1982/08/31~C!_ty_Hal!j_Anaheim,_ _C~a~lifo_r~n~i_a__- COUNCIL MINUTES_ _-_ _Aug~u~s_t_ _3!j_ !~9_8_2, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RECREATION/COMMUNITY SERVICES: Jack Kudron
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
POLICE LIEUTENANT: Lawrence G. Hutcheson
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Mary Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned
regular meetings held June 15 and 22, 1982, and regular meeting held June 15,
1982. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler abstained,
since he was not a Council Member at that time. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,654,554.38, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
~TY MANA~g/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 82R-440 through 82R-446, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were denied and referred
to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Joni M. Coote for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to claimant's car hitting a hole in the street
on Cerrito~ between Douglass Road and Sunkist Avenue, on or about July 17,
1982.
757
~!~y_~_~A~be$~j_~C~_~forgi~_r_COUN~!L_M!~_r_69g~_~l~_l~ 10:00 A.M.
b. Claim submitted by Ann Marie Vigil for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at the Anaheim Stadium, on or
about June 17, 1982.
c. Claim submitted by Ronald Anderson for personal property damages
purportedly sustained when a parkway tree branch fell on claimant's parked
car at 206 East Adele Street, on or about July 2, 1982.
d. Claim submitted by Susan C. Johnson for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to claimant's car hitting a hole in the street
at the intersection of Crowther and Orangethorpe, on or about June 17,
1982.
e. Claim submitted by Westfield Insurance Company, Eva M. Pherrin,
Insured, for personal property loss purportedly sustained at 1645 West
Palm Lane, due to negligence on the part of the City during the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
f. Claim submitted by Go-Cal, Inc., for loss of business purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of the City, on Ball Road between
Euclid and West Streets, on or about April 21 through 25, 1982.
g. Claim submitted by Westfield Insurance Company, John J., Lawrence G.,
and Margaret V. Toner; John and Angelina Gomes, Insureds, for personal
property loss purportedly sustained at 1633 and 1639 Ball Road, due to
negligence on the part of the City during the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for July 1982.
b. 105: Public Library Board--Minutes of July 21, 1982.
c. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of July 12, August 9 and 17, 1982.
d. 178: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
Resolution 7923, Levying Taxes for the Fiscal Year Coramencing July 1, 1982
and Ending June 30, 1983.
3. 123/106: ADDropriatins ~A3,000 in ravanua and axpan~a into Control Canter
51, Program 01-183, in accordance with an agreement with California Drive-In
Theatres for Police services at swap meets held at the Anaheim Drive-in, 1520
North Lemon Street, on Saturdays and Sundays.
4. 106/117: Appropriating $89,074.46 into the City Treasurer's budget for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1982 for bank service charges.
758
_C!_ty_ H~a!l,_ ~A_n _a _h _e _i _m : ~California - COUNCIL MINUTES. _-_ _Aug~u_s_t__31,_ ~1_9~8_2~_ !0:00 A.M.
5. 174(CDBG): Approving a Request for Grant Funds from the Neighborhood
Preservation Projects of Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, in the amount
of $39,620, to provide for staff to assist in establishing a communication
link between the owners and tenants of the Apartment Improvement Program area,
and authorizing the Executive Director to execute a contract if the grant is
awarded.
6. 124: Approving as to form a revised Contractor's Agreement for various
contractors providing services to tenants at the Anaheim Convention Center,
effective April 17, 1982, and authorizing the Stadium-Convention Center-Golf
General Manager to continue execution of same.
7. 180: Approving an offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter Insurance Brokers at an
annual premium of $231,550, for a Blanket General Liability Insurance policy,
to provide $20,000,000 per occurrence coverage above a self-insured retention
of $100,000 per occurrence, for the term beginning September 1, 1982 and
ending September 1, 1983.
8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without
competitive bidding, to Computer Service Corporation in the amount of $67,098
for two traffic signal controllers, Type 100, seven interface units, and six
solid state police panels for Anaheim Stadium traffic control, and waiving
public advertising therefor.
