1986/04/15City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRE SENT
AB SENT:
PRESENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
(Councilman Overholt entered at 11:14 a.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Richard D. LaRochelle
SENIOR REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Richard J. Santo
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: Bill Sell
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor Holland Lewis, First Nazarene Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - MISS ANAHEIM/U.S.A: Mrs. Fran Mauck presented and
introduced to the Council the new Miss A~aheim/U.S.A., Margo Ann Aguirre.
Mayor Roth greeted Miss Aguirre and on behalf of the Council and the City
congratulated her on winning the Miss Anaheim/U.S.A. title. He then presented
her with roses and wished her the very best in the subsequent competitions
leading to the Miss U.S.A. Pageant.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Day of the Teacher in Anaheim, April 15, 1986,
Week of the Young Child in Anaheim, April 20-26, 1986,
National Day of Prayer in Anaheim, May 1, 1986.
Mr. Don Liebhart, Assistant Superintendent of the AUHSD accepted the Day of
the Teacher proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Harley Hesse upon his
retirement from the City of Anaheim. Mr. Hesse began his employment with the
City on September 18, 1950 in the Utilities Department. He is now the
Supervisor of the Electrical Inspection Section of the Building Division. The
Mayor and each Council Member personally congratulated Mr. Hesse commending
him for is 35 years of dedicated service to the City of Anaheim.
249
100
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held April 1, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Councilman 0verholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~3,883,982.40, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 86R-137 through 86R-145, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Antonio Saenz Dominguez for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 13, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by David Hough for bodily injury and property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 6, 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Ruth McAlpine for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Cora Honeycutt for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 26, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by Kathleen Anne McTaggart for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 31, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Michelle Presetti for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 18, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Robert E. Wolfe for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 10, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Patricia Smalley for Amber Smalley (a minor) for
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 27, 1985.
250
9,7
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
i. Claim submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Phil Freda for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 12, 1986.
j. Claim submitted by Kathleen Mills for wrongful death of Scott L. Mills
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 30, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by California Fasteners Inc. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 18, 1986.
1. Claim submitted by Deborah Jean McCullough for bodily injury and
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 24, 1986.
m. Claim submitted by Tom Jensen for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 6, 1986.
n. Claim submitted by Celynn Dee Dare for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 17, 1986.
o. Claim submitted by Hamid Kharrat for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 25, 1986.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
p. Claim submitted by Robert C. Stindt for property damage sustained due
to actions of the City on or about February 1, 1986.
q. Claim submitted by Stephenie L. Dreisbach for property damage
sustained due to actions of the City on or about December 10, 1985.
r. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance Company (Bernice Meyer, Insured)
for property damage sustained due to actions of the City on or about
February 18, 1986.
s. Claim submitted by Susan C. Fitzgerald for property damage sustained
due to actions of the City on or about January 14, 1986.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
b. 156: Police Department, Fourth Quarter Crime Analysis, 1985.
3. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the eight
months ended February 28, 1986.
4. 139: Opposing AB 4117 (Moore) relating to retail sales and authorizing
the Mayor to communicate said position to the State elected officials
representing the City.
5. 139: Opposing AB 4146 (Moore) relating to off-sale beer or wine retail
sales in gas stations and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said position
to the State elected officials representing the City.
251
95'
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
6. 139: Opposing AB 4367 (Cortese) relating to modification of the Community
Redevelopment Law and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said position to
the State elected officials representing the City.
7. 139: Opposing SB 2522 (Maddy) relating to limitations on local government
restrictions on sale of off-sale beer and wine and authorizing the Mayor to
communicate said position to the State elected official representing the City.
8. 153: Receiving and filing the Affirmative Action Action Report for 1985.
9. 123: Authorizing a Second Amendment to an agreement with Don Poff for
operation of the pro shop concession at Anaheim Hills Public Golf Course, and
the expanded driving range, with payment to the Pro in an amount not to exceed
$7,000 per year, which includes 20% of up to $10,000 net profit, 15%
additional from ~10,000 - $20,000 net profit and 10% additional of ~20,000 net
profit and above, effective April 1, 1986.
10. 167: Directing the City Clerk to advertise the Request for Proposals for
the Design of the South Central Signal Improvement Project and the Anaheim
Signal Modification Project, in accordance with Federal requirements.
11. 164: Authorizing Agreements Nos. D86-032, D86-036 and D86-074 with the
County of Orange, at an estimated cost to the City of ~9,372 for the County to
adjust to grade City-owned water valve boxes and sanitary sewer manhole covers
located on County streets being resurfaced by County administered contracts.
12. 169: Authorizing an extension of time to July 1, 1985 and assessment of
liquidated damages for 24 days in the amount of ~2,400 for Vintage Lane
Street, Storm Drain, Water, Masonry Sound Wall and Landscape Improvements,
Account No. 46-792-6325-E2840, Kershaw Construction, contractor.
13. 164: Authorizing an extension of time to February 10, 1985 and assessment
of liquidated damages for 42 days in the amount of $9,282 for the construction
of 0rangewood Avenue Storm Drain Improvements, Account No. 25-791-6325-E1440,
Buntich Construction Company, contractor.
14. 159: Authorizing substitution of Sadler Roofing Company for Stout
Roofing, Inc., and Queen City Glass Company for Buena Park Glass and Mirror
Company as subcontractors in connection with the Maintenance Centralization
Project, Account No. 75-936-6325, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, General
Contractor.
15. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (1985-86 Alley
Improvement, West Anaheim, Account No. 24-793-6325-E3030; and opening, of bids
on May 15, 1986, 2:00 p.m.)
16. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCEANDNECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Citron Street
252
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Storm Drain Improvement, Chartres Street to Lincoln Avenue, Account No.
25-791-6325-E1520; and opening of bids on May 15, 1986, 2:00 p.m.)
17. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Olive Street
Street Improvement, Broadway to Santa Aha Street, Account No.
25-793-6325-E3020; and opening of bids on May 15, 1986, 2:00 p.m.)
18. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (BLAIR PAVING,
INC.) (Blair Paving in the amount of ~420,424.89 for Kraemer Boulevard Street
Improvement, Account Nos. 46-793-6325-E3770 and 51-484-6993-00710)
19. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (JOHN T.
MALLOY) (John T. Malloy in the amount of $638,384 for Broadway Street and
Storm Drain Improvement, Account Nos. 12-791-6325-E1460 and 51-484-6993-00732)
20. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-103, NUNC PRO TUNC. (Amending
Resolution No. 86R-103, nunc pro tunc, to correct the classification to read
"Golf Course Worker")
21. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF
1931. (for proposed Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1985-1 comprised
of property abutting the alleys on Ninth Street and Walnut Street and Cerritos
Avenue and Audre Drive, in Tract Nos. 1647, 3278 and 3301)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-144: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO
BE MADE, NAMING THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE,
REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO
BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. (improvements to
be made over a five-year period commencing on or about July 1, 1987; and
setting May 6, 1986, 1:30 p.m., as date and time to hear protests)
22. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
23. 123/152: Authorizing the Finance and Maintenance Directors to enter into
an agreement with Grigsby, Brandford and Co., Inc., to provide financing in
the amount of $1,020,139 for the term of five years for the lease/purchase of
five Emergency One triple combination fire pumpers, Lease No. 040186.
Roll Call Vote:
253
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The ~ayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-137 through 85R-145, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: APPLICATION NO. 86-03-058 FILED BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY:
Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 86-03-058, Southern
California Gas Company Notice to Customers of Filing of Application and Public
Hearing to increase retail rates by $99.424 million.
Councilman Bay recommended that the Council oppose the application since it
would impose a 5.7 percent increase on residential natural gas bills.
Southern California Gas had received permission from the Public Utilities
Commission to heavily reduce their rates to their larger customers to try to
stop electrical generators from converting to low price oil. While he did not.
have a problem with that, the move was to make up that loss on residential,
commercial and industrial uses to which he was opposed.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to send a letter from the City Council signed by
the Mayor to the Public Utilities Commission in opposition to the proposed
rate increase. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
139: AB3627 - BRADLEY - SUPPORT OF RAILROAD CROSSING LEGISLATION: City
Manager William Talley referre'd to memorandum dated April 14, 1986 from the
Intergovernmental Relations Officer recommending support of AB3627 (Bradley)
and communicating that position to the City's elected representatives in
Sacramento. Due to time constraints, it was necessary to take action on the
matter today. The action related to Council discussion at the April 8, 1986
meeting wherein a request was made that staff promote legislation so that
cities would have the ability to affect necessary repairs at railroad
crossings (see minutes that date).
As noted in Mr. Sell's memo, AB3627 would authorize local agencies to declare
that heavily traveled crossings are problem sites, and would require, upon
making such a declaration, a request that conditions be corrected.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to support AB3627 (Bradley) and that the
position of support be communicated to the City's elected representatives in
Sacramento. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: LITIGATION MANAGEMENT AND FILE INDEXING SYSTEM SERVICES - CYCOM DATA
SYSTEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive Council Policy No. 401 and
authorize an agreement with CYCOM Data Systems, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $19,600, to develop and implement a litigation management and file
indexing system in the City Attorney's Office, as recommended in memorandum
254
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
dated April 8, 1986 from the City Attorney's Office. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: REVOCATION OF PERMITS - TENDER TOUCH MASSAGE PARLOR AND INDIVIDUAL
MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of
the revocation of permits issued pursuant to Section 4.29.160 of the Code for
the Tender Touch Massage Parlor, 219 South State College Boulevard, and
individual Massage Technician Permit of Marie Tu Thi Nguyen for one week
(April 22, 1986) as recommended in memorandum dated April 10, 1986 from the
City Attorney's Office. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman
Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
114: STATUS OF STREET NAME CHANGE - A PORTION OF CLAUDINA STREET TO BE
CHANGED TO 42ND STREET: Councilwoman Kaywood asked the status of the subject
street name change previously authorized by the Council but not yet visibly
changed. It was noted that the name change was in progress, and that all
documentation was complete.
114: NO SMOKING ORDINANCE - NOTIFICATION OF BUSINESSES: Councilwoman Kaywood
wanted to know how businesses in Anaheim were being notified of the adoption
of the No Smoking Ordinance. She asked that a report be submitted.
114: TRAFFIC TIE-UP AT THE HILTON HOTEL/CONVENTION CENTER: Councilwoman
Kaywood reported on her attendance at the American Society for Public
Administration (ASPA) on Sunday, April 13, 1986 at the Marriott Hotel.
