1987/07/28City N~]I~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session (of July 21, 1987).
PP~SENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
(Councilwoman Kaywood entered at 10:22 a.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
;iTY ATTORNEY: Jack White
fY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
.~OMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COORDINATOR: Jeff Stone
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:30 p.m. on July 24, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the adjourned regular meeting of July 21, 1987 to order at
10:17 a.m. on July 28, 1987.
Mayor Bay stated the intent today was to recess immediately into Closed
Session; however, there were many citizens present in the Council Chamber who
were interested in the Park Ranger Program and Youth Outreach Program and the
funds proposed to be allocated to these programs in the Resource Allocation
Program. He explained the Park Ranger Program was part of the Public Safety
Package which is a part of the Council's continuing dicussion on the budget.
He asked to hear from a representative of those present.
Father John Lenihan, representing the St. Boniface Community Organization and
also St. Justin's as well as concerned citizens. Their primary concern, as a
community, is to keep the Park Ranger Program intact. Last year their
organization interviewed hundreds of people and surfacing as one of the major
areas of concern was the situation at Pearson Park, the concern for the safety
of the community and those using the park. The three major issues were
lighting, Park Ranger Patrol and Youth Outreach. Father Lenihan then gave a
brief overview regarding all the meetings that had taken place relative to the
issue which included attendance by City staff and hundreds of citizens as well
as the Organization's presence at the Council meetings of December 16, 1986
and De,-~.~ber 30, 1986 (see minutes those dates). Those who spoke were strong
in exp:: ..... Lng their concerns to the Council. As a result, the Council
approved ~unds to continue and enhance the Park Ran6er Program to the start of
the next Fiscal Year. The Program, since that time, has been very successful
and there has been a dramatic decrease in problems previously encountered at
Pearson and other City parks. The claim has even been made that the parks are
finally being won back for the people. They are in a quandry as to the status
of the Program at this time since it is necessary that funds be appropriated
to continue the Program.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chambers. (10:22 a.m.)
694
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28; 1987; 10:00 A.M.
Father Lenthan continued that they would like to express a sense of betrayal
if the Program is not continued and to advise that this is not one of the
areas that the Council should consider trimming from the budget. They would
also like to go on record as supporting the application for supervisor for the
Save-A-Youth project which is part of the whole contract with Turning Point
for the Youth Outreach Program and strongly recommend that be continued or be
seen as a possible position. They are strongly appealing to the Council to
keep the Park Ranger Program intact as presently constituted.
Mayor Bay.
The Council has shown strong support for the Park Ranger Program and that is
why they initiated it. Problems with the budget are extensive but the pe~le
who are hired for the Park Ranger Program are still on the Job. There
also been no demand by the Council to stop that Program. He thanked Fa~
Lenihan and the approximate 75 people present today for coming to the Cou~£1
to show their strong support for the Program. The Council is Just as
concerned.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council reaffirm its initial
support for the Park Ranger and Youth Outreach Program and if the intent was
not to cut the Programs, that the Council approve funds at this time to
continue both the Park Ranger and Youth Outreach Programs.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Bay stated he will oppose the motion on
the basis if they start approving programs without defining a source of
revenue, the Council will have no discussion left or work to do on the
budget. He will personally voice his support for the Park Ranger Program but
will not support "piece mealing" without any regard for where the revenue will
come from.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She proposed that the Council proceed with the approval
now because it is an extreme concern of the entire City and the Council
previously made a commitment to it.
Mayor Bay asked the amount currently in the Council Contingency Fund; City
Manager William Talley answered, $400,000.
Mr. Talley then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the Park Ranger
Program is approximately $116,000 and the Youth Outreach Program approximately
$18,000. The total amount necessary to continue the program is $134,569.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified her motion would then be to allocate $1L
from the Council Contingency Fund to fund the Park Ranger Program and t..
Youth Outreach Program. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTIOn,
CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session
to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership OCSCC No. 46-96-59.
695
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987, 10:00 A.M.
Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:37 a.m.)
AFTER RECV$~:
being p~ ~ ~t.
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
(12:10 p.m.)
At this point it was determined that the Council would discuss the Resource
Allocation Plan at the afternoon Council meeting session (during the regular
July 28, 1987 convened meeting).
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn the adjourned regular meeting of
July 21, 1987. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(12:11 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
696
Cit7 Hall~ A--heir, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRE SENT
ABSENT:
PRESENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING:
Norman J. Priest
ZONING ADMINISTRATOK: Annika Santalahti
SENIOR PLANNER: Greg Hastings
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COORDINATOR: Jeff Stone
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:30 p.m. on July 24, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 12:12 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership O.C.S.C.C. No. 40-96-59.
b. Labor relations matters - Govermment 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 Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIe. (12:12 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.
(2:14 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Jim Schibsted, 1st Congregational Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
697
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Ca!ifor~ia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
"E" Day in Anaheim, August 1, 1987,
Mothers of Twins Clubs Week in Anaheim, July 26 thru August 2, 1987,
Cover Expo '87 USCS Convention Days, August 7-9, 1987.
The "E" Day in Anaheim proclamation was accepted by Phil Skinner and Jeff
Sledge.
119: EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION: An Expression of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Rodney "Bud"
Coulson, for his many contributions to the development of Anaheim Stadium, and
upon his retirement from the Anaheim Stadium, Inc. as a founding member. The
Council also requested that a letter of condolence be prepared and delivered
to Mrs. Coulson together with the Expression of Appreciation.
119: EXPRESSION OF BEST WISHES: An Expression of Best Wishes was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to the Los Angeles Rams Football
Team, wishing them success in their exhibition football game to be played in
London, England on August 9, 1987 against the Denver Broncos.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held May 26, 1987. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman
Ehrle abstained since he was not present at that meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 34,332,748.99, in
accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay,
seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Bay offered
Resolution Nos. 87R-313 through 87R-321, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following
resolutions were read by the City Manager.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions on the Consent Calendar, after reading of the title thereof, 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
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIe.
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 WilliamAllan Blalock and Carl Coghill for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 3,
1987.
698
Clt~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Paul Gregory Smith for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 8, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Dennis Michael McMahon for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 25, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Susan Putnam for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 23, 1987.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be accepted:
e. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company (File
No. C-204887-05-CLC) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about April 28, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by Michael Lynn Duncan for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 19, 1986.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be Denied:
g. Claim submitted by James D. Santoro for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 3, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of June 29, 1987.
3. 186.123: Authorizing a sublease agreement with the Anaheim Public
Improvement Corporation to sublet certain Library book circulation control
computer equipment and Data Processing computer equipment leased with option
to purchase from First Municipal Leasing Corporation.
4. 179: Granting a one year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit
No. 2777, to permit an industrially-related office building on ML zoned
property located at 2100 So. State College Boulevard, to expire August 26,
1988.
5. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation for
central computer hardware equipment in an amount not to exceed ~177,405.60 for
equipment, freight charges, training and one-year maintenance.
6. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-313: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM EXTENDING THE DATE FOE OPENING BIDS FOR THE COMBUSTION TURBINE
PEAKING PLANT PROJECT. (ACCOUNT NO. 58-682-5505-07412 - SEPTEMBER 3, 1987)
7. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 86K-563. (MEL SMITH ELECTRIC, INC.) (in the amount of
$318,561.91; rescinding the award of Contract to Visali, Inc. for $302,656 for
Sharp Substation Expansion, Account No. 55-655-6329-05952; and authorizing
acceptance of $15,905.91 from the bid security posted by Visali, Inc.)
699
2'12
City Hall~ A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
8. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-315: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMMUNICATION CABLE PLANT COMPLETION). (Account No.
49-795-6325-E5270, Gulbranson Corporation, contractor, and authorizimg filing
of the Notice of Completion therefor)
9. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-316: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTIN~ THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
LABOR, SERVICES, EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY
PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, AS DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOUNT NO.
01-202-6320. (Accepting the completion and furnishing of all labor and
equipment under the 1986-87 Weed Abatement Contract, Edwin Webber, Inc.,
contractor, and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion)
10. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-317: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING A WAIVER AND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF VARIANCE NO.
