The URL can be used to link to this page

1998/07/14ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: MAYOR: Tom Daly PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSIST CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR: Chris Jarvi RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT: Terry Lowe EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Elisa Stipkovich SUBDIVISION MANAGER: Natalie Armas PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Gary Johnson DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Mary Mc Closkey A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 4:10 p.m. on July 10, 1998 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the joint workshop portion of the Council meeting of July 14, 1998 to order and welcomed those in attendance (3:15 P.M.). City Manager, James Ruth. This is the date and time scheduled for a joint workshop with the Community Services Board. COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman: Bruce Solari Members: L. Cason; M. Edmiston; M. Hibbard; J. Lowry; J. Machiaverna; M. Miser; F. Ramirez; F. Tarlton; J. Terrell; E. Wallace; J. Vanderbilt; V. Engelbrecht; R. Romero JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB): 150: Bruce Solari, Chairman, CSB. The three issues the Board would like to discuss with the Council today as indicated on the Workshop Agenda are: (1) Welfare Reform and Welfare Safety Net and the things the City may do to help with displacements. (2) Affordable Housing for Service Workers. (3) Recommended Policy on the Use of CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Funds - Public Service Cap. Welfare Reform and Welfare Safety Net - CSB Subcommittee - Martha Miser, Frank Ramirez, Esther Wallace. Martha Miser briefed the document - Welfare Reform and Welfare Safety Net - prepared by the Subcommittee (made a part of the record) which noted that “Eighteen percent of Orange County AFDC recipients live in Anaheim. Welfare reform will direct many of these recipients to the low-wage jobs generated by expansion of the resort area.” She then elaborated on the issues the City must address: 1) Child Care, 2) Health Care, 3) More E.S.L. Classes, 4) Transportation, 5) Social Support Services. Each issue included proposed solutions as identified by the Subcommittee. At the conclusion of Ms. Miser’s presentation, questions were posed by Council Members relating to transportation issues, E.S. L. classes and also the issue of parenting classes. Board Member, June Lowry elaborated on the importance of parenting classes especially as a prevention type tool. She noted there is a great need for such classes but they are expensive to provide. They are not saying the City should take these on. Some School Districts do pay for these classes. At the conclusion of discussion and questioning, Council Member McCracken suggested developing possible partnerships with the schools as well as dentists, doctors, etc. to develop some kind of support to fulfill the needs. She also agrees with Council Member Tait who earlier stated with regard to ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 transportation, they need to work with OCTA to determine where the real needs are relating to bus service; Mrs. Lowry stated they will need their help as a Council for the entree to these agencies. Affordable Housing for Service Workers - CSB Subcommittee - John Machiaverna. (See document submitted - Affordable Housing for Service Workers - January 1998 - made a part of the record.) He referred to several recent newspaper articles (which were a part of the submittal) noting that relative to affordable rental housing, Anaheim ranks last in a County that ranks last. There are 44,000 people looking for 11,000 places to live. Anaheim is expected to grow with the expansion of the Resort Area and the School District has reported 1,000 more children this year than last already with double sessions and this trend is expected to last for the next five years. The question is, where are they going to put all these people. Extensive discussion followed on the issue with input from the Council. Council Member Zemel stated that the issue of illegal immigration has to be addressed and School Boards need to get involved with State government on the issue. The Federal Government should be responsible for the lack of better control and should also reimburse schools. There should be a cooperative effort between the Council which does not have a lot of authority on the immigration issue to meet with School Boards and develop a panel or task force to deal with this matter at the State level. Absent illegal immigration, he is not so sure they have overcrowding in schools. He would like to have those numbers. There is also the issue of high density in providing affordable housing that is of concern to the citizens. Board Member, Mike Edmiston. As a City, community and County they are busy creating jobs that pay at a level requiring both parents to work and even at that, it is not adequate to provide proper housing. It (immigration) deserves to be considered but he believes the issue is one of housing, under employment and under compensation. He also commented later that, in his experience, trying to find employable people who have “clean” citizenship paper work is very difficult. Council Member Tait. One of the things mentioned is SRO’s (single room occupancy), changing undesirable motels to SRO’s, which is a management function, and refurbishing them. He has been pushing the idea of SRO’s for a while which to him seems like a natural solution and he would like staff to explore the idea. He would like to see a pilot SRO project. Council Member McCracken. She believes finding assistance to rehabilitate some of the (older) motels, rewiring them and updating their infrastructure so that they can accommodate a microwave, provide storage, etc., is another possibility. Finding an apartment on one salary is very difficult. Perhaps illegal immigrants are one issue but there are families who have lived in the City for generations who are still having a problem. Board Member Edmiston. He feels that they can either spend money, spend effort and spend time to give thoughtful consideration to acquiring housing for low-income people or they can continue to build jail cells. He believes it is one or the other. Inadequate housing breeds environments that do not provide people the opportunity to become worthwhile citizens. Board Member Lowry. She would like to see the SRO pursued by staff as well; Mayor Daly recalled when SRO’s were a “hot” topic a number of years back when the Council approved the first one in Anaheim on South Anaheim Boulevard, a proposed conversion of an office building, but which did not come to fruition. When talking about affordable housing, subsidies come into play one way or the other. Secondly, allowing a higher density is a subsidy as well. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development and Bertha Chavoya, Housing Manager, have been able to package projects like Paseo Village, but adding to the net housing stock involves many other tradeoffs. Council Member Zemel. With higher density projects, the School Board believes those create a higher demand and a major impact on the school system. It is important to integrate the School Board into these talks; Board Member Hibbard suggested that perhaps business should be part of the dialogue as well; Board Member Cason explained how the Chamber has been involved. 2 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 Mayor Daly. One of the issues the CSB can think about and the business community as well, he feels there is a reluctance of any city to approve more affordable housing when they cannot control how many families end up in those units because State law is so loose. Until that is fixed, a lot of cities are not going to approve any more affordable housing projects. Board Member Wallace. There has been poor management and lack of Code Enforcement. There has been a lack of good controls. She knows areas of high density where the people live very well together. Recommended Policy on the Use of CDBG Funds (Public Service Cap) - Chair, Bruce Solari. There was a request previously that the CSB develop a policy about the use of CDBG funds. (See document submitted - Community Services Board - made a part of the record - listing two motions passed by the Board, one on June 11 and the other on July 9, 1998, the first regarding the funding of nonprofit agencies and the use of CDBG Public Service Cap funds and the second adding to the first recommendation.) Paraphrasing, Mr. Solari stated the important points of their actions were that nonprofit agencies would be funded solely from HUD funds, that nonprofits not request or receive General Fund money and that the CSB be granted authority to make recommendations as to how those funds would be used, the 15% of the total CDBG budget. The idea was to establish a process that would simplify the current process. They wanted to allow people to have to make only one application and have only one contract and also to establish funding levels so that they do not end up “squabbling” after the fact over what the funding level should be. He then elaborated on their actions (see document submitted listing the specifics). Extensive discussion followed on this key issue during which Board Member Lowry emphasized that the CSB has strong feelings that there are certain things that are a right of every citizen in Anaheim and that these should be funded from the General Fund and not out of the CDAB (Community Development Advisory Board) funding. They want a decision from the Council as soon as possible. Even though they are talking about this going into effect in the 1999-2000 year, the funding process starts in August. Council Member Tait. He surmises they are looking for about $500,00 if it were either/or - No. 2 or No. 3. (See document submitted - No. (2) nonprofit agencies be allocated 10% of the total CDBG allocation; and (3) there will be no cut in Community Services Department programs as a result of increased CDBG funding for nonprofit agencies.) City Manager Ruth. The Council needs to be fully aware if they go from 5.6 or 5.7% to 10%, some programs are going to have to be dropped; Board Member Edmiston interjected and stated he disagrees. He believes that the differential comes from whether or not there are subsidies coming from the General Fund or whether or not there are other programs that perhaps should be funded from the General Fund not considered as part of this process. City Manager Ruth continued that staff does not have a problem with the swap and thinks it is a good idea. The question is when they do that, the formula changes. Going from 5.7 to 10%, when that happens, it has to come out of General Fund monies if they are going to continue to provide the same services as in the past (such as the gang prevention program). The Council is going to have to make the decision whether they want to increase the General Fund contribution to fund those programs or drop them -- programs the community has asked for over a period of time. Council Member Zemel stated, the other way to figure it would be $785,000 X 5.3% which is the leftover amount and whatever that figure is compare it with the $200,000 that is not going to transfer; Chris Jarvi, Community Services Director, did not agree with that formula and explained the reasons why. Mayor Daly. He does not think they can make a decision on that today. Perhaps staff could craft a report that lays out the numbers along the lines Council Member Zemel had earlier stated. On the one hand, they are moving funds from one category to another but on the other, there is a greater commitment to non profits. Board Member Lowry. At 10%, it will mean there would be monies coming out of the total 15% they originally started with. The 5% would not cover all the Community Services programs as existing this 3 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 year. That is why it says the Community Services programs should not be cut because the Board feels those programs are essential, such as the Bookmobile. Council Member Tait. Between No. 2 and 3, if they had to make a choice, does she think the money is better spent in the private sector than the City programs; Mr. Edmiston answered that they would like staff to crunch those numbers and they will be able to answer any specific questions the Council might have immediately following their very next meeting if they have a chance to review those numbers by then. Speaking for himself, he believes No. 2 takes precedence over No. 3 but he personally does not believe that they should necessarily presume to instruct the City Council as to the decisions on No. 3. City Manager Ruth. Staff would be happy to work the numbers out and let them know exactly what the impacts would be. Council Member McCracken asked, relative to the first recommendation, that the Consolidated Plan Document (CDP) be amended to place the authority with the CSB to recommend to Council how the CDBG Public Services Cap funds should be allotted, would they be allowed to do that under HUD regulations. Can they transfer that authority to the CSB. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She believes the Council can give the CSB and CDAB both direction and policy. If they would like to set a percentage they would like to see for non-profits, as the current citizen participation plan stands, the CSB is the body that all non-profits as well as City programs make application to, and they review it. They make a recommendation to the CDAB. They are asking for permission for the CSB to directly give the recommendation to the Council. It would create a problem because they go through a specific process that requires Public Hearings for all citizens to come and speak on all aspects of the program. Depending on whether they want to set up a new separate and distinct process, which she does not recommend; as currently set up, it is close to what is being requested. They now go through the CSB. All 15% is reviewed by them and they make a recommendation to the CDAB. They have a public hearing where both the Neighborhood Councils and the public in general comment on everything including the 15% and then it comes to the Council for final approval. CDAB can make their own recommendation and change the recommendation. Council Member McCracken. It sounds like the CSB is saying they do not want CDAB to have the authority to change that. They need to have some background and perhaps both Mr. Jarvi and Mrs. Stipkovich can meet with them individually and give some background material. Chris Jarvi. What is being recommended is a change in the citizen participation plan which was recommended by the CDAB. The request should go to CDAB first before it comes to the Council. Mayor Daly. Staff will be getting back to the Council with more information on the issue. The Council will look forward to meeting with the Board again in January. There being no further business, the Community Services Board meeting was adjourned. (4:32 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 1. Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association, and Anaheim Fire Association. 4 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2. 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation : Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange County Su perior Court Case No. 70-80-71. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: 3. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code : One potential cases. Existing facts and circumstances: possible challenge to pending decision concerning amendment of Conditional Use Permit No. 3662. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR 4. (Government Code Section 54956.8): Property: 412 North West Street Negotiating parties: Phoebe A. Mylott and City of Anaheim Under negotiation: Price and terms. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5. 54956.9 (a) - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Challenger Park, Inc., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 98-11449-JB CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6. 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation : Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Pal Mall Properties, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 76-95- 83. RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Cl osed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion MOTION CARRIED. (4:33 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of July 14, 1998 to order at 5:35 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Reverend David Koll, Anaheim Christian Reformed Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Tom Tait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING ROBERT E. LAWSON’S SERVICE ON THE PUBLIC 119: UTILITIES BOARD: Recognizing Robert E. Lawson for his three years of service on the City’s Public Utilities Board. Mayor Daly presented Mr. Lawson with a Flying “A” plaque extending the City’s appreciation to him for his years of dedicated (and volunteer) service as a member of the Public Utilities Board. The Mayor and Council Members personally commended Mr. Lawson; Mr. Lawson expressed his pleasure in having served noting that Mr. Aghjayan (Public Utilities General Manager) and his staff are dedicated people. He feels in the next century, Anaheim will continue to be the City that is looked up to. PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING ROBERT O. HENNINGER AND AL PERAZA FOR THEIR 119: SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recognizing Robert O. Henninger and Al Peraza for their eight years of service on the City Planning Commission. Mr. Peraza was also being recognized for his six years of service on the Park and Recreation Commission. 5 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 Mayor Daly presented both Mr. Henninger and Peraza with Flying “A” plaques extending the City’s appreciation to both men for their years of dedicated (and volunteer) service as Planning Commissioners. Both are stepping down after eight years. They served through some of the most interesting and challenging years which included the start of the Anaheim Resort Area, the Anaheim Canyon Business Complex and three new Redevelopment Project Areas. The Planning Commission is probably the most important advisory role certainly to the City’s planning process. The Mayor and Council Members personally commended Mr. Henninger and Peraza also recognizing Mr. Peraza’s tenure as a six-year member of the Park and Recreation Commission. Mr. Henninger thanked all the people he had worked with over the last eight years. All those on Boards and Commissions are a very dedicated group of volunteers. The City has a great staff doing a great job. He feels everyone should be supporting their public facilities more than they do. He is thankful for the opportunity of serving; Mr. Peraza also echoed some of the same sentiments and especially thanked staff for helping him do a better job. He has been a resident of Anaheim for 42 years. It has been great to be a part of the growth of the City and he is appreciative of having the opportunity to serve. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,126,368.90 for the period ending June 29, 1998 and $4,540,657.58 for the period ending July 6, 1998, and $7,001,522.35 for the period ending July 13, 1998 in accordance with the 1997-98 and 1998-99 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting. ( 5:48 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:58 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Cher Huston, 3635 W. Stadco Drive, Anaheim. She is requesting a variance so that she can keep her potbellied pig. The issue has been all over the media and newspapers, but not because she (or her pig) wanted it that way. She has submitted to the Council, attached to her statement, Request for Zoning Variance - Anaheim Code 18.03 - Domestic Animals. Paragraph 2 notes a number of California cities (in Southern California including the neighboring City of Fullerton) that have amended their municipal codes to allow potbellied pigs as domestic animals. “Those cities benefit from license fees and the assurance that licensed animals have had the necessary vaccinations and neutering.” It also notes that Anaheim is estimated to have about 100 potbellied pigs which are unregulated and whose vaccination status is unknown. In concluding, Ms. Huston stated she has given a number of reasons why she feels confident the Council will let her keep her animal. If there are any further questions, she has more information than anyone would perhaps care to know which can be made available. Mayor Daly. He believes they have all heard of her predicament. What he is going to ask his colleagues to do this evening is ask their support in directing staff to research the ordinances in other communities. Staff is aware other cities in Orange County do allow under certain circumstances the keeping of a pig domestically; however, he believes there are a number of details that need to be worked out. He for one would be interested in seeing the City’s ordinance amended to allow the keeping of pigs as pets with the right restrictions. He asked that staff report back as to how the ordinances are working in some of the other cities such as the neighboring cities of Fullerton, Buena Park and Garden Grove. Ms. Huston stated in the meantime she is having a difficult time finding an appropriate home for her pig and moving her too much could be detrimental to her well being. She asked if there is a possibility that she could keep her; Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff. 6 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 City Attorney White. His understanding is that a notice of violation has been given but there has been no filing of any criminal complaint on this matter at this time. If it is Council’s desire, they could by motion instruct staff to defer enforcement of this provision pending a report back to the Council -- a staff recommendation on whether or not the ordinance should be amended and, if so, in what regard with respect to the keeping of potbellied pigs. There is nothing pending in court at the moment he is aware of that would stop the Council from taking that action. Further, currently the City has a Public Nuisance ordinance relating to making sure whatever animals are kept, are done so in a sanitary manner and do not constitute a public nuisance to the neighborhood. Even if they take action to defer enforcement of the ordinance with regard to pigs, everyone should be aware that the rights of neighbors are still being protected and whatever animals are kept have to be done in a way that is clean and sanitary and not detrimental to other property; Mayor Daly asked if staff needed a motion in terms of bringing back a report and a potential code amendment. City Attorney White. They could incorporate into one motion asking for the staff report and also if it is Council’s desire, to instruct staff to defer further enforcement of the ordinance with regard to potbellied pigs until the report is brought back to the Council. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved approval of a motion as articulated by the City Attorney that a staff report be prepared and submitted to the Council on the issue and whether or not the current ordinance should be amended with respect to the keeping of potbellied pigs and that any enforcement be deferred until that time. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Cindy Holloway, Pig Pals, a world-wide pet pig organization. (Ms. Holloway arrived later in the meeting after the discussion on pot-bellied pigs). Mayor Daly explained to Ms. Holloway the action taken by the Council regarding the subject (see above); Ms. Holloway. She will leave with the Council some examples of other zoning ordinances allowing the animals as well as some information from the USDA indicating that pot-bellied pigs are an exotic animal. She is present to offer any information they may need to help in drawing up a proper zoning ordinance. Delia Schweitzer. She has applied for the vacancy on the City’s Budget Advisory Commission (BAC) and is present to introduce herself and make herself available for any questions. She then gave her background and qualifications. (An application had previously been submitted.) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sharon Mass, 395 Old Bridge Road, Anaheim. Her previous employment was as Director of Social Work and Discharge Planning (12 years) at United Western medical Centers. She spoke relative to the ambulance company that was suggested to provide service to Anaheim (see minutes of June 9 and June 23, 1998 where extensive discussions and input have taken place relative to ambulance service) particularly the matter of experience in 911 emergency transportation and what she considers the lack of its inclusion in the RFP. By considering selecting a company with minimal emergency transport experience, she believes it will be a great disservice and injustice to the residents of Anaheim. When it comes to the critically ill, training and experience is the only criteria that should be included in a decision. After elaborating further on the issue, she asked the Council to give the residents of Anaheim the best advantage of surviving a medical emergency and give full weight to the issue of 911 emergency transport experience. Council Member Lopez asked that she leave her number with staff so that he might contact her. Dr. Sam Achs, practicing surgeon and resident of Anaheim Hills. He is discussing the same subject as the previous speaker, that of awarding a contract to an appropriate ambulance company for Anaheim. Two important items to be considered are quality of care and quality of service. The most important component of health care delivery in the emergency field has to do with experience and the second most important or equally important is response time of the ambulance providing the service. He then 7 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 elaborated on his reasons why these are so important and also addressed other concerns he has relative to some of the things he heard at the previous meetings on the subject. He feels one of the companies that was being seriously considered for receiving the contract is, in his opinion a “new kid on the block” with no significant experience in emergency medical care rendered in Orange County compared to the one which he personally knows which probably has the best response time and longest experience -- Medix Ambulance Company. He would recommend that the proposal for a contract be carefully reviewed and if need be re-reviewed and investigated. If that cannot be done, then give serious consideration to the items he has mentioned and make the decision based on the features he thinks are of importance to the entire citizenry. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bob Lowe, 2508 E. Romneya, Anaheim. He is located where the 91 and 57 Freeways intersect. He knows the Council has received correspondence in the past year or so from people in the area and much from him. They have been able through that correspondence to get better results and direct contact with Caltrans personnel regarding their concerns relative to the freeway reconstruction and attendant problems involving their neighborhood. Another concern is the 89’ “monster” City utility pole that is located there. Supposedly some of the poles were to be removed with the undergrounding of the lines going under the freeway. He feels it looks worse now than it did before and the poles are still there. He then elaborated upon their concerns over the work that is being done and how it is affecting his neighborhood mostly due to the City’s contractor. Mayor Daly. What he would like to suggest is that the City Manager have his administrative personnel look at the various issues in his (Lowe’s) neighborhood including the utility line that was put up and any other work that is being done in the neighborhood and respond in terms of the quality of the work, the timing and what he and the neighbors can expect in coming months on the freeway work and how it relates to City streets. He noted that Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager was present, explaining that Mr. Wood oversees all the construction contracts and coordination of the Public Works project. Mr. Wood can provide answers to his questions. Scott Johnson, 2514 E. Romneya Drive, Anaheim. He lives in the same neighborhood (as Mr. Lowe). The large utility pole is almost right in his back yard. He has pictures with him. He does not understand why it is there. He has lived in his house since 1981 and has been paying taxes for the undergrounding project. He feels because of the actions of the City’s Utilities Department, his property value has been greatly reduced. Mayor Daly interjected and stated they are asking the City Manager to explain to them in the next few days the status of the undergrounding efforts in the area, particularly regarding the subject utility pole and the engineering rationale involved. He then commented further on the City’s Utilities Underground Program now in its sixth year. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tammy Galloway, 270 S. Solomon Drive, Anaheim. She read a statement (made a part of the record) relaying what took place at a restaurant in Anaheim Hills on Tuesday, June 23, 1998, where she is a waitress. She had waited on Council Member Lopez and after he finished his meal she approached him to tell him what she thought about his vote to close The Eli Home. What ensued is contained in her statement, her concern being that after a couple of minutes Council Member Lopez came back into the restaurant and explained besides being a Council Member he is also a Police Officer and showed her his badge which she believes was for intimidation purposes and he was wrong in doing so. “That is why I am turning this in to the City as a formal complaint.” Council Member Lopez responded explaining what else took place in the discussion. Ms. Galloway kept looking over her shoulder because she was obviously concerned about her employment so she did not hear all of his comments. If she was listening, he told her he was appointed by Governor Wilson to a Child Abuse Prevention Committee to protect children. He identified himself as a Councilman and as a 8 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 Police Officer who was appointed to that committee and gave his reason why he did not support the CUP (for The Eli Home). He felt as an Anaheim Councilman/Police Officer it was not safe for children to be at that location. He also told her that he had offered and will give $5,000 to help The Eli Home find a location that is safe for children and that he has information, if they wish to know in private, of a church who is willing to help The Eli Home relocate in Anaheim Hills. The conversation was basically that and, as he mentioned, communication was difficult. He reiterated he is willing to help with a $5,000 donation to move that home and the children to a safe area in Anaheim Hills. All they have to do is approach him and he will give the name of the church willing to help. Council Member Zemel then renewed his request which he made at the Council Meeting of June 9, 1998 asking for a report from the Police Department based on statements made by Council Member Lopez on television (OCN) with regard to The Eli Home not being safe and the two Police Officers who gave him that information. He is renewing his request at this time. If the information has already been submitted, he will apologize not having had an opportunity to go through all of his material. City Manager Ruth. He has not given that information to him as yet. The investigation has been concluded in the last few days and he has not had an opportunity to review the report with the Police Chief. They have spent an extensive amount of time investigating the allegations. Council Member Zemel asked if Council Members make statements that are not factually correct, are they liable or is the City liable; City Attorney White. Council Members, like other City officials and employees are entitled to a defense and indemnification for actions that occur within the scope of their office or employment. That would be the question, whether it involves something that occurred in a private capacity or official duties. Council Member Zemel. He realizes there is disagreement in what each are saying. He feels it was courageous of Tammy Galloway (whose parents are Mike and Lorri Galloway, owners of The Eli Home). He looks forward to the report from the City Manager. Council Member Lopez. He also feels it is unfortunate that the conversation occurred between the young lady and himself. It would have been much better if she had come forward in front of the public and then all would have known what occurred. He appreciates her interpretation of what occurred and thanked her for stepping forward. Kim White, 744 S. Fairway Lane, Anaheim. She must comment on what Council Member Lopez said (to Tammy Galloway). The complaint was not so much about his decision, but about his allegations (to Tammy) on how the Galloways can afford to live in Anaheim Hills. He had no idea who Tammy was when he made the comment. She believes she speaks for the Board of Directors of the Eli Home. The children are safe at The Eli Home and have never been safer in their entire life. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Public input was received on items A24, A28, B5 and C1 (see discussion under those items). MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of July 14, 1998. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A27: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel , 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-140 through 98R-146, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 9 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 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 Charles & Nancy Bertocchini for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 19 , 1998. b. Claim submitted by National Surety Corp., Insured: Taormina Industries, Inc. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 11 , 1997. c. Claim submitted by Mike Hernandez for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 5 , 1997. d. Claim submitted by David H. Hauver for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 20 , 1997. e. Claim submitted by Mercury Insurance Co., Insured: Mariano C. Roxas for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 15, 1997. f. Claim submitted by Union Pacific Railroad Co., for indemnity purportedly arising out of actions of the City sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 18 , 1998. g. Claim submitted by Shannon Sheri Drane for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 7 , 1998. h. Claim submitted by Frank Feldhaus, Friends of Frank Feldhaus, to recover amount paid and attorney’s fees incurred pursuant to jugement entered in settlement of charges filed by special prosecutor, Ravi Mehta. Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken and Tait abstained on the portion dealing with the Frank Feldhaus claim. A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Budget Advisory Commission meeting held May 20, 1998. 156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis for the month of May, 1998. 175: Receiving and filing an Order Granting Untimely Interventi on and Revision Restricted Service List filed by California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket Nos. ER98- 899-000 and ER98-1923-000) before the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held May 28, 1998. 140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistics for the month of May, 1998. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held June 3, 1998. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held May 28, 1998. 10 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 A3. 169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Holland-Lowe Construction, Inc., in the amount of $112,647.50 for Ball Road/Walnut Street Northeast Corner Widening Improvements; 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 Company, in the amount of $377,000 for Lincoln Avenue 18” Watermain; 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. 169: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $21,593.20 in favor of Mobassaly Engineerin g, Inc., for the removal and replacement of 5,334 square feet of asphalt concrete pavement on Crescent Avenue between Gilbert Street and Magnolia Avenue. A6. 106: Adopting a seven-year Capital Improvement Program. (Public Works Department.) 134: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM concerning the status of the circulation element for the City of Anaheim. A7. 158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 2019-2021 East Lincoln Avenue (R/W 5198-1) - Lincoln Avenue/State College Boulevard Improvements; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the payment of $98,000 to Brunet & Sons. A8. 158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard (R/W 5211) - Anaheim Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue Improvements; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of $45,100 to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. A9. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13516, and the Subdivision Agreement with Standard Pacific Corporation. Tract No. 13516 is located within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan Area on Bailey Way, and is filed in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 88-2. A10. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13517, and the Subdivision Agreement with Standard Pacific Corporation. Tract No. 13517 is located within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan Area on Bailey Way, and is filed in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 88-2. A11. 123: Approving an Agreement with Computer Service Company Division, Inc., for the 1998/99 fiscal year, in the amount of $375,000, with an annual renewal option up to a maximum of five years for traffic signal maintenance services. A12. 123: Approving an Agreement with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, in an amount not to exceed $2,750 for a right-of-entry fee involving storm drain construction/underground pipeline at the Orangefa ir Lane crossing of the BNSF track. A13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties, or interests therein to the City. (R/W 5319, etc.) RESOLUTION NO. 98R-142 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deed conveying certain real properties, or interests therein to the City. (R/W 5211, etc.) 11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 A14. 160: Accepting the low bid of General Switchgear, Inc., in t he amount of $57,900 for the fabrication, wiring and installation of sixteen metal clad switchgear steel panels, including the replacement of one 12KV breaker, in accordance with Bid #5810. A15. 173: Receiving and filing a Notice of Proposed Rate Increase (Application No. 98-06-033) filed by Southern California Gas Company with the California Public Utilities Commission regarding its Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism and requests authority to recover in rates shareholder incentives earned under the progra m. Council Member Tait declared a conflict on this item and will, therefore, be abstaining from any discussion or decision. A16. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Air Cleaning Systems, in the amount of $140,472 for supplying and installing exhaust removal systems in eight Fire Stations. A17. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the first renewal of the Purchase Order to Nobest, Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $105,978 for the removal and replacement of residential sidewalks, curbs, gutters, cross gutters, alleys, access ramps and driveways for a period of one year, beginning July, 1998 through June, 1999: and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise optional renewals for an additional two one-year periods, in accordance with Bid #5627. A18. 123: Approving the Assignment and Assumption Shorb Wells Disposition and Development Agreement to Burnett Polygon L. P. A19. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-143 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the Job Training Partnership Act Titles II-A/II-B\II-C Master Subgrant Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the State of California for the period of July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said Master Subgrant Agreement, modifications thereto and related documents on behalf of the City. A20. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-144 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the Job Train ing Partnership Act Title III Master Subgrant Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the State of California for the period of July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said Master Subgrant Agreement, modifications thereto and related documents on behalf of the City. A21. 123: Approving an Amendment to the contract with APS Affiliates, which allows for replacing a single print station with four individual printers at the Central Library. A22. 123: Approving a n Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority, in an amount not-to-exceed $24,903 to provide transportation services to senior citizens participating in the Project TLC lunch programs for the fiscal year 1998/99. A23. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM confirming the written report of the Fire Chief regarding the cost of weed abatement, and directing the filing thereof with the County of Orange. A24. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-146 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 Peace Officers Unit represented by the Anaheim Police Association (effective July 10, 1998, through January 18, 2001). Phil Knypstra, Gelid Ave., Anaheim. Regarding the subject MOU for the Police, as the Council knows, he does a lot of research regarding salaries and benefits not only in Anaheim, but also in education and 12 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 in the private sector. Although the contract is probably a “done deal”, he has to comment because he feels there is going to be a day of reckoning in the General Fund unless safety salaries, Fire and Police, are somehow constrained. He then explained his concerns speaking to specific salaries, benefits, etc., as listed in the report. He again emphasized if they do not control safety salaries, they are headed for trouble in the long run. He also noted he is speaking for himself and not as a member of the Budget Advisory Commission. Council Member Lopez declared a conflict on this item and will, therefore, be abstaining from any discussion or decision. A25. 123: Approving Joint Trench Agreements with FirstWorld Communications, Inc., and Century Valley Cable, Inc., to permit joint trenching with the Public Utilities Department, and to share construction cost for the Katella Avenue Improvement and Beautification Project Phase I (Katella Phase I). A26. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held June 9, 1998, June 16, 1998, and the Adjourned Regular meeting held June 9, 1998. A27. 105: Approving the Bylaws of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission; approving compensation for Commissioners and directing staff to prepare an amendment to Ordinance No. 5607 providing for the same; and approving retroactive compensation for Commissioners from the date of their appointment. Mayor Daly. This is an item he supports which also approves compensation of Commissioners at $50 a meeting. His concern, however, is the retroactive clause. It is something he is not comfortable supporting. Otherwise it is a sensible recommendation. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the recommendation but deleting the portion approving retroactive compensation from the date of their appointment. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 98R-140 through 98R-145 for adoption. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R- 140 through 98R-145, 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- 140 through 98R-145, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 146 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R- 146 duly passed and adopted. END OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. 13 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 127: SUBMITTAL OF CERTIFICATE TO VERIFY SUFFICIENCY BY 15% OF THE A28. REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION FOR FIRE IMPASSE ARBITRATION: Phil Knypstra, Gelid Ave., Anaheim. As an individual and not as a member of the Budget Advisory Commission, he strongly urges the Council to go on record opposing this initiative because it is the public who will be disserviced if it passes. Richard Chavez, President of the Anaheim Firefighter’s Association. It is their understanding that the City Clerk is recommending their initiative be placed on the November ballot. They concur. There is a lot of community and voter support for this. If it is not placed on the General Municipal Election ballot, it would cost the City a lot of money (for a special election). Mr. Chavez then thanked those who attended memorial services for Bobby Cournoyer, a Firefighter, 35 years old, who died of leukemia contracted on Valentine’s Day, 1995. He was a very dedicated individual and would have been employed 8 years. He cared a lot about the community and paid the ultimate price. Submitted was report dated July 2, 1998 from the City Clerk recommending that the Council receive and file the Certificate as to Verification of Signatures from the Registrar of Voters and adopt the Resolution which will add the Charter Amendment question to the General Municipal Election Ballot of November 3, 1998. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to receive and file the Certificate of Sufficiency from the Registrar of Voters. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-147 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 98R-147 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim a proposed charter amendment relating to Fire Impasse by arbitration at the November 3, 1998, General Municipal Election. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 147 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 No. 98R- 147 duly passed and adopted. City Clerk Sohl explained that the remaining items are optional. City Attorney White. With regard to requesting a report on the fiscal impacts or other type of report, because the Council has now already adopted the resolution setting this matter for the November election, they have more flexibility on the timing. The law provides one of the options is for the Council to request the report and then call for the election. If they had done that, they would have been limited to asking for that tonight and it would have to be submitted in 30 days. Since the election is already called, there is greater flexibility and they can act on this matter tonight or at a later date and the timing as to when the report comes back is not governed by the 30-day limit. Council Member McCracken asked the deadline for written arguments; City Clerk Sohl. It is possible to delay that resolution; however, it makes scheduling and moving forward with the election much easier if it is adopted this evening. If so, the last day to file arguments for and against and then the direct arguments would be July 28 which would be in concert with the Registrar of Voters with whom the City is consolidating the election. If not adopted tonight, she is asking for August 7, 1998. It is her belief that 14 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 the proponents would want to write the arguments in favor. In any case, the Council may wish only to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and leave open whoever wishes to write the argument against. It is not necessary for the Council to designate anyone to write the argument in favor or against, or at all. She reiterated, the election law allows the Council the opportunity to reserve to itself to write an argument in favor or against. If they do not wish to do so, they do not have to but it is wise to have an impartial analysis. Council Member McCracken. If they order a fiscal impact report, her concern is that they have the report before any arguments are written which would necessitate a delay in adopting the resolution setting priorities for filing arguments. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to order a report on the fiscal impact (and other related issues) of the proposed charter amendment to be submitted to the Council within 30 days. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue for one week action on the proposed resolution setting priorities for filing written arguments and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS-APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO TERMS EXPIRING JUNE A29. 30, 1998: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING COMMISSION FOR NEW TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (Karcyzynski) BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (Knypstra, O’Connell) COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (Lowry, Miser, Ramirez, Romero, Terrell, Vanderbilt) INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR NEW TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (Powers) LIBRARY BOARD FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (Fink, Miller) PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (Manes, Wallace) PLANNING COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (Henninger, Peraza) PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002: (McMillan, White) SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS ENDING JUNE 30, 2002: (Atwell, Costello) Council Member Zemel. He is considering moving for a continuance on the appointment/reappointments if there is Council support. Council Member McCracken. Her only concern is relative to the Planning Commission and she would like the present Commissioners to serve until their successors are appointed. City Attorney White. The ordinances and City Charter, whichever is applicable to each group, provides that current commissioners continue to serve until their successors are appointed. 