Yesterday morning at 7:30 a.m., Arthur Laffer was speaking at the same time
that 4,000 women were converging on the Hilton Hotel for the 14th Annual
Conference on Women. There was a complete traffic tie-up and a light was also
out somewhere. She asked if the City's Event Traffic Coordinator was on line
at this time.
City Manager Talley stated if Councilwoman Kaywood was speaking about the
massive traffic tie-up yesterday, a traffic coordinator was on duty. There
was a break down on the gate at the Hilton Parking structure and the Hilton
subsequently requested, and staff erroneously agreed to allow the Hilton to
process all cars at a very slow rate until their structure was full. The
Hilton had been given direction by his office that such a situation is never
to occur again. The City's first goal is to maintain traffic flow. If the
private operator cannot service their clientele, the City will direct traffic
to other areas immediately.
114: EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEETING: Councilman
Bay reported on his and Councilman Pickler's attendance at the Thursday,
April 10, 1986 meeting of the subject Authority. The ~25,000 assessment per
voting member was approved unanimously by those present. With that motion was
a statement of intent that if legislation was approved which would allow the
use of fee money for administrative costs, then the $25,000 assessment would
be returned to the City from which it came.
114: PARAMEDIC FEES: Councilman Pickler asked that a report be submitted to
the Council from staff on the paramedic fee process and how it was going to be
handled this year. He had received many calls on the paramedic fee. His
255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
concern was relative to the fact that the same fee was charged for both
residences and businesses as well as the feeling by the people who paid the
$24.00 voluntarily in November covered the period through November of 1986 and
not only until July, 1986.
City Manager Talley explained the intent was to include the paramedic billing
in the July and August utilities billing cycle. If the Council was
contemplating any change, it should be discussed now. Last year notices were
sent out that the City was going to be billing in the September-October
billing but the City was unable to do so until after November. The bills were
all retroactive to July 1, 1985 in accordance with the current ordinance. He
did not feel that bills should be sent out unless a majority of the Council
directed staff to do so. If any changes were going to be made, staff would
like to have as much lead time as possible.
Council Members Kaywood, Roth and Bay gave input that they felt the whole
issue had previously been discussed at great length and subsequently the
current procedure agreed upon.
114/179: LAND USE - CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA: Mayor Roth referred to
memorandum dated April 7, 1986 from Norm Priest, Director of Community
Development/Planning, reporting on the request of the Planning Commission that
a Joint Meeting be held with the City Council to discuss land use changes in
the canyon industrial area between Kraemer Boulevard and Imperial Highway with
suggested meeting dates.
Councilman Bay questioned the need for such a meeting since he thought the
Council established a clear policy relative to land use in the subject area.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she saw a need for the meeting. What she and the
Planning Commission saw happening was the construction of spec buildings with
no tenant in mind. Subsequently, all of the industrial land would be gone and
only commercial/office use established on the property.
Councilman Bay stated he would have to hear that from staff since the Council
delegated a great deal of authority to staff on those individual mixed
high-tech office structures allowed in the area. He assumed the leases and
tenants have been approved by staff under the guidelines established by the
Council to assure that the City maintained the high-tech industrial
development in that area. He only heard something about rents going up and he
did not know what that had to do with the situation at all.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the area was changing from industrial to
commercial office use and that was a higher rental, and why businesses were
locating in that area.
Mr. Priest confirmed that the rents were going up. He also explained the
request was not a crisis situation. Speaking for the Commission, the proposal
was made from the perspective that if the Planning Commission was on one track
and the Council on another relative to uses that were compatible with the
industrial area, that should be dialogued.
256
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay reiterated that he had not been given any examples whatsoever
of developments being established in that area where people were leasing and
starting a function that also encouraged customers from outside into the
area. He had no problem meeting with the Planning Commission but wanted to
know why they were meeting.
Mr. Priest stated he believed those examples could be provided and
subsequently the Council could take another look at the matter.
After further Council discussion relative to the possible scheduling and/or
need for all five Council Members to meet with the Planning Commission, it was
determined that the item be placed on the April 22, 1986 Council Agenda for
decision.
108/142/162: REQUEST TO AMEND STREET VENDING ORDINANCE: Jose Luis Bucio,
President, and Pedro Vasquez, Secretary, Union de Comerciantes Latinos,
requesting amendments to Ordinance No. 4615 which regulates street vending.
This matter was continued from the meeting of March 18, 1986, to this date.
Submitted was reported dated April 2, 1986 from the Community Development and
Planning Department, recommending that the Council review the two options
listed in the report, Option No. 1 starting on Page 4 and Option No. 2
starting on Page 5 (report on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development/Planning, then briefed the
extensive staff report which covered a discussion of the present Code,
complaints received, citations issued since November 1, 1985 and information
on how vendors were licensed and regulated in other southern California
cities. Option No. 1 provides that the Council take no action to either
repeal or amend the present Code section relative to the retailing of
merchandise from parked vehicles. Option No. 2 provides that the Council
repeal the present Code section and adopt an ordinance to allow for limited
vending on all public streets but that the conditions listed on Page 5 and 6
of the report (19) be incorporated as a part of the ordinance.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (11:14 a.m.)
The Mayor asked to hear from those in the audience who wished to give input on
the issue.