3585 AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 86R-469, NUNC PRO TUNC. (restating the
waiver and provision (b) of Condition No. 14, of approval of Variance No. 3585)
11. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-318: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2259 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-104 NULL AND VOID. (as a
condition of approval of Reclassification No. 85-86-09)
12. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-319: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-82 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (to include the
classification of Crowd Control Supervisor, Al081, effective July 24, 1987)
13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
14. 127/106: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-32.1: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ORDERINg, CAJOLING, PROVIDING FOR AlqD GIVING
NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 3, 1987, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSITION FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF WATER REVENUE BONDS BY SAID CITY, AND CONg0LIDATINC gAID ELECTION WITH
SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE. (in the amount of
$14,000,000, and consolidating said election with school district elections to
be held on said date, and appropriating funds of approximately 560,000 to
580,000 from the Water Revenue Fund to pay the costs of the election)
15. 123: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Broadcast Cable
System Agreement with Videotape Enterprises (VTE Sports Productions, Inc.) to
install a broadcast video cable system, for the term April 1, 1987 to
March 31, 1997.
16. 177/152/123: Authorizing the City Treasurer to pay the 53,116,248.03 debt
service for the parking structure due August 1, 1987 (Anaheim Hotel
Partnership lease).
2091
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
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-313 through 87R-321, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
153: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-287 - CORRECTING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR
CERTAIN CLASSIFICATIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she voted no on the
original resolution adopted July 7, 1987 because of the fact that apparently
the raises for the AMEAwere to come out of some other departments which she
feels is unfair. Ail of the additional hires on which there is a freeze at
this point in many departments is crippling the City as well as Jeopardizing
public safety. She does not feel it is a fair thing to do and she wants to be
consistent in her vote. She is going to vote no.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-322 amending Resolution No. 87R-287,
numc pro tunc, amending Appendix "A" of a Letter of Understanding to correct
the salary schedules for the classifications of Lead Parkway Maintenance
Worker, Parkway Maintenance Worker II and Parkway Maintenance Worker I,
effective April 18, 1986. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-322: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-287 NUNC PRO TUNC.
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-322 duly passed and adopted.
161: EXCLUDING CERTAIN LAND FROM THE PROPOSED KATRLI.& REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
A/~: Norm Priest, Director of Community D~velopment & Planning. He is
brl~ging the proposed resolutio~ to the Council today because of the
importance of the issue. Prior to, durin~ and after the hearing of July 7,
1987 (see minutes that date) on the proposed Katella Redevelopment Project, he
heard from literally hundreds of people. He had said at the outset that one
of the purposes of the project with regard to residential neighborhoods was
not to acquire properties but to work with owners regarding improvements to
the infrastructure. In talking with residents, he has discovered that they
have created fear, anger and upset which far outweighs the benefits that will
accrue to those neighborhoods. It is staff's intention over the next few
nights to talk to those residents through the various meetings that have been
set up. They have heard a very steady stream of concern in certain
neighborhoods and very little support for the project. Under those
circumstances, it is inappropriate to seek or force a partnership in
701
21'0
City 9a11~ Anaheim~ California - ~0UNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
neighborhoods where people have worked so hard. He has already presented a
proposal to the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission to exclude
certain neighborhoods from the project. Those areas will be entirely out of
the project. The Redevelopment proposals will, therefore, have no effect in
the neighborhoods to be excluded.
Mr. Priest then outlined which neighborhoods would be excluded working from a
posted map which was general in nature. However, the Exhibit in the official
record is in sufficient breadth to take it down to the lot line. The proposed
excluded areas were then outlined by Mr. Priest. He emphasized there will be
no further Redevelopment activity, Planning or anything else which will
involve those areas.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the Anaheim City Council determined that the need to act on the following item
arose after the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, July 24,
1987, at 3:30 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative
to posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-323 for adoption, directing the
Anaheim City Planning Commission and the Anaheim Community Redevelopment
Comm/ssion to exclude certain land from the proposed Katella Redevelopment
Project area as shown on Exhibit "A" consisting of 14 pages. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-323: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DIRECTING THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE ANAHEIM
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN LAND FROM THE PROPOSED
KAT~REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Hunter stated that he would like to see
all residential houses removed from the Redevelopment area; Councilman Ehrle
asked that all the people involved be notified ln writing, but not by
registered mail, that their homes/residential areas have been removed from the
Katella Redevelopment Project so that they will have something in their hand
saying that they have been removed from the project as suggested by Mrs.
Christensen.
Norm Priest. A letter will be sent to the resident~ immediately.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
Hunter
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-323 duly passed and adopted.
175/123: REIMBURSEMENT AGgE~T WITH KAUFMAN & BROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to authorize a Reimbursement Agreement with Kaufman and Broad of
Southern California for the construction of a 30-inch primary distribution
702
City Hsll~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
main on Santa Aha Canyon Road, as recommended in memorandum dated July 21,
1987 from th Public Utilities Board. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
170./123: REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PRADO-WOODS: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to authorize a Reimbursement Agreement with Vrado-Woods Corporation for
a primary main within Tract No. 8520 (Avenida de Santiago) in the Anaheim
Hills area, as recommended in memorandum dated July 21, 1987 from the Public
Utilities Board. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS - SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER:
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Anaheim
City Council determined that the need to act on the following item arose after
the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, July 24, 1987 at
3:30 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative to
posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-324 for adoption, amending
rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of water as adopted
by Resolution No. 72R-600 and amended by certain other resolutions, effective
August 5, 1987. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-324: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER ASADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS.
73R-255, 73R-387, 73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 75R-479, 76R-378,
78R-418, 78R-419, 78R-459, 79R-643, 80R-304, 81R-124, 81R-402, 82R-355,
83R-331, 84R-246, 86R-118, AND 87R-188.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-324 duly passed and adopted.
123: FISCAL YEAR 1987/88 - I~CALADVERTIgINC WITH ANAHEIM BULI2TIN:
Councilman Bay moved to authorize an agreement with the Anaheim Bulletin to
provide all legal advertisin~ for the year beginning August 1, 1987 and ending
July 31, 1988, at a rate of $5.50 per column inch for the first insertion and
$4.50 per column inch for each subsequent insertion thereof, as recommended in
memorandum dated July 13, 1987 from the City Clerk, Leonora Sohl. Councilman
Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held July 6, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2919: Submitted by Vernon W. Monroe, to permit
an automobile repair facility on CL zoned property located at 2240 Sequoia
Avenue.
703
205
City Hall, A~-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Plannin~ Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-136, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2919, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2921: Submitted by Paul and Ruth Knaak, to
permit an automotive lubricating facility on CL zoned property located at 2181
West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-137, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2921, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2923: Submitted by Evangelical Christian
Credit Union, to permit a credit union and industrially-related offices on ML
zoned property located at 1150 North Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-138, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2923, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2927: Submitted by Steiner Corporation, to
expand an existing commercial laundry on proposed CR zoned property located at
1755 South Haster Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum number
of parking spaces, (b) minimum landscape area, (c) required dedication and
improvements (denied).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-139, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2927, and granted a negative declaration
status.
5. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Submitted by Shell Oil Co., to amend the Code to
permit automobile car washes in the ML zone, Anaheim Canyon Industrial areas,
as a conditional use.
The applicant withdrew his application.
6. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-02 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2907:
Submitted by Jerald and Dortheal E. Stanley, for a change in zone fro, RS-7200
to CO, to permit office use of a residential structure on property located at
236 South Ash Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-134 and 135
denied Reclassification No. 87-88-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2907, and
granted a negative declaration status.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
End of Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY BERGSTI{OM'S CHILDREN STORES: To
amend the Code to add "special retail uses" in the C-R zone, as a conditional
use. Denial of the request was recommended by the Planning Commission at
their meeting of June 6, 1987. Also see staff report to the Planning
Commission dated July 6, 1987.
704
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - OOUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bob Mickelson, agent, 328 North Glassell, Orange, representing
Bergstrom's. He talked to staff starting a few weeks ago anticipating
Bergstrom's could apply for a CUP in order to be able to use the old
Robertshaw headquarters for their operations. They came to the conclusion it
might be stretching the general section of the use permit portion of the Code
to proceed in that manner and it would be safer to prepare an amendment to the
(~ zome. He submitted letter dated June 6, 1987 to the Council (previously
made a part of the record) outlining four additional findings that would have
to be made in order to permit a retail use in the area. Mr. Michael Shephard
from Robertshaw, Richmond Virginia was present and wished to address the
Council.
Mr. Michael Shephard, representing Robertshaw Controls. The location is
isolated by road development. They put the property on the market but with
limited response. They had several offers and ultimately considered the use
proposed by Bergstrom's to be the best use of the property. He requested that
the Council look favorably on the Bergstrom's proposal.
Bob Mickelson. The location is suitable for Bergstrom's and the company plans
to do over $5 million in sales within two years. It would be a positive asset
to the City. They are seeking the identification of Anaheim and the proximity
to the freeway.
Mayor Bay. He emphasized the request was to amend the Code in the CE area,
zoning which was established in that whole area recently and applied
extensively so that the City would have more control over impacting existing
uses. If the Council was going to take up the question of the proposed Code
amendment at this time, he would like to hear the pros and cons from staff on
the argument of amending the Code to allow a specific use that does not fall
under a CUP.
