1998/03/03ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 3, 1998
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR: Chris Jarvi
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Aghjayan
SUBDIVISION MANAGER: Natalie Armas
RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT: Terry Lowe
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:35 p.m. on
February 27, 1998 at the Civic Center Bulletin Board, (outside and inside of the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the joint workshop with the Community Services Board (CSB) to order at 3:14 p.m. nd
welcomed those in attendance, all Council Member being present.
City Manager, Jim Ruth. This is the appointed time for the workshop with the CSB. He introduced Chris
Jarvi, Community Services Director who will open the presentation.
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman: Bruce Solari
Members: L. Cason; M. Edmiston; M. Hibbard; J. Lowry; J. Machiaverna; M. Miser; F.Ramirez;
M. Rothrock; P. Tafolla; F. Tadton; J. Terrell; E. Wallace
105: JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Chris Jarvi, Community
Services Director. The CSB met with the Council last on August 12, 1997. The discussion centered
around the role and mission of the CSB, increasing service needs in the community and the financial
needs to meet those service needs. At the workshop (see minutes that date), the Council requested
another workshop in six months and that it involve a discussion of welfare reform, affordable housing for
service workers, non-profit agencies and the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
to deal with the needs. The CSB broke down into various task forces, each looking into those individual
areas. Presentations will be made today on those four areas with an opportunity for questions during or
after the presentations. He then deferred to Mr. Bruce Solari, Chairman of the CSB.
Bruce Solari, Chairman, CSB. At the last workshop, one of the topics was how to improve
communications. A suggestion was made for a liaison but not very well received, the perception being
that workshops are more effective. The Board discussed questions the Council asked the last time and
combined those that correlated with each other into four topics as outlined by Mr. Jarvi. Martha Miser
will give the report on Welfare Reform.
Welfare Reform and Its Impacts - Martha Miser (Committee Members - Martha Miser, Esther Wallace,
Frank Ramirez, James Vanderbilt): See Sheet A attached to the March 3, 1998 Community Services
Board Agenda for the meeting which highlighted issues that were identified (when Committee Members
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
met with Directors of United Way and Orange County Social Services) that will affect welfare recipients
going to work: (1) education and training for new jobs, (2) transportation, (3) child care, (4) health care,
(5) flex time. Ms. Miser briefed each of the issues and concerns relating thereto.
Bruce Solari. In concluding this portion, he noted there are a lot of questions about the impact of
Welfare Reform, but there are not a lot of answers at this time. They will keep the Council informed on
this issue.
Affordable Housing for Service Workers - John Machiaverna (Committee Members - Bruce Solari,
John Machiaverna, Ross Romero): See Sheet B attached to the March 3, 1998 CSB agenda for the
meeting highlighting the issues under this topic. With the expansion of the Resort Area, there will be an
increasing number of low wage earners working in Anaheim. The affordable housing stock in Anaheim is
already inadequate to meet current demand. Some suggestions are to rehabilitate existing blighted
conditions, convert some "troubled" motels to SRO's (single resident occupancy units) or efficiency
apartments, find locations to build new housing. He then outlined activities that should be aggressively
pursued to address the issues under this topic.
Non-Profit Agencies Status Report June Lowry (Committee Members - June Lowry, Liz Cason,
Marjorie Rothrock, FIo Tarlton): See sheet submitted Anaheim Non-Profit Organizations Information
which addressed the following, the results of which were based on 38 non-profit agencies that service
Anaheim Citizens: amount of non-governmental money received from 1987 to 1997, the largest sources
of income in 1997, percent of 1997 income from corporations/businesses, the use of volunteers in 1997
(26,000 volunteers/monetary value of volunteer labor over $39 million). The data also pointed out that
the number of non-duplicated clients served from 1987 to 1997 increased each year and why. The
number of Anaheim Citizens served in 1997 was 59,421 (non-duplicated) for the 30 agencies applying
for 1998-99 funding. Mrs. Lowry elaborated on the statistics presented. She also reported on other
issues not included in the data submitted, one being the fact that the religious community in Anaheim
gives a great deal back to the community. She briefed the many community based programs provided,
all free to the community. Each one of the churches gives on average $100,000 a year (in programs,
etc.) or equal to 2 1/2 staff people per year which is a big impact.
Mrs. Lowry continued that this year, the CSB made a recommendation to the CDAB (Community
Development Advisory Board) Committee to fund non-profit agencies and their recommendation was for
only $139,000. The total amount of the public service cap was $767,000. The other part of the $767,000
went to what she would call Anaheim City run programs that meet the needs of the people of Anaheim
run by City staff. Over $500,000 is coming back into the City and only $139,000 was allocated for non
profits.
Use of CDBG Funds - Bruce Solari (Committee Members - FIo Tarlton, June Lowry, Mike Edmiston,
Patsy Tafolla, Jacquelyn Terrell): Mr. Solari explained there was a great deal of discussion by the entire
Board trying to define a difference between basic City services and enhanced City services and how they
could create a definition. They were never able to come to an agreement. In their third discussion
(January CSB meeting), the following recommendation was passed: The CSB recommended that in the
future no CDBG funds under the public service cap be allocated to programs operated or staffed by City
departments. That recommendation passed by a vote of 9 to 1. It was probably one of their most
heavily debated issues; Mrs. Lowry noted that the budget that went to CDAB of $139,000 was done for
this year because they needed to get it in. It was done before the vote of the CSB in January and with
the stipulation that it would be in the future, not pertaining to this year. She then explained what they
recommended for this year noting that the CDAB's recommendations are different than the
recommendations from the City Manager's Office which are coming to the Council soon. She elaborated
on the situation and answered questions posed by Council Member Tait clarifying that what she is
suggesting is that they feel there are certain programs that need to come out of the general fund (instead
of CDBG funds).
Further discussion and questioning ensued on the issue of what CDBG funds should pay for and the
feeling on the part of the Community Services Board that General Fund monies instead should be used.
During the discussion, Mrs. Lowry explained both the CSB and the CDBG Board feel that every citizen in
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
the City has a right to certain basic things and one is safety, not just the Police but adequate lighting,
sewers, sidewalks, etc. Those can only be paid for out of the 85% CDBG funds (in the targeted
neighborhoods) because the way it reads, 15% may be spent for public service although it does not have
to be.
Council member Tait. That is why they look for guidance as to how that 15% should be spent.
Essentially, where do they get the "biggest bang for the bucks" for the $750,000.
Mrs. Lowry. She referred to the Police Department Budget. They believe the Police Department
strongly believes there needs to be enforcement, prevention and intervention, but the Board feels that
should come out of the General Fund budget and not CDBG. If so, it would free up a lot of money for
other programs (in the community); Mr. Solari. It was part of their discussion that there could be other
ways to fund those programs rather than funding them out of CDBG funds.
Mayor Daly. For as long as there has been a CDBG program, there has been a "tug of war" as to what
monies go for "bricks and mortar" or for programs. The theme and rationale of CDBG, it is for target
neighborhoods. There are philosophical as well as practical issues. What he would like to know from
other communities is how they are tackling the issues -- cities similar to Anaheim, i.e., Long Beach,
Santa Ana, San Jose, Sacramento. It would be helpful to Council to know the split between between
bricks and mortar and programs.
Mary Hibbard, Board Member asked staff to pass out a memorandum dated February 27, 1998 from the
Community Services Department (Office of Neighborhood Services) - Subject: How Much Does the City
Spend on Contracts with Non-Profit Human Services Organizations Through the City's General Fund. It
gave the statistics for Fullerton, San Jose, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana and Irvine.