Mr. Len Spivak, property owner, Lynn Jeffrey area, 1524 Jeffrey.
The two recommendations by staff were appropriate. He would
like to see Option No. 1 approved by the Council. The area is
in a very deteriorating situation. The property owners have met
with representatives of the Code Enforcement and Police
Department twice in the last year. Their number one concern
after crime is trash and the street vendors. Since the vendor
enforcement program has been in effect, there has been a
tremendous improvement in the situation. He confirmed for the
Mayor he was supportive of retaining the present ordinance as
is. Option No. 2 was a good one but he understands Code
Enforcement is so "stretched" in trying to upgrade the area they
257
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
do not have enough people to enforce the Code in connrction with
the food vendors. Most City departments are closed after 5:00
p.m. and this is when most of the activity takes place. Other
cities are banning vendors. Also, parking in the area is a
severe problem under normal circumstances. He has seen three
and four trucks, one behind the other, double parked on the curb.
Robert Nava, Staff Specialist, Orange County Human Relations
Commission. He was present with Mr. Bucio, the President of the
Street Vendor's Association.
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times had a short story on the issue
and it indicated as the union's position that the ordinance was
motivated by racial overtones. He emphasized that is completely
incorrect. That has never been the position of the Association.
Mayor Roth interjected that he was glad Mr. Nava broached that
point. It was not a racial problem, but an environmental one
and a concern relative to the living environment in certain
sections of the City. It was important to consider the living
conditions in the problem areas which in some cases was marginal
to begin with.
Mr. Nava.
Relative to the ordinance, the Association was the first to
recommend that the Council reconsider the present practice. It
does not seem to be in the best interest of the City nor the
small business people to have an ordinance that allows a person
to come into the City and start a business with only a $25.00
investment. The Association feels the problem can be best
approached by regulating the number of vendors and conditions
under which they continue their business. Based on the report
submitted by staff, the Association feels that the second
alternative, Option No. 2 is the most viable. Vendors had
suggested that the cost of operating in the City be increased to
$100 or $150.' That would regulate the number of people coming
into the City to sell. Many vendors come into Anaheim from Los
Angeles and Santa Ana because it is not costly.
Since the last meeting with the Council on March 18, l~8§,'the
Vendors had met with the AIP Board of Directors and during the
two-hour discussion they appeared to agree on three items. The
Street Vendors Association would impose a moratorium upon their
own members not go into the apartment areas, the Chevy Chase or
the Patrick Henry areas principally. They would talk to all
their vendors and do everything possible to ensure they were not
going into those areas and violating the ordinance. The AIP
Board stated they would attempt to find a location in the 3-week
interim where the vendors could have an open market to sell
their vegetables and ice cream. The third point was, if
necessary, a joint survey would be conducted of some of the
apartment areas. Three members of the Association and AIP would
poll the residents to ascertain their true feelings about the
258
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
situation. The Association also met several times with the
president of the AIP Board and it has been doing everything
possible to try to resolve the situation to show their good
faith. The Association has demonstrated that they are able to
work together.
Under the status quo, or Option No. 1, an unlimited number of
individuals can come into the City and the license fee is only
$25.00. The Association feels if the Council is able to adopt
Option No. 2 and pick several of the items that are realistic
such as increasing the licensing fee, regulating the business
hours, the hours music can be used etc. would be an important
way of regulating the number of vendors in those areas. They
would like to work with the Council or Code Enforcement to reach
an agreement on which of the items should be incorporated in the
drafting of a new ordinance (Mr. Nava then had the businessmen
from the Association stand - there were approximately 20
present).
Before concluding, Mr. Nava confirmed for Councilman Overholt
that he has been assisting the Association as a staff person
with the Orange County Human Relations Commission. His position
at this time is the position of the Association. The Commission
did take formal action to authorize staff to assist the
Association. Their Commissioner, Dr. Ninburg, a resident of
Anaheim, would have been present today to make the presentation
but wasn't able to do so. The position he is sharing with the
Council is the position of Dr. Ninburg and the Commission in
allowing staff to continue to work with the Association to see
if the issue could be resolved. He would submit a copy of the
minutes of that meeting to the City Clerk as requested by
Councilman Overholt.
Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Nava during which he (Nava)
pointed out that although the ordinance prohibits selling from parked vehicles
on City streets, a lunch truck stops outside of City Hall but no citations are
issued. That is part of the problem causing confusion with the vendors; Mr.
Priest stated that vendor was subject to the same regulations and will be
cited.
Mr. Amin David, 522 East Central Park Avenue, Anaheim,
representing Los Amigos of Orange County, a group of
professional, community and business people.
They are in support of Option No. 2 as well as a moratorium on
the enforcement of the present Municipal Code to give an
opportunity to the businessmen to prove that their agreement,
pledge and self policingwritten commitment can be
accomplished. Street vending is not new or unique to the latino
community. The group took the concerns of the Code Enforcement
Officer seriously and is willing to work with the City.
259
9O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth asked for clarification that Mr. David was suggesting
that Los Amigos recommends the adoption of alternate 2 but
during the preparation of the ordinance that there be a
moratorium on enforcement of the present ordinance allowing the
street vendors to go back into the apartment areas.
Mr. David acknowledged that was correct but with the
understanding that the 19 items listed in the report would be
adhered to and literally put to a test. However, the group
would also like to have input into the creation of the new and
final ordinance.