Amnika Samtalahti, Zoning Administrator. She felt the Planning Commission's
concern was that the CUP wording suggested by Mr. Mickelson was general in
nature. The Commission was concerned that a precedent would be established
for any CUP for any retail product which might be argued and presumably
approved. Nobody seemed to be able to come up with tourist oriented retail
products and Bergstrom's is not of a particular interest to tourists. There
did not seem to be any items of tourists interests and no one could come up
with any.
Bob Mlckelsen, Bergstrom's operation is unique since it provides all kinds of
childrens furnishings. They definitely intend to establish a retail service
that caters strictly to the hotels and motels. A large portion of their sales
would be from tourists. If they had the opportunity to at least prepare the
Code amendment and work with staff to tighten up the findings, the Council
could have an opportunity when the actual Code Amendment is presented to
approve, deny or modify it at that time.
Councilman Pickler. Since there were only four Planning Commissioners at the
time the item came before them as explained by the Mayor, he recommends that
the applicant continue workingwith staff and then refer the matter back to
the Planning Commission and subsequently resubmit it to the Council.
705
City Hall, Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter. He agrees with Councilman Pickler. It should go back to
the Planming Commission since there is a strong possibility this would be a
viable business in the zone.
Carl Bergstrom, 1662 Loma Drive, Santa Aha. He explained that Bergstrom's is
a childrens' specialty department store selling apparel, furniture, gift
items, replacement parts for cribs and many other items. They have many
tourist related items such as rent-out strollers, port-a-cribs, diapers, etc.
They would very much like to locate their headquarters in Anaheim.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to refer the proposed Code amendment back to
the City Planning Commission and staff for refinements before resubmitting the
item to the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
108/179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - INSTII~dTE FOR HISPANIC DEVELOPMENT: To
amend the Code to permit bingo games in the ML Zone (not including the Canyon
Industrial Area). Denial of the request was recommended by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting of July 6, 1987. Also see staff report to the
Planning Commission dated July 6, 1987.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The Planning Comm{ssion did not want
to make the Code change as suggested which will allow for CUP's in an
industrial area for business that could then have bingo. Staff is presently
looking at the property and will be taking the matter to the Planning
Commission in the future a reclassification proposal for the property they are
specifically interested in. If the property is rezoned CL, then the bingo
application can proceed under the current regulations of the City. It would
not come back to Council for at least six to eight weeks on a Consent
Calendar. Rezoning to commercial would allow them to process the bingo
application under current standards.
Councilman Pickler. If there is a possibility of a change in the zoning, his
suggestion is that the Council wait and see what the outcome will be.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present from the Institute for Hispanic
~evelopment.
Mr. Harold Bal~man, 2165 gsick~ Circle, Anaheim, was present in the Chamber
audience.
Mayor Bay. Speaking to Mr. Balkman, he explained that Councilman Pickler is
recommending that the proposed Code amendment be continued on the possibility
that there may be a rezoming of the property in question. If that occurs,
which could be in six to eight weeks, and the property rezoned to CL, there
would be no need for any Code amendment pertainimg to bingo games in that
zone. He wanted to kmow if Mr. Balkman favored that idea or if he wanted to
press forth for the Code amendment at this time.
Mr. Balkman answered, he would be in favor of Councilman Pickler's
recommendation.
706
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved for indefinite continuance of the proposed
Code amendment.
Before action was taken, City Attorney White suggested that the item be
removed from the agenda at this time rather than continuing it indefinitely.
Councilman Pickler thereupon amended his motion that the item be removed from
the agenda at this time since the rezoning action which is in progress may
eliminate the need for a proposed Code amendment. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:02 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:19 p.m.)
Chairman Bay reconvened Redevelopment Agency meeting. (3:19 p.m.)
161.158: JOINT PUBLIC HEAILING - PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY: A joint
public hearing with the Redevelopment Agency to consider the proposed sale of
real property to William E. Fackiner and Helen E. Fackiner, for property
located at the southwest corner of Cypress Street and Clementine Street,
Development Parcel 2 (310 West Cypress Street).
Submitted was report dated July 22, 1987 from the Community Development
Department, requesting that the item be continued to August 11, 1987 to give
the Agency an opportunity to publish a Legal Notice for the Negative
Declaration on the subject since the agreement cannot be acted upon by the
Agency until such publication takes place.
Mayor/Chairman Bay asked if anyone wished to speak; there was no response.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the Joint Public Hearing to Tuesday,
August 11, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Agency Member Bay moved to continue the Joint Public Hearing to
Tuesday, August 11, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Agency Member Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Bay announced that a quorum is not anticipated for the Redevelopment
Agency meeting of Tuesday, August 4, 1987.
ADJODRNMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn.
Agency Member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:20 p.m.)
176: PUBLIC HEA2.ING -ABANDONMENT NO. 87-7A: In accordance with application
filed by Craig and Evedean Miller, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a former Southern California Edison easement located
southeasterly of Santa Aha Canyon Road and westerly of Martin Road (a private
street), pursuant to Resolution No. 87R-265 duly published in the Anaheim
Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
707
City ~!1, Anmhe!m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Report of the City Engineer dated June 22, 1987 was submitted, recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Envizonmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an ELR.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-325 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 87-7A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-325: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A FORMER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EASEMENT LOCATED
SOUTHEASTERLY OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD AND WESTERLY OF MARTIN ROAD (A PRIVATE
STREET).
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-325 duly passed and adopted.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 10981: Steve Goode, James Crosby & Associates, Inc., requesting waiver of
the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relation to the location of
lot lines of 5 lots within Tract No. 10981, property located south of Monte
Vista Road and west of Weir Canyon Road, within the East Hills area.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject waiver as
recommended by the City Engineer in his report to the Commission dated
April 13, 1987.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak; there was no response and he,
therefore, closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to waive the lot line requirement of the
Hillside Grading Ordinance in relation to the location of lot lines of 5 lots
within Tract No. 10981, as recommended by the City Planning Commission and the
City Engineer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEAPING - VARIANCE NO. 3659 (READV.):
APPLICANT:
Keith John and Marlene Marie Hultquist
1225 Andrea Lane
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
708
City Hall~ A--helm, C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a 2-story addition to a single-family
residence on property located at 1225 Andrea Lane, with the following Code
waivers: (a) maximum lot coverage (denied), (b) maximum number of bedrooms
(in part).
PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: The decision of the Zoning Administrator,
ZA87-08, approved Variance No. 3659, in part.
HEARING SET ON:
The decision of the Zoning Administrator was appealed by Blue Ribbon Builders,
agent for the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 16, 1987.
Posting of property July 17, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 17, 1987.
PIANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 18, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Keith Hultquist, owner, 1225 Andrea Lane.
He first presented an aerial photograph of his neighborhood
showing the location of his house and the surrounding area. He
also submitted photographs of other homes in his neighborhood
where additions had been made. He feels strongly that he is
being discriminated against by the decision of the Zoning
Administrator. He was denied his waiver on the basis that all
other rectangularly shaped parcels in the immediate vicinity
comply with the required 35% maximum lot coverage which he
disagrees. His lot (No. 15) is not truly a rectangle but cut
off by the radius of the turn in the street which causes him to
lose square footage. He then rebutted statements that were
contained in the staff report, noting that there were special
circumstances relative to his property not shared by other
identically zoned properties. He is asking for .4%, 20 square
feet, over the maximum lot coverage. He has a family of five
and would like to provide adequate living space for them. He
wants to add a bedroom and a family room. There are many five
bedroom homes in the area and there have been many additions
made to those homes. Relative to the 10-foot setback, only
eight houses away there is a 2-story house with a 10-foot
setback as shown in the pictures submitted and in the aerial
photograph. He went to many of his neighbors who signed a
petition stating support of his position which petition
contained 43 signatures. This was overwhelming proof of their
support.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Marlene Hultquist.
They did not even consider adding on to the north side adjacent
to the rectangular shaped lot because special circumstances do
not exist there. She explained the adjacent neighbor's
709
City Hall, An_-heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
complaint was that he would lose $20,000 off the sale of his
house which he Just put up for sale if the variance were
granted. She contacted a realtor who came to her house and
could find no reason why the neighbor's house would be devalued,
but on the contrary it would be enhanced. She also reported on
the complaint of her neighbor who felt his view would be blocked
by the addition.
Cheryl Bailey, 1233 North Andrea Lane.
The Hultquist home is between her property and the Bueno home.