9. 160: Authorizing a change order to Purchase Order 16275-M issued to Truck
Hydraulic Equipment in the amount of $5,985 for additional work required to
overhaul two Digger Derricks and two aerial manlifts authorized under Bid No.
3838.
10. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Digital Equipment Corporation at a
cost of $1,816 per month, for computer equipment service in connection with
the Library Circulation Control System, and authorizing the City Librarian to
execute same.
11. 123/150: Authorizing a Revenue Sharing Agreement with the County of
Orange, in the amount of $35,000, for the West Anaheim Senior Citizen Center,
and appropriating said funds and 1,846 full-time and 1,284 part-time hours
into Program No. 01-278, Senior Citizens.
12. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Interstate Consolidated
Industries to allow encroachment of various improvements, including a
2.21-foot roof overhang within a portion of City right-of-way and utility
easement at the northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Euclid Avenue.
(81-7E)
13. 139: Directing staff to continue to monitor Congressional bills S. 2784
and H.R. 6467 relating to the Major League Sports Community Protection Act of
1982 and The Professional Sports Stabilization Act of 1982, and to re-evaluate
the City's position and desired action at a later appropriate time.
759
~0:__~R~OLUTION NO. 82R-440: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PARK
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-283-7105;
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; 'AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened September 23, 1982, 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-441: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONSTRUCTION
OF WATER IMPROVEMENTS ON LINCOLN AVENUE FROM DELANO STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 54-605-6329-27430-34330; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened September 30, 1982, 2:00 p.m.)
i~3___R~QLU~IQN_ NO. 82R-442: A RESOLUTION~OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CENTRAL
MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
72-721-6325; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened
September 30, 1982, 2:00 p.m.)
101: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-443: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM
STADIUM, AMTRAK PASSENGER STATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
61-722-6325; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEI~EOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened
September 30, 1982, 2:00 p.m.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-444: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT NOHL RANCH ROAD AND SCOUT TRAIL, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-794-6325-E4180. (Grissom & Johnson, Inc.,
contractor)
760
~i~y_~!!,_~D~b~,_Q~!~prnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aug~p~_~l,_~_~O:00 A.M.
~O~___R~_~p~p%ION NO. 82~r~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER~ AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SCHWEITZER
PARK RESTROOM BUILDING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-817-7105-1702C
AND 24-817-7105-17110. (Leonard E. South & Son, Inc., contractor)
~3___R~_~Q~p~QN NO. 82R-446: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Wind Rivers;
Crow Anaheim; Lease All - La Palma; Pet Properties, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-440 through 82R-446,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated August 19, 1982, from
the Acting Chief of Police, Jimmie Kennedy, recommending that a contractual
agreement be authorized between the City of Anaheim and Coleman Security
Service, Inc., in the amount of $250,552, for the purpose of providing
elementary school crossing guard service within the City (on file in the City
Clerk's office) for the period of July 1, 1982, through June 30, 1983.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue.
Mrs. Heather ter Jung, 5436 East Spyglass Way, explained that the crossing
guard at the Imperial Elementary School, where her two children attended, had
been at that location for six years and had been doing an excellent job. Now
was not the time to be making changes at that corner, since there was a great
deal of activity because of the construction of the Weir Canyon Bridge. The
crossing guard was being offered a pay cut of $36 per paycheck to work for the
new company (Coleman). She asked if there was nothing the City could do to
keep their crossing guard.
City Manager Talley asked that a representative of Coleman address the issue.
It was Coleman's intent to retain existing personnel at existing
intersections. He hoped the Council was not going to get into the issue of
whether or not a crossing guard was going to get a pay cut.
Mr. Chuck Statler, General Manager, Coleman Security, confirmed that it was
their intent to retain all crossing guards currently existing. He then
answered questions posed by Council Members wherein he explained that they had
a roster of alternates to correct the no-show problem, as explained by the
761
Mayor where, in that case, a police officer or cadet had to fill in at the
present time, which was an expensive alternative and, as Mr. Talley later
pointed out, if someone was not available and they had to pay a high-priced
person, untrained in crossing guard activities, it was a losing situation,
since they were paying more and getting lesser service. Under the proposed
agreement, on a no-show, a trained crossing guard would be available.