Mr. Richard LaRochelle, Code Enforcement Officer, then reported
for Councilman Bay that in the last 3 weeks 12 citations had
been issued to street vendors and of those 12, one Association
member was cited for being at the Anna Drive area. He confirmed
that Code Enforcement staff had changed their hours since most
complaints had been received as occurring after 5 p.m. The
citations that were issued were from 4:00 p.m. on into the
evening.
Councilman Pickler felt that the City's present ordinance which
had been in effect for 60 years was working well. There are a
couple of areas in the City which were of concern not only to
the City but the citizens. By allowing vendors to sell in those
areas was only going to create more problems. He did not want
to see the ordinance change.
Councilman 0verholt pointed out, and Mr. Priest confirmed that,
as stated in the staff report, staff could enforce the ordinance
and adequately control the situation under either Option No. 1
or 2.
After further discussion and questioning of staff members by the
Council, Councilman Pickler moved that the City Council accept
Option No. 1, thereby keeping the present ordinance in place
with no changes. The motion eventually died for lack of a
second.
Councilman Bay stated he was not certain whether all the people
opposed as well as those favoring street vendors had an
opportunity to be heard. He felt that the issue warranted a
formally advertised public hearing, which was an option the
Council had previously discussed.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to set a public hearing on the issue for
Tuesday, May 13, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth questioned the issue of the request to
lift the moratorium on enforcement of the present ordinance in the meantime.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be opposed. The Association may abide
by the conditions set forth but there were so many vendors coming into the
260
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
City from the outside, she did not see how they could be made to abide by
those rules.
The question of how citizens would be notified of the public hearing was
broached by the City Attorney. Since the hearing was not one legally required
by law, there were no notification requirements.
Councilman Bay felt that notice in the newspapers would be adequate;
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that AIP be notified of the hearing as well as
the City's Neighborhood Councils.
Before concluding, Councilman Overholt stated relative to Mr. David's
suggestion, he would be opposed to that even after the public hearing. If
present restrictions were eased, it would take some time to gear up to ensure
that the ordinance would be complied with. He would be opposed to any kind of
moratorium on enforcement when the Council finally makes its decision after an
intelligent and deliberate consideration of the matter following the public
hearing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held for the Council to confer with its attorney regarding:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
O.C. Superior Court Case No. 40 92 46.
b. To consider Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
c. To consider a matter which is a significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
d. To confer with the City's designated representative concerning
labor relations matters (Government Code Section 54956.9)
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman 0verholt. (2:15 p.m.)
121: CONDEMNATION HEARING - BANKAMERICA CORPORATION: To consider the
acquisition of property owned by Bankamerica Corporation, generally located at
the southeast corner of Broadway and Harbor Boulevard.
Submitted was report dated March 21, 1986 from the City Engineer, recommending
that the City proceed with the said condemnation action.
Mr. Richard Santo, Senior Real Property Agent, reported that the matter had
been settled with the Bankamerica Corporation through negotiation and all the
necessary documentation had been signed.
261
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney Jack White confirmed for the Mayor that the only action
necessary would be a motion to remove the item from the agenda.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the condemnation hearing be removed from
the Council agenda since the matter had been settled and the hearing was no
longer necessary. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman
Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2756 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATI ON:
APPLICANT:
Orange County Steel Salvage, Inc.,
3200 East Frontera Road,
Anaheim, Ca. 92806
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit temporary outdoor storage of shredder
waste and dismantled automobiles on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 3200
East Frontera Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution PC86-32 denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 2756 and denied an EIR - negative declaration status for the project.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by George Adams, Orange County Steel Salvage. This matter was
continued from the meeting of March 18, 1986, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 6, 1986.
Posting of property March 7, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 7,
1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Planning Department Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January
20, 1986 and report of the City Attorney dated March 14, 1986, recommending
that the City continue to cooperate with the Department of Health Services
(DHS) and other agencies in seeking to remove the hazardous waste.
APPLICANT'S
§TATEMENT:
Philip Anthony repre~enting 0range County Steel Salvage.
He referred to report dated April 10, 1986 received from ICF
Northwest entitled "Evaluation of Potential Groundwater Quality
Impacts from Disposal of Auto Shredder Fluff in the Olinda land
fill" attached to letter dated April 15, 1986 from the President
of Orange County Steel Salvage, George Adams. The report and
study was a highly technical one and a scientific analysis of
the hydrogeological study which concluded that it would take
6,000 to 300,000 years for the migration of metal into a land
fill. It was the scientific evidence that Orange County Steel
Salvage has been developing in the procedure outlined by SB976
and the data they wanted to present to the Regional Water Board
hoping to convince them to allow the waste to be sent to an
ordinary land fill and disposed of in the immediate future. The
report has been submitted to the Regional Water Board, the
262
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
County and the State. Their consultants will be following up on
the matter in the next few days. Hopefully it would lead to a
report from the staff of the Water Board to the Board in the
next month or so which could lead to a conclusion on where to
put the shredder waste. On the more critical issue of the
PCB's, they have kept in close contact with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and State Department of Health. The
entire matter has been referred back to the EPA in Washington
D.C. because the appliance issue is a nationwide problem. There
has also been one visit to the site from an independent company
who did an evaluation of the shredder waste. Since the hearing,
they have shredded no appliances and do not intend to do so
until the situation is resolved. The only shredding that has
been been done on a limited basis since the last hearing has
been auto bodies.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Mayor Roth.