Mr. Bueno stated that the Hultquist proposal would block his
view. However, his view is from the second floor. Relative to
the issue of privacy, the Bueno's second floor addition permits
a view directly down into her backyard which is two houses
away. Hultquist addition would block that view into her
backyard. He (Hultquist) has also agreed not to put windows in
the addition on the side facing her home. The home directly in
back of the Hultquist has a make-shift room built on to the back
of the house. She doubts if there is any permit for that
addition which comes within 2 to 3 feet of their back fence.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Joseph Bueno, 1217 North Andrea Lane.
He commends and encourages Mr. Hultquist to build as he has also
improved his property but the City has set up building codes and
restrictions in order to protect him and the neighbors from
infringement on their rights. The variance requested infringes
on his right to privacy and his view of the hills. The lots are
very close together. The existing south wall of the Hultquists
home is only 5 feet from the property line of his home.
Extending the wall and making it a 2-story wipes out the entire
north view of the hills and any windows would look down on the
pool area of his yard. He then submitted pictures to better
explain his opposition. He is also speaking on behalf of
Barbara Lane at 1240 Willamett Drive, the house directly behind
the Hultquists residence. She agreed to sign an objection. The
room addition would be almost directly over her backyard. The
Hultquists were also going to install a pool table and a game
room which will be noisy for anyone living on that side of the
house. There are alternatives to the proposed plans which were
discussed at the June 4, 1987 Planning Commission hearing which
would not infringe on the rights of the neighbors. The codes
and regulations were derived to protect citizens and that should
be enforced. (He submitted a petition dated July 26, 1987
opposing the variance request, asking the Council deny the
waiver of lot coverage -made a part of the record).
Councilman Hunter.
He interjected and explained he feels he is in conflict in this
case since he used to own a house at 1215 Piedmont Drive and he
knows people who live on the east side of Andrea Lane.
710
199.
City Hall~ A--helm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney White.
There are two bases for not participating - one is a legal
conflict of interest and the other is when there is some
persomal interest or acquaintance which would prejudice a person
one way or the other. He assumes the latter is the reason for
Councilman Hunter's decision not to take part in the
discussion. He (White) feels that would be appropriate;
Councilman Hunter stated he feels he would be prejudiced on this
particular item and will abstain from any discussion or action.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Joan Bueno, 1217 North Andrea Lane.
She expressed concern about their relationships with their
neighbors and wanted to preserve the good relationships they had
with them. She expressed hope that the proposed addition could
be planned in a different way to avoid intrusion and
encroachment.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Keith Hultquist.
They are applying for only a 4% deviation. There is a special
circumstance relative to his lot as it curves around. He then
reiterated some of the figures given in his opening
presentation. Other neighbors have added onto their homes and
he wants to do the same.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner.
He answered questions posed by Council Members. Relative to the
requested rear setback of 10 feet, it was not a Code waiver.
The requirement for a 2-story building would be 10 feet from the
rear property line. The Zoning Administrator's decision was
correct for this type of structure to be approved, because of
the lot coverage and number of bedrooms, it should be set back
15 feet to be in compliance with the neighboring lots. The lots
that are 50 by 100 feet, rectangular lots, appear to have 15
foot setbacks on the aerial view.
Mayor Bay.
Mr. Hultquist explained that his front property line on Andrea
is what is causing the difference between the 10 feet and 15
feet but it is difficult to tell exactly what the curve is.
Greg Hastings.
In the case to the south, the Zoning Administrator felt she
could not apply the same criteria to that lot because it was not
rectangular and, therefore, would set back further into the lot
because of the narrowness of the front.
711
200
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - 00UNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
When the RS-5000 foot lot was first established they had very
large homes on those small lots with five bedrooms. There was a
claustrophobic view with that and also a fire danger with homes
so close together. The City came forth with the amount of
coverage and number of bedrooms that would be permitted on a
5~000 foot lot limiting it to 3 bedrooms. She does not see any
reason to change that. It is obvious that people have
boot-legged rooms on and have not come in for a permit for their
additions. The aerial view shows that it would be possible to
Jump from one roof to the other. They are small lots, the
coverage is too great and it creates a lot of problems in
residential areas. She feels it is still necessary to uphold
the RS-5000 zoning limitations which allows 3-bedrooms maximum.
They must provide for open space and breathing room and
eliminate the fire hazard. She also requested that staff
investigate the alleged makeshift room that was reported in one
of the neighbor's testimony.
Greg Hastings.
He confirmed that the RS-5000 allows 3-bedrooms and allows for
one additional bedroom for every 850 square feet of lot area.
The house currently has 3-bedrooms and the applicant is
requesting five. The Zoning Administrator approved 4-bedrooms
but not the fifth because it encroached into the 15 foot setback
area.
Councilman Ehrle offered Resolution No. 87R-326 for adoption, approving
Variance No. 3659 (Ready.), upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator
allowing an increase of 1-bedroom to 4 instead of 5 as requested. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-326: A ILESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 3659.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated he hoped Mr. Hultquist
will go back again and look at his design and change it to
comply with Code. The difference between 3-bedrooms on RS-5000
jumping to 5-bedrooms is not a small technicality and he will
support the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is going to vote against it because the decision of the
Zoning Administrator, in granting the variance, included
approval of 4-bedrooms. They had to get back to the Code which
is 3-bedrooms maximum on RS-5000.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
712
] 97:
City Hall~ Ag-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
AYES: ~0UNCLL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSTAINED: COUNCLLMEMBERS: Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-326 duly passed and adopted.
107: PUBLIC REHEA~ING - STRUCTURE MOVE-ON:
APPLICANT:
Sam Diflllippo
1525 Dana Place
Fullerton, Ca.
92631
REQUEST/LOCATION: Requesting to move a fourplex from 1009 East Lincoln Avenue
to 514 East Broadway.
The requested house move-on was heard before the Council on April 7, 1987,
where extensive input and testimony was received (see minutes that date) and
subsequently continued to April 14, 1987. Additional testimony was given and
signatures in opposition submitted at the meeting of April 14, 1987 and the
matter continued to April 21, 1987. On April 21, 1987 the Council denied the
application for a house move-on. A rehearing was requested at the Council
meeting of June 2, 1987 and continued to June 30, 1987. At the June 30, 1987
meeting, the request for a rehearing was granted and public hearing scheduled
this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 16, 1987.
Posting of property July 17, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 17, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Building Division's staff reports of March 11, March 19 and April 10, 1987
as well as minutes of the aforementioned Council meetings. (Extensive
documentation was also submitted at those meetings by both the petitioner,
petitioner's attorney and surrounding residents).
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, 100 So. Anaheim Blvd., attorney
representing Sam Difilltppo. At the first hearing the matter
was decided by the Council on the basis of the showing set forth
in the Anaheim Municipal Code which at that time did not permit
the applicant a hearing on the merits of the case but only a
decision under the Code pursuant to a number of people in the
neighborhood who signed a petition in opposition. Since that
time, the Code has been amended so that the Council is now able
to hear evidence presented and make the appropriate findings
which he read. Since the original hearing was directed to
whether or not Mr. Difillippo moved his house without adequate
permission, he felt it appropriate to explore that question
first. During this portion of his presentation, Mr. Farano
submitted a document entitled, "schedule of events regarding the
fourplex move-on from 1009 East Lincoln to 514 East Broadway,
Anaheim" listing the events which took place relative to the
move-on from June 30, 1986 to April 7, 1987.
713
198
City Rail, A.~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Attached to the document were the following: Letter dated June
30, 1986 from Mr. Difillippo to the Kestoration and Property
Services Manager of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, $50
receipt paid to the Buildin~ Department requestin~ the move-on,
letter to the City Engineering Department showing the proposed
move routin~, a demolition permit - fee paid ~33, a "structure
movin~ permit" to move the structure, and receipts for
miscellaneous fees paid to the Building Department. Mr.
Difillippo did not ignore the law but went through the necessary
steps required of him to move the structure. He had showed site
plans to City staff, staff inspected the structure on more than
one occasion and recommended approval of the permit. Mr.
Difillippo had no reason to believe the neighborhood would
object to the move-on since he had previously moved another
house onto 327 South Kroeger. While this move did take place in
violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code, it was not his idea or
attitude to intentionally disregard or avoid the Code. In
followin~ the chronology of events, it is obvious he was abiding
by the requirements of the City. He thought when he paid the
the $50 fee for the inspection, that the application to and
consideration by the City Council would automatically follow.
Mr. Difillippo did not try to avoid the laws of the City.
Councilman Pickler.
He asked staff if the procedure that was followed on the house
move-on in this case was the same as that followed on the
previous house move-on to 327 Kroeger.
Wayne West, Chief Building Inspector.