The figures presented for the aforementioned cities generated additional discussion and questioning
between the Council and CSB members relative to allocation of funding as well as specifics of some of
the programs. At the conclusion, Mr. Machiaverna noted that all the CSB agenda items are intertwined.
The Board is emphasizing preparedness because things are going to change within the next five years
and they should be prepared.
Mrs. Lowry stated that last year the Council allocated $200,000 (to the non-profits). When the budget
was originally presented, it was $132,805. The total in Anaheim for the current Fiscal Year is
approximately $320,000.
Mary Hibbard. The CSB is asking, what do Council Members see as Anaheim's priorities. They do not
know the Council's priorities and they would like to know to see if they are in the same ball game or not.
Mayor Daly. The budget document is a summary of spending priorities but it may not capture all
priorities. For instance, it does not talk about the future of the Boys and Girls Club, the YMCA, etc.; Mary
Hibbard. She emphasized they need to know what the Council's priorities are and where do children and
families fit into the list.
Mayor Daly. From his perspective, the reason to make continuing improvements in tourism is the
revenue that is generated which ultimately results in community benefit - tourism, and being a major job
center in Orange County.
Council Member McCracken. Relative to some of the projects and programs maintained by the City for
particular neighborhoods in the community, she asked if the CSB was looking at the possibility that they
would be run more efficiently and less expensively by non-profits.
Mr. Solari answered that the discussion was that they would not necessarily be more efficient, but paid
for by City General Fund money; Mrs. Lowry. She does not believe the committee or CDAB has
considered those specific programs being run by outside groups. Some of the things the non-profits are
doing, she does not personally believe the City should get involved with.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Council Member Zemel surmised they are not criticizing the program, but they need to prioritize what
they think is important thereby leaving more money for them to help non-profits which would increase
productivity in the non-profit community.
Council Member McCracken. The money comes to the City to help neighborhoods that do not produce
enough property tax or income to support themselves. With limited property tax, this is why Federal
monies are coming into those areas. Why the City uses some of those funds is because there is no
income coming into those neighborhoods.
Esther Wallace, Board Member. Relative to west Anaheim, residents are not spending their money in
the west Anaheim area but are going elsewhere due to the lack of businesses/restaurants to patronize.
They need to get more businesses and restaurants in the west Anaheim area.
Marjorie Rothrock, Board Member. On the plus side, people in the neighborhoods are getting out and
taking part in decisions. One of the reasons for Block Grant is to keep neighborhoods from deteriorating.
The residents are coming out and requesting improvements in their neighborhoods. She believes it is
important to pay attention to those requests. They are asking for things that will upgrade the area and do
not want to see more apartments. There is a pride in where they live and the owners are interested as
well.
Mayor Daly. As Mrs. Rothrock stated, it is important to highlight and celebrate their successes. The City
has a lot of amenities it did not have five years ago.
After additional comments, Mayor Daly stated in closing that the workshop and interaction is helpful to
the Council in understanding the issues and concerns more in depth. He thanked the members of the
CSB for their time, effort and devotion to these important community issues and for being present today.
He also thanked Community Services staff.
Bruce Solari. If the Council has any questions the CSB might help them research, he asked that they do
not hesitate to call on them.
There being no further business, the Community Services Board meeting was adjourned. (4:19 p.m.)
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association, and non represented employees.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases)
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: 424 E. Adele Street
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Negotiating parties: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and Mr. Toan Dang/Mrs Hong
Tran.
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Southwest corner of Freedman and Clementine.
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and Pointe Anaheim.
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Esicorp/Ebasco Corporation, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 76-19-13.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9:
one potential case.
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (4:20 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. (5:38 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Reverend Paul Yoshikawa, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member TomTait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: DECLARATIONS OF RECOGNITION: Declarations of Recognition were unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to the 1997 Anaheim Convention Center Employees of the Year,
Kathy Preston, Captain, Crowd Control, and Juan Vera, Facility Services.
Greg Smith, Convention Center General Manager. The City of Anaheim and the Anahiem Convention
Center is proud to attract millions of people throughout the world to Anaheim. They try to do their best to
create a clean, friendly environment. Their most treasured assets at the Convention Center are their
employees because it is the employees who create that environment. The "Anaheim Way" stresses the
3 C's -- Cleanliness, Courtesy, Convenience. The two outstanding employees who they felt deserved
special recognition not only acknowledges their outstanding performance but also recognizes their status
as ambassadors for all of the great employees at the Convention Center. Chosen as Employees of the
Year 1997 by their co-workers and present tonight are Kathy Preston, Head Usher serving in the Crowd
Control Department (16 years) and Juan Vera, Lead Worker in Facility Services.
Mayor Daly read the Declarations which elaborated on the reasons why Kathy Preston and Juan Vera
were chosen Employees of the Year. He, along with the Council, personally congratulated and
commended the recipients.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,665,317.76 for the period ending
February 27, 1998, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Housing Authority meeting. (5:50 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:54 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Craig Blair, Business Representative, IBEW, Local 47. As the Council knows, they represent Anaheim's
Utility workers as well as trades people at the Anaheim Convention Center. He thanked the Council for
"stepping up to the plate" and working with Local 47 to reach an agreement on a contract. Otherwise,
there would have been a costly and damaging strike. The stress and pressure were taking their toll on
both sides. He then explained what had occurred leading up to the agreement. Before closing, he noted
that for over 100 years, Anaheim citizens have enjoyed the benefits of owning their own Utility. It is the
goal of Local 47 to keep the City's Utility in the hands of Anaheim residents for another 100 years. He is
present tonight to begin the healing process. Mutual respect and understanding are the bedrock for any
organization. In the future, they will need to reach agreements much more quickly or run the risk of not
reaching an agreement at all. It is probably not even a good contract but a "good enough" contract.
They will work with the City and Utility Department to restore employee morale to make Anaheim's
Utility the best Public Utility in California.
Mayor Daly. He asked that Mr. Blair convey to Stan Stosel and members of Local 47 their appreciation
for the patience and hard work they put into the negotiation process. They appreciate the cooperation,
understanding and behavior of the employees as well as Mr. Blair speaking this evening to underscore
that as they vote on the contract (see Item A18. on the Council agenda).
Sal Rodiris, owner, South Coast Cab, 10700 W. Katella, Anaheim. There is a convention in town with
50,000 people attending. They will need taxi rides. He would like the Council Members to spend some
time on their way home at the Hilton and Marriott Hotels to see for themselves the need for taxi service.
Anaheim Yellow Cab has 190 cabs and A Taxi Cab has 300 cabs. Two additional taxi cab companies
have applied for a business license and through the Council's motion of his application which is still
inactive, he would like to get another consideration.
Shirley Grindie. Her address is already on record. Last week (see minutes of February 24, 1998 where
Ms. Grindie spoke to this same subject) she appeared before the Council and reiterated some violations
three Council Members had committed (relating to their Campaign Statements). They are not serious in
her opinion, but violations serious enough for two of the sitting Council Members to be charged. She
suggested at the end of her presentation last week that the three should probably get their checkbooks
out and give some refunds. She is present to compliment Council Members Tait and Lopez who have
made the refunds or will be doing so this weekend; however, she has not heard from Council Member
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Zemel as yet; Council Member Zemel stated he does not believe he got that instruction but he will look
into the matter.