15 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the subject appointments/reappointments for one week. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS B1 - B6 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 22, 1998: INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 14, 1998: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 300 B1. AMENDMENT NO. 3 OF THE ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SP90-1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4030: REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 2a AND 2c OWNER: TWA-Anaheim Limited Partnership, 200 East Long Lace Road, #300, Bloomfield, MI 48303 AGENT: American Housing Partners Inc., Attn: Robert Zamora, 19700 Fairchild, #170, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 135-185 South Festival Drive . Property is 17.1 acres located on the south and west side of Festival Drive, 762 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Amendment No. 3 of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan (SP90-1) - proposal to amend the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan (SP90-1) to conditionally permit senior citizen apartments within Development Area 4 (Business Commercial Area). (Ordinance to amend code in preparation.) Conditional Use Permit No. 4030 - to permit a 259-unit, 3-story senior citizen apartment complex within the Anaheim Hills Festival. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION : Recommended adoption of Amendment No. 3 of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan (SP90- 1) to City Council (PC98-96) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained). GRANTED CUP NO. 4030 (PC98-97) - request City Council review. EIR NO. 300 previously approved - request City Council review. A Public Hearing will be set on this issue since it involves a Specific Plan Amendment which requires action by the Council. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4033, AND NEGATIVE B2. DECLARATION : OWNER: The Garden Church, Inc., Attn: Pastor Brian Crow, 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - The Garden Church . Property is 64.81 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 3,759 feet west of the centerline of Gypsum Canyon. To permit a 29,503 square foot church with accessory day care center, fellowship ha ll and multi- purpose building in conjunction with existing modular buildings with waiver of (a) required ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION : CUP NO. 4033 GRANTED, IN PART (PC98-98) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained). Denied waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4035, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: B3. OWNER: Alireza Bahrami, 329-331 North State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Mary Ann Chamberlain, 2426 South Rita Way, Santa Ana, CA 92704 LOCATION: 329-331 North State College Boulevard . Property is 0.37 acre located on the west side of State College Boulevard, 150 feet south of the centerline of Redwood Avenue. To permit and retain an automobile sales lot with a maximum of five (5) vehicles on display. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 4035 DENIED (PC98-99) (4 yes votes, 3 no votes). Approved Negative Declaration (4 yes votes, 3 no votes). 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by the agent, Mary Chamberlain, and therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4036 B4. AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, 120 North Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048- 3102 AGENT: Rick Manners, 680 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut, CA 91789 LOCATION: 2150-2170 South State College Boulevard . Property is 6.0 acres located on the east side of State College Boulevard, 570 feet south of the centerline of Or angewood Avenue. To permit an automotive sales lot (CarMax) with accessory service/repair facilities and two, 10- foot high, 150 square foot monument signs with waiver of (A) required parking lot landscaping - ) APPROVED IN PART, (B) permitted location of freestanding signs - ) APPROVED IN PART, (C) maximum sign width - DENIED, and (D) minimum sight distance requirements - DENIED. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 4036 GRANTED, IN PART (PC98-100) (7 yes votes) . Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, waiver (A) APPROVED IN PART, waiving only the location of the required landscaping, but not the square footage required or the number of trees, APPROVED waiver B, IN PART, waiving the setback requirement only to the extent necessary to allow a sign on the east side of the driveway; and DENIED waivers C and D. Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. A review of the Planning Commission’s decision was requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member Lopez and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be scheduled at a later date. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4026, AND NEGATIVE B5. DECLARATION: OWNER: EMIF, 1026 South Wall Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015 AGENT: Hani El Haj, 944 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 888 South Brookhurst Street . Property is 1.78 acres located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Brookmore Avenue. To establish a 4,727 square foot convenience market within an existing 24,341 sq uare foot commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION : CUP NO. 4026 GRANTED (PC98-101) (7 yes votes). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. The following comments were made at the Redevelopment Agency Meeting however relating to this item. Bernardine Detweiler, 2146 W. Banbury Circle, Anaheim. She is asking the Council not to consider another convenience market on Brookhurst. The Planning Commission hearing was held on a Monday at 1:30 p.m. on this issue when most of the people are working and unable to attend. The Planning Commission approved the use but the neighbors are in opposition. In a two-block area, there are five existing convenience stores plus two 24-hour supermarkets. They feel they are overloaded with traffic on Brookhurst as it now stands. They were hoping for another restaurant (such as Sizzler), not another convenience store. She has been elected President of the Brookmore Arms HOA for the last two years which is an 111-unit complex. They do not want any more crime, less traffic, and want to beautify the City. Mayor Daly. He explained when the issue was broached at the Agency Meeting, that the Council will be discussing that item under the B. portion of the Council agenda when the Council will have the option of setting it for a future public hearing. He intends to support that request. Subsequently the matter will be 17 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 set for a future hearing date. He asked that Ms.Detweiler stay in touch with the City Clerk to learn of the exact date. Public Hearings before the City Council are held in the evening. Council Member McCracken asked if the address on Brookhurst is in the Redevelopment Area; Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. It would be in the Project Area since it is north of Ball Road. A review of the Planning Commission’s decision was requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be scheduled at a later date REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM: B6. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3994 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS : Environmental Landscape Concepts, Attn: Dan Mickelson, 2490 North Glassell Street, Orange CA 92865, requests review and approval of final landscape and lighting plans for a previously-approved outdoor swap meet marketplace. Property is located at 1500 North Lemon Street (formerly Anahei m Drive-In). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION : Request for review and approval of Final Plans for CUP NO. 3994 APPROVED, with the addition of five trees. Approved previously approved Negative Declaration. END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM 6/22/98. ITEMS B7 - B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1998: INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS: JULY 16, 1998 REQUEST OR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE PLAN B7. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11: Stephen Hsu, 435 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests review and approval of Final Site Plan No. 98-08 to install one wall- mounted hotel identification sign. Property is located at 515 West Katella Avenue (Four Points Sheraton). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION : Approved Final Site Plan Review No. 98-08 (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 (PREV. CERTIFIED) B8. REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-06: Impact Hotel Group c/o Stephen Har ris, 2 Live Oak Center, Suite 700, 3445 Peachtree Street, Atlanta Georgia 30326 requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan to construct a new 15-story 252-room, suite-type hotel. Property is located at 2045 South Harbor Boulevard. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION : Approved Final Site Plan Review No. 98-06 (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy.) Mayor Daly asked if staff is comfortable with the architectural style that is proposed on this project and does it conform to the resort area guidelines and all of the City’s goals. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner. Staff is very comfortable with the design. It complies with all Anaheim Resort Specific Plan requirements and staff recommended approval of the project to the Commission. Mayor Daly. He did not have an opportunity to review the paper work in depth. He would like to move forward with the meeting at this time and then come back to this item. Later in the meeting, Mayor Daly stated he had reviewed the paperwork on the project and it looks great. 18 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 98-8A: D1. 176: In accordance with application filed by Clausen Enterprises , a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain easement for drainage and water purposes pursuant to Resolution No. 98R- 148 duly published in the North Orange County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 7, 1998 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works. The easements are being abandoned to provide for the new development of self-storage facilities. They are not in use at this time and will not be needed in the future. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait 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. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R- 148 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 97R- 148 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASMENT. (ABANDONMENT NO. 98-8A ). Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 148 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 No. 98R- 148 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 97-13A: D2. 17 6: In accordance with application filed by FC Holdings, Inc. , a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a certain easement for electrical and water puposes pursuant to Resolution No. 97R- 149 duly published in the North Orange County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 27, 1998 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works. The easements are being abandoned to provide for residential development at this location. They are not in use at this time and not expected to be used in the future Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait 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 19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from requirements to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R- 149 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 98R- 149 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING THAT PORTION OF WEST SIDE OF FAIRMONT BOULEVARD. (ABANDONMENT NO. 97-13A ). Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 149 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 No. 98R- 149 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. HOUSE MOVE ON SPECIAL PERMIT - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RELOCATION D3. 