At the time the Kroeger house move-on took place, there was more
of a delay between the time staff made their inspection and the
Council approved it and then staff issued the structural moving
permit. In this instance, everythin~ followed the Code as
required with the exception that the Council had not approved
before the structural moving permit being issued. The Clerk who
issued the permit was not aware that the Council had not already
approved it. That was an error on the part of staff. Other
than that, everything was the same. He confirmed that usually
the request is approved before they go ahead with the move.
Floyd Farano.
The structural moving permit was, in Mr. Difillippo's opinion,
the permit he needed to have the structure moved. What he did
not understand, it was not the permission itself and permission
from the Council is what he needed to get before the structure
was moved.
Mr. Farano then briefed portions of his letter dated July 23,
1987 giving a description of the property, its zoning, permitted
uses, the exterior appearance of the structure, the lot
coverage, 55% allowed 49% proposed, parking requirements (10
spaces required, 10 spaces proposed) and open space (800 feet
714
City M~ll, A,~he~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
required, 1076 feet proposed). Further, in order to enable the
Council to consider the facts, it is necessary to show that the
structure is compatible, one of the major points of contention.
He referred to the Exhibit given to the Council earlier (see
brochure containing photographs marked Exhibit 1 and an
additional five Exhibits respectively relating to property sales
(Exhibit 2), petitioner property costs to date (Exhibit 3),
anticipated costs of improvements (Exhibit 4), income study
(F. Yhibit 5) and, (~Yhibit 6) petitions showing signatures of a
number of residents within 300 feet of the subject property who
have no objection to the project. The photographs in Exhibit 1
depicted properties on the east and west side of the property
along with views of properties across Broadway, Melrose to
Kroeger. Mr. Farano briefed and/or elaborated upon each of the
Exhibits presented. In concluding, he stated all development
standards applicable to the zone have been met. The structure
would be a complement to the other properties in the
neighborhood. A realtor is in the audience who has physically
reviewed the property, looked at the neighborhood and the
Kroeger property and is willing to verify what he (Farano)
stated regarding the value of the property being consistent and
if anything would enhance all other property in the neighborhood.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Wait Borman, 427 West Bail Road.
He attended the meeting of April 21, 1987 when the plan was
reviewed by the City Council. He also went to see the property
and was surprised to see the area considering the complaints
from the residents. It is right next to an industrial area and
he did not see any beautiful homes but some that needed work.
The structure will not be a detriment to the neighborhood.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Glen McClellan, 511 East Broadway.
The newly adopted ordinance governing structure move-ohs has
taken away the rights of property owners to vote on something
that is affectin~ them. The residents have their o~ra map of the
area reflecting their point of view which he thereupon submitted
to the Council (made a part of the record). Approximately 70%
of the residents are still opposed to the project. He also
submitted an additional petition containing names of 85 people
who have approached the neighborhood on the issue indicating
their opposition bringing the total to 135. His presentation
then spoke to the issues of size, quality, design and
appearance. The houses on either side of the move-on are
dwarfed by the structure because it is much larger than the
other homes in the area. The photographs submitted attest to
the fact that the surrounding homes are single-family style
homes. The subject property is breaking up that block. No
houses in the area are 2-story. It is also breaking up the
historic district of houses. It is encroaching onto their
neighborhood and affecting
715
196
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
property values. In order for the structure to meet Code and to
make it fit into the neighborhood, it would take massive changes
to do so. Referring to Exhibit 4 submitted by the attorney for
the petitioner (anticipated costs of improvements) he does not
see how the structure can be brought up to liveable standards.
It is merely moving an old building and barely bringing it up to
Code. Relative to design, the historic district has stringent
guidelines as to acceptability of the structure.
Mayor Bay interrupted and stated that he did not know that the
historic district went to the south side of Broadway.
Glen McClellan.
He confirmed that it did. He thereupon submitted a letter from
Norm Priest to all the residents in the historic district to
show that the property he destroyed to put in the apartment
complex was in the historic area; Mayor Bay asked for
clarification he was saying there are three homes and lots on
the south side of Broadway that are now in the historic district.
Glen McClellan.
The Historic Preservation Office insisted that the three homes
be included. Perhaps the original plan did not have those three
structures included but the State Historical Preservation
Officer insisted that they be included. He thereupon submitted
letter dated July 11, 1985 from the State Historical
Preservation Office attached to which was a plan of the
single-family homes in the Kroeger/Melrose historic district
which included 514 East Broadway. He continued that the
appearance of the already moved-on structure is not compatible
with the area. The document previously submitted (Exhibit 2)
shows the 75-year old structure at 326 South Kroeger which was
sold in August, 1986 with an indicated price of $70,000. That
was one month after Mr. Difillippo's other Kroeger Street
apartment was approved. The price of that is below the cost of
the bare land which supports their claim that this type of
project in a residential area diminishes property values. The
structure should be made to meet Code and there is no way it can
do so without drastic chan~es. Prior to the meetin$~ he pulled
the plans on the project and Planning Department approval has
not been stamped on the plans. There are notes showing which
Code violations are still in effect and simply cannot be removed
because of the size of the structure. The property is 50 feet
with 10 parking spaces proposed which are all tandem. The
Traffic Department rarely approves the open parking spaces being
tandem. Since the structure has already been sitting on the
property for six months, the neighborhood would like a decision
from the Council today.
Bob Horton, 226 North Claudina.
The biggest problem he sees is the flagrant disregard by a
builder for the planning process which indicates a rubber stamp
process and a belief that no matter what he did, the Council
716
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
would approve it. Mr. Farano also indicated Mr. Difillippo did
not understand the law indicating ignorance of it is ok. He
understands that Mr. Difillippo had done some work for the
Redevelopment Agency and, if so, he would be aware of the
process necessary in order to move a building.
Esolda Schryn, 510 East Broadway.
Her home is located next door to the apartment structure. The
least private rooms in her house will be her bedroom and
bathroom. She is squeezed between the Fire Department building
and the structure and there is not much room for parking. There
is also not much room in the alleys to get to the garage. Her
property value will go down.
Michael Brayton, 503 East Broadway.
He referred to the posted drawing showing the current land use
in the area and reported that where the map indicated in orange
M's for multiple family use, the one on the far right which is a
single-family residence has been bought by a family of vast
numbers. He believes they have built on to the structure
illegally in the rear. The next house to it was originally a
single-family home which has now been converted but it still
looks like a single family residence. The structure now at 514
East Broadway is not compatible in the neighborhood. It is only
36 years old whereas the other structures in the area are twice
that age. It is also a stucco structure, unlike the other
homes. The structure was obviously moved on to the property
illegally. Residents were not notified of the proposal which
greatly affects their neighborhood.
Dr. ~owles,
She owms the second house from the corner (Broadway and
Philadelphia) which is 80 years old and $10,000 has been spent
on improvements in the last year. She resents the resident from
Ball Road (Mr. Borman) stating that their houses are mundane.
The area is trying hard to keep their parking and have
cooperated with the City Traffic Department to see how that can
be done. She does not know with the addition of 10 additional
spaces in the neighborhood where they are going to park.
Hertha McLoughlin, 219 East North Street.
She is a concerned resident and has watched the growth and
deterioration in the City where she has lived. She is opposed
to allowing the permit to move the fourplex, a structure that
has already been moved. She is opposed to Mr. Difillippo's
request.
Donna Berry, 511 East Broadway.
She first gave her background and then addressed certain points
in the new ordinance relating to building move-ohs. She also
narrated a slide presentation showing the structures in the area
(the Kroeger/Melrose Historic District), which are single-family
717
I94
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
homes with one or one/half stories of basically wood clapboard
construction all built in the first quarter of the century,
between 1905 and 1912. None were built in the 1905's in "shoe
box" construction. The structure moved on to the property is
not comparable to those in the surrounding area and it does not
conform to Code. There are no proper setbacks, trash
provisions, parking provisions and it will have an illegal
overhang. The building has also been a dangerous attractive
nuisance. It is an eyesore and an irritant to the
neighborhood. They are asking the City Council to deny the
move-on,
John Lenney, 139 West Winston Road.
He supports what M_rs. Berry stated about the building not being
in keeping with the rest of the structures in the area and
degrading the surrounding property values. It should be removed.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Floyd Farano.
He has a long history and background in planning and does not
believe Mr. Difillippo's structure is inconsistent or
incompatible. The City staff also does not believe that to be
the case as witnessed in report dated March 19, 1987 stating
that it is compatible in value, quality, design and appearance,
that it is in compliance with Code, and that the appearance is
consistent with other structures in the neighborhood.