Ms. Grindie continued that since the last meeting, she had a chance to see the legal opinion previously
prepared by City Attorney White (see Memorandum dated September 9, 1997 to the City Council from
Jack White, City Attorney - Subject: Controlled Committees Acting in Concert to Make Independent
Expenditures on Behalf of Other Candidates) as to the legality of the independent expenditure matter by
Mayor Daly and former Council Member Pickler in support of former Council Member Feldhaus and
Council Member McCracken. She believes the 7-page legal opinion to be an excellent one which
answered every question she had raised and confirmed questions she had with the FPPC. She would
like to know what good reasons there were for not taking the advice of the City Attorney other than they
did not like the result. Personally, she did not like it either because she feels that certain things were not
done correctly, but as the opinion points out, there was no breaking of the law. She is going to ask once
again that the Council reconsider going forth with the Special Prosecutor. The City is being torn apart,
two recall procedures have been started which she feels is a waste of time and money, and the City does
not need the expenditures being incurred by the Special Prosecutor on minor issues and what she
considers false charges.
Council Member Lopez. Speaking to Ms. Grindie, he stated that under the Council Comments portion of
the agenda, he intends to agendize the termination of Ravi Mehta's contract.
Rev. Dr. Robert Shepard, 144 S. Chantilly, Anaheim - St. Pastor, Anaheim United Methodist Church. He
then read a prepared statement speaking to the issue of the hiring of a Special Prosecutor to which he
was opposed. It has brought no benefit to the citizens of Anaheim but quite the contrary. Thus far,
$125,000 has been spent with no end in sight. He then further elaborated on his concerns. In concluding
he stated that there is a Code of Fair Campaign Practices for all candidates to sign. He would like to
suggest that there should also be a code of ethics for incumbent members. He would be willing as a
member of the clergy along with others to look at, review and assist in suggesting new ethical questions
for the Council. If such a committee would be in order, he would be glad to serve.
June Bickford, 501 Fairmont Circle, Anaheim - member of TEA (Taxpayers Expecting Accountability).
They expect to persevere in this endeavor at each of the Council meetings in the forseeable future. Her
focus is the failure of the Special Prosecutor, Ravi Mehta to investigate the 1996 election process
ethically, fairly and with impartiality. Only a select few have been charged. The process by Mr. Mehta
gives the appearance of impropriety and he has practiced selective prosecution. The citizens of
Anaheim deserve a response in that regard. Her extensive presentation elaborated on the concerns
regarding the Special Prosecutor who, they feel, is being guided by only one person, Council Member
Zemel. In concluding, she stated she was going to urge Council Member Lopez to do what he stated he
was going to do (ask for termination of Mr. Mehta's contract). This matter should go back to City
Attorney White and proper actions by the District Attorney or the FPPC.
Harold J. Bickford, 501 Fairmont, Anaheim. He seconds much of what his wife stated. Also, as Ms.
Grindie repeated tonight and said last week, there is information about other candidates as to their
financial reports being in violation. The lack of charges against Zemel, Lopez and Kring gives the
appearance that the investigation by Mr. Mehta has not been fair and impartial. He also asked what
happened to the charges against Steve Sheldon's PAC (Political Action Committee). The laws should be
enforced fairly. He then elaborated on his concerns relative to the issue. In concluding he urged that
they end the inquisitional atmosphere in the City and return to an environment of the well run, fair
minded City that has been their heritage. He then commended Council Member Lopez for his statement.
Jim Liberio, 945 S. Amerige, Anaheim. He is present as a taxpayer and business person in the City
having lived here for many years. He is concerned that some members of the Council would see fit to
spend their money for a special attorney when they have a City Attorney, a District Attorney and the
FPPC to do the same job. The money could be spent more wisely in many other areas of the City. He
commended Council Member Lopez for the action he is proposing to take.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Kenneth Fisher. (See comments by Mr. Fisher made at the meeting of 2/24/98). He first expressed his
hope that Council Member Lopez is not backing off (on the Special Prosecutor) and leaving Council
Member Zemel on his own. He feels the opinion of the City Attorney is just that, an opinion. He also
believes that the voting that took place to hire the Special Prosecutor was not a violation of
parliamentary law. He then elaborated on issues of concern to him regarding the matter.
Miriam Kaywood, Anaheim resident. Her issue tonight is regarding item C1., considering a measure on
the June ballot regarding terms limits for board and commission members requested by Council Member
Zemel. To have a measure on the June ballot when the City has nothing else on the ballot (the City's
General Municipal Election is November 3, 1998) means an expenditure of approximately $75,000 since
it is a special election. To limit the service on boards and commissions is up to the Council and always
has been and the system has worked well. It is a last-minute effort with no opportunity for hearing the
pros and cons. She hopes a new precedent is not being set with something slapped on the ballot that
would bring about a major change when in the past such proposals/changes were considered by a
Charter Review Committee, composed of people active in the community.
Sharon Ericson, 6401 E. Nohl Ranch Rd., Anaheim. She is present on her own and not aligned with
anyone. Her presentation then covered many issues. She had worked on the Campaign Finance
Reform Ordinance in 1992 which she was against for two reasons -- one, because another one had been
thrown out a few years before by the courts as being unconstitutional, and two, because in the final
outcome, it would end up benefitting the incumbents at that time since they could raise all the money
they wanted for the next election. In 1984 when she first got involved with dealings with the Council, she
has seen a specific group of business people in this City that have absolutely controlled or tried to control
elections. She has seen many of the same people appear before the Council over the last couple of
weeks to complain about what is going on. In 1994 she ran for City Council believing everyone just
might be on a level playing field but she was wrong. The polls showed she was right in there with the
leaders but two weeks before the election there was a story in the Register saying she and Mr. Lopez
were terrible people because they both worked for the City. At a press conference that was held, Mr.
Lopez came with an attorney so they backed off him. However, a group of the same people spent
$15,000 on a phone bank against her and it was a good one right up until the polls closed. It worked.
She wanted to complain to somebody but could not do so because nobody filed anything and no one
knew where the $15,000 came from. The reason for bringing this to their attention, she does not know
what the answer is. The City Attorney is not the answer because he works for the Council. She is not
sure about independent counsels. It is necessary to come up with a way to "fix the broken system." It is
hurting residents of Anaheim.
Fred Clotier, 2252 Balsam, Anaheim. He is amazed at some of the things that are happening going from
a legal issue into a personal vendetta. It is not a personal issue. The main point is accountability.
Independent prosecutors sometimes are needed to get to the truth. He commends Council Member
Zemel -- he is doing a good job. There is no price for accountability and the law is the law.
Jerry Jackson, 9922 Harvest Lane, Anaheim. He is speaking on behalf of Council Member Zemel
especially in regard to the recall movement which he feels in completely uncalled for. He (Zemel) has
upheld political integrity and has always considered the rights of citizens of Anaheim regarding any
policies and actions involving community and financial matters of the City. He does not believe there is
any justice or truth in the matter of the recall. He supports Council Member Zemel and feels that the
move to recall him is unfair.
James Benson, 409 S. Philadelphia, Apt. L, Anaheim. He feels there is no accountability in the entire
election process. Too much money is being spent and they need to do something about changing the
system which is the problem. Relative to term limits, he supports such limits because it brings new
people and new ideas into the process. He feels they should end the prosecution matter and work on the
local, state and national level to change the system.
Ron Kring, 1619 W. Lorraine, Anaheim. He is speaking in support of Council Member Zemel. He is one
of the two individuals on the Council that he considers to be fully qualified to represent the citizens and
residents of Anaheim. He has a history of asking the hard questions which the majority of the Council do
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
not wish to examine because they do not want to take positions that are not popular. Council Member
Zemel acts responsibly and he wishes the rest of the Council would examine their hearts and do what is
best for the City.