107 OF ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE: To consider the approval of a special permit to move one residential structure from 411 North Anaheim Boulevard to Agency-owned land at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rose Street (106 North Rose Street) in Redevelopment Project Alpha in the City of Anaheim, subject to compliance with all City of Anaheim Building Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County Register - July 1, 1998 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 2, 1998 Posting of property - July 2, 1998 Staff Input: See staff report dated July 14, 1998 from the Community Development Department recommending approval of the special permit. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. This is an item they approved as an Agency for staff to make an offer to purchase the property which is the house at 411 N. Anaheim Blvd. and also approved the bid award for moving the house to the location between Rose and East Streets on the north side of Lincoln. They do not have a final site plan and there are still some remaining issues related to a potential second structure as well as parking and landscape issues. This is simply to move the one two-story residential structure from 411 N. Anaheim Blvd. to 106 N. Rose and to store it there. The portion of the property closest to Rose is zoned residential and the corner of East and Lincoln is zoned commercial. They had anticipated in the Urban Design Plan they would look at some office uses at that location such as an architect, doctors, etc. and if possible getting two houses and putting them together as a small, very low intensity office use. She is not saying at this time exactly what that land use will be until they get the other half lined up and do a site plan. She cannot give specifics tonight but those will be discussed in the future. If there is any change in zoning from residential to potentially commercial, it would require an additional Public Hearing. They would be in front of the Council again and the Planning Commission. This is part of the historic preservation effort and a continuation of the historical preservation identity. It links the historical houses and identifies them as soon as one goes into the project area. That is the thought behind it. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak. Debbie McCommons-Nance, 211 N. Vine, Anaheim. She has lived for 39 years on that block. They like their neighborhood and love having the old homes around them. They especially like the fact that they 20 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 are a neighborhood. She then gave a feel of what it is like to live in the neighborhood. Why they are present is to express what their dreams are for the use of the land at E. Lincoln and Rose. They are concerned about traffic and commercial use in a neighborhood and the appropriateness of using old homes as businesses in that neighborhood. David Nance, 211 N. Vine, Anaheim. He is in favor of saving houses but not in favor of any house being placed on that property or the property in question becoming a commercial venture of any kind. The only commercial near them is across East Street. If the house does get moved, he would request that it be placed on a foundation and not up on blocks since he was told it could be sitting there for two years before actually setting it on a foundation. The City is using terms like historic restoration which he believes is an inaccurate statement. The closest thing he can say is remodeled with an historic feel. He noted that the new homes built directly across Lincoln from the property are behind a block wall. He does not see it would look appropriate or unifying to see these new style houses behind a block wall on one side and old houses on the other side. He feels similarity on both sides of the street would be a better look. He does not want to see the house to be moved to be used for anything besides residential. He is also requesting that there be a right-hand turn pocket placed at Lincoln and Rose to permit cars to turn into the area so they can make a right turn on to Rose. He feels if any commercial type of application is considered he assumes some type of EIR would have to be done. He again expressed his concern saying they are going to move the house and let it sit there for two years and then decide what they are going to do with it. He would personally rather have the house torn down. Mrs. Stipkovich clarified for Council Member Zemel that relative to the commercial portion, it is that portion right at East Street (and Lincoln). The portion closest to Rose is zoned residential. If they wanted to change the rest of that portion to commercial, they would have to have additional Public Hearings with the Planning Commission and the Council. She further clarified that the site includes all the property up to East Street (from Rose to East). It is about 1/2 acre or two lots. Louise Rhodes-Beecham, 114 N. Rose (previously resided 122 N. Vine), a resident of the area for 45 years. She is in agreement with the Nances. She does not want commercial next to her house. She has two children and the neighborhood has many small children. Commercial does not fit the neighborhood. The only ingress and egress she can see possible is off Rose directly across from the Grimshaw House. That would create immense traffic and if they do not put in a right-turn pocket, there will be accidents. She has had to live next to an empty lot for the last 10 years. It has been a detriment to her property value. She does not want to see a house sitting on blocks for four years like the Grimshaw House. They are in the process of moving and she is trying to sell her house. She is having a difficult time and if there is commercial property next to her she is not going to be able to sell. She would like to see residences such as the homes across the street or if the house is moved onto the property that it be put on a foundation, make it permanent and a part of the neighborhood. She is speaking for herself, her neighbors and her parents. Gale Eastman, 330 S. Illinois, Anaheim. She and her husband have been involved in doing research on the old homes in Anaheim for the last three years and have helped to establish the Historic District. She is aware of the house that is to be moved which has some significant history. Anaheim has already lost too many historic homes and the Council should be mindful of that. They want to keep the house; the owner will demolish it otherwise. Hopefully it will become a residence because it is residential. It is nice to hear the neighbors are supporting each other and that all would support the proposal as residential. Mayor Daly asked Mrs. Stipkovich to comment on the foundation issue and also the possibility of moving the house to a temporary location elsewhere in downtown until a decision is made on what exactly the use will be. Lisa Stipkovich. The comparison to the Grimshaw House is unfair because it was not a house the Agency moved there but by someone else who ultimately could not perform. Relative to a foundation for the house, that would make sense. They would have to know exactly where they would want to site the house. They prefer to have a contractor or developer do that so they are not doing it through a City process because it will increase the price and take longer. They know of several contractors and 21 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 developers interested in taking over the house. She is in agreement, they should get the house sited on a foundation as soon as possible. It would not be possible for them to go out and get a contract awarded and put in a foundation in the time the owner has given them, or August 1. The other issue of moving it temporarily somewhere else, it would double the cost. It is at least a $15,000 cost to move it a short distance and she would not recommend moving it twice. Relative to property values, if the Grimshaw House goes through in terms of the sale, it will actually raise the value of houses in the area because the comp will be higher than anything else in the neighborhood. Barbara Gonzales, 330 S. Ohio, Anaheim. She also lives in a vintage home and is appreciative of the comments made by the neighborhood. She is also a realtor in Anaheim and understands the impact that a vacant lot and house on blocks can cause to someone marketing their home. At the same time, she is very much in support of the movement of the house on to the site. It enhances that particular corner of the City. Not knowing what is going on the vacant lot is much more of a detriment than knowing what is. Because it is vacant, there is always the question, could another convenience store go into that location. It is important to assure the neighborhood that what is going to be there is going to be used for a purpose that would advance the quality of life in the particular neighborhood. Allen Clendennon, 900 E. Cypress, Anaheim. He had the privilege of moving the first house on the Heritage Lane Project 20 years ago. He believes this whole issue has united the neighborhood together again. They went around and talked to everyone before they moved their house. He believes what most people are concerned with is having a commercial enterprise on the corner. His recommendation would be to place it opposite the Grimshaw House, facing it and hopefully someone would come along and buy it and restore it like the rest of the houses. Javier Luota (sp), 14 N. Vine, Anaheim. He does not want the house on blocks. He lives directly across from the Grimshaw House. He relayed incidents he saw occur when the house was vacant including incidents involving drugs. He wants the house to be on a foundation. He is speaking for himself and his family. Mr. Nance asked to make a brief comment refuting the statement made that only two houses could be accommodated on the property. He believes there is ample length for four houses. Mrs. Stipkovich. Regarding trying to put new construction on that site, it is a very different set of circumstances than south of Lincoln where there was a 20-acre site and new internal streets created. Although the length is the same, there is a problem of creating access because they would have to take out other houses or apartments. The site does not lend itself to four houses and a new street. The reason they talked about two historical homes, it is obviously too big for one structure. They want to make sure whatever they do there will be compatible with the neighborhood. The other objective is to make sure that the historical homes that are placed there are visible. One of the problems with the residential use, it requires such high walls for sound attenuation you defeat the purpose for putting historical homes there. They need to work with the neighborhood on how to accomplish all the objectives. Her commitment is to have this move forward as fast as possible. Council Member McCracken. She knows the action tonight is only whether to move the house. The community is concerned if there is not a definite plan. She asked if it was possible to have two residences with an entrance from Rose with a drive going down to the second house. She does not know if it is wide enough to do that. Mrs. Stipkovich. There is an alley for access right now but it is problematic; Council Member McCracken. What she is hearing, the residents have no objection to having the home moved to the site but there needs to be a hard look at what the plan is going to be for the rest of the site and that it is all done in a timely manner. Mrs. Stipkovich. Their intention is to push that as far to East Street as possible. She is not saying the temporary location will be right on Rose. The time constraint is not hers but the owner. He wants the 22 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 house off the property by August 1. Staff will bring the matter back as soon as physically possible. She wants to come back and show the Council and the community what they can do with the house right now. Mayor Daly. What the Council needs and also the neighborhood is to see a potential site plan for placement of one and potentially two structures. That needs to happen before they authorize the move or not. He asked the absolute deadline. Lisa Stipkovich. She needs this to be approved tonight. They need to award a bid, get the contractor going and have it off the current site by August 1. They are working on site plans right now and are trying to think through all the various issues. She feels they can present something within the next couple of weeks as far as a concept plan. Council Member Tait asked if they can approve the move tonight and hold the decision on the concept to next week; Mrs. Stipkovich. They have quite a bit of time on the latter. Two thirds of the property is currently zoned residential and it will stay residential until the Council rezones it which would require additional Public Hearings. They are not making a decision on that aspect yet and can hold off deciding where the house will be located and the use. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion By Council Member Zemel , seconded by Council Member Tait , the City Council determined that the relocation and resoration of the Structure has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (”CEQA”) per Section 15301 (d) of the Guidelines for CEQA. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 98R-150 for adoption, approving a Special Permit to move one residential structure from 411 N. Anaheim Blvd. to Agency-owned land at 106 N. Rose St. in Redevelopment Project Alpha in the City of Anaheim. Refer to Resolution Book. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 150 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 No. 98R- 150 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE POLICE D4. 137: STATION TO BE FINANCED BY CITY OF ANAHEIM COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-1 (SYCAMORE CANYON), COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-2 ( THE HIGHLANDS), AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-3 (THE SUMMIT): Following the completion of the hearing concerning changing the location of the police station (from the so utherly terminus of Dream Street, south of Monte Vista Road to 8201 East Santa Ana Canyon Road) to be financed by City of Anaheim Community Facilities Districts Nos. 1989-1 (Sycamore Canyon), 1989-2 (The Highlands) and 1989-3 (The Summit), the City Council shall either: (I) after passing upon all protests and determining that a majority protest does not exist, adopt the resolutions submitting the question of changing location of the police station to be financed by said Districts to the qualified ele ctors of the Districts, or (ii) if a majority protest is determined to exist, abandon the proceedings. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County Register - July 2, 1998 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 25, 1998 City Clerk Sohl announced that she has not received any written protests to date. 23 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 City Manager James Ruth. For some time, it has been a high priority of the Council to move forward with a Police facility in the Anaheim Hills area. Land was designated for the purpose on Dream Street. The City designed a facility and bids came in at approximately $8 million dollars which was in excess of the City’s resources. They looked at the possibility of redesigning a facility for that location but there are many negative factors in trying to do a redesign. They contacted Anaheim Memorial Hospital, who is in the process of looking long range at a strategic plan for the hospital, to see if they were willing to dispose of their property/facility on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Numerous discussions were held with hospital staff. The hospital ultimately made the determination that they were going to excess the property and expressed an interest in negotiating with the City to acquire the property. Appraisals were made of the property and the City moved forward with a recommendation to the Council for their consideration to acquire the property for a permanent Police substation and other related community uses. It is 47,000 square feet and it was felt there were many advantages making that transition. The cost is 6.3 million and the building is in excellent shape. The Dream Street site bid was $8 million with no indication that going back out to bid would reduce the cost. With the new site there are sufficient funds to acquire the property and do the tenant improvements. He then gave some comparisons: New Site Dream Street Site Facility size - 47,000 sq. ft. 24,000 sq. ft. Parcel size - 6 + acres 1.9 acres Availability - occupany, approx. 4 mos. 18 months to two years More than adequate parking Limited parking Can accommodate future expansion Cannot accommodate future expansion Approximately 900 people a week are presently using the Anaheim Memorial building for community meetings, or about 1,800 sq. ft. Staff feels that could be enlarged substantially for additional community uses which would be of added benefit to the entire east Anaheim community. They have met with all three of the Mello-Roos District Boards of Directors and presented the plan to them. One of the issues that surfaced immediately was whether there were plans to build a jail at the site. The Police Chief assured them that there is no intention of ever putting a jail in that area. They have attempted to respond to those questions. This is an opportunity to acquire the facility which would require no new Mello-Roos funding. Monies are available through Mello-Roos funds that have been set aside in the past and allocated for the Dream Street project. The City would augment Mello-Roos funds by 1 million out of the General Fund and there is $375,000 set aside from developer fees to be allocated to the project. Council Member Lopez. There was a flyer circulated in the area that the community center would be about 2,000 square feet. He believes that is erroneous and it would be much bigger. City Manager Ruth. That is approximately what is being occupied at the facility right now. He and Chris Jarvi walked through the facility and they feel there is a natural extension of that area where they could at least double that area. They will bring in a facility planner to look at the floor space. The Police will occupy 24,000 sq. ft. initially. There will be opportunities for group use for other activities. The intent is to try to expand upon the groups and activities that are in there right now. This was a case of misinformation. They received a letter from the Orange YMCA today who are very supportive of the proposed plan. The flyer that was circulated was not an action of the YMCA. Council Member Lopez. He contacted his neighbors and they are very pleased with what the City is going to do. He is glad that the erroneous information was corrected. Council Member McCracken. She is pleased with the choice of the site and hopes that the community is as well. With the size, there is an opportunity to expand long range. As the area develops, other things could be built there that would bring services to the community. This will be a tremendous asset for the City and the community that has waited 20 years or more for an adequate meeting place. 24 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 Mayor Daly. The visibility of the site and the building is far superior than the previous site on Dream Street with better access for citizens in need of help. The size of the building is 47,000 sq. ft. whereas the previous building was to be 24,000 and could not be expanded. City Manager Ruth. He clarified that the building could not be expanded. Initially it would have been 24,000 sq. ft. with plans to shell out the rest eventually increasing it up to 32,000 - 34,000 sq. ft., but it was not possible to expand in the parking lot. Mayor Daly. The new proposed site seems to have more than adequate room for a full-size Police station as well as enough room for other community uses. Council Member Zemel. There has been a 20-year need in the area for a community center. It is important that they talk about it now. This is not just about a Police substation, it is a 47,000 sq. ft. facility. Previously 24,000 sq. ft. was going to be available at Dream Street. The new facility provides a great deal of sqare footage where the Police Department can expand. He would like to have it on record that they are not just doubling the size of a community center to 4,000 sq. ft. He believes they can do more. City Manager Ruth. The (Mello-Roos) money was allocated for a Police facility and about 80% has been used for that purpose. They are not saying long-term that is going to fill their needs because it is not. They will need to build another facility in the area in the future. This will be substantially better than anything they had in the past. They will try to maximize that within the law. Council Member Tait. What he envisions is a Police substation/community center and one of the added benefits is bringing Police Officers closer to the community. They are getting four times the return and twice the building. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing. Joe Contreras, 7605 E. Hollow Oak Road, Anaheim 92808, a resident of the Highlands Community District 2. Many of his neighbors are opposed to this proposal and using additional funds for a bigger facility with more Police activity in the area and also using Mello-Roos funds for that purpose as opposed to what they belive they are to be used for. He has not been invited to nor has he been aware of any meetings with association representatives. They would have been present and given their input. He was not prepared to speak tonight but felt the need to come and request localized Public Hearings as opposed to City Hall. He is asking for a continuance and for localized meetings so that residents can give input and also to hear of the proposals, recommendations and benefits, and also disadvantages. All he and his neighbors can see are more Police, a bigger Police station and jails. Additional Police activity, such as the substation at the Festival Center, does not seem to benefit them and mostly it is for writing tickets. He is lodging his opposition but requests some additional time and consideration for localized Public Hearings so that more residents can come before them. Paul Nelson, President and Chief Volunteer Officer, Orange YMCA. The YMCA is proud to be a partner with the City in increasing and tailoring services for those who live in the 92807 and 92808 Zip Code area as provided for in the proposed acquisition. Roy Jefferson, 540 S. Sunny Hill, Anaheim 92808. He first explained his community involvement having lived in the area for 20 years. He sees the need for a Police substation that is not in an isolated area of a shopping center. He feels the proposal will suit the community very well and the cost is just right. There is a real need for a community center or a bigger community facility in Anaheim Hills. He proposes that they give the community a huge square footage to use now, anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. The citizens in the 92808 area that he talked to at the July 4th celebration will support it. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. 25 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 Mayor Daly. He commends the City Manager and Police Chief for the hard work over the past few months in pinning down the details of this excellent opportunity for the community. This proposal will bring a new Police station and community center to Anaheim Hills. It does it very soon and in a cost- effective way which saves Anaheim taxpayers millions of dollars. It is an excellent site with great visibility and access and has flexibility for the future. He will offer the resolutions when the Council is ready to act. Council Member McCracken asked for clarification that the Mello-Roos Districts several years ago voted (through an election) to redirect spending Mello-Roos funds for a Police substation. City Attorney White. That was in 1989 and the decision as to where the funds will be spent whether Dream Street or Santa Ana Canyon Road will not affect by one penny the amount that the property owners in those three districts are paying. The money is there. It has been set aside and collected -- it is $5.3 million. The question is, is it going to go into a small facility on Dream Street or toward the purchase of this 47,000 sq.ft. facility on Santa Ana Canyon Road. There is no difference to the taxpayers. The money is committed, it has been collected and it is already there. The City could not take the money and buy a building that was only 20% utilized by the Police and then use the other 80% for unrelated uses. The money would be coming from the taxpayers in those districts who had committed the money for a Police Station. It appears only about 80% of the total cost will be funded by Mello-Roos. The other approximate 20% is General Fund money. Twenty percent or 10,000 sq. ft. of the building could be used for non-Police related purposes including a community center or any other uses. Council Member Tait. This is a huge building. It seems like a lot of space right now for a substation. They could have the best of both worlds on this property -- all the space they need for a Police