Apparently the structure Mr. Difillippo removed from 514 East
Broadway was in the historical register but he does not know if
Mr. Difillippo or anybody else knew it. If there was going to
be a problem with demolition or removing the previous structure
from the premises, that should have been made known to Mr.
Difillippo who has incurred ~138,000 of debt only to find out he
is in a historical neighborhood. It is his (Farano's) belief
and understanding that the south side of Broadway is not in a
historical area. He has not seen the letter from Mr. Priest
indicating that it is as previously reported. Mr. Diftllippo
should not be made to suffer extreme damages in the event that
it turns out that something is wrong. He can take the present
structure off the property and design another exactly like it,
pull building permits and not have to show his project to
anybody. The Codes of the City have not adopted an
architectural review aspect of historical consideration as
suggested here today. Relative to the current land use map he
submitted (posted on the Chamber wall) he feels that best
depicts the surrounding area. Mr. Difillippo had no reason to
circumvent or in any way avoid the law. It was not until he
applied for a foundation permit that he was told he did not have
the move-on permit and that was sometime in March.
Mr. Farano then clarified that as an appraiser, Mr. Difillippo,
from time to time, has done some appraisals for the
Redevelopment Agency and staff can testify as to his conduct;
718
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there would then be a conflict of
interest.
City Attorney White stated even though Mr. Difillippo has done
appraisals on a contract basis on occasion for the Redevelopment
Agency, he would not have a conflict of interest in this case.
He purchased the property from the City at a point in the past
and was not involved in an appraisal of that property nor would
it disqualify him from applying for a relocation permit. Even
if he were an employee, he (White) sees no legal conflict.
Mayor Bay asked that staff verify the statements that had been
made that the applicant could build a structure on the property
almost identical to the present one with no variances or waivers
to the Code.
Wayne West.
As the property is currently zoned and the Code presently
written, the applicant would be able to build the identical unit
by simply applying for a permit, getting the plans approved and
constructing it without any variances. He also confirmed for
Councilman Pickler what is planned on the property now requires
no variances to the Code at all but there are going to have to
be alterations to the building and those would be approved
before the building permit is issued. Everything would have to
be to Code.
Mayor Bay.
He asked if the move-on is denied and Mr. Difillippo proceeded
to get permits to build to Code, what would stop him from doing
so without any public hearings or anything else.
Wayne West.
There is nothing currently in the building Code that would
prevent him from doing that.
Councilman Hunter.
The issue is, under the ordinance, whatever is moved onto the
site must be comparable in value size, quality design and
appearance. The 1951 fourplex that was placed in that
neighborhood amongst houses generally 75 years old is not
comparable. Further, before a structure is moved on to any
property, Council approval must be sought and obtained. He does
not believe that the structure fits into that neighborhood.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked, if the move-on is denied, could the developer put two
single-family homes on the lot.
Wayne West.
He does not believe there is enough space unless a developer
would use a zero lot line. Relative to the previous question,
719
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
if this were a vacant lot, then the plans would not have to be
in compliance with the requirements of the house moving
ordinance where it states that the structure has to be
compatible. That issue would not have to be addressed.
Councilman Pickler.
If Mr. Difillippo were to come in and construct what is now
sitting on the property he would not have to come before the
Council. He believes that a lot can be done with the present
structure to improve it, both the interior and exterior.
Otherwise Mr. Difillippo can construct the exact same thing on
the property if he starts from scratch.
Mayor Bay.
He believes the issue is the dichotomy between a build-on
ordinance and a move-on ordinance. A move-on includes
architectural review but building from scratch does not. The
developer could come and build the exact same structure. He
then reiterated his concern that there has been a move in the
City towards architectural control which he does not favor
outside of the redevelopment area. It was going to lead to
control on a person's use of his property by the architectural
opinion of his neighbors and that is the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt there were enough
irregularities in this case that she would not allow the
move-on. She thereupon offered Resolution No. 87R-327 for
adoption, denying the structure move-on request to move a
fourplex from 1009 East Lincoln Avenue to 514 East Broadway and
finding that the structure is not compatible in size, design and
appearance to houses or structures in the area in which it is to
be located and that the structure will be detrimental to and
diminish the value of other property in the area.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-327: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
A~AJtEIM DF2/YING AN A~PLICATION FOR A SPECI_4~ PEI~MIT TO MOVE A RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE TO 514 EAST BROADWAY.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated that the move-on is not
compatible to the area and the City cannot afford to keep Nhodgepodging"
development all over the City. There must be uniformity, not architectural
controls. Putting a fourplex into that historical block is not compatible and
he supports the resolution of denial.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
720
1891
City Hall~ A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kayood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-327 duly passed and adopted.
127/156: SPECTAT. MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 3, 1987 - POLICE 2000 PROJECT
AND PUBLIC SAFETY PACKAGE: Ordering, calling, providing for and giving Notice
of a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1987, for
the purpose of submitting a proposal to the voters to finance the Police 2000
Capital Project and Public Safety Package, by increasing property taxes.
City Attorney Jack White. At last Tuesday's meeting, the Council requested
that staff draft a resolution relating to the proposed tax to be submitted at
a Special Election to be held in November, 1987 with an Election already
scheduled. The resolution, which also consists of a proposed ordinance which
would be enacted if approved by a 2/3 vote of the electorate, was not
finalized until this morning. The proposed measure would be a tax upon real
property on a flat rate per parcel. The reason that was done, in reviewing
the provisions of Article 13 of the State Constitution (Re: Proposition 13),
even with a 2/3 vote, the City is precluded from adopting ad valorem real
property tax. The only way it can be adopted as a real property tax is to
adopt it as a fixed rate. Because of the limited period of time, he was
unable to differentiate as has been done by some cities to set up a different
amount per zone, type of structure or some other mechanism. What was done,
based upon information supplied by Program Development & Audit, the total cost
of the proposed Police 2000 Project and the Public Safety Package was
considered and that number divided by the number of parcels in the City. The
yearly cost came out to the number included in the resolution, ~25.83, and an
inflation factor was also added to that figure for Council consideration. He
would have preferred to have more time to put the ballot language together.
Even if the issue were on the November ballot, it would not make the current
tax year because the equalization of the assessment role occurs at the end of
August. If this were to go on the June 1988 ballot instead of November, 1987,
it could still make the tax date in August of 1988 and have it applied to the
1988/89 tax year.
Mr. White then answered a line of questions posed by Council Members relative
tO the provisions and outcome of the proposed ballot measure if it were
approved by the electorate. He also advised that the proposed rate could be
reduced by the Council over time but in order to raise the amount, it would
require another vote of the people. He believed there were many more
sophisticated ways that the proposed initiative could have been presented but
given the limited amount of time, this was the best effort.
City Manager Talley. If the Council waited ~ntil June of 1988 to put the
measure on the ballot, the Council would have had to expend all of their funds
under the Certificates of Participation. He did not think they could wait
that long and expect to get the project done. If they did not put it on the
ballot in November, they were still going to have to make a determination if
they wanted to fund the project some other way.
721
I90
Cit~ Hall, A--hetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter. There were some things he did not like in the ballot
wording. He recommended that the inflationary increase be left out entirely
and that a flat $25 rate be set. He gave his suggested wording for the ballot.
City Attorney White. The reason the wording included the inflationary factor
was to be able to cover the maximum cost in any given year. While the amount
may be adequate for the first year, there is potentially a shortfall between
the amount of money it would raise in the maximum cost yearly to the City for
both the Certificates of Participation Debt Service and the manpower payments
for the Safety Package.
Councilman Pickler. He recommended that the figure be $25 instead of $25.83.
He also agrees with Councilman Hunter that the wording relative to the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) be eliminated.
City Manager Talley. If the CPI factor is left out, they will be guaranteeing
the debt service because that is a fixed rate and will cover the Public Safety
Package for the first year or two. After that, whatever the cost increase, it
will be taken out of another source. Otherwise, the debt service will always
be covered because it will not go up as well as the portion of the operating
costs.
After further discussion, City Attorney White stated that the resolution had
to be adopted today. He also suggested one small change as well. He then
read the following wording to see if it was acceptable:
" Not to exceed $25 per parcel to pay for additional police services and
police facilities in the City of Anaheim." He changed the word annual and
inserted it in a different spot and added police in front of facilities so
that there is no question about what facilities.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted some typographical errors in the ordinance; City
Attorney White stated those would be corrected.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-328 for adoption, ordering,
calling, providing for and giving Notice of a Special Municipal Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 3, 1987, for the purpose of submitting a proposal to
the voters to finance the Police 2000 Capital Project and Public Safety
Package, by increasing property taxes, with the changes as recommended and
discussed so that the wording will be as follows:
Shall Chapter 2.15 be added to the Anaheim Municipal Code to provide
for a special tax on real property within the City of Anaheim in an
annual amount not to exceed $25 per parcel to pay for additional
police services and police facilities in the City of Anaheim?