It was difficult for him to make any decisions on the issue
without having input from the Water Board on the report
submitted.
Councilman Bay.
He is also looking for a time frame when the Council will have a
response to the new and dramatic study that had been conducted
which he assumed will affect land fill decisions all over the
State since it may allow many items to be dumped into land fills
without the need for a clay liner in that land fill.
Mayor Roth.
He recommended that the item be continued and that the Council
write a letter to the Water Board asking them to reply as
quickly as possible so that the Council could make an informed
decision on the future of Orange County Steel Salvage.
Councilman Pickler.
He still has a concern and feels that Orange County Steel
Salvage should stop shredding entirely until the Council
received something telling them that the material was not
hazardous. The shredded waste pile was growing higher every
day. He could agree with a continuance if the shredding was
stopped in the meantime.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the hearing on Conditional Use Permit No.
2756 be continued to May 20, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. and that a strongly-worded
letter be sent to the Santa Aha Regional Water Quality Control Board
emphasizing the position that the Council is in and asking that the report
submitted be considered and a decision forthcoming with a recommendation to
the City Council. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth asked if anyone else was present to speak
to the issue; no one was present.
263
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler voted no.
Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2761AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Jack H. Bennett, et al.
1230 South West Street
Anaheim Calif 92802
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: CR zoned property located at 1230 South West Street,
the proposal is to permit a fast-food and dinner house complex, with Code
waivers of minimum landscaped setback and minimum number of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-48 approved Conditional Use
Permit No. 2761, with waiver on minimum landscaped setback in part.
HEARING SET ON:
Request by Councilwoman Kaywood.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 3, 1986.
Posting of property April 4, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 4, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report dated February 19, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Roy Nunn, 31732 Rancho Viejo Road, San Juan Capistrano.
Represents the developer for the project. Discussed the two
waivers requested and indicated that the landscaped setback as
proposed in their plans allows them to include some parking
closer to the full service restaurant. It is possible for the
plans to be revised to move the restaurant closer to the street
and provide the landscaped setback but feels his proposal
provides a better looking project. The area has heavy
pedestrian traffic, many patrons will already be parked in this
area before they come to this restaurant complex.
He noted their parking study results which indicated the number
of spaces to be adequate at 459 with reduction of the building
size, and they have opted to reduce their building square
footage. He explained this operation would not be a typical
fast-food operation but a series of small and varied food shops
centered around a large open courtyard, and two full service
restaurants.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN FAVOR: Peter Nazaro, 1230 South West Street, Anaheim. Lease-holder of
the subject property. He discussed the fact that the
application for Conditional Use Permit was originally filed with
Mr. Bennett's name but since then he has submitted notarized and
264
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
recorded documents indicating himself as the lease-holder of the
property.
OPPOSED: None.
EXHIBITS MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they intended to have live bands
and entertainment and was concerned about the noise.
Councilwoman Kaywood also inquired whether it would be prudent
to require the applicant to post a bond for additional parking
spaces should this become a problem in the future.
Mr. Nunn explained the entertainment was to be a daytime
activity and would not be of the nature to draw a large crowd,
rather some small folk music or "oompah" type bands. The
ambient noise level during daytime hours would exceed the noise
generated by these musical groups.
Annika Santalahti advised that the City Traffic Engineer did not
think it necessary that a bond be posted against additional
parking due to the type of use and the fact that a substantial
number of customers would already be located in the area.
CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERN:
At the suggestion of City Attorney Jack White, the City Council
added a condition indicating the Conditional Use Permit shall
not be exercised until such time as the applicant submits proof
verifying that the applicant is the authorized agent for
purposes of submitting the application.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. Councilman 0verholt absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-146 for adoption, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2761, subject to the conditions recommended by the
City Planning Commission, with additional condition as set forth by the City
Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2761.
265
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-146 duly passed and adopted.
CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3537 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
MOTION
APPLICANT:
Lena Trapani and Rudolph W. Blanchard,
1280 East La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To construct a 10-unit apartment complex on proposed
RM-1200 zoned property located at 1280 East La Palma Avenue, with the
following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum landscaped
setback, (c) minimum structural setback, (d) required type of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-51 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 3537, approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 4, 1986.
Posting of property April 3, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 4, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 19, 1986.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is concerned with the requested waivers of maximum
structural height and with the 2-story building being at 47 feet
and 48 feet from single-family zoning. Until a short time ago,
the setback was 150 feet. When it was reduced to 50 feet, it
was with the clear understanding that there would be no further
waivers or benefits granted. She is very upset to see 150 feet
reduced to 47 and 48 feet.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCILWOMAN KAYWOOD:
Dr. Ronald Crowley, Developer.
The property does not lend itself to a setback of 150 feet.
They are building what is economically feasible on the
property. None of the adjacent properties are at 150 feet but
approximately 50 feet. Essentially, everything existing in that
area has been built within 50 feet of R1 zoning. It would be
unfair to impose new rules on this very small piece of property.
266
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Massoud Monshizadeh, co-partner of Dr. Crowley.