Mr. Statler also confirmed for Councilman Bay that their basic concern and
criteria for crossing guards was their ability to distinguish colors, to hear
well, and be able to walk across the crosswalk. They made every attempt to
hire the handicapped. (As reported earlier, the crossing guard at the
Imperial Elementary School was a disabled person.)
Lieutenant Stan Kantor reported that the crossing guards almost without
exception would be or should be the same as at present. In response to Mrs.
ter Jung's concern about their present crossing guard, some months ago that
guard asked to be removed from that intersection because of personal concerns,
and she asked to be placed in a location closer to her home. He also
explained that the people who would become employees of Coleman Security would
be covered by a liability insurance program and that any employees involved in
a work schedule over 1000 hours would be entitled to a profit sharing with
Coleman. Relative to the School District's knowledge of the proposed program,
each District had representatives who attended the School Traffic Safety
Committee (STSC) meetings, although he personally had not had contact with the
Districts.
Councilman Overholt felt regardless of what action took place today, that the
School District should be notified immediately.
Mr. Bruce Gordon, 5829 Mountain Loop Trail, was also present to speak on
behalf of the crossing guard at Imperial Elementary School. He had two
concerns, the pay cut that she was going to have to take and secondly, would
she fall under the employment requirements of Coleman or be eliminated because
of her physical disability. The parents in the area would be willing to meet
whatever difference there might be in pay. The Council should be more
concerned with people as individuals and his concern was just for that
individual.
Mr. Statler stated that there would be a reduction in pay; however, the amount
they would be paying guards was fair and equitable, based upon an extensive
survey. It was a service oriented type of position and they were trying to
set the personnel up over the next few years, so that the cost would not get
out of hand. Relative to the second concern, if the lady passed the physical
and was able to carry a stop sign, he would find no problem in terms of her
being able to work.
~p~p~ Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement with Coleman Security
Service, Inc., in the amount of $250,552, to provide elementary school
crossing guard service for the period of July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1983.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
762
California - COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilman Pickler directed staff to send a letter to the Superintendent of
Schools notifying them of the action.
!g~ff!~9~__~y~_~_~p~p~R~_~ City Manager Talley briefed the Council on
memorandum dated August 23, 1982, from the Assistant City Manager, James Ruth
(on file in the City Clerk's office), recommending approval of the sculpture
designed for the Civic Center by Lloyd Hamrol and the Anaheim Arts Council
and, if approved, appropriating $11,092 from the Council Contingency Fund to
Account No. 16-841.
Mrs. Evelyn Foucher, President, Anaheim Arts Council, gave a background
summary of the work of the Anaheim Arts in Public Places Committee and the
progress they had made in obtaining the sculpture for the Civic Center, their
purpose being to find a way to enhance the public environment. At the
conclusion of her presentation, Mrs. Foucher introduced the sculptor, Mr.
Lloyd Hamrol.
Mr. Lloyd Hamrol, Sculptor, stated he hoped the Council had an opportunity to
view the model that was presented. He then gave a slide presentation showing
different views of the sculpture. The City of Anaheim, being a river home, a
city overlooking a river, formed the basis of his concept for the proposal.
His intention was to employ two native forms in the sculpture, California
riverstones and Sycamore trees, to be used in a way that invited public
interest through a certain romantic reflection on days gone by, as well as to
provide a social focus between the Civic Center and the street beyond. It
would impart different meanings to the viewer. Overall, his interest was in
creating linkages, linking the past with the present, architectural with
landscape, and people with their public spaces. He felt his sculpture would
present an image of grace, strength and simplicity to whoever was present.