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-328: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CAIJ,ING AND GIVING NOTICE FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF AN
INITIATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO A SPECIAL TAX ON REAL PROPERTY FOR POLICE
FACILITIES AND SERVICES AT THE SPECIAL ~JNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 3, 1987.
722
Cit~ Hal.l~ Anaheim, California - ODUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
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-328 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - DINNER BREAK: By general consent the Council recessed for a dinner
break. (5:14 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:39 p.m.)
165/150/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4854 - PARKWAY TREES AND SIDEWALK REPAIRS:
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4854 for adoption amending Chapter 12.29
of the Code, pertaining to parkway trees and sidewalk repairs. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4854: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 12.29
TO TITLE 12 OF TEE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIDEWALKS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4854 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-329 for adoption establishing
service charges for the repair of privately-owned sidewalks in the public
right-of-way. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-329: AR ESOLUTION OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES PERTAINING TO SIDEWALK REPAIR.
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-329 duly passed and adopted.
105/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4855: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4855 for
adoption, amending Section 1.04.995 of the Code, abolishing the Industrial
Development Board and establishing a 9-member Economic Development Board.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
723
18.8
City H-!l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4855: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ENACTING PROVISIONS RELATING THERETO, AND
REPEALING SECTION 1.04.995 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4855 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4856 THROUGH 4859: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance Nos.
4856 through 4859, both inclusive, for introduction. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4856: 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. 65-66-24(36), NL(SC), southeast corner of
Miraloma Avenue and Fee Ama Street)
ORDINANCE NO. 4857: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFEREED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-27, EM-1200, 3416 W. Orange Ave.)
ORDINANCE NO. 4858: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODER ELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 83-84-23, RM-1200, 3538 W. Savanna St.)
ORDINANCE NO. 4859: 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. 85-86-9, RM-1200, 801 E. Orangewood Ave.)
123/153: REVIEW OF CITY MANAGER'S CURRENT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
CITY: Councilman Bay moved to trail the subject issue until after Closed
Session. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:43 p.m.)
RE~EST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed
Session as requested by the City Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CA~IED. (11:50 p.m.)
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
John Lenney, 139 West Winston Road, Anaheim. Addressing the Mayor, he stated
in the campaign election in November and also in Mr. Ehrle's in November and
June, they mentioned issues such as excessive management compensation, that
City management contracts should expire for review 90 days after a new Council
person is elected, millions of dollars borrowed without taxpayer approval on
Certificates of Participation, etc. He is present to talk about the
non-renewal of the City Manager's contract. The only reason many people voted
for Mayor Bay, Council Members Hunter and Ehrle, is because they implied that
they were going to fire the City Manager. He believes City Manager Talley
must go.
724
185
City g~ll~ A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay stated he did not make a public statement that he would fire the
City Manager nor did he do so during the campaign.
106: RBSOUB~E AIJ. OCATION PLAN WORKSHOP: To consider amendments to the
1987-88, 1988-89 Resource Allocation Plan. This matter was discussed and
continued from the meetings of June 30, July 7, 14 and 21, 1987, to this date
(see minutes those dates).
City Manager Talley first explained for Councilman Pickler that
Items a.1., 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Item No. 10 listed on today's
agenda were new budget items from the meeting of July 14, 1987.
Items a.1. 3, 4, 5 and 7 are all in the budget and funded (see
Page 2 of the Council agenda dated July 28, 1987), on Item 6,
two of the five positions listed are in the budget and funded
and on Item 10 (authorizing 35 additional positions in the
Police Department - 9 previously approved on July 21, 1987, none
of those positions still listed are funded, although 22 are in
the budget. The requested Deputy City Attorney position (Item
a.1.), the Accounting Specialist (Item a.3.), the additional
people requested in Community Development & Planning (Item
a.4.), Fire Department Personnel (Item a.5.), Parks, Recreation
& Community Services Personnel (Item a.7.) and two people in
Engineering (Item a.6.) are all in the budget and funded. There
are 22 non-funded positions in the Police Department which are
part of the Public Safety Package. He later clarified that in
Items a.1. through a. 7., with the exception of three in
Engineering, these positions were already in the budget.
Mr. Talley then explained for Mayor Bay that if the Public
Safety Package were approved, the ~4.1 million in the tab run
would be correct as an increase to the police budget. If not
approved, they should then subtract from the General Fund
approximately $800,000 and 22 positions of the ~4.1 million.
The rest are because of additional costs for the existing
operation.
Discussion then followed revolving around Mayor Bay's questions
regarding the 22 additional people requested but not funded in
the Police Department. Both City Manager Talley and Ken Stone,
Management Analyst, answered the questions posed relative to
work hours involved, straight time, part-time, productivity
increase, etc.
Councilman Hunter then spoke to the requested additional Deputy
City Attorney II position for the prosecution section of the
City Attorney's Office. He felt this position was needed. If
they were going to hire more police officers, Code Enforcement
personnel and Park Rangers, those actions will produce more
arrests and thus, more people will be needed to prosecute them.
City Attorney White explained upon questioning that this was the
remaining position he requested, the other having been approved
at the meeting of July 14, 1987. It is his feeling that this
725
Cdt7 F. 11~ A~he~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28; 1,987~ 1:30 P.M.
year they either fill the two positions or otherwise return the
function to the District Attorney's Office. That is an option
the Council has available. His recommendation is that both
positions be funded.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to authorize the remaining one additional
Deputy City Attorney II position (Item a.1.) for the prosecution section of
the City Attorney's Office. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the one additional AccOunting
Specialist (Item a.3.) for the payroll operation in the Finance Department.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay spoke against the motion,
stating if all the positions are approved, the Council will be
left with no options on how and where they are going to fund
money this year to start doing anything and all the unfunded
operations, not to mention starting to build a reserve on the
Certificates of Participation on the police capital improvements.
Councilman Hunter stated the Council had agreed to put the issue
of funding the Police Department project on the November
ballot. If the taxpayers say no then the Council would have to
make an in depth evaluation of the course to take.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the following
vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABS EA'T:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Pickler and Kaywood
Ehrle and Bay
None
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize four additional positions
(Item a.4.) of Plan Check Engineer, Typist Clerk, Associate Planner and Code
Enforcement Officer in the Community Development/Planning Department.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler explained that a
number of developers have been calling him because of being held
up not being able to process their plans in a timely fashion;
Councilman Hunter stated he has received many similar calls
relative to the time delay.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the following
vote:
Roll Call Vote:
726
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Pickler and Kaywood
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize three additional positions
(Item a.5) of Data Entry Operator and Fire Inspectors (2) in the Fire
Department. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Talley then explained relative to Item a.5, the Associate
Traffic Engineer, Senior Traffic Engineering Aide, and
Transportation Management Coordinator are all in the Public
Safety Package and thus not funded. The Parking Authority
Manager and the Staff Analyst are funded out of current
revenue. It is assumed in approximately three to four years, as
the Council forms assessment districts, that a portion or all of
the costs can be supported by the generated fee revenue. If the
first three positions are approved, those would be adding to the
budget and it would be out of balance approximately $135,000.
Councilman Pickler.
The Parking Authority is somethin~ he is concerned about and he
feels it is a big portion of what Disneyland is going to be able
to do. It would behoove the Council, as long as the positions
are in the budget, to approve those positions and get the
program on the road.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize two additional positions only
(Item a.6.) at this time, of Parking Authority Manager and Staff Analyst for
the Public Works - Engineering Department. Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion. Council Members Ehrle and Bay voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the three positions of Associate Traffic
Engineering, Senior Traffic Engineering Aide and Transportation Management
Coordinator be removed from the agenda which are part of the Public Safety
Package. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, City Manager Talley stated when
those positions are removed (Item a. 6.), they will not be part
of what is going to be on the ballot issue. To his
understanding, the ballot issue is police services and police
facilities. That would include Police Department employees and
the Police 2000 Project but it would not include peripheral
things such as Traffic Engineering people or support from Human
Resources to hire them, or the fire equipment. His impression
is that the ballot issue approved today are for Police services,
i.e., Police people and Police facilities.
Mayor Bay.
If that was what was passed today he has no problem with that.
In effect, the whole Public Safety Package is unfunded as a
separate issue.
727
City Hall~ Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley.
There are positions that are not Police Department people in the
Public Safety Package which would be the three people in
Engineering, the one person in Human Resources and the two fire
equipment vehicles.
Mayor Bay.