The building is 50 and one-half feet from the south property
line on the first floor of the structure. The distance is
shorter from the second floor. The issue was extensively
discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. The second floor
is approximately 48 feet from the single-family zoning. It was
designed this way to create a more interesting facade.
PUBLIC INPUT
IN FAVOR:
Rudolph Blanchard, 515 Century Drive, owner (joint tenant).
Improvement was needed in that area. The unit count was reduced
from 10 units to nine because of a title error. The project
should be approved.
Mary Battling.
She and her husband owned two lots in the area. She asked for
clarification as to Councilwoman Kaywood's concern.
(Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern).
Carl Zylstra, 714 Poplar Place (to the rear of the proposed
project).
He was opposed to any 2-story apartments. He would like to keep
the maximum distance of the building away from his property or
the 50 feet.
Mr. Zylstra confirmed upon Council questioning that he did not
want the whole building closer to him than it had to be. He
would oppose the bottom story being closer than 50 feet but did
not have a problem with the overhang making it 47 and 48 feet.
He feels that the building would be more attractive with the
overhang.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. Councilman 0verholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-147 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3537, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3537.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her strong concern
over approving 2-story apartments closer than 50 feet to single-family
267
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
zoning. She was adamantly opposed, very concerned and to show her concern was
going to leave the Council Chambers. She did remain in the Council Chambers
however, in order to cast her no vote, and expressed disappointment that the
Council had voted to approve the variance thereby allowing apartments less
than 50 feet from single-family zoning.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-147 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the balance of the items announced previously by the City
Attorney. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:11 p.m.)
156: FINANCING POLICY - POLICE 2000 PROJECT: Determining a financing policy
for the Police 2000 Project; receiving and filing the Police 2000 Project
report; awarding a contract for the Anaheim Police Department Communications
Center; issuing a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation
(APIC) for the purchase of a computer aided dispatch and records management
system for the Police Department and authorizing an agreement with Boyle
Engineering to provide architectural design services for the construction of
additional office space and remodeling of the main Police Department building.
City Manager William Talley introduced and briefed the foregoing items (see
the following reports - made a part of the record: (1) report dated April 15,
1986 from the Assistant City Manager Rom Bates, subject: Police 2000 Project
- financing, (2) report dated March 31, 1986 from the Chief of Police,
subject: Police 2000 Project, (3) report dated March 26, 1986 from the City
Engineer recommending award of contract to A.R. Willinger Inc. for the
construction of the Communications Center, (4) report dated March 28, 1986
from the Purchasing Agent recommending the issuance of a purchase order for
computer aided dispatch and records management systems, (5) report dated
March 31, 1986 from the Chief of Police recommending the execution of an
agreement with Boyle Engineering for architectural design services for
remodeling of the main Police Department building.
In concluding, the City Manager stated that relative to the motion on the
agreement to provide architectural services in the amount of $515,792, he did
not believe the Council should authorize the expenditure unless they made a
commitment that they were going to fund the work. Otherwise, it did not make
sense to spend over one half million dollars on engineering for a project
268
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
estimated to cost close to $7,000,000 unless the Council intended to do that.
If the Council intended to proceed, the City would be spending the
Certificates of Participation (COP) which would require the Council some time
in the future to designate a revenue source to pay them off down stream. In
the agreement with Boyle Engineering, they have a construction budget of
approximately $6,805,000. Staff intended to request that the budget be
reduced to $6,508,000 roughly in order to make the savings they had to achieve
because of the $1,847,000 being spent for the Communications Center. He
recommended that the Council not only approve the motions as indicated, adopt
the resolution which would award the contract, authorize the Purchasing Agent
to issue the purchase order, hut also authorize Boyle Engineering to proceed
with the construction contract with the understanding that the Council has
made a positive commitment for the construction and remodeling of the main
building of the Police Department.
Mayor Roth stated the decision to be made today was a difficult one as it was
when the Council made the initial decision to go ahead with the Police 2000
Project last year. It was a sound investment and there was no question if the
Anaheim Police Department was going to be No. 1, the program proposed should
be instituted. What he found most difficult, however, was the proposal that
in order to do so, taxes be increased and that those taxes be based on a
utility tax or a user fee tax. He would like the project to be on a
pay-as-you-go basis. He would have great difficulty trying to convince his
constituents that a tax raise was in order at this time.
City Manager Talley explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the method of
payment did not have to be determined at this time. Staff had given the
Council their thinking on two alternatives that could be adopted. He pointed
out first that only $200,000 was needed in 1987/88 but in 1988/89 they needed
$1.9 million, and in 1989/90 through 1992/93 nearly $3,000,000 dropping back
down to $2,000,000 for the rest of the time. In his opinion, Council should
try to adopt some revenue source. Staff could then get that money in and
start banking it so that during the $3,000,000 years, there was enough money
in the bank to make the payments or if the money was borrowed from some other
city fund, staff would know how it was going to be paid back. If the Council
did not want to maintain its current level of investment in infrastructure,
they c~uld reduce projects.
Mr. Talley explained that the budget reflected revenue sharing as gone and the
City was previously investing nearly all revenue sharing in infrastructure.
It i~ planned to continue to do that with existing City resources meaning
amongst other things, making a major reorganization of the management
structure and a number of reductions in City services. Staff did not have the
ability, in addition, to fund another approximately $2.2 million and absorb
the losses of general revenue sharing. It was not possible to absorb over $5
million.