Paul Kott, 1225 W. Lincoln, Anaheim. He sees the City being divided by this issue. He commended
Council Member Lopez for his intention to agendize the matter, not only to agendize but that it will also
be his desire to "toss out" Mr. Mehta and keep him in Sacramento. It is necessary to get the City going in
the right direction again and working on the big issues.
Mayor Daly. Public comments are closed at this time.
Council Member Zemel asked to make a brief statement. He then answered some of the
comments/questions that were made by several members of the public to clarify and/or correct some of
the statements relating to who the Special Prosecutor is accountable to, why it is not proper for the City
Attorney to investigate any of the Council Members, that the City Attorney works for all five Council
Members but it takes only three members to say whether or not the City Attorney remains in his position,
that if members of the public are being prosecuted by the City and the same law is violated by members
of the Council, the same should hold true, etc. A municipal judge will oversee the matter and take it to
its end. He also wants to bring the City back together but back together where the entire City has a value
and high esteem for the elected officials and know that the leadership in the City will continue to do the
tough things, take responsibility and be accountable to the public.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of March 3, 1998. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A21: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken, the following items were approved in accordance with the
reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-36 through 98R-43, both inclusive, for
adoption.
A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Darrin Queen for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about January 1, 1998.
b. Claim submitted by Jennifer Duge, Rebecca Duge, by their parents/guardians Leonard Duge
and Stacy Duge for bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
June 28, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by Daniel M. Talley for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 6, 1997.
A2.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance
Analysis for the month of January, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Utilities Board meeting held
January 15, 1998.
A3.
175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the
amount of $1,924,142.37 for I-5 Segments A2/23 and SR-91 Freeway Electric Facility
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Relocation and Katella/Southwest Substructure Installation; and in the event said low
bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second
low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second
low bidders.
A4.
175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Steve Casada Construction,
in the amount of $699,000 for I-5 Segment A3 Watermain Relocations; and in the event
said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the
second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and
second low bidders.
A5.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property (four mobile home units)
located at 1844 South Haster Street (R/W 5180-43 A & B) - Katella Avenue Smart Street
Improvement Project; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement;
and authorizing the acquisition payment of $48,400 to Anaheim Chili Operations, LLC.
A6.
123: Approving an Amendment to Cooperative Agreement No. C-95-965 between the
City and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to fund various projects, and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City.
A7.
123: Approving the Cooperative Agreement with the State of California for the Imperial
Highway Smart Street Improvements over the Santa Ana River Bridge for the segment
between 148 meters south of La Palma Avenue to 184 meters north of SR-91 Freeway
located within the City of Anaheim.
A8.
113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two
years old. (Traffic Engineering Records.)
A9.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties or
interests therein to the City.
A10.
160: Accepting the bid of Delta Star Corporation, c/o Young & Company, in the amount
of $450,890 for one LTC Three Phase 67/12.47 K.V.A. 30/40/50 M.V.A. Power
Transformer, including selected spare parts, and installation, in accordance with Bid
#5737.
All.
137: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the reissuance of the variable rate demand Multifamily
Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds (Heritage Village Apartments), 1992 Series A,
originally issued by the Anaheim Housing Authority for the Heritage Village Apartments
Project owned by Calmark Heritage Park II Limited Partnership, a California Limited
Partnership, and certain other actions in connection therewith.
A12.
177: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM (I) approving and authorizing the execution of the contract for loan
guarantee assistance under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended, (11) authorizing the use of Ross and Vermont Parks as
collateral required under the Section 108 Loan Guarantee, and (111) authorizing the
preparation and execution by the Executive Director of Community Development of
other documents related thereto.
Mayor Daly. He asked if there was a schedule created for the design and ultimate opening of the parks.
He knows relative to Betsy Ross there is cooperative work being done with the school and the park
schedule based on that. If staff does not have details tonight, he asked for a follow up in coming weeks
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
and a calendar with milestones so they will know when they can anticipate the final design and when it
will be available to the public.
A13.
106: Amending the Fiscal Year 1997/1998 Budget by increasing revenue and
expenditure appropriations in the following departments:
(1) Increasing Department 213 (Community Services) in Fund 455 (Anaheim Resort
Area) by $36,107.
(2) Increasing Department 309 (Police)in Fund 101 (General Fund) by $655,142.
(3) Increasing Department 412 (Public Works)in Fund 101 (General Fund) by $450,000.
(4) Increasing Department 412 (Public Works) in Fund 455 (Anaheim Resort Area) by
$5,712,753.
(5) Increasing Department 412 (Public Works) in Fund 456 (Anaheim Resort Area,
Disney managed) by $540,681.
(6) Increasing Department 418 (Planning)in Fund 101 (General Fund) by $65,000.
A14.
113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two
years old. (City Manager's Office miscellaneous records.)
A15.
123: Approving the Second Amendment to Agreement between the City of Anaheim
and Michael J. Arnold and Associates, Inc., in connection with the City's legislative
affairs in Sacramento.
A16.
123: Approving an Agreement with Planergy, Inc., to provide contract services for the
design and development of the public benefit programs, in an amount not to exceed
$150,000, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said
Agreement and related documents necessary to implement said Agreement. (Continued
from the meeting of February 24, 1998, Item A22.)
Mr. Ed Agjhayan, Public Utilities Director. He started his presentation by showing a slide which
illustrated the numbers involved -- the new restructured electric industry -- Resource Efficiency Division
going from full-time Staff Specialists to Program Managers who are going to be managing $7 million in
AB1890 programs. All the programs are going to be contracted out. The Program Manager will be
managing 9 - 12 programs with the net effect being a significant savings in staff costs. The purpose of
hiring Planergy is to provide the technical and organizational expertise to put those programs together so
they will be ready to start on July 1, 1998 at a one-time cost of $150,000. They would expect using
someone on an annual basis, maybe Planergy or maybe not, but it will not cost as much as $150,000
next year but less than that because many of the programs will be up and rolling. Just running those
numbers over the four-year life of AB1890 obligations there is a present value savings doing it this way
of $680,000. When they submit the budget for 1998-99, there will be a reduction of those positions, four
reductions in that division alone. He clarified for Council Member Tait that they are eliminating all of the
previously budgeted positions in that area and getting into the program management mode and
contracting it out.
Council member Zemel. This is the first expenditure of the new public benefit fee which was
commenced on a 3-2 Council vote (Zemel and Tait voting no). State law required public utilities to pay
the fee. He believes they did not have to pass the fee on but they did. He then posed a line of questions
relative to the RFP that was sent out, if there was any communication with the Council about passing a
fee on to the ratepayers, couldn't the Council have voted no relative to the imposition of the fee, etc,
which were answered by Mr. Aghjayan.
During the discussion, Mayor Daly interjected stating he had heard this ongoing question for many
months (regarding the imposition of the fee imposed as mandated by State law). They need to get to the
bottom of the matter by sending a letter to the appropriate State official to ask for clarification. If the
State passes a law that requires the City (utilities) to create a new program which costs money, they
need to know what their options are. He has not heard anyone suggest an alternative to creating the $7
million program. Most importantly, what were the intentions of the State government, what does the law
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
say and, after determining that, what choices do they really have. He is certain the State can explain
their intent. He asked that staff bring back to the Council a suggested communication to the State
government.
Council Member Zemel. He reminded the Mayor that at the time this was brought to the Council, he
asked those questions as well as others and he would still like answers.
Ed Aghjayan. He believes he answered every question asked at the time. There have also been a
number of workshops and reports to the Council giving staff's opinion of what the State law intended.
Looking for a formula to get around it, in his opinion what they would have to do is establish the fee and
if they then wanted to have a base rate decrease of that equal amount, that would have the same effect.