Councilman Bay then posed questions to the City Attorney for purposes of
clarification, not on the work of art, but on the technicalities of the
contract and specifically with regard to dimensions of the sculpture as stated
in the contract. He presumed if the contract were approved today, it must be
approved with the stipulation that the Arts Council, per the contract, must
approve an amendment to it on the square footage allowed on the footing for
the work of art, the footing being over 500 square feet, whereas 500 square
feet was stated in the contract.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed it was a three-party contract and Councilman
Bay's question with reference to Page Two, Item C, of the contract indicated,
"that excavation shall not exceed sixty (60) cubic yards of soil and the
reinforced footings shall not exceed five hundred (500) square feet." That
had been interpreted differently by some persons connected with the agreement
and some felt it was a financial limitation only. They could get the three
parties (City of Anaheim, Arts Council and the Artist) together to clarify
that paragraph and rewrite it or merely approve footings of 600 square feet as
indicated in the staff report of August 23, 1982, and ask the Arts Council to
confirm that they agreed it would be 600 square feet.
763
Mrs. Foucher then confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the Arts Council had
approved the sculpture on August 3, 1982, at a joint meeting of the Board of
Directors and Mr. Hamrol was present at that meeting. They also approved all
dimensions.
Mrs. Eileen Anthony, Amberwick Lane, stated at their combined meeting of the
Board of Directors and the general membership, the motion was made that the
concept of the sculpture be accepted (August 3, 1982), and there was some
discussion on the dimensions at that time. There was also a later meeting of
the Art in Public Places Committee, attended by Mr. Hamrol, vi Wheeler and
Jack Kudron, where the dimensions were also discussed. She did not know the
results of the discussions at the meetings on the dimensions.
Mr. Ted Sprigg, Vice President, Anaheim Arts Council, stated that he conducted
the meeting where they approved the concept of the sculpture which was before
the Council today. The discussions relative to the dimensions and excavations
were added on to that motion. The motion was approved with the understanding
that Anaheim City staff and their representatives would meet to discuss any
problems with the interpretation of the particular clause that was mentioned
and that it be worked out at a later date, but prior to presentation to the
Council. It was considered a technicality, the main purpose being to get the
artwork itself approved. Approval was with the understanding that
technicalities be worked out with the City.
Mr. Dan Rowland, architect, stated that the piece of work before the Council
was not one objectively evaluated by him, as the architect of the Civic Center
building, or by most others--it was very subjective. He had been with the
Committee from its inception and had followed the selection procedure and was
pleased that Mr. Hamrol was chosen as the artist based on his work elsewhere
in the country. In his (Rowland's) view, the work was appropriate for the
space and for the community. It enhanced the structure (Civic Center
building) and it would become a useful piece of landscaping for the public.
Elsie Reid, 914 Fairview, stated she made the motion that accepted the
concept, and the reason it was only in concept was the fact that there was
nothing concerning the sculpture itself. They had a majority vote of the
combined group of the Board of Directors and the general membership, with only
one dissension. She felt the sculpture was a beautiful work, and it would add
to the landscape in front of the Civic Center.
Councilman Pickler asked staff if in the change of dimensions there was a
change in the cost.
Mr. Jack Kudron, Assistant Director Recreation/Community Services, stated that
the cost of the project could be impacted in terms of the increased square
footage of the footing, but not the cost to the City. Mr. Hamrol had the
grant to construct the sculpture and if the square footage was more than
anticipated, the costs would increase. The costs contained in the staff
report of August 23, 1982, were solid.
764
Councilman Bay stated the intent of the contract was to put some physical
limitations on the design to protect the City from the standpoint that they
only had a certain amount of area for the work of art. His comments all dealt
with the contract and had nothing to do with the opinions relative to the
artwork itself. His intent was only to protect the City with regard to the
contract on the limitation of size and the cost. If it was the Art Council's
will, and that of the Council, to amend the contract to include the square
footage of the base, he saw no problem with that. It was a matter of the
technicality in the way the motion was made in order to approve the sculpture.
City Attorney Hopkins suggested if there was a question, that the Council move
to approve the contract with the change to 600 square feet, subject to the
approval of the Arts Council and Mr. Hamrol, which would then have all parties
agreeing to the 600 square feet.
~9~P~ Councilman Pickler moved to approve the sculpture designed for the
Civic Center by Lloyd Hamrol, changing the square footage to 600 square feet,
subject to the approval of the Arts Council and Mr. Hamrol. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, further discussion followed between