Councilman Pickler stated the Council was at the point where they had to "bite
the bullet." Controlling crime was the most prominent concern of the City's
citizens. The cost of the project to the citizens was going to be minimal but
it would be of great benefit in his opinion.
269
8O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt asked for a more detailed explanation of the suggestion
that the utility user fee of 3 percent would replace an administrative fee of
4 percent enabling the City to reduce its utility rates and still collect ~1.5
million.
City Manager Talley answered that the cost to Anaheim would be ~1.5 million
more. The City would also be charging for telephone services, a 3 percent
utility tax and gas and cable T.V. would all increase 3 percent while the
utilities that the City provided, electric and water, would be reduced by 1
percent net or 4 percent gross plus the 3 percent added on.
Councilman Overholt stated he had committed to the project some time ago but
not in specificity. As far as the financing policy, he would like to think
about it further and perhaps get more detail as to how Alternatives 1 and 2
were going to impact the City. His initial reaction is that alternate 2 made
a lot of sense. It would spread the base and put electric and water utilities
in a better perspective. He would not be prepared to make that decision today
but he was committed to go forward and had been committed since the Council
approved the concept.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not see any alternative but to go
forward. It was not possible today to function without the technology
encompassed in the project. In order to implement the project, it was
necessary to have the space in which to house it. By delaying, all that could
happen was that the project was going cost the taxpayers more in the long
run. There was no question as to the need. She would be prepared to go ahead
with the understanding that the Council is making a commitment to come up with
the money.
Councilman 0verholt stated that delaying the method of finance would not cost
more but delaying the project would. However, he wanted to see more than one
paragraph of explanation relative to the impact of the user fee as an
alternative.
City Manager Talley stated that staff could come back with details and an
ordinance in 60 days which would be about the time the Council would be
getting into the 1986/87 Resource Allocation Plan. If Council agreed on
alternative 2 they may also want staff to contact and get input from other
interested parties in the City such as the Public Utilities Board and Chamber
of Commerce so that they would not only know what the Council was thinking,
but also the ordinance being proposed.
Councilman Pickler stated that Alternative 2 was his preference and perhaps in
60 days some new ideas would be brought forward.
Mayor Roth was interested in knowing what the impact was going to be on the
average homeowner, small businessman or industrial user if the fees were
imposed. Would it be $100 or $10 a month. It was necessary to get that
information to know what the effect would be on the constituents; Mr. Talley
stated that information could be provided in 8 weeks.
270
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Questions were then posed to staff by Councilman Bay which were answered by
City Manager Talley and Finance Director George Ferrone.
Councilman Bay then stated the issue was a long-term one involving an average
of 52.2 million a year to make payments on the borrowing of the money to
proceed with the project. A fee on the sanitation utility of 51/2 million a
year was Just a tax increase to be paid by the people living in the City. The
utility user fee dropping from 4 percent to 3 percent and then picking up new
things such as cable television, natural gas, telephone and telegraph ending
up with 51-1/2 million more was Just a new tax to be paid by the tax payers.
The Council has borrowed and borrowed on certificates to do all the things
they have been wanting to do building up at maturity to 5278,000,000 worth of
certificates. They were now at the point, if they were going to spend any
more of the certificate money, where it was necessary to raise taxes to make
payments. The alternatives proposed were to reduce capital projects or
services, raise taxes. He did not believe those were all the alternatives.
He did not vote for the project or Certificates of Participation and did not
agree with the rest of the Council that all of the expenditures planned were
necessary. He was also totally opposed to any of the ideas on projected tax
increases in the City. If the Council chose to approve, he would ask
questions such as - were any of the "platinum triangle" fees planned to help
pay for the certificates; where was the additional projected sales tax from
the two auto centers allocated; the extra 51 million coming in for paramedic
fees; the increases in sales tax and in room tax. He assumed those were all
spoken for over the next 20 years, so that it was necessary for the City to
raise taxes to make payments on something the majority of the Council felt was
absolutely necessary to be done, and on a deficit spending basis. Other
recommendations he would make were that the Council stop voting 6 and 1/2
percent annual raises to management and technical employees when inflation was
below 3 percent. Looking at budget conditions in the City as of the end of
February, it was also obvious that there was over budgeting across the
operational departments.
After additional Council discussion, Councilman Overholt complemented Mr.
Talley and his staff and Police Chief Kennedy and his staff On the way in
which they handled the matter.
156: MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the determination of a
financing policy for the Police 2000 Project for 60 days and that staff submit
more detailed alternate methods of financing. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. Councilman Bay voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt moved to receive and file the Police 2000 Project report.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted no. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 86R-148 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RES0I~TION NO. 86R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (A. R. WILLINGER
COMPANY, INC.)
271
City Hal]~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
Bay and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-148 duly passed and adopted.
156: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a
purchase order to Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of
$2,389,504 for the purchase of a Computer Aided Dispatch and Records
Management System (CAD/RMS) for the Police Department, in accordance with Bid
No. A-0001. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Council Members Bay and
Roth voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
156: MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an agreement with Boyle
Engineering Corporation, in the amount of $515,792 to provide architectural
design services for the construction of additional office space and remodeling
of the main Police Department Building. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. Council Members Bay and Roth voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:55 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
272