He takes exception to the fact and hopes he is not hearing that he has misled the Council in providing
information. The State legislature passes laws but they do not have a person who answers as to their
intent.
Council Member Zemel. He thinks the businesses and taxpayers of Anaheim, if need be, should fight
Sacramento. They have to relook at budget issues to see what was there a year ago, and if those
programs are now under the public benefit fee. If so, that is budgetary money that could be used to
offset the 2.85% fee; Mr. Aghjayan. He will be happy to provide that answer again.
After additional discussion and questioning, Council Member Zemel stated if Mr. Aghjayan tells him there
is nothing he can do, he will have to start being quiet about the subject; Mr. Aghjayan. He asked if it
would be appropriate to look at the issue of a base rate decrease and see what would be the impact if
that were to occur and the options around that.
Council Member Zemel answered, and coupled with possible cutbacks wherever possible to help rather
than just automatically handing it to the taxpayer; Mr. Aghjayan stated staff would be happy to prepare a
report along those lines as a starting point.
City Manager Ruth. In order to clarify the issue, he emphasized staff has aggressively attempted to
communicate with the Council on this subject and there are 10 different pieces of correspondence from
December, 1995 to December, 1997 outlining the potential legislation, the potential impact and how staff
felt it was going to affect Anaheim and giving staff's interpretation. There were also workshops on the
subject. One of the concerns Mr. Aghjayan and his staff has and which will come out in the analysis is
buying down stranded costs in order to keep competitive.
Council Member Zemel. Mr. Ruth brings up some interesting points and maybe at this time there is
something that can be done to make it easier on the taxpayers. Perhaps it is time to look at the 1% right-
of-way fee and a lot of extra fees which he calls taxes.
Council Member McCracken. The State mandated the whole program. Council Member Zemel said
they could just ignore it and go on. She feels that would put the City in a very tenuous position with the
State. When other cities ignored the State in the past, they were in court defending their position and
lost. She supports the fact that they have a City utility; it has been a co-op where they have shared all
the benefits. The whole program of restructuring is from the State legislature and the utilities are having
to deal with it. She asked for input from the City Attorney.
City Attorney White. It is necessary to distinguish between the City's legal obligation and the practical
implementation of that obligation to the ratepayers. In the opinion he has given to the Public Utilities
Department some time ago, the City is legally obligated to impose a non-bypassable charge on the
ratepayers. He does not know of any other City or utility that has taken a different position. It is not to
say that the practical implementation of that obligation cannot be done in some other creative ways to
reduce the net impact to the ratepayers. One of the things the City is greatly concerned about on the
staff level is what would happen if the City ignored the imposition of the fee as opposed to how they
balance the bill. If they ignore the State, there is a definite possibility the City could find itself not only in
litigation, but the way the law is currently structured, allows the City a great deal of flexibility on the fee
on how the money is spent and the programs the City may spend it on. The City could find itself back in
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
front of the legislature fighting a battle and having that flexibility taken away. Those are the concerns of
staff if they ignored the legal imposition distinguished from the practical implementation.
Mr. Agjhayan then explained for Council member Tait that relative to investor-owned utilities, in their
case, the four categories they talked about -- renewables, demand-side management, pilot projects, low-
income assistance -- the P.U.C. (Public Utilities Commission) directs the specific amounts for each of
the utilities in each of the four areas. Those decisions are made in some cases by the P.U.C. or the
Energy Commission. The lowest of the three investor-owned utilities is spending 2.85% and the
legislation designated that the municipals spend an amount equal to the lowest investor owned utilities.
Relative to the 10% increase, that has nothing to do with the $7 Billion bond issue which is funding that
amount only for residential and small commercial. The ratepayers of those utilities will have to pay that
back over the next 10 years. They have a 10% decrease but are taking a future decrease and bringing
that forward. The City's utilities could do the same thing if they wanted to float a bond issue ahead 10 -
12 years and bring some of the savings from 2002 forward, lower the rates and then pay the bond issue
back. That is just moving money around and has nothing to do with savings.
Council Member Tait. In last year's budget, there were certain things that could qualify as public
benefits. He would be interested in seeing how much of that was in the budget and whatever that
amount was, the rate increase to the ratepayers would be that much less.
Ed Aghjayan. Staff will point out that amount. However, they never anticipated those programs would go
into the 1998-99 budget. They are in the budget and the money was spent last year and the year before.
They are buying down their capital improvements with $290 million in stranded costs and are right now at
a 2003 date trying to get to 2001. (Edison is at a 2001 date.) The 2.85% would push them to a four-year
gap which would mean Anaheim's rates would be 30% higher than Edison's for a period of four years. It
would be a negative impact on their economic development programs trying to bring businesses into the
community with rates 30% higher. The point is, they are frugally looking at the budget and have been
cutting it every year for seven years and are now down 60 positions. Those programs are going to go
away so they could use that money to buy down the debt they have in the utility on these projects. That
are on track. However, if they were to make it $7 million minus the $1 million with the rate decrease, it
would hurt their stranded cost payoff options. It is an option the Council has but he would not
recommend it.
A17. 153: Authorizing the Human Resources Director to credit eight hours of vacation to each
full-time employee who successfully completes all required elements of the City's Health
Improvement Incentive Program.. (Continued from the meeting of February 24, 1998,
Item A19.)
Council Member Zemel. He has talked to the Human Resources Director but there are questions of the
City Attorney. Certain questionnaires will have to be filled out by City employees talking about their
health and habits. Mr. Hill assured him that it was confidential and the City would never see the
questionnaire but a third party. However, if an employee answers one of those questions and
subsequently is discharged for cause saying it was because of something they answered on the
questionnaire, is there enough distance from that questionnaire and department heads that there would
not be a legal issue but, if so, that it could be handled easily.
City Attorney White. The program will be structured in a way to preserve the separation to make sure
there is a buffer between the answers to the questions, and any ability the City would have to obtain that
information, let alone use it. They cannot stop people from making accusations but believe they will
have an adequate basis the way the program is being set up to defend against that.
Council Member Tait. The information submitted indicates that this program will not cost the General
Fund any money.
City Manager Ruth. The City received a rebate back from the health insurance program on life
insurance. Any such rebate can only be spent on employee benefits and for no other purpose.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Dave Hill, Human Resources Director. He confirmed funding is a life insurance rebate of employee
contributions for life insurance. They reviewed with the City's labor-management employee Health
Council whether or not to spend it on a special health improvement effort or whether to make a premium
holiday for one or two payroll periods. The employee Health Council endorsed making this special effort
on a pilot basis using employee money to provide an incentive for employees to improve their health as
a better use of that money. It is not City of Anaheim but employee money.
A18.
A19.
A20.
A21.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R- 41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and
conditions of employment for employees in classifications assigned to the Utilities Unit
represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 92R-17 adopting Personnel rules
applicable to employees in Management, Confidential and non-represented part-time
classifications.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolutions No. 92R-18, 92R-19, 92R-20, 92R-21 and
92R-22 which established rates of compensation for classifications designated as
professional, executive, supervisory, middle management and administrative.
123: Consent to assignment of lease, Inn At The Park Hotel to Anaheim Hotel, L.L.C.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R- 36 throuclh 98R-43, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-36 through 98R-43, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
END OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B3 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 12, 1998 DECISION DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1998
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 6, 1998:
B1.
179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 134
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: GRACE FAMILY MEDICAL GROUP, Dr. James Shin, 18331 Gridley Road, Ste. A,
Cerritos, CA 90703
AGENT: EDWARD H. ENDO, 3916 Sepulveda Boulevard, #208, Culver City, CA 90230
LOCATION: 2100 South Euclid Street. Property is 0.51 acres located at the southeast corner of
Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a medical center within an existing
office building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 134 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-02).
