurer, Mary Turner. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARILIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH CARL WARREN & COMPANY - LITIGATION INVESTIGATION
SERVICES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with Carl
~arren & Co, in an amount not to exceed 320,000, for litigation investigation
services, for the term July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988, as recommended in
memorandum dated June 23, 1987 from the City Attorney's Office. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
¢tt~ Hall, Anahetmy California - COONCILMINUTES - 3une 30~ 1987~ 1:30
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held June 8, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 3661: Submitted by Steven
and Kathryn L. Murphy, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and CL to
RM-1200, to construct a three-story, 26-unit apartment complex on property
located at 2433 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum building
height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-120 and 121,
granted Reclassification No. 86-87-31 and Variance No. 3661, and granted a
negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2618 (READV.): Submitted by J. Kent Bewley, et
al, (Mr. Chris's Burgers), requesting an extension of time and/or deletion of
Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. PC81-27, pertaining to required extensions
of time to retain a drive-through restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on CL
zoned property located at 117 So. Western Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum
distance of the drive-through lane.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-123 approved an
extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2618 (Ready.), to expire
January 26, 1989, and previously approved a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2595--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by General
Partners of Villa Nobl Plaza, Ltd., requesting an extension of time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2595, to permit a semi-enclosed restaurant with
on-sale alcohol on property located at 505 South Villa Real Drive, with Code
waivers of permitted sign content, maximum number of sign display surfaces,
required sign placement, maximum sign area, maximumbuilding height and
required site screening.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2595, to expire January 9, 1988.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-17 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2750--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by John R. Schantz, requesting an
extension of time for Reclassification No. 85-8§-17 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2750, a proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC), to permit
a 42-foot high, 183-unit motel on property located southeast of the
intersection Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 85-86-17 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2750, to expire January 20, 1988.
5. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: Submitted by Planning staff, requesting
consideration of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from
General Industrial to General Commercial for a 19.7 acre parcel of land
bounded on the north by Ball Road, on the south by Sanderson Avenue, on the
east by the Santa Ana River, and on the west by the Orange Freeway (57).
592
210
Cit~ B~ll~ Anah~!m~ C~l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2914: Submitted by Charles H. and Linda
Phillips, to permit a day care facility in conjunction with a proposed
industrial medical clinic on }iL zoned property located at 5475 E. La Palma
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-122, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2914, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISIONS - JUNE 3 AND JUNE 18~
1987:
1. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 87-02: Submitted by Ray G. and Mary A.
Mokler, to retain a six to six-foot eight inch high block wall on property
located at 907 S. Sylvan Street.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-07,
granted Administrative Adjustment No. 87-02. The decision date was June 3 ,
1987.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3659 (READV.): Submitted by Keith John and Marlene Marie
Hultquist, to construct a 2-story addition to a single-family residence on
property located at 1225Andrea Lane, with the following Code waivers: (a)
Maximum lot coverage (denied), (b) maximum number of bedrooms (in part).
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pursuant to Resolution No. ZA87-08,
granted in part, Variance No. 3659 (Ready.). The decision date was June 18 ,
1987.
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed and, therefore, a
public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
End of Zoning Administrator Informational Items.
179: ~FARTNG OFFICER ITEMS FROM THE MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1987:
MAKING OFFICER - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2838:
APPLICANT: Clayton Peters, Games Plus, property located at 3242 West Lincoln,
requesting an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2838, to retain
the on-sale beer in an existing billiard parlour and amusement arcade on CL
zoned property located at 3242 West Lincoln.
FINDING: A Negative Declaration status was previously approved.
593
Cit~ Hnll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2838 was granted by the City Council on
September 23, 1986, subject to review on March 24, 1987. The extension of
time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2838 was denied by the City Council on
that date under Resolution No. 87R-105 (see minutes of March 24, 1987).
A Request for a rehearing on the matter was submitted by the applicant and
granted by the City Council on April 3, 1987 (see minutes that date) with the
rehearing referred to a Hearing Officer. The rehearing was held on June 1,
1987, conducted by Robert E. Rickles, Hearing Officer, and testimony
received. The Hearing Officer recommended denial of the request for an
extension of time.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-268, adopting the findings of
the Hearing Officer and denying the extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2838.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-268: AR ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2838.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Hunter noted the applicant's attorney was
present.
City Attorney Jack White confirmed for the Mayor that this was not a public
hearing. The Code provides no additional evidence will be taken by the
Council. If the Council wishes, it has the option to listen to arguments but
no additional evidence. If they wanted more evidence, it would have to be
referred back to the Hearing Officer. The options available today are that
the Council either adopt a resolution approving the recommendation of the
Hearing Officer and incorporating all or some of his findings based upon the
recozdmade at the public hearing held by the Hearing Officer (transcript of
proceedings on file in the City Clerk's Office) or disagreeing with those
findings and adopting their own, thereby reversing the recommendation of the
Hearing Officer and approving the requested extension or finding upon review
of the record the Council needs more evidence in the case, and either
referring the matter back to the Hearing Officer or conducting a new hearing.
If the Council acts upon the matter today, it would then become final unless a
rehearing is requested by the applicant within the time provided in the Code.
The basis for the rehearing would be limited to the action taken by the
Council and the recommendation by the Hearing Officer in this particular case
and not to the original hearing that was held by the Council some months ago.
Councilman Hunter stated it was his understanding the narcotics officer
involved in the case is on vacation and that he wanted to apprise the Council
of certain things. He, therefore, requested that the matter be continued
until the officer returned from vacation. The City Attorney, however, is
saying that the matter is decided because the Hearing Officer has already made
a decision.
City Attorney White. The record in the case has already been made. The
ordinance the Council adopted specifically provides that the Council shall
base its action upon the record made before the Hearing Officer. If the
Council wishes to take additional evidence, they would need to do that by
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
opening the entire hearing or referring it back to the Hearing Officer to
receive that evidence to see if it modifies his decision.
Mayor Bay urged that the Council not consider opening up the matter for
additional evidence. They should not start changing the process on the first
matter to come back from a Hearing Officer. If the Council wanted to vote
against the Hearing Officer recommendation they could do so but not opening
the issue once again or continuing it.
Mr. Rodolpho MonteJano, attorney representing Games Plus, asked if there was
an opportunity to comment relative to the matter; Mayor Bay answered there was
not.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, denying the extension of
time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2838, incorporating and upholding all the
findings of the Hearing Officer. Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: C0UNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-268 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Bay asked the City Attorney to explain what appeal system, if any,
remains after the Council has made its decision.
City Attorney White. At this point, the action the City Council Just took is
identical to what it would have been if the Council had just today conducted
the entire public hearing held in front of Judge Rickles (the resolution will
be prepared and mailed out to the applicant. Within a period of time after
mailing, 10 days, the applicant has the option of requesting a rehearing if he
believes there is evidence warranting a reconsideration of the case based upon
the action taken today and the Council would consider that application at a
later date).
H__E~_NG OFFICER- CONDITIONALUiE PERMIT NO. 2885 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Willy and Harriet C. Sulzmann, to permit an automobile repair
facility on ML zoned property located at 1884 South Santa Cruz Street, with
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Planning Commission under
Resolution No. PC87-66; approved EIR Negative Declaration.
The decision of the Planning Commission, relating to certain conditions of
approval, was appealed by George H. Savord, attorney for the applicant. The
City Council, on April ?, 1987 referred the matter to a Hearing Officer and
the public hearing before the Hearing Officer was held on June 1, 1987 where
testimony was received and a transcript of the proceedings provided to the
Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office). The Hearing Officer recommended
595
205
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
denial of the appeal of certain conditions of approval, thereby granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2885, in accordance with the Planning Commission
conditions of approval as outlined in Resolution No. PC87-66.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 87R-269 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2885, upholding the findings and conditions of the
City Planning Commission and the findings and decision of the Hearing
Officer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-269: A P. ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2885.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL NEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-269 duly passed and adopted.
168: REQUEST TO RENANEROMNEYA DRIVE~ KARCHER WAY: Horst J. Schor, Carl
Karcher Enterprises, requesting to rename Romneya Drive, between Lemon Street
and Harbor Boulevard, to #Karcher Way". Submitted was report dated June 24,
1987 from the Community Development & Planning Department/Building Division,
recommending that staff be directed to secure input from businesses and
property owners in the identified area and prepare a recommendation for
Council consideration in six days.