substation, and all the space they need at this time for a community center. City Attorney White. It is not a design problem, it is a legal problem; Council Member Tait. Perhaps they ought to amend this again to call it a substation/community center. City Attorney White. They would have to go back and start the process all over. The hearing tonight is only on this one issue. Council Member Zemel. He assumes the process was started otherwise they will lose the opportunity to purchase the building. He then recounted the efforts that have been made over many years in trying to provide a community center for the area which the City promised including collecting park development fees from the development community to pay for that community center. He does not know if those fees have been set aside. He believes the City has an obligation and could throw in that financial obligation collected over the years to change the 80% ratio so that the entire community could use the facility. Council Member Tait asked how they can build a community center on the land if there is an 80% requirement for a Police facility; City Attorney White. They can use non-Mello-Roos funds. Another option, at a later date, they could go back and ask for a vote of the districts to change the percentages. Getting back to the business of tonight’s hearing, it is to determine whether the Council is going to allow the taxpayers of the three Mello-Roos Districts to vote and require a 2/3’s vote of all those residents to change the location that already has 5.3 million committed to it. Council Member Zemel. He is saying without a committment from staff that it is going to be a community center as well, he is not sure he is going to vote for it. City Manager Ruth. He did not hear anybody saying they would not use at least 20% for community purposes. They are taking the same money the people voted on for a Police station and moving the station to a different location. This new location gives the opportunity to do other things because the building is larger. It is their purpose and objective to do that. As they build out and add 10,000 more new homes and will probably need a 36,000 sq. ft. Police facility, and , as well, the 10,000 sq. ft. is 26 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 probably not going to be adequate. However, this is a significant improvement and an interim step. They are going to have to look at a permanent facility hopefully at the same location. Council Member Zemel. With the $1 million, there can be approximately 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. community space; City Manager Ruth answered, yes. It is available and they will bring in a planner to make sure it is done efficiently since they will be working around areas that have to have a lot of confidentiality. Council Member Zemel. He feels then, that the commitment is there. Council Member Lopez. As pointed out, there is a lot of land available for future buildout. There is also sufficient land to build another community center. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Zemel , seconded by Council Member Lopez , the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Zemel offered Resolution Nos. 98R-151 through 98R-153 for adoption, changing the location of the police station. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-1 (SYCAMORE CANYON) PURSUANT TO SECTION 53338 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE POLICE STATION TO BE FINANCE BY SAID DISTRICT. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-2 (THE HIGHLANDS) PURSUANT TO SECTION 53338 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE POLICE STATION TO BE FINANCE BY SAID DISTRICT. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1889-3 (THE SUMMIT) PURSUANT TO SECTION 53338 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE POLICE STATION TO BE FINANCE BY SAID DISTRICT. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R- 151 through 98R- 153 , 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- 151 through 98R- 153 , both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 27 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 C1. Discussion requested by Council Member Bob Zemel at the Council meeting of May 19, 1998, Item C4, regarding Governor Wilson’s vehicle license fee tax break. (Continued from the meetings of June 2, 1998, and June 9, 1998.) The following comments by Mrs. Kaywood were made under Public Comments on Agenda Items. Miriam Kaywood, Anaheim resident (former Council Member). Those who have been in the City, County or State for a while know that Anaheim’s “tax breaks” have been when the State could not balance the budget and then break Anaheim’s and everyone else’s budgets by taking the money from the Cities and agencies and never give it back. She would suggest out of the $4 billion it would be very appropriate to return the money to the over 450 cities in California and all of the Counties from which the money was taken to balance the State budget. They went through what she considers not a recession but a depression and all capital improvements in the City had to be delayed year after year. After expressing additional concerns and citing various newspaper articles on the subject, she feels one wise thing to do is to pay down State bonds for a better rating for the State so that the interest rate would be considerably lower which would help all of the people in Anaheim. She also referred to the City Manager’s transmittal letter in the FY98/99 budget document (PG. 4) wherein he notes the motor vehicle license fee is the fourth major General Fund revenue source projected to be $12.5 million in 1998/99. How someone could pass the budget and then turn around and say let’s do this for the Governor makes no sense to her and she feels it is a dangerous proposal. She requested that the Council reject the proposal. Council Member Zemel. He is proposing that the Council support the Governor’s proposal to reduce the car tax and give it back to the people. This calls for a statutory guarantee of the $11 million the City gets and the Governor is proposing a State-wide vote so that in the future there will be a Constitutional amendment. Mayor Daly. His bottom line with the resolution, he would like to build in language to guarantee replacement revenues. Council Member Zemel. The City would not be out any money on this issue due to the $4 billion State surplus. He is offering the resolution which will refund money back to the people who paid it in the first place. Mayor Daly. He reiterated, his goal is to underscore that provision of the resolution which would ask the State to guarantee replacement revenues to the City. If the State has that type of surplus, they can guarantee replacement revenues. If not, the City budget will have a big “hole” in it. He suggested inserting the following in the last paragraph (of the resolution) after the City of Anaheim, “that contingent upon an absolute guarantee of replacement revenue from the State of California.” Council Member Zemel. This item has been on the agenda for four weeks and he is not interested in making any changes. He would like them to take a vote on the resolution. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the Council approve the resolution (No. 2) as written. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Before further action was taken, Mayor Daly moved the following substitute motion: MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the item for one week for staff to prepare an alternate resolution with language as he suggested. (No Second.) Before further action was taken on the substitute motion, Mayor Daly clarified he is asking that language be inserted into the final paragraph because it constitutes Anaheim’s position; Council Member Zemel asked that they vote on his motion and the Mayor can vote no if he wishes. 28 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 Discussion then followed wherein Council Member Lopez asked staff to advise which was the better of the two, Council Member Zemel’s proposal, or the resolution with modified wording as suggested by the Mayor. At the conclusion of discussion, City Manager Ruth stated that they should protect the City’s revenues to the extent possible. Historically, the State has made promises in the past and failed to honor them. Those concerns have been expressed by every City in California. Their position is if VLF fees are going to be eliminated, there should be Constitutional protection to the cities that they will replace the revenues coming back to the City. Council Member Zemel expressed concern that Council Member Lopez was giving staff the opportunity to be the elected officials which is a bad precedent and inappropriate. He believes the Governor’s proposal statutorily guarantees the backfill. The Governor’s proposal is a good one. Further Council discussion and debate followed at the conclusion of which, the Mayor suggested a brief recess to ask staff to reduce his language changes to the resolution to the fewest words possible and try to forge a compromise. He will try to find a way to make this acceptable. He also noted that two members of the Budget Advisory Commission were present. The Council has not asked the Commission for advice relative to this issue and they might want to ask them to discuss this no matter what happens this evening. Recess: By general Council consent, the meeting was recessed for 10 minutes (9:25 P.M.). After Recess: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order all Council Members being present (9:37 P.M.) Council Member Zemel stated he would amend his original motion to include in the resolution the language as stated by the Mayor. Mayor Daly confirmed the wording as follows: in the second line of the, “Now, therefore, be it resolved” paragraph, second line, after City Council “with a guarantee of replacement revenues to the City of Anaheim.” Council Member Zemel was agreeable to the amendment; Council Member Tait also accepted the amendment in his second. (No vote was taken.) Mayor Daly. He asked if everybody was clear on the words he inserted. The Governor’s proposal is a “splendid” idea especially if and when the State Government replaces any lost revenues to the City. Without that replacement revenue, as he previously stated, there would be a major hole in the City budget. The City budget has been adopted for the 1998/99 Fiscal Year assuming the VLF funds would be available. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-154 for adoption supporting the Governor’s Vehicle License Fee reduction proposal including the wording he requested be inserted (see above). Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R- 154 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 No. 98R- 154 duly passed and adopted. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: C2. 114: City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report. 29 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JULY 14, 1998 COUNCIL COMMENTS: C3. 114: Council Member Zemel. There are two Budget Commissioners present and he would like to express concerns he has been hearing. The BAC has expressed a feeling of there not being any leadership from the Council relative to direction to the Commission on what the Council wants from them. Individually, there are things he would like them to be doing. He feels they should have a workshop with the BAC or some sort of communication system among the Council to be able to give direction to the Commission. City Attorney White clarified if they were going to take an action to refer items to the BAC, that would need to be agendized. Council Member Zemel suggested that they ask the City Manager to set up a workshop on that issue to have interface with the Commission so that the Council can give some direction. Mayor Daly. He surmises, the bottom line is to have a workshop with the Budget Advisory Commission; Council Member Zemel confirmed that was the request. Mayor Daly. Considering the types of items the Budget Commission could look at, he feels they might want to ask them to give their advice on the flow of State revenues to the City government, i.e., property taxes, sales taxes, the vehicle license fee, and all those revenues raised locally which are sent to Sacramento. Evaluate what the discussions are in Sacramento about guaranteeing local revenues rather than the year-to-year game and recommend steps to take as a City government. That is an item for consideration. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of July 14, 1998 was adjourned. (9:45 P.M.) LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 30