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
B2.
179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3986 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: TOM HART AND LINDA R. HART, 1738 W. Francis Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801
S. ROBERT ADAMS, 954 Temple Terrace, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
LOCATION: 406 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 0.34 acre having a frontage of 100 feet
on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of 149 feet and located 380
To permit a restuarant (including a cocktail lounge) with on-premises sale and consumption of
beer and wine with filliard tables with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CUP NO. 3986 APPROVED, with modified conditions, to allow beer and wine in connection with
a restaurant and three coin operated games consisting of two pool tables and shuffleboard. (ZA
DECISION NO. 98-03).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B3.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3981 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: JOHN PEDICINI, 350 East 17th Street #116, Costa Mesa, CA 92663
AGENT: FRANCISCO AND FLORA FLORES, 1755 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801
LOCATION: 1753 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.37 acre, having a frontage of 125 feet
on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of 130 feet and located 645
feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street.
To permit a restaurant with on-premeises sale and consumption of beer and wine and accessory
amusement devices.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CUP NO. 3981 DENIED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-04).
Approved Negative Declaration.
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ITEMS B4 - B9 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 18, 1998:
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 12, 1998:
B4.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: The Eli Home, Inc., Attn: Lorri Galloway, Executive Director, 4530 East Chapman
Avenue, Orange, CA 92869
LOCATION: 100 South Canyon Crest Drive - The Eli Home. Property is 0.22 acre located at
the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive.
To consider the modification or deletion of conditions of approval relating to the number of
vehicle trips, on-site and off-site parking and guest visitations, and modification of the approved
site plan to retain an existing wood fence along Santa Ana Canyon Road in conjunction with a
previously-approved group home for abused children and their mothers.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3680 APPROVED with modified conditions of approval (PC98-22) (6 yes votes, 1
vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Member McCracken and
seconded by Council Member Lopez, therefore, a Public Hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B5. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3965, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Inn At the Park Joint Venture, c/o Dallas Hotel Associates/Anaheim Hotel Associates,
1855 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802
AGENTS: Mark C. Knutson, 4361 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., Attn: Scott Smith, 1855 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 1855 South Harbor Boulevard - West Coast Anaheim Hotel, formerly Inn At The
Park. Property is 11.09 acres located at the northwest corner of Convention Way and Harbor
Boulevard.
To permit a car rental agency with on-site storage and/or parking of rental cars accessory to and
in conjunction with a hotel with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3965 GRANTED (PC98-23) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B6.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4002 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Rollins Properties, Inc., One Rollins Plaza, Wilmington, Delaware 19803
AGENT: Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, 225 Brae Boulevard, Park Ridge, New Jersey
07656
LOCATION: 1801 East Ball Road - Hertz Equipment Rental. Property is 1.52 acres located on
the north side of Ball Road, 500 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard.
To permit and retain a large equipment storage and rental yard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4002 GRANTED (PC98-25) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Joel Fick, Planning Director confirmed for the Mayor that staff is comfortable with the requirements and
the conditions. It is just a two-year approval and no equipment may be visible from Ball Road. It will be
properly screened.
B7.
179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4003 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Carl and Virginia Remelin Trust, Attn: John A. Moore, Trustee, 1491 Baker Street, #3,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 1565 West Katella Avenue. Property is 0.71 acre located on the north side of
Katella Avenue, 285 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street.
To permit an automotive sales, rental and repair facility with waivers of maximum structural
height and minimum structural and landscape setbacks adjacent to residential zones.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4003 DENIED (PC98-26) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Denied waiver of code requirement.
Denied Negative Declaration.
BS.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
179: CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3920 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A
NOISE STUDY AND FINAL PLAN REVIEW OF ROOF-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT FOR A
PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED HEALTH CLUB: OTR Ohio General Partnership, c/o Donahue
Schriber, 3501 Jamboree Road, #300, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and
approval of a noise study and final plan review of roof-mounted equipment for a previously-
approved health club. Property located at the southwest corner of Roosevelt Road and Santa
Ana Canyon Road. (The Anaheim Hills Festival).
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved noise study and roof-mounted equipment for a previously approved
health club.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B9.
179: CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED)
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-1 (DEVELOPMENT AREA 2) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS FOR THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED 14-SCREEN MOVIE
THEATER: OTR Ohio General Partnership, c/o Donahue Schriber, 3501 Jamboree Road,
#300, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and approval of final plans for the
previously-approved 14-screen movie theater. Property located at the southwest corner of
Roosevelt Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. (The Anaheim Hills Festival).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final plans for the previously approved 14-screen movice theater.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
179: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3983: Re: Burger King, 8295 East
Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim - Owner: J. D. Gantes Airport Properties request to construct a
second story 1,309 sq. ft. indoor playground for an existing drive-through Burger King restaurant within a
commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Mayor Daly. Last week (see minutes of 2/24/98, Item D1.) the subject project was denied, as the City
Attorney explained, by operation of law on a 2-2 vote (Council Member Tait abstaining). He asked what
the options are in terms of reconsidering the matter and if a member of the Council wants to initiate a
reconsideration, is it too late. His intent is to refer it back to the Planning Commission.
Later in the meeting, after the City Attorney had an opportunity to consider the question, he clarified that
the CUP was denied under Council rules by operation of law; Mayor Daly. His desire would be that the
Planning Commission work with the business owner to find an acceptable compromise. Staff was
opposed for aesthetic design reasons. Perhaps the business owner and the Planning Commission could
take another look at the design features.
City Attorney White. If the Council did nothing, the applicant would have the right at any time to start the
process over again. If the Council was so inclined, and he sees no problem with it, they could by motion
refer the matter back to the Planning Commission as a "new application" but waiving any filing fees and
instructing staff to expedite the process to get it back to the Commission. Otherwise, it would be up to
the applicant to file a new application and pay the fees. Answering Mayor Daly, he stated the appropriate
thing would be to agendize the subject for the next meeting unless the Council wants to waive the 72-
hour posting provision of the Brown Act finding an emergency and then it could be referred to the
Planning Commission tonight.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act
finding that the need to act arose after the posting of the agenda. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. (In
the final analysis, no further action was taken on the motion).
Before a vote was taken, discussion took place during which Council Member Zemel stated although he
voted to support the proposal at the Public Hearing on 2/24/98 and as much as he wants to see it go
forward, he does not feel it is an emergency situation. At the conclusion, and at the request of the
Mayor, it was determined that in two weeks, the matter of referral of this item (reconsideration of CUP
3983) to the Planning Commission for further consideration be placed on the Council meeting agenda of
March 17, 1998, the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
D1, D2, D3. It was determined by the City Attorney that the City Council may consider the three
public hearings scheduled this evening, as items D1, D2, and D3 together as one public hearing:
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT 98-1A:
To consider abandoning that portion of Manchester Avenue extending northerly from Katella Avenue
located east of Haster Street and west of the Santa Ana Freeway (ABANDONMENT NO. 98-1A).
In accordance with application filed by California Department of Transportation,District 12, 2501 Pullman
Street, Santa Ana CA 92705, a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain streets,
highways and service easements, pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-16, duly published in the North
Orange County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT 98-2A:
To consider abandoning those portions of Lincoln Avenue and Wilshire Avenue located generally on the
north side of Lincoln Avenue and a portion of Wilshire Avenue in the vicinity of Pearl Street
(ABANDONMENT NO. 98-2A).