Mayor Bay stated that if the matter is continued, he would like to know what
the cost of the change would be and if that cost is going to be borne by the
requestor. He has no problem with the requested change but is concerned about
who is going to pay for any costs incurred.
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the subject request for sixty days as
recommended by staff, in order to secure input and that staff also provide a
report relative to costs and who will pay those costs. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
129: NO FIREWORKS IN ANAHEIM: Because of the July 4, 1987 holiday being on a
weekend, Councilwoman Kaywood commented on the fact that this was the first
year that no fireworks will be allowed in Anaheim as a result of the question
put to the voters on the November 1986 ballot. The people voted to deny the
use, purchase, sale, setting up or anything in Anaheim having to do with
fireworks. She also elaborated on an event which took place at the Union
596
206
City ~,ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Federal Bank to give as much publicity as possible to "No Fireworks in
Anaheim".
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:00 p.m.)
AFTE~ RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:22 p.m.)
107: REQUEST FOR RE~ARING - HOUSE MOVE-ON TO 514 EAST BROADWAY: Request by
Sam J. Difilippo for a Rehearing for a permit to move a four-pleA from 1009
East Lincoln Avenue to 514 East Broadway, denied by Council at the meeting of
April 21, 1987, 87R-152. (This matter was continued from the meeting of
June 2, 1987, to this date.
Councilman Bay moved to grant the request for a rehearing on the subject house
move-on.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle asked the City Attorney if the
Council had a choice in this matter.
C~ty Attorney White answered yes. The item was originally brought to the
Council to approve or deny a rehearing on June 2, 1987 and continued to this
date. During the interim, the Council asked for a recommendation from his
office concerning the existing provisions of the Code relating to the process,
specifically the provision that provides if there is a majority protest by the
neighbors, the Council has no discretion or choice but is mandated to deny the
permit. His office made a recommendation back to the Council that the
ordinance be amended to give the Council the discretionary right based upon
evidence presented at a hearing to either approve or deny those applications
and not necessarily base it on a vote of surrounding property owners in the
neighborhood. They would have a right to express their concerns and
objections and give reasons why it was not a good idea to grant a permit, but
the applicant would also have the right to present his case. That
recommendation was based upon a review of the applicable case law that had
been cited in the last 15 years since the time the ordinance was originally
written. The Council adopted an ordinance that is presently in the 30-day
referendum period which will give the City the right to review such cases on
an individual basis and hear both pros and cons prior to making a decision.
Councilman Pickler seconded the foregoing motion, granting the request for a
rehearing on the request for a house move-on permit, and also setting the date
and time for a public hearing as Tuesday, July 28, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. MOTION
105: REVIEW OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: To consider and review all existing
individual appointments to Council appointed Boards and Commissions, and to
consider restructuring the Industrial Development Board. This matter was
discussed at and continued from the meeting of June 23, 1987, to this date.
Mayor Bay. He knew of no further action on review of Boards and Commissions
until the Council looked at the present members coming due for possible
renewal and until they received the letter responses from the City Clerk and
597
2O3
City Hall~ An-b-im~ California - COONCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
also the people who have applied to be members of those Boards. He recalled
that Councilman Ehrle had a recommendation relative to an Economic Development
Board and asked if he had information on that matter for the Council.
Councilman Ehrle. He had made a recommendation to the Council to rename the
existin~ Industrial Development Board (IDB), the Economic Development Board
(EDB). His reasons are two fold: -(1) The original purpose of the existing
five-member IDB was to review, approve and oversee the sale of industrial
bonds. That purpose is no longer necessary under current federal and state
guidelines. (2) There is a current need for a new Advisory Board to assist
in the Economic Development of Anaheim. The City's economic health is the key
to providing services such as Fire Protection, Parks and Recreation and Crime
Prevention. He, therefore, proposes the establishment of a new Economic
Development Board for the City. The purpose and central theme would be to
assist, advise and promote the economic activities in Anaheim, geared towards
the creation of new jobs, expanding the tax base, developing office, retail
and industrial space, act as an Advisory Board between the City, Chamber of
Commerce and Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of assisting in the
development of Anaheim's new economic base, and to provide the professional
and practical expertise and advice to the City Council for the economic
resurgence of Anaheim.
He continued that the proposal is to retain the existing five members on the
IDB but to add at least four members, thereby expanding that Board to nine
members. The Board would then meet on a bi-weekly basis and report through
the Economic Development Manager. He has discussed this with people from the
Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Priest in Redevelopment.
Councilman Ehrle thereupon moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
an ordinance setting up a nine-member Economic Development Board for Council
review. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he had no problem with the
recommendation but wanted first to have a report from either Councilman Ehrle
or staff and subsequently the Council could take appropriate action. The
motion is premature at this point. After receiving the report, the Council
can decide the issue and also the question of expanding the five-member Board.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She also wanted to see a staff report first in order to
see what benefit there would be In adding another layer of bureaucracy for
developers to go through.
After further Council discussion on the issue with input from Norm Priest,
Councilman Ehrle stated that his motion on the floor stands but added to it is
the request that a report be submitted by Mr. Priest as well. MOTION CARRIED.
No other action was taken at this time regarding Boards and Commissions.
134: PUBLIC NEARING - GENERAT. PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 225 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLiCANT: City of Anaheim
598
Git7 F_a!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To redesignate Fairmont Boulevard between La Palms
Avenue and Santa Aha Canyon Road from a Hillside Secondary to a Hillside
Primary Arterial Highway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-105 approved GPA No. 225,
Exhibit Al approved EIRNegative Declaration.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 18, 1987.
Posting of property June 19, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 19, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 11, 1987.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak on GPA No. 225; there was no
response.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-270 for adoption, approving GPA
No. 225, Exhibit A, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87E-270: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 225. (EXHIBIT A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-270 duly passed and adopted.
134/179/155: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLANAMENDMENT NO. 223,
REC3~SSIFICATION NO. 86-87-19~ PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 - OAK HILLS:
APPLICANT: DL Enterprises, Ltd.
1535 East 0rangewood, #129
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
599
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1.'30 P.M.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan with proposals including but not limited to hillside low
density residential, hillside low-medium density residential, hillside medium
density residential, general commercial and general open space, for a change
in zone from OS(SC) to PC(SC), consisting of RS-HS-10,000(SC), ~M-3000(SC) and
CL (SC) zones, to provide for the development of up to 2,176 residential
units, 30 acres of Commercial use, 166 acres of open space, a 13 acre park
site and a 10 acre elementary school, on approximately 591 acres located 1.1
miles southeast of the Weir Canyon Road and Riverside Freeway intersection and
bounded on the north by the Wallace Ranch, west by the Anaheim Hills property,
and south and east by the Irvine Company property (Oak Hills Ranch).
PIANNING COMMXSSIONACTION: Resolution No. PC87-103 approved General Plan
Amendment No. 223, Land Use Element, Exhibit A; Resolution No. PC87-104
granted Reclassification No. 86-87-19; recommended that EIRNo. 281 be
certified as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May 14, 1987.
Posting of property Hay 14, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 14, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated April 13 and
April 27, 1987 as well as related documents and data which have been made a
part of the record. Also see extensive testimony given at the Planning
Commission hearings of April 13, April 20 and April 27, 1987. This matter was
continued from the Council meeting of May 26, 1987, to this date.
Mayor Bay stated he recalled that at the previous meeting it was determined
that the developer was going to do some negotiating with staff on the points
of contention discussed at that meeting. He asked to hear from staff.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
The City Council did receive comprehensive presentation from
both staff and the developer at the May 26, 1987 hearing and the
hearingwas continued until today to give staff and the
developer an opportunity to meet and attempt to resolve or
address the issues discussed. The staff report (see report
dated June 25, 1987 to City Manager/City Council from the
Community Development & Planning Department - subJect~
Executive Summary and Staff recommended conditions of approval -
Oak Hills Ranch Proposal) identifying issues thought to be
unresolved at the time the report was written. It also contains
revised conditions that largely were amended to reflect the
resolutions reached at the hearings associated with the
Highlands. In a couple of instances, there were editorial
changes requested either by the developer or City staff and
agreed to by mutual concern. One further clarification revolves
around Condition No. 128 which contains a reference to the
Highlands development and it should, instead, say Oak Hills.
6OO
g0z
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
The staff report indicates three issues are unresolved. Mr.