If those were to be put on the agenda under budget discussion,
they are umfunded and should be defined. He does not care if
those are retained on the agenda.
Councilman Hunter stated instead of looking at the issue every
week, if the positions are not funded, there are probably not
enough votes to do it. He would go along with the Mayor's
motion to take those off the agenda.
City Manager Talley clarified whatever the vote is due with the
ballot issue had nothing to do with those positions. After
further discussion on the issue, he stated those positions will
now be removed from the agenda.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize six additiomal positions
(Item a.7.), of Planning Aide, Park Maintenance Worker, Senior Office
Specialist and Recreation Services Assistant (3), in the Parks, F, ecreation and
Community Services Department, which are all funded. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Council Members Ehrle and Bay voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Bay then suggested an added item which can be Item No.
a.8. He thereupon moved that the additional 2% Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue not allocated for the year 1987/88
estimated at $2,529,395, that that money be placed in the
Council Contingency Fund and held for Council disposition with
the intent of a reserve against capital costs on the
Certificates of Participation for the police capital
improvements. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, City Manager Talley asked if the
Council wished that to be part of the approximate ~140,000
allocated for the Council Contingency Fund or that it be called
a Special Council Contingency; Mayor Bay asked that it be called
Special Council Contingency, the intent being that they have to
have it reserved for Certificates of Participation payments.
City Attormey White.
He asked if it would serve Council purposes equally well if the
motion were to read that the funds to be placed in the Council
Contingency Fund where it could not be touched without Council
approval rather than earmarking for a specific purpose.
Otherwise they will get into the area of this becoming a special
tax.
728
1'49
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated what they will be doing, if the
motion passes, they will take 1/10th of what they estimate the
amount will be each month and put it in the Council Contingency
Fund, about $252,000 each month Transient Occupancy Tax receipts
and put it in that fund.
Mayor Bay clarified his motion as follows: "That the 2%
Transient Occupancy Tax revenue increase not allocated for the
year 1987/88 (estimated at $2,529,395) be placed in the Council
Contingency Fund where it will be held for Council disposition
only." Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Relative to Item a.10., Councilwoman Kaywood asked which
positions are desperately needed at this point of the 22
positions listed but not in the budget. She wanted to know what
personnel is required for the Communications System.
City Manager Talley. The listing is the priority that the
Police Chief gave when he was asked to submit the list. If the
Council is going to free up any money, they might ask the Chief,
he was only going to get "X" amount of dollars, what would he
want. Nineteen of the first 20 positions listed are civilians
the Chief will be using to put more police in the field. If the
Council was planning to give him only one person, he would say
that would be the Communications Manager needed to man the new
Communications Center. If they are going to get more than three
or four, then the Council should ask the Chief at the meeting of
August 11, 1987 what his priorities are which may be altered.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue authorizing 35 additional
positions in the Police Department (nine previously approved 7/21/87) to the
Council meeting of Tuesday, August 11, 1987. Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay questioned whether they
should keep the positions open on the agenda, especially since
they are not funded. The question is where the money is coming
from. He would rather it be pulled from the agenda and instruct
the City Manager to put a dollar figure against each line as to
their cost on an annual basis. In continuing to look at the
overall budget, cuts could then be made in other functions which
would give enough money to cover some of those positions.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Clty Manager Talley.
Staff will supply a listing in priority order of the position,
the dollar cost and any other costs and what they will do for
the Department; Mayor Bay felt that prioritizing the list in
dollar cost is what he feels is important.
729
City Hall, g-ahaim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler asked the disposition of the proposed
resolutions listed on the agenda (P.1, 2, 3, and 4 and S)
relative to adjusting the management salary structure and
establishing rates of compensation and management pay policies
for certain classifications and the last resolution establishing
the merit pool fund for all management classifications.
Mayor Bay.
If the Council wanted to go with those at this time, he will
strongly oppose expanding those classifications by the 4 1/21
bench mark change. He will not vote for that. He is opposed to
establishing a merit pool fund for those classifications before
determining what the savings may be or where else the budget
might be cut, if they wanted to have more of the police package
that is not funded.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The merit pool is for last year. It is not new; Mayor Bay
clarified he was talking about the range increases. Item S is
the merit pool at 5 1/21.
Mayor Bay.
The range changes proposed were 4 1/2I across almost all the
ranges. He opposes those completely. The merit pool was set up
across all the ranges at 5 1/2I in the budget which is combined
wages and burden of $1,100,845. Of that $535,000 is general
fund pool dollars. For every 11 of that pool, it is about
$200,000 and for every 11 about $97,000 in the General Fund.
The 4.9 range differential will move all the ranges up again
when they have already given direction to get a consultant to
look at the Pay for Performance. He hopes the Council is not
going to vote those range differential changes before they get a
consultant to look at the issue. As far as the merit pool for
the classifications, he has worked out some alternatives. He
feels it is pre-emptive to determine that pool now before they
know what kind of money they are looking for and what the
Council wants to do on police priorities. If these items are
all approved the Council is closin~ off all their options and
there will be no alternatives left.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to continue Items P.1, 2, 3, 4 and Item S.
(management salary structure, establishing rates of compensation and
management pay salaries, merit pool funds) to Tuesday, August 11, 1987.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRT~D.
114: PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE - COUNCIL TERM: Councilman Pickler stated that
a suggestion had been made by a citizen during recent past discussions, that
if any Council person desires to run for another office during his term as
Council Member, that that Council person has to resign so that the Council
seat will automatically be open to anybody who is going to run. He would like
the issue to be placed on the agenda for Council discussion in approximately
two to three weeks.
730
City Hall~ A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay. He did not disagree but he did not feel this was a good time to
consider the issue.
After brief discussion, the City Clerk was directed to bring the issue to the
Council's attention approximately the first meeting in January, 1988 for
possible consideration of placing any proposed Charter changes on the June,
1988 ballot.
Councilman Ehrle suggested that the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of
the Chamber be contacted so that they might consider the issue as well.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:50 p.m.)
Later in the meeting, approximately 11:45 p.m., after having recessed into
Closed Session at 8:50 p.m., Mayor Bay noted that the subject issue was put on
the Council agenda at Councilman Ehrle's request.
Councilman Ehrle moved, based upon discussions held in Closed Session for the
past several hours, that the City Council furnish City Manager Talley with
written notice pursuant to City Charter Section 606 stating the Council's
intention to remove him from office. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, City Manager Talley asked for a Closed Session
following the vote.
Councilman Pickler. He has a statement he is going to read although he was
hoping he would not have to do so. (The following is a synopsis of the
statement read by Councilman Pickler).
In his opinion, what is happening today is one of the darkest days for the
City of Anaheim. The attempts by his colleagues (Council Members Bay, Hunter
and Ehrle) to fire City Manager Bill Talley leaves him in disgust. Anaheim is
a City that has been guided by some of the finest professional public
administrators in the nation and to him they have been told by the Council
majority that Anaheim's commitment to excellence in City government should be
replaced with "yes men" and special interest groups. He feels they are moving
away from professionalism and towards a system of political patronage in City
jobs. He has been particularly disturbed by the character assassination and
outright distortions being used to describe Bill Talley. Mr. Talley does not
have the support of the Council majority so a change may be tn order. What is
not clear is why the new Council Members have not taken the time to get to
know the Job of the City Manager and all the Department Managers and City
employees. He has not always agreed with the City Manager but he (Talley) has
always followed the direction of the majority of the Council. He feels it is
mean-spirited and wrong to blacken Mr. Talley's accomplishments and
contributions to the City of Anaheim. He is a financial wizard who has made a
lasting, positive impact on the City and he deserves full credit for his
achievements. For more than a decade, Bill Talley has been "charging up
731
1.48
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - July 28~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
hills" for the City of Anaheim, doing the Job that had to be done with
intelligence, perseverance and creativity. The City has been blessed to have
had him as City Manager.
Councilwoman Xaywood. She feels that there has been a conspiracy to overthrow
the government of Anaheim by the Mayor and the Council majority. She also
feels that they have been violating the Brown Act with three Council Members
making decisions every week. It has been very clear that three Members know
exactly what they have to do, sometimes seconding a motion before it is even
stated, with the two remaining elected officials sittin~ in the dark, not
knowing what is going to come up next. As Councilman Pickler stated, this was
a dark day for Anaheim. She asked that the motion state, Council majority,
and not the City Council which would mean five Council Members and that the
press and every news release that is published also state, the Council
majority.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the following
vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Bay
Pickler and Kaywood
None
MOTION: Councilman Bay then moved that before any more travel for the City by
the City Manager, that permission from the Council be obtained directly.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Council Members Pickler and Kaywood
voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:00 midnight).
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
732