In accordance with application filed by California Department of Transportation,District 12, 2501 Pullman
Street, Santa Ana CA 92705, a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain streets,
highways and service easements, pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-17, duly published in the North
Orange County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT 98-3A:
To consider abandoning that portion of Lincoln Avenue located generally on the north side of Lincoln
Avenue approximately 150 feet west of Manchester Avenue; and that portion of Manchester Avenue
located generally on the south side of Manchester Avenue approximately 200 feet northwest of Lincoln
Avenue (ABANDONMENT NO. 98-3A).
In accordance with application filed by California Department of Transportation,District 12, 2501 Pullman
Street, Santa Ana CA 92705, a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain streets,
highways and service easements, pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-23 duly published in the North Orange
County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated was submitted recommending approval of abandonments 98-1A, 98-
2A and 98-3A..
Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works. The three abandonments are requested by Caltrans in
conjunction with the I-5 widening. Caltrans has acquired the right of way and abandoning remaining
portions that will no longer be necessary. The City is abandoning its rights of way and Caltrans will
probably either retain these areas or make some arrangement with adjacent property owners. Currently,
the City has rights over the property but it will go back to Caltrans.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak on any of
the three proposed abandonments; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing relating to the
three abandonments.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from requirements to file an EIR.
MOTION CARRIED.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 98R-44 through 98R-46, both inclusive for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF MANCHESTER AVENUE NORTH OF ORANGEWOOD
AVENUE. (ABANDONMENT NO.98-1A).
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING PORTIONS OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND WILSHIRE AVENUE.
(ABANDONMENT NO.98-2A ).
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING PORTIONS OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND MANCHESTER AVENUE.
(ABANDONMENT NO. 98-3A.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R- 44 throuclh 98R-46 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos 98R-44 through 98R-46, both inclusive,duly passed and adopted.
C1. 114: DISCUSSION - POSSIBILITY OF NAMING A CITY FACILITY AFTER PRESIDENT
RONALD REAGAN: Discussion requested by Council Member Zemel at the meeting of February 24,
1998 of possibly naming a City facility after President Reagan.
Council Member Zemel. A theme across the country and coming to Orange County as well is a national
effort for each city to name something -- a park, building, school, etc., after President Reagan. Ronald
Reagan has some roots in Orange County. In 1980, his presidential bid was launched at Anaheim
Stadium at the Stadium Club and he has visited Anaheim on numerous occasions. It would be a real
tribute. He would like to see this done while President Reagan is still alive and so that possibly he might
know what is being done to honor him. He is asking that staff put together a committee of two or three
people and explore the opportunities and bring some suggestions back to the Council. He is also asking
for input.
Council Member Tait. He agrees and believes it would be a nice gesture and something to be proud of.
Perhaps staff could put together a list of a half-dozen items that would be appropriate for Council to vote
on at that time.
Mayor Daly. What struck him, he wonders if naming public buildings after President Reagan coincides
with the principles and ideals he stood for. At the core of his political life was his belief in very limited
government and, therefore, naming a government facility after him might serve more to dishonor than to
honor his legacy. The Council can consider the matter but that is his feeling on the issue. He wonders
what his family members would say and also feels if Ronald Reagan could speak to them, he would
politely refuse.
Council Member McCracken. She would like some background on what City policy has been relative to
naming public buildings or parks after someone before making a decision. She feels there might be
other ways to recognize President Reagan. As Council Member Zemel reported, the Federal Court
House in Santa Ana is named after President Reagan.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Council Member Zemel pointed out instances where a street, parks, etc., in the City have been named
after local figures. He does not want to cause a controversy, but he also does not want to lose the
opportunity.
Council Member Lopez. He would support it but would like to know what the policy is as well. He noted
the George Washington Center was named after the country's first president. They should first look at
what the policy is (if any) and possible also contact the School District.
It was determined that staff be directed to submit additional information as requested so that the Council
can then give further consideration to the possible naming of a public facility (or other) after President
Ronald Reagan.
C2.
127: POTENTIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING TERM LIMITS FOR BOARD
AND COMMISSION MEMBERS:
To consider placing a question on the June ballot to amend the City Charter to limit
service on City Boards and Commissions to two consecutive terms. (Requested by
Council Member Zemel.)
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM calling and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal Election to
be held on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, for the submission to the voters of a Charter
Amendment to limit consecutive years of service on Anaheim Boards and Commissions.
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to
consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be held on June 2, 1998, with the statewide
primary to be held on that date pursuant to Sec. 10403 of the Elections Code.
OPTIONAL:
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding a City measure and
directing the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis.
OPTIONAL:
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted
at municipal elections.
City Clerk Sohl announced that this would be the last opportunity to adopt the resolutions if the measure
is to be placed on the June ballot. The first two are absolutely required, and the second two are optional.
Council Member Zemel. He brought this issue up periodicaly during the last year and a half which would
place board and commission members generally in line with the Council term limit initiative passed in
1992. That measure provided that a person could serve as the Mayor or Council Member for eight
years total and then a two-year respite and be able to run again. The idea comes after trying to provide
more opportunities for people who want to be involved in the City. The City has grown tremendously in
the last 20 years not only physically, but it is demographically diverse and it is basically a new and
different City. He would like it to be more inclusive. The proposed amendment would not remove
anyone from a board or commission. Anyone who has served two years sitting on a commission would
remain and finish his or her term so there would be no mass exodus of talent. The Council also has a
policy of appointing experienced people as emeritus members. The issue has been brought up twice and
turned down twice which means by a 3-2 vote basically one Council Member is making the decision
whether or not there should be term limits for board and commission members. It is not necessarily the
issue of term limits but about whether or not the citizens should have a right to vote on the subject or not.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Mayor Daly. He is concerned about the cost of placing a Charter amendment on the ballot at this time.
Also, amendments should be discussed more widely with the community and he is not hearing from the
community that there is a strong desire for this issue to go to the ballot and the cost of placing it on the
ballot which he understands is at least $50,000; City Clerk Sohl confirmed that the low figure is $60,000
and it could be as high as $75,000 which will be the City's portion of the election if they share with the
County.
Council Member McCracken. Commissioners serve as advisors to the City Council and when their terms
of office expire, the Council does not have to renew their service. If a commissioner is not doing his or
her job, the matter can be agendized and that person removed at the will of the Council at any time.
There is only a handful of the 100 to 150 commissioners who have served more than two terms. The
Council went through this six to eight months ago and, further, there are already term limits for Council
Members. The longevity of commissioners on some of the boards brings history to those particular
commissions and a carry over for issues that are not settled in eight years. The majority do not receive
any stipend and voluntarily devote their time and energy to the work of the City. People are not knocking
down doors to serve. She does not think term limits are necessary. The Council has the responsibility
for appointing its advisors and the community is not asking them to do anything else. Over the four
years that Council member Zemel has been serving, they have restructured the Budget Advisory
Commission, the Housing Commission was eliminated and now there is a combined seven-member
Redevelopment and Housing Commission. This would be putting something in the Charter that is really
not necessary for only a handful of members. If Council Member Zemel feels they should be considered
to be removed at this time, the Council can discuss the matter. It is like instituting a constitutional
amendment when only guidelines and direction are necessary.
Council Member Tait. He is in favor of term limits which will bring new ideas and new advice to the
Council. It does not hurt to let the people vote. Term limits for the Mayor/Council passed by 80%.