Dennehy has since clarified that he is in agreement with the
conditioning for the Weir Canyon/Serrano connection, the roadway
and fire access connection which is consistent with the concept
and the conditioning for the Highlands Development as discussed
last Tuesday. The currently unresolved issues between the City
and Oak Hills center around the two park issues - the first, the
Weir Canyon Regional Park Dedication. There was interest to
meet with County staff and Oak Hills on the site to examine the
location and that event did take place last week. A second
issue related to the City park. Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks,
Recreation & Community Services provided a report dated June 26,
1987 (subject: Oak Hills Ranch Park issue) indicating all park
issues have been mutually resolved to the satisfaction of both
parties with one exception, park phasing. Mr. Fick then stated
that staff was ready to answer any questions.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation & Community
Services. He is still recommending Condition No. 77 (see
Page 12 of the June 25, 1987 staff report). If the Council
still feels there are overriding concerns presented by the
developer and wishes to overrule the staff recommendation, that
they then accept the three conditions presented in his June 26,
1987 report (see report Pages 1 and 2) The developer is in
agreement with those three conditions.
Mayor Bay asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Jared Ikeda, representing Oak Hills Ltd., 18002 Cowan,
Irvine. Oak Hills is in general agreement with all of the
conditions but there are certain ones they want to have
clarified for the record. Relative to the City park, Condition
No. 77, the difficulty with that as currently stated, the park
is located adjacent to Weir Canyon Road. They have always
anticipated that area to be worked in conjunction with the
adjacent Wallace Ranch and that it would be part of the overall
green belt that cuts through the middle of the property.
trying to develop a detailed engineering plan for that area,
they have found they had to work with the development of Weir
Canyon Road as well as the residential development adjacent to
the park. The grading of the road, the park site and the
residential development are all intertwined. The cost of
developing the park, if done in the first phase, is quite
extensive. Their engineers have given an estimate of
approximately $4.9 million if they were to establish the park in
the first phase. It would put a burden on them to the point
where they would not be able to economically develop that first
phase. What is indicated in Mr. Jarvi's report is more
acceptable to them and will allow them to develop the park in
conjunction with the residential development and the development
of Weir Canyon Road.
601
199
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30t 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
He assumes that Mr. Ikeda was not arguing against a compromise
with items 1, 2 and 3 as stated in the June 26, 1987 report from
Mr. Jarvi; Mr. Ikeda answered that was correct.
Jared Ikeda.
Condition No. ??, as stated, requires that the park be developed
within one year of the first phase of development in Oak Hills.
Oak Hills is agreeable to what Mr. Jarvi is stipulating in his
June 26, 1982 report.
Chris Jarvi.
He wants the Council to be aware in accepting the three
conditions, there will be 3,000 residents without a park for the
first five years, and secondly, as an administrative matter, he
does not want to make the decision that Parks would go in as a
second phase development. As a rule, they generally do not do
that. If that decision is to be made, he would prefer it to be
made by the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
If people are told there is going to be a park, they have a
right to expect it. She would be very concerned with taking any
interim measures. They should tell the people and post the fact
that there will be a park after five years or else the normal
requirement should prevail that the developer provide the park.
She is also concerned about setting a precedent.
Mayor Bay.
They would all like to see the park sooner but not at the
expense of threatening the economic feasibility of the whole
development. There should be some middle point that is
economically feasible. If they have a commitment to a park at a
certain housing unit number, people would at least know there is
going to be a park.
Councilman Pickler.
He concurs with staff's recommendations as long as the owners
concur; Mayor Bay stated on the subsequent conditions 1, 2 and 3
as outlined in the report, he is willing to agree with those as
well.
Chris Jarvi.
It was his intent to bring the matter to the Council for a
Council decision. If in the future a similar situation arises,
he can bring each one back for a case by case decision by the
Council.
Councilman Ehrle.
He also concurred with the staff recommendation.
602
200
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Jared Ikeda.
He then submitted a letter signed by Mr. James Dennehy, Oak
Hills Ranch, listing those items where Oak Hills is requesting
that the Council revise the wording of certain conditions
(Condition Nos. 22, 47, 51, 73, 77 and 129). Those were
reviewed with staff earlier today.
Joel Fick.
Staff was presented with the letter Just before the meeting.
Relative to Condition No. 22, the item was reviewed by
Engineering Staff and they are in agreement with the wording as
stated in the developer's letter. Relative to Condition No. 14,
staff was informed it was no longer a concern. Therefore, staff
is going to cross out reference to Condition No. 47 and not
comment on that; Mr. Ikeda stated that was agreeable to them.
Joel Fick.
Condition No. 73 and 77 were Just resolved based upon the
comment that occurred a few minutes ago. Relative to Condition
No. 51 and 129, these necessitate a comment from Mr. Ikeda.
Condition No. 51 refers to the potential reimbursement agreement
as they relate to the Bauer Ranch. The feeling of staff is that
there is no legal mechanism to accommodate what the developer is
requesting in that condition. Condition No. 129 refers to the
timing of dedication of the County park site. The developer or
Orange County staff might provide the Council with a comment.
Jared Ikeda.
Relative to Condition No. 51, Oak Hills is not in disagreement
with contributing to the reimbursement for the public facilities
and utilities. Some of the facilities that are going to be
required for the development of Oak Hills such as construction
of Fire Station ~9, the participation and the construction of
the police station and street maintenance facilities are also
regional in nature and serve not only Oak Hills, but also the
adjacent Ranches and the Bauer Ranch as well. Oak Hills is
suggesting if they put those facilities in, that there be some
mechanism where a credit is applied to the reimbursement
facilities that the Bauer Ranch has constructed.
City Attorney Jack White.
He has not seen the conditions. In a brief discussion before
the hearing commenced today with representatives from Oak Hills,
he was advised that would be their request. In his opinion,
legally the City would be in a very difficult positionwith
Kaufman & Broad (Bauer Ranch) to take a position that was
contrary to the conditions that were imposed with regard to the
Bauer Ranch Development. The Bauer Ranch Development specified
in conditions of approval that Kaufman (K&B) would be entitled
to reimbursement agreements from other property owners for
certain facilities. It did not specify that there would be any
603
City BAll, ~m-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
offset, credit or other deductions made from the amounts to be
reimbursed to them from the adjacent Ranch developments. He
would have significant concern about the City's legal position
if the City went out unilaterally to attempt to take a position
with K&B that they were now going to receive less than full
reimbursement for those facilities. The only other matter which
would lend itself towards capturing part of the cost from the
Bauer Ranch development would be to attempt to extricate funds
from the property owners who currently own the property which,
since three quarters or more of the residential portion of that
property is already developed, would not lend itself toward a
typical reimbursement agreement where costs are imposed only on
undeveloped property as conditions of obtaining building
permits. The only other option would be to establish an
assessment district to assess each of the individual lots of
property owners within the Bauer Ranch which he does not believe
was contemplated at the time the original Bauer Ranch
development was approved.
Jim Dennehy, Oak Hills Ranch, 1535 Orangewood, Suite 219,
Anaheim.
He met with K&B along with Wallace Ranch and Anaheim Hills three
years ago when the reimbursements were being contemplated. City
Manager Talley was present as well. In the first meeting, Oak
Hills stipulated they would not enter a reimbursement agreement
unless all public facilities would be considered, not only on
the K&B property but also on the Wallace Ranch, Oak Hills and
the Highlands. The outcome was that nothing was agreed to but
Oak Hills stipulated again they would not enter into
reimbursement agreements unless those other facilities were also
included. They have never signed or agreed to enter into such
agreements, nobody ever talked to them about such agreements and
they never saw a reimbursement agreement. This is not a last
minute way of getting out of paying K&B what they think is their
fair due. These are regional facilities and all of the property
owners should be participating on a fair and equitable basis and
that is what they are trying to do.
City Attorney Jack White.
This developer (Oak Hills) would not be a party to a
reimbursement agreement between the City and K&B but instead
between the City and Oak Hills, to reimburse Oak Hills for funds
collected by the City in excess of Oak Hills fair share of their
development costs. The conditions of approval, as opposed to
any agreements that were written to implement those conditions,
do not lend themselves to an interpretation which would allow
the City now at this late date to go back and unilaterally
charge K&B. The City should have taken into consideration the
Oak Hills development at the time the K&B project was approved.
It would not be proper now to reimburse K&B something less than
what was originally approved and allow a credit to Oak Hills
when that was not approved by the City Council at the time the
K&B project was approved.
6O4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Jim Dennehy.
When the meetings took place, the parties did not specifically
state police station or fire station, etc. but any public
facilities that were co-shared between the properties. Many of
the agreements are not complete yet and perhaps they can look at
those to see if there are ways they can equitably share the
costs. That is all he is asking.
Mayor Bay.
They are now aware of Mr. Dennehy's request; however, he does
not see a way that it can be implemented.
Jared Ikeda.
The next item deals with the County Regional Park, Condition No.
129. They are requesting that the wording be changed slightly
to include the words, offer to, after the word shall in the
second sentence (see Page 2 of Oak Hills Changes in
Conditions). Oak Hills does not want to be held up by any
indecision on the part of the County to accept the offer of
dedicating the land. They would like to say they will offer to
dedicate the land and whether the County chooses to accept or
not, the County would not hold them up.
Joel Fick.
It is common for the City to accept an irrevocable offer of
dedication where there is a future action.
Mayor Bay.
As he understands it, relative to the regional park, the County
wants 45 acres and if the Council's decision is 15, Mr. Ikeda
wants to know if that affects Oak Hills fulfilling the condition
or not.
Joel Fick.
That is correct. By inserting the wording that the developer
shall irrevocably offer to dedicate, whatever the acreage
decision is reached by the Council, the County would be
protected to receive that dedication at the time they saw fit;
Mr. Ikeda stated that would be acceptable.
Joel Fick.
He then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood if Oak Hills makes an
irrevocable offer of dedication they will prepare the formal
dedication agreements. It is then Just a matter of the County
actually accepting the agreement. Under the present wording of
the condition, the offer could be made by Oak Hills in good
faith and not be accepted by the County. "Shall irrevocably
offer to dedicate" is the suggested wording.
Jared Ikeda.
Oak Hills agrees with irrevocably. He then stated those were
all the items and they were in agreement with everything else.
6O5
195
City ~-11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
He assumed they had now gone through the conditions that were a
problem and had resolved them other than Condition No. 51 which
they do not know how to resolve. Therefore, it ought to be left
as is because he did not hear any response on anything feasible
tO do.
Joel Fick.
He reiterated the following for clarity: Condition No. 22 is as
addressed in the Oak Hills letter (that wording is acceptable);
Condition No. 47 will remain intact as recommended by staff
because the request for modification was withdrawn; Condition
No. 51 would also remain intact; Condition No. 73 would be
amended since it is acceptable to the Parks Department and
incorporated into the revised parks condition; Condition No. 77
effectively was accepted by the park modifications and Condition
No. 129 - the wording is "shall irrevocably offer to dedicate."
Mayor Bay.
It is now down to one last item and that is the debate between
the dedication of 45 acres as requested by County parks vs. the
developer's offer of dedication of 15 acres for a regional park
site.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Sally White, 809 West Broadway.
She is not only present to speak for herself, but for the
Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission of which she is chairman,
and also for the thousands who do not have a voice here today,
the future generation of the Fourth District of Orange County.
This is a rare opportunity to acquire some regional park land.
City parks serve their children very well; however, regional
parks serve other needs, picnic areas, camping grounds, hiking
trails. The County is not asking for an exorbitant amount of
land but only 45 acres to complete the regional park. It is a
matter of adequate park space vs. a few additional lots for a
few fortunate homeowners. She asked that the Council reflect
upon how their decision will affect the next generation.
Jeff Eace, Orange County Parks and Recreation Department.
In the interest of resolving the park dedication issue, the
County is offering the following compromise which was previously
presented to Councilman Hunter and Ehrle during the field trip
to the site. Working from a posted map, he pointed to the Oak
Hills Ranch development area and specifically showed the 45 acre
Parcel D. He pointed out that the park boundary for the entire
park was drawn to capture the watershed of the entire Weir
Canyon area gaining the minimum amount necessary to create a
wilderness type park. While the County recognizes the north
peak area of Parcel D is an amenity to the park~ the peak itself
is not actually in the watershed. The area shown in green on
the map does not include the north peak area but does include a
606
196
City M~ll~ Anahelm~ C~l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987t 1:30 P.M.
large canyon that runs up into the development area within Oak
Hills Ranch. They feel this area would be absolutely necessary
to create the northerly border of the park. The trade off or
compromise is that the area in green would be dedicated to the
County for the park in the area which seemed to be the area of
greatest concern to the developer relating to the geotechnical
considerations of the slide area would be left out of the park.
Given the compromise, they would like to see the impact of the
homes mitigated to the greatest amount possible by taking down
the peak (which he pointed to) as much as possible to lower the
elevation and to create a situation where the homes that would
be built on top of the peak would not be visible from within the
park. The acreage is somewhere between 45 and 15 acres, perhaps
30 acres. He is not interested in a specific acreage but is
only interested in preserving the geographical area necessary to
alleviate the impacts to the parks. The encroachment into the
watershed of the park would result in the greatest detriment to
the wilderness experience. The proposed compromise was also
discussed with Mr. Dennehy while on the field trip.
Discussion then followed between Councilman Hunter and Mr. Race
relative to discussions that took place on the field trip
revolving around the fact that the area of land the developer is
going to dedicate is more contiguous to the Weir Canyon
wilderness area than the 45 acres the County is requesting. Mr.
Race felt, however, that the compromise he is proposing will
work best.
After further discussion, Mayor Bay stated what they are arguing
about is the difference between 2,135 acres planned for the
wilderness park and 2,105 acres. Mr. Race has failed to
convince him that the difference in 30 acres which the developer
claims is catastrophic to the economic feasibility of his
development is also catastrophic to the development of the park.
Jeff Race.
The point is not the acreage of the entire park being reduced by
30 acres, but that the development is encroaching into the main
core watershed. As far as economic viability of the project, it
is more intensive and there is less open space than any foothill
development in the entire unincorporated area.
Jim Dennehy.
The watershed they are going to affect is not going to drain
into Weir Canyon. The property they are dedicating has the main
watershed drainage into Weir Canyon. He also did not see the
compromise referred to by Mr. Race when they were at the site.
They have spent the last six months interfacing with the
County. They have eliminated somewhere between 30 and 40 units
for the 15 acres and that is the best part of the property. Mr.
Race and other people from Sea and Sage took a side trip into
the Oak area in the middle of the property which is
6O7
193
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
environmentally sensitive and very pretty. That area is being
dedicated but he did not hear any comment on how nice it was for
Oak Hills to do that. He also keeps hearing that 88% of the
site is being graded. Predominantly the reason for that is the
road system - the Weir Canyon/Serrano and Oak Hills Drive create
the need for 60% to 70% of the grading to make those things work
from a geotechnical standpoint.
Councilman Ehrle.
He did not recall seeing the compromise referred to when they
took the field trip to the site. It was discussed but nothing
was presented.
Councilman Hunter.
After seeing the area, he feels the 15 acres is reasonable and
equitable. The developer is giving the piece of property
contiguous to Weir Canyon and it is a better site to give vs.
the original 45 acre site. The acreage on the south peak is a
better view than the other site. His vote is to go with the
south peak site.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
They are stewards of the land. It is the home of wildlife and
once destroyed it can never be restored or the damage undone.
compromise has been suggested of 30 acres that is more
contiguous and still will leave the north peak for the prime
developable land that Hr. Dennehy wants. It is necessary to
look ahead beyond whatever immediate benefit is seen and to
think about what is forever. It is crucial the open space be
retained and nurtured so that it will be there for future
generations.
A
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT:
Virginia Chester, Sea and Sage and Friends of Weir Canyon.
By saying yes to every planned community will bring more people,
traffic, smog and congestion to Anaheim. The Council must take
a harder look at Oak Hills Ranch which will create over 2,000
new houses and 5,000 new cars. The County has requested 45
acres of dedication for the regional park now pared down to
approximately 35 in the southwest corner of Oak Hills, a mere 3%
of the total acreage. Other developers have dedicated much
more. Without some degree of regulation, property development
will continue to eat up the foothills until there will be houses
built up to the boundary of Cleveland National Park. They are
appealing to the Council to insist on meaningful dedications of
land from this and other future developers.
Donna Cucunato, 980 So. Rutgers Circle, Anaheim.
She is speaking on behalf of a lot of residents of Anaheim
Hills. She does not think a lot of them are aware of the
project and vote today. She was only aware of it last week
through a newspaper article after the Council already approved
6O8
City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
the first project (Highlands). She is present to speak against
approval of the project in general. The whole area is already
crowded because of traffic. She then elaborated on that issue.
She would like to see the Council slow the growth rate rather
than approving every development that comes along. It is too
quick and too many.
Jean Morris, 400 Torrey Pines Circle, Anaheim.
Regarding the dedication of the 10 to 12 acres for a city park,
she asked what would happen if for some unfortunate reason the
developer should go bankrupt and the park is not developed.
Chris Jarvi.
The three conditions outlined in his memorandum which were
previously discussed and agreed to by the Council will ensure
the park site. Bonding is immediate after the approval of the
first final tract map.
Wendell Crow, 193 Avenida Cordova, Anaheim.
He would like to clarify this morning's article in the Los
Angeles Times, Orange County section, which indicated that no
significant opposition exists to the development. Very few
people are actually aware of the impacts of the developments
being proposed. He believes that a lot of people like himself
are unaware of some of the impacts. He was particularly unaware
of the widening of Santa Aha Canyon Koad. His o~ra proposal
would be to make it twelve lanes because that is what is going
to be needed. They will lose the ambience of the area and he
was opposed'to the project.
Frank Elfend, representing Wallace Ranch on behalf of Woodcrest
Homes. They are planning to submit plans in the near future for
their development. There are several items he would like to
bring forth and clarify. The first relates to the park site
shown adjacent to the Wallace Ranch property. He thereupon
submitted two Exhibits, Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 6 to better
explain his comments (made a part of the record). It is their
position that they would not support the relocation of the Four
Corners Pipeline on the Wallace Ranch site in the location that
seems to be inferred on the Exhibit now before the Council
(Exhibit 4). The second issue relates to access to the park
site as well as access to the development area which is directly
north of the 12-acre site shown in the Exhibit. They have
discussed the matter in detailwith staff as well as Mr.
Dennehy. It has been agreed that an access provided in that
location would serve not only the Oak Hills Ranch, but also the
Wallace Ranch. Ail property owners agree. In his discussions
with Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, it has been stated it would
be a ~T# intersection coming in somewhere along the northerly
boundary of the Oak Hills Ranch to serve both properties. There
is to be a road, it is to serve both properties and the plans
that they have indicate that the road would be located on the
609
191
City Ha!l~ A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Oak Hills property adjacent to the property line. The third
item addresses park grading. The grades shown on the park may
very well require slopes on the Oak Hills property or on the
Wallace Ranch property which would affect the acreage. In
moving forward with their plan, there may be some changes in
that area. Since the area is not a part of the first phase,
those items need to be clarified. The fourth item is regarding
traffic and circulation. They have discussed the matter with
Mr. Singer and received a satisfactory answer. The only other
item would be that in conjunction with the submittal of more
final information on the part of the developer, there are some
Exhibits contained in the Council packets which communicated a
certain level of improvement for a storm drain as it relates to
where it would be placed on the Wallace Ranch as well. In
deference to his earlier comments, those items have not been
finalized on the Wallace Ranch but they will be presented to the
Council in the near future. They would like to maintain some
flexibility in that area.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked if the Wallace Ranch proposed park will be contiguous
to the 12-acre site.
Frank Elfend.
There are two parks proposed on the Wallace Ranch property, one
contiguous to Bauer Ranch and one contiguous to Oak Hills.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked if staff had any comments or concerns regardin~ Mr.
Elfend's presentation or if it had any effect on what the
Council was doing today.
Chris Jarvi.
It would not have any effect. They have talked to Mr. Elfend
about the issues he brought forth. With regard to the Four
Corners Pipeline, he does not see how they can end up putting it
on the Wallace Ranch site. There will be a feasibility study to
determine where the pipeline goes. With regard to access to the
park site, they would prefer a "T" Intersection that feeds to
both developments that would abut the park sites and the City is
in agreement with that. The final decision on what kind of a
solution will be made by the Traffic Engineer. Finally,
regarding the park grading, they have a concern that the two
sites do "daylight". Condition No. ?0 in the existing
conditions requires a grading feasibility study to ensure that
happens prior to the first tentative tract map submittal.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He does not have any comments at this time relative to Wallace
Ranch. As far as Oak Hills, he feels all the concerns of
traffic have been met and satisfied unless Mr. Dennehy has any
co~ents.
610
19Z
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Jim Dennehy.
They will work with staff and the property owners to make sure
all things come together.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked Mr. Dennehy with regard to donation of park land to
the County for the regional park if the specific amount had to
be decided at this time or if it was still subject to working
something out with the County.
Jim Dennehy.
He would hope that after all they have been through that the
specific amount would be decided at this time.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Joel Fick.
Relative to the regional park site dedication, the acreage
determination triggers other things. From a staff's standpoint,
a decision today would be helpful since it would make the design
of the project from this point much easier.
COUNCIL ACTIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT PROJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact
Report No. 281 for the Oak Hills Ranch planned community zone and General Plan
Amendment, having been reviewed by City staff and recommended by the City
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State suidelines in the
State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council, acting upon
such information and belief, does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Bay,
seconded by Councilman Hunter, that Ell{ No. 281 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. MOTION CARRIED.
pARK ACREAGE DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY FOR A REGIONAL PARK:
Mayor Bay spoke in favor of the developer's positio~ in offering 15 acres to
be d~dicated for a county regional park in the location as proposed by the
developer.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the park acreage to be dedicated to the
County for a regional park be 15 acres as proposed by the developer.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she is looking to the
future and is very concerned with the amount of open space to be left for
future generations. The request by the County was for 45 acres and a
compromise was proposed that there be approximately 30 acres contiguous with
the Highlands dedication. This will enhance the value of the Oak Hills
property. If Mr. Dennehy gives an additional 15 acres, it will create
611
City Hall~ Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
tremendous value for that which is left and adjacent to it. She is asking
that the dedication be the 30-acre compromise as proposed by the County.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that 15 acres be dedicated to
the County for a regional park. Councilwoman Kay-wood voted no. MOTION
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the Public Facilities Plan for the
subject development incorporating the 15-acre regional park site and also
incorporating all of the changes that have taken place and as discussed in the
hearings. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the fiscal Impact Analysis
submitted by Oak Hills Ltd. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-271, approving General Plan
Amendment No. 223, Land Use Element, Exhibit "A" as amended. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-271: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPKOVIRGAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 223, EXHIBIT "A" -AMENDED.
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-271 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-272, approving Reclassification No.
86-87-19, subject to all the conditions imposed and as modified during the
hearings, including the 15-acre regional park site dedication. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-272: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FLNDINGAND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND TNAT THE BOUNDARIE~ 0P
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED AND THAT GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT (EXHIBIT A)
SHOULD BE ADOPTED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler and Bay
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-272 duly passed and adopted.
612
190
Cit7 H~!i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would not have been opposed to the
reclassification except for the inclusion of only 15 acres for the County
regional park site dedication and, therefore, she had to vote no.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session and a dinner
break. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 p.m.)
AFTE~RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:56 p.m.)
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4843 THROUGH 4845: Councilman Bay offered 0rdinance
No. 4843 through 4845, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4843: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFER/{ED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRIATING TO ZONING.
(Amendin~ 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.
(AmendinE Title 18, Reclass 80-81-40, PR, east side of West Street, north of
OranEewood Avenue)
ORDINANCE NO. 4845: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REF~ TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(AmendinE Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-13, RM-3000(SC), east of Imperial Highway,
south of the southeast terminus of Frontier Court)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MF_~BERS:
COUNCIL MEM~ER~:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4843 through 4845, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4846: Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 4846
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4846: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
2.12.010, 2.12.020, AND 2.12.050 OF CHAPTEK 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. (effective August 1, 1987)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter and Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4846 duly passed and adopted.
613
187
City Mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler stated he is abstaining unless the Mayor gives a reason for
his abstention on the issue as well. There was no further action.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4847: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4847 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4847: 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. 86-87-25, RM-1200, 527 No. Magnolia Avenue)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4848: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4848 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4848: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THEANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 84-85-42, CL, 1570 West Katella Avenue)
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, Anaheim. He submitted a letter
requesting that the Council add one Code Enforcement Officer to the budget to
give additional service needed in the Central City area and other blighted
areas of the City. Attached to the letter was a petition signed by 16
residents urging that the Council allocate additional funds in the budget for
the Code Enforcement program.
Sonia Grewal, resident of Anaheim Hills. The City Clerk announced that Ms.
Grewal had been present earlier today but had to leave. Before leaving she
submitted a letter to the Council noting her area of concern (that Council
delay decisions in the Oak Hills and Highlands applications and appoint a
group from the Anaheim Hills area to review these proposals).
John Ybarra, 321 East Julianna, Anaheim. He first submitted photographs
showing the property about which he wanted to speak. He has a complaint about
the City's Code Enforcement Division. He then explained that he owned a
family operated market and restaurant established in 1945, located at 1034
North Part Street. He had taken over the business and kept it in the best
care and condition. He is checked at least twice a year by the County Health
Inspection Agency and is approved by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control. He has constantly upgraded the business since he took it over. He
has also assisted in the Part Street improvement project. However, since
1982, he has been harassed by Code Enforcement personnel who have used
intimidation tactics. He has a full and complete record of everything
pertaining to the subject property. He will allow Code Enforcement to enter
his property, but he wants the harassment ended once and for all.
Mayor Bay explained that the Council, under the Brown Act, could not take any
action at this meeting. He asked that Mr. Ybarra register his complaint
through the hotline and/or that a written complaint be filed with the City.
106: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: To consider the
proposed 1987/88 and 1988/89 Resource Allocation Plan. This matter was
discussed and continued from the meetings of June 16 and 23, 1987, to this
date.
614
City F. 11, Anaheim~ C.l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Submitted were reports from the following Departments: Program Development &
Audit dated June 23, 1987, Maintenance date June 23, 1987, Engineering dated
June 8 and June 18, 1987, Fire dated June 16, 1987, Parks, Recreation &
Community Services dated June 23, 1987, Community Development & Planning dated
June 17, 1987, Human Resources Department dated June 23, 1987, Convention
Center/Stadium dated May 18, May 21 and May 27, 1987, and Public Utilities
Board dated June 20, 1987.
Mayor Bay recalled that there had been a request by Councilwoman Kaywood on
what the City Mauager's views were on balancing the budget as presented. He
asked that the City Manager present those and also anything else he wished to
present to the Council before the Council took action on the many motions and
resolutions on the agenda today relating to the budget.
City Manager William Talley.
He first explained for the new Council Member's information that
traditionally 2/3 to 3/4 of the items listed on the agenda
regarding the budget are not presented to the Council until it
is ready to be wrapped up but Council indicated they would like
everything staff could do in advance. Nearly everything on the
list, with the exception of a few policy items are resolutions,
motions or ordinances and are required if the budget is adopted
as presented.
Mr. Talley then briefed the Council on what had taken place
relative to the budget process since the Council meeting last
Tuesday and specifically addressing the issues Mayor Bay had
asked be looked at at the previous meeting - travel and meeting
expenses, staff development training and seminars, public
information activities and management salaries. Relative to
travel and meeting expenses and staff development, training and
seminars, at a 3-hour meeting held with Department Heads on
Thursday, they were asked to go back and make a 30% decrease in
the funds requested for training and seminars and a 23% decrease
in travel and meeting expenses as well as to take a new look at
existing programs to see whether or not they could make up the
rest of the difference by some reduction in existing programs.
He also told Department Heads he would be recommending that the
funds for the management compensation increases scheduled for
October would have to come out of program or operational savings
provided, however, if the departments could come up with those
funds from operational savings or from an increase in revenues
through their own efforts, and it was certified that those
operational savings or new revenues had been found, in October
he would request that the pool which the Council would establish
today be authorized for disbursement. He then briefed the
concerns expressed by some Department Heads relative to the
consequences of reducing training expenses for certain City
Departments which were vital to their operations and in some
cases mandated. He also elaborated upon the programs he felt
were necessary to continue. In concluding his extensive
presentation, Mr. Talley stated, in balancing the budget, he
615
185
Cit~ HallI A_n~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
felt that many of the items mentioned should not be done in less
than one week's time because it will take some time to decide
which services and which areas tomake reductions in. He also
felt the Council could not ask more than one year for management
to take its compensation increases out of the budget. This year
they could ask, because of extraordinary circumstances, for
management to do their part and do more than anybody else has
been asked to do but if they are asked to do so on an extended
basis they will be asking them to get into an activity that he
does not believe is meaningful. He had prepared a large
overview of the current two fiscal year budgets showing first
the out-of-balance condition before starting through the budget
exercise. Copies of the report were then submitted to the
Council - see, Recommended Adjustments to Balance the 1987/88
and 1988/89 General Fund. Mr. Talley then briefed the entire
sheet starting with the out-of-balance condition and working
through the items proposed to be adjusted working toward the
bottom which, after the adjustments, showed a remaining
out-of-balance figure for both fiscal years as zero. He
recommended that the adJusL~nents contained in the sheet be made.
Mayor Bay asked if the net value of increasing the Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) to 10% ($2,529,395 in 1987/88 and $2,857,422
in 1988/89) was going to be used to balance the budget as
reflected on the sheet submitted, how he intended to pay for
Betterment III.
City Manager Talley.
He is saying reserves will be established of $750,000. Payments
will not be due until construction is done on the refurbishment
- Betterment III and the Stadium. If Council wished, they could
operate with a balanced budget today or they could elect not to
put the Public Safety Package and the Police 2000 in and start
building a surplus immediately. He also explained if the
Council adopts the Public Safety Package ($2,077,120 in 1987/88
and $2,648,000 in 1988/89). They are going to have to address
that issue in 1988/89 and 1989/90. They cannot go ahead with
the Public Safety Package and Police 2000 without establishing a
revenue source to do so. If they chose not to proceed with
either the Public Safety Package or Police 2000, then the budget
for the two years is more than balanced. They would not have to
make the payments for the Certificates of Participation until
1989/90 and 1990/91. The TOT net will be merely sufficient in
those years to pay for the construction of what they anticipate
the Council's decision would be on Betterment III and the
stadium but will not include the ability to also fund the Police
2000 and the Public Safety Package. He also explained after
further questioning by and discussions with the Mayor that a new
revenue stream should be identified before issuing the major
capital projects associated with the Police 2000 Project. The
Council has never identified that source. He has also said if
they want to substantially upgrade Police Department activities,
616
City M~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
they must find a new revenue source. If they chose not to go
forward, then there is a general operating fund surplus in the
next two years.
Mayor Bay asked where the $6 million Hilton parking structure
problem was addressed; Mr. Talley stated it is not addressed in
the budget. If the issue is not solved in the next 12 months or
a long-term solution found, it is going to require a substantial
change in the way the City does business. For the two payments
to be made, it would make sense to him to consider operating
reserves because in the lowest of the next five fiscal years, it
would be imprudent to reach one more time into operating
programs for that when they did not do so last year. They are
going to have to solve the problem on a long-termbasis.
Councilman Pickler.
He recalled last week they discussed whether or not to consider
putting the Public Safety Package and Police 2000 project on the
ballot for a vote of the people. He understands Mr. Talley is
saying if they are to proceed, it is necessary to find a revenue
source in order to do so. The revenue from the increase in the
TOT will not be needed until the third year. If the budget is
adopted, they could proceed with the building of the new Police
Department building with the idea that two years from now, it
will be necessary to find a new revenue source to pay for it.
City Manager Talley.
The building would have been built by that time and they would
have to do one of two things, make payments for four years of
approximately $3 million and then that would drop back down or
reduce existing general fund programs to accommodate those
payments.
Mayor Bay.
He feels there are other alternatives to try to do something
about increasing police and other alternatives on finding ways
to pay for the capital improvements in the Police Department
that have not even been thought of or mentioned. Council did
not choose to have budget workshops beforehand. It is long past
time that the City decided to solve some of its £inancial
problems by looking at reductions in costs rather than always
looking for new revenues. It was necessary to do some "belt
tightening" across the City and to cut cost which has never been
done since he has been on the Council. They should spend time
working on the budget from a different angle by taking the time
to go over general reductions in costs throughout the City and
to establish priorities. If they decide how much more should be
spent on police, they would have to decide what other things
they are going to cut to get there. There have been no cuts or
real challenges from the policy-making body mandated on
management of the City. He was not pleased with the budget as
presented. He would like to find a way to balance it even
617
183
Cit7 Ha!l~ Anaheim~ Ca!ifor-~- - COUNCILI~NUTES - June 30, 1987~ 1:30 ?.M.
without the Hilton problem and without ignoring the payment the
City is faced with.
City Manager Talley.
If the Council wished, they could adopt the budget as presented
and could tell staff they wanted to hold hearings on the Police
2000 and the Public Safety Project and whatever debt the Council
wished within the next 60 to 90 days and make a determination
whether or not the Council wanted to go ahead. They could hold
the entire safety package and even though money would be
appropriate, it would not be spent. At that time, the Council
could determine if they wanted to remove it from the budget or
go forward in how they wanted to fund it. In the meantime they
would have an operating budget they could modify at any time.
Council could also direct staff to make the approximately
$900,000 worth of reductions in excess of that in the next 90
days. If Council wanted to, they could start as early as next
week or wait 60 to 90 days and have more departmental or service
hearings at that time. Within the next six months, the Council
should make a determination to what extent they want to proceed
with the Police 2000 program. In August or September of 1988
they would have to make a decision to ask for another year which
will drive the cost up because they will not have any interest
rates at that time and in order to do that should finalize the
architectural plans and get bids in. Sometime within the next
six months the Council will have to make those decisions.
Mayor Bay.
His suggestion instead is to go through all of the proposed
motions and resolutions as listed for Council action. Then, on
the basis of when they get to the approval of the budget, which
is the last motion, adopting the Resource Allocation Plan for
1987/88 as amended, he will offer his plan - that the Council
set up an interim operating budget for Fiscal Year 1987/88 and
appropriate funds under the budget for 1/12 of the period and
every time they do so for 1/12, that they approve it temporarily
on an interim basis for one month at a time. For the Council to
try to resolve major differences in philosophy on how to solve
problems in the two weeks they have to consider the budget with
no workshop is not possible. The Council needs more time and
less rhetoric to work each and every one of the potential
problems built into the budget. It was necessary to re-do it
from the bottom up and to try to come up with as much money as
possible to put towards the priorities. He does not see how
there can be anything but monthly interim approval of the budget.
City Manager Talley.
Trying to do a monthly budget would cause massive bureaucratic
paperwork. He would like the City Attorney to address the
issue. If the Council wanted to say, operate business as usual,
he does not see how they could get far out of line until the
hearings were held. He has a great deal of difficulty with
618
1 54
City Hallp Anaheimp California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
doing business in 30-day increments. He would think that
direction to staff would be as effective as trying to do a
monthly budget and it would be a lot less paper intensive.
Mayor Bay proceeded with the proposed actions.
MOTION: (Item A Council Agenda of June 30, 1987, Page 14). Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to receive and file the staff response to the Chamber of
Commerce Blue Ribbon Committee Report (Response to the Chamber of Commerce
Blue Ribbon Committee Report, 1987/89 RAP) submitted under letter dated
June 23, 1987 from the City Manager William O. Talley. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue items B, C and D as listed on
Page 14 of the Council agenda of June 30, 1987 relating to; (B) declaring
policy regarding the Police 2000; (C) declarin~ policy regardtu~ the local
revenue enhancement for transportation improvement study, to address the
Vision 2000 transportation strategies; and (D) declaring a policy regarding
staff study of alternative financing mechanisms to address street and sidewalk
maintenance; and that these items be continued on a weekly basis until the
problems of the budget are resolved. Council Members Pickler and Kaywood
voted no and expressed their concerns relative to the proposed motion. MOTION
MOTION: (Item E) Councilman Bay moved to declare policy regarding hazardous
incident response to neighboring cities relative to share of
cost/indemnification (see Page 29 of the 1987/88 1988/89 Resource Allocation
Plan). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue on a weekly basis items F, G.1, 2
and 3 as listed on Page 14 of the agenda, relative to declaring policy
regarding funding of the "public safety package", revising Council Policy
No. 701, a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 12.29 of the Code, pertaining
to parkway trees and sidewalk repairs and establishing service charges for the
repair of privately-owned sidewalks in the public right-of-way.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley asked if Council would like, on
those items that are typically revenue increases done on a routine basis, that
each week he brin~ in the revenues bein~ lost by not increasin~ the costs.
For instance, the ordinance in this case pertains to parkway trees and
sidewalk repairs and they are recommending certain new rates. In the
meantime, they will continue with the old rate.
Mayor Bay stated he would hope that this matter would be resolved by next week.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Pickler and
Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-273 for adoption, adopting a
revised schedule of Engineering filing, service and permit fees, as
recommended in the Resource Allocation Plan. Refer to Resolution Book.
619
181
City Ma!l~ A_nabeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-273: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS-ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ANANEtM.
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-273 duly passed and adopted.
ITEM I: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-274 for adoption, adopting
a revised schedule of traffic signal fees as recommended in the RAP. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-274: A EESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING A ILEVISED SCHEDULE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES.
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. 87E-274 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue on a weekly basis items J.1, 2 and 3
on the Council agenda pertaining to declaring policy regarding new fee
programs in the Fire Department, revising permit and other fees for services
rendered by the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Fire Department, effective
July 1, 1987 and establishing a new certification fee for business license
fire clearance. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Council Members
Pickler and Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM K: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-275 for adoption, amending
Resolution No. 80R-185 relating to fees to be charged for City-wide Park and
Recreation Programs and services, effective July 1, 1987. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-275: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDINGRESOLUTION NO. 80R-185 RELATING TO FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR
CITY-WIDE PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES COMMENCING JULY 1, 1987.
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. 871{-275 duly passed and adopted.
620
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 30; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
ITEMS L.1. AND 2: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4849 for first
reading, Amending Sections 18.02.052 and 18.84.038 of the Code, pertaining to
home occupation and tree preservation, respectively.
ORDINANCE NO. 4849: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHELMAMENDING SECTIONS
18.02.052 AND 18.84.038 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO HOME
OCCUPATION AND TREE PRESERVATION.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-276 for adoption, after asking if
anyone wished to speak (there was no response), establishing and modifying
fees for planning, zoning and land use petitions, permits, approvals and
appeals. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-276: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING, ZONINGANDLAND USE
PETITIONS, PERMITS, APPROVALS AND APPEALS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-276 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS MT N AND O: Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 87R-277 through
87R-279, both inclusive, for adoption, respectively, amending Resolution No.
84R-247, to establish fees for parking at the Anaheim Convention Center at
$4.00 per space, effective July 1, 1987, establishing rates to be charged for
rental of the Anaheim Convention Center exhibit halls and arena, and providing
for yearly increases through January 1, 1990, establishing fees for parking
at Anaheim Stadium for concerts and motorsports events, effective July 1,
1987. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-277: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PARKING AT ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER TO BE EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 1987. ($4.00 per space)
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-278: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR RENTAL OF THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER
EXMIBITHALLS AND ARENA.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-279: A RESOLUTION OF TM COUNCIL OF TRE CITY OF ANA/4EIM
ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PARKING AT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ghrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
621
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.H.
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-277 through 87R-279, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue on a weekly basis proposed
resolutions under Items P.i, 2, 3 and 4, all pertaining to establishing the
Hanagement Pay Plan by adopting the management salary structure, rates of
compensation and management pay policies for the following classes - Executive
Management, Administrative Management, Middle Management/Supervisory,
Professional and Technical Management. Council Members Pickler and Kaywood
voted no. MOTION CARILIED.
ILECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(9:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
bein8 present. (9:58 p.m.)
ITEM P.5: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-280 for adoption,
establishing rates of compensation for classes assigned to the General City
~mployees Unit represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association,
creating the classifications of Park Maintenance Worker II, Recreation
Services Assistant, Security Supervisor and Transportation System Specialist,
effective June 26, 1987. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-280: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE
GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ghrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-280 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS P.6, 7 AND 8 AND ITEM q: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-281
through 87R-284, both inclusive, for adoption, all relating to the
establishment of rates of compensation for various employee classes and
amending resolutions previously establishing such rates. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-281: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE
CLF/tICAL EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION. (effective June 26, 1987)
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-282: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-080 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITH FULL-TIME
EQUIVALENTS. (effective June 26, 1987)
622
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-283: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-82 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION
FOR UNKEPKESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (effective June 26, 1987)
RESOLUTION NO. 87K-284: A KESOLUTION OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE
GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION. (effective June 26, 1987)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-281 through 87R-284, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue on a weekly basis Item R, pertaining
to the management pay plan, establishing rates of compensation and management
pay policies for classes designated as Middle Management/Supervisory in
regards to the compression issue, effective June 26, 1987. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue on a weekly basis Item S, pertaining
to the establishment the merit pool fund for classifications designated as
Executive Management, Administrative Management, Middle Management/Supervisory
and Professional/Technical Management, effective June 26, 1987. Councilman
Hunter seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM T: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4850 for first reading, amending
Section 1.04.110 of the Code relating to officers and departments, creating
separate departments of Convention Center Department and Stadium Department.
ORDINANCE NO. 4850: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
1.04.110 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODER ELATING TO OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS,
CREATING SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS OF CONVENTION CENTER DEPARTMENTAND STADIUM
DEPARTMENT.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue on a weekly basis Item U, a proposed
ordinance amending Title 1 of the Code by adding Chapter 1.06 relating to
emplcyer-employee relations. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Council
Members Pickler and Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION (ITEM V): Councilman Bay moved to approve the recommendations of the
Public Utilities Board to adopt the FY 87/88 and 88/89 RAP with the following
changes - increase Program 419, Fund 50, Object 6725 by $342,000 in 1987/88
and by $357,400 in 1988/89 to cover the cost of liability insurance for the
Water Utility dams and inverse condemnation. Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
623
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL~_INUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Relative to Item W on the agenda on the adoption of the RAP for
1987/88 as amended, Councilman Bay moved that the City Council adopt an
interim operating budget for Fiscal Year 1987/88, appropriating funds to the
various departments of the City for expenditures in the month of July, in an
amount equivalent to 1/12 of the amount specified in the proposed 1987/88 RAP
as revised. Further, that no new employment provisions as proposed in the RAP
be authorized at this time. The intent of the motion is to give the Council
another month to continue working on resolving and coming to some solutions on
the budget and coming to a final position on the opinion of the Council on
what it wishes to do with the budget. The motion is to fund the City under
the proposed plan with the restriction that no new employment positions be
filled. It does not mean those positions lost by attrition will not be filled
but that the employment level remain the same. If there is an item of an
emergency nature, that should be brought to the Council on an individual basis
for action at that time. It is not the intention to freeze or stop the
operations of the City. The intent is to give more time without committing to
the full budget until it is worked out. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler expressed great concern over the
Mayor's proposal which would create a fiasco. The Mayor, along with two other
Council Members were "railroading" the proposed actions through and the
balance of the Council could do nothing about it. He felt sorry for the
people who were represented by the Council. What the City has gained over the
past 10 to 12 years will be lost because of these actions.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how the City could possibly operate by
allocating only 1/12 of the budget at a time, specifically pointing out as an
example insurance policies. Liability insurance had to be paid in full and
not 1/12 at a time.
Mayor Bay asked that in those cases, those items should be brought back to the
Council.
City Manager Talley emphasized that under those circumstances, there would be
hundreds of instances where such matters would have to be brought back to the
Council. He then asked the City Attorney if the proposed ordinance is in
accordance with the City Charter.
City Attorney Jack~laite. The Charter requires that the Council adopt an
annual budget not later than June 30th of any year and upon adoption of that
budget, that the amounts specified as being allocated to the various programs
in the budget are thereby appropriated to the City departments for their
operation for the coming year. In a few hours from now if no budget is
adopted, there is no appropriation made to the City departments. Without some
other action being taken by the Council, there is not an ability to incur any
indebtedness or obligations. For all technical purposes, the doors of the
City will be closed as of midnight tonight. As an alternative, if the Council
is unable to comply with that section of the Charter by adopting a budget by
June 30, 1987, the only alternative to shutting down the entire operations of
the City would be to make some emergency or interim appropriations to the
departments to allow them to keep operating on a temporary basis.
624
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 30~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Before action was taken, City Manager Talley thereupon requested a Closed
Session at this time. He would like to have some instructions on how to carry
out the provisions of the motion after the Council has now been advised it
does not meet the City Charter's requirements so that the offices of the City
and department heads do not incur liability in the event a taxpayers suit was
raised on expending funds when there is not an annual budget adopted.
City Attorney White then clarified for Councilman Hunter if the annual budget
is not adopted on or before June 30th, then technically there is a violation
of the City Charter in the fact that an annual budget has not been adopted.
City operations would not be allowed to proceed unless an interim measure were
adopted that is not called for in the Charter. There is no such provision in
it. Without an annual budget, the Council could adopt interim appropriations
to allow the City to continue operating until such time the annual budget is
adopted.
Mayor Bay asked for a yes or a no answer whether or not his motion is
violating the Charter.
City Attorney White answered, in his opinion no, however, it is his belief the
intent of the motion is to allow the City to continue operating on a temporary
basis until an annual budget is adopted. If the budget is not adopted there
is technically a violation of the City Charter by not adopting it. He went on
further to explain the confusion here is the fact of determining whether or
not adoption of the budget by June 30th is a violation of the Charter and
whether the motion, as proposed, is a violation of the Charter. Those are two
separate issues - failure to adopt a budget by June 30th is technically a
violation of the Charter but it does not mean that a motion to appropriate
money on an interim basis would be in violation of the Charter. He does not
believe the motion is in violation of the Charter.
Mayor Bay. It is his understanding then if the Council does not approve the
annual budget right now, they will be in violation of the Charter.
City Attorney White answered yes; Mayor Bay stated there is no intent for the
Council to violate the Charter. The Council would have to approve an annual
budget tonight and then place specific stop gaps and controls on it with
dozens of motions.
City Attorney White. An alternative would be to adopt an annual budget but
only allow encumbrances on that budget on a monthly basis. The Council could
adopt an annual budget for 1987/88 but still provide, in keeping with the
motion offered, that the departments would not expend funds in excess of the
appropriations equal to 1/12 of that budget for the month of July. Any item
where expenditures are necessary in the first month of the Fiscal Year that
would exceed the funds appropriated for that 30-day period should be brought
back to the Council to approve an addition to what has been appropriated. The
budget can be amended on a weekly basis.
Mayor Bay. He intends to withdraw his motion because there has been a
misunderstanding. He intends to find a better way to retain control on the
budget without going to a monthly control. If there is a motion to approve
625
175
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim,'California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 30, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
the 1987/88 budget as currently presented, and now he does not see there is
any other alternative, the Council is going to have to do so and then on a
weekly basis the items still open will be continued and rediscussed. There
will then be massive revisions to the budget. This means that the controls
from the Council will have to be in a different form. That is the intent.
There is no general intent, in his opinion, to approve the proposed budget the
way it is proposed and major changes will be made. The intent is to hold any
major changes as proposed in a status quo position until the Council makes
decision on any policy changes they want to see, and with the help of
management decides where the cuts are going to be made to truly balance the
budget. If they have to pass the Resource Allocation Plan today in order to
do that and do it legally, and then chan~e it on a weekly basis, he had no
problem in doing that.
Mayor Bay then withdrew his motion as stated but wanted it clearly understood
the Council and management have a great deal of work to do on the budget.
MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved that the City Council adopt the
1987/88 Resource Allocation Plan as amended with the stated intent that the
Council continue workin~ on the budget and changing it on a weekly basis.
Councilwoman Kayvood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay moved that there be no new employment positions as proposed in
the RAP and that that directive remain in effect until the Council chooses to
remo~t it. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Council Members Pickler
and Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Council discussion followed relative to timing for
discussion of the budget on a weekly basis. It was determined that the
Council would resume budget discussions starting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesdays
before the regularly scheduled Council meeting starting time, i.e., that
budget discussions commence in open session at 10:00 a.m., continue to
12:00 noon when the Council recessed into Closed Session and the public
portion of the meeting start at 1:30 p.m. and public hearings at 3:00 p.m.,
the only change being the earlier starting time of 10:00 a.m. exclusively for
budget discussions.
City M~nAger Talley asked if there was any direction the Council wished to
give or anything the Council would like prepared for next Tuesday.
Mayor Bay stated he has not reviewed the recommended adjustments presented
tonight and would like to do so. Relative to the Police Department, he
assumes there are two separate sets of figures and costs on increasing 22 head
count vs. 40. Dealinswith increases of up to 22 will be task enough. The
ouly thins they can do is look across functions that in the opinion of any
Council Member, if they think certain programs should be reduced in favor of
doing Police 2000 and also meeting the debt service requirement on that
pro,ram, those are recommendations the Council will look at when they come in
next Tuesday.
626
176
City Hall~ Anah-im; California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 30; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 7, 1987 at
10:00 a.m: Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(10:40 p.m.)
LEONOEA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
627