Council Member Lopez. He supports term limits and he is subject to such limits but appointees are just
that, appointees. He has been on two Governor's committees, one in 1985 and 1986 and served at the
pleasure of the Governor. When the Governor wants someone to resign, he sends a letter of thanks for
serving and that's it. The Council has the same ability if three Council Members agree. Term limits for
board and commission members are going too far. They serve at the pleasure of the Council. He will
not support such limits.
Council Member Zemel offered the first resolution listed calling and giving notice of the holding of a
Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 2, 1998 for the submission to the voters of a
Charter Amendment to limit consecutive years of service on Anaheim Boards and Commissions.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Lopez stated he wants to make sure the public understands he
is not voting on term limits. The Council has the ability to remove an individual. The way it is worded,
he does not consider it term limits but an individual serving at the pleasure of the Council.
Mr. Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim (former Council Member). If the system is not broken, why
fix it. Also, and more importantly, he is concerned about spending $65,000 to $75,000 for a special
election when there is a General Municipal Election coming up in November. Instead of term limits (for
board and commission members) three Council Members can make a change at any time. If a Council
majority wants it on the ballot, then it should be the November ballot.
Mayor Daly. He reiterated his concern about the cost of adding such a measure to the June ballot. His
other concern is that he has not heard citizens suggest that they would like to place a time limit on
volunteerism by their fellow citizens. Persons who serve on boards and commissions are 100%
volunteers. It does not make sense to put a time imit on this type of volunteerism which they should be
treasuring rather than limiting.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution as offered by Council Member Zemel and failed to
carry by the following vote: AYES: Tait, Zemel. NOES: McCracken, Lopez, Daly.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
Council Member Zemel. An excellent point was made on the amount of money that would be spent on
the June ballot. He asked if they are saying in November there would be no extra cost.
City Clerk Sohl. The cost would be minimal; Mayor Daly asked what the actual cost would be.
City Clerk Sohl. Included in the budget for the November election is $55,000 which will cover the cost of
a consolidated election. The cost to place an additional measure (Charter Amendment) on the ballot
would include additional printing space in the ballot book and the printing of arguments for and against.
She would estimate an additional $5,000.
Council Member Zemel then offered the same resolution as previously offered except that it be for the
November 3, 1998 General Municipal Election ballot.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly again emphasized his concerns specifically placing a time limit on
volunteerism which he feels is the paramount argument. To amend the City Charter for purely political
reasons is not a good idea. He feels they are seeing evidence of that this evening -- that it is purely
political.
Council Member Lopez. He feels term limits are something the voters already voted on (for Mayor and
Council Members) and if they want term limits for boards and commissions, he would like some input for
the community. Perhaps they should continue the matter for a couple of weeks in order to do so. If it is
the will of the people, he will support it.
Council Member Tait. He noted that the issue was discussed at length in the past. One way to get input
is to let the people vote on it. He does not understand what the political issue is.
Mayor Daly. He sees the political nature of the proposal as simple. Three colleagues are saying there is
no value to placing the issue on the ballot and then Council Member Zemel comes right back asking that
it be put on the November ballot. He does not see an outpouring of people in the community asking that
the Charter be fixed. The Council was elected to lead and to appoint people to boards and commissions.
It is bad public policy to spend time and expense to do otherwise and he feels there is a lack of sincerity
in this case.
After additional comments by Mayor Daly, Council Member Tait stated that the Mayor's comments are
the "classic arguments" always given against term limits.
Discussion and debate then followed between Mayor Daly and Council Member Zemel wherein the issue
of the current term limits for the Mayor and Council Members were also broached.
At the conclusion of the debate, a vote was then called for on the resolution offered with the November
election date; City Attorney White first confirmed for Council Member Lopez that
an abstention is a non vote and a resolution, to be adopted, requires three yes votes; Council Member
Lopez. He is abstaining for the reasons previously stated.
A vote was then taken on the resolution offered by Council Member Zemel, the same as previously
offered, except holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998 and
failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Tait, Zemel. NOES: McCracken, Daly. ABSTAINED: -
Lopez.
Council Member Zemel then withdrew the remaining resolutions.
C4. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Zemel. There was an issue that came up in the Legislative Liaison Committee relative
to the fingerprinting issue with the Sheriff's Department going on at the County level regarding the $1.00
fee being charged with DMV registrations. Now there is a security issue as to what is going to happen
with the City's fingerprinting system already purchased and what the Sheriff's Department does. He does
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 3, 1998
not know if they are doing everything necessary to work with the County to see what the issues are and
how they can help advance a decision at the County level that will save the City hundreds of thousands
of dollars in fingerprinting equipment so that the two are compatible. As he stated, it has come up in the
liaison committee meeting (Council Members Zemel and Tait are liaison members) but he needs more
information and believes it needs to come to the Council for action as to what direction they should take.
Council Member Lopez. For the next Council meeting (March 17, 1998), he would like to agendize the
possible termination of the existing contract with Ravi Mehta and the substitution of a local prosecutor to
handle the cases that still exist. He is also requesting a report from the City Attorney for the next
meeting outlining the legal process for the change and to provide a list of local attorneys with no current
connections to the City or the City Council who would be willing to serve in that capacity. It should
include resumes and their billing rates.
Council Member McCracken. She reported on her attendance at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter
Arts Conference in Cerritos last week and there was a lot of discussion of economic development and
revitalization of older deteriorating inner cities with arts development, arts education and the architecture
and support groups and their effects on changing communities. The biggest point that came out of the
workshops was planning -- plan for the needs of the community and plan for the revitalization of those
neighborhoods. Hopefully, staff can help with a cultural plan, perhaps one that is connected with
community development and library development that will put the City in a position to move forward with
some additional revitalization of the downtown area.
She also serves on the California League of Cities Policy Committee on Community Housing and
Economic Development. The League of Cities Conference in Washington is coming up next week.
There are major issues that will affect Anaheim -- Federal utility restructuring, transportation issues, use
of highway funds, economic development and revitalization of neighborhoods, welfare reform and job
training. She is happy to have the opportunity to be able to participate in the conference.
Mayor Daly. He agrees with the suggestion that they need to have an organized plan for the arts in
Anaheim. It is a good idea and long overdue so that as opportunities come along they can seize those
opportunities if they are consistent with what their plans are for the arts.
Mayor Daly. There is a concerned group of Anaheim residents living near the 91 Freeway and the 55
Freeway interchange regarding a piece of surplus property that has been owned by Caltrans for years. It
is located right next to the westbound ramp which connects the westbound 91 where the 55 terminates.
He believes the property is about seven or eight acres. Years ago, Caltrans offered it to the
development community and developers purchased it contingent upon obtaining approvals from the City
which were not granted due to access problems. He believes the same situation exists. He asked the
City Attorney what options they have at this point to communicate with Caltrans. It seems like a lot of
money is being wasted, both Caltrans and City staff time. On one hand, Caltrans is encouraging
developers to bid on land that the City feels does not have sufficient access and the community is 100%
opposed to seeing 99 houses built on that property. City government should be in conversation with
Caltrans. He asked the City Attorney how best to accomplish that. He believes the developer might be
in process with the Planning Department at this time. He asked if Caltrans informs the City before
putting a piece of property (in the City) up for sale. Do they consult with the Planning Department and the
City relative to the City's thoughts and views. If Caltrans has been through this drill once before only to
have the City deny development on that property, why are they are doing it again.
City Manager Ruth. They do notify the City but do not solicit their opinion.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES , MARCH 3, 1998
Mayor Daly. He asked staff to make suggestions to the Council as to what steps they can take to
communicate with Caltrans on the disposition of this particular property.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council meeting of March 3, 1998 was
adjourned (8:26 P.M.).
Leonora N. $ohl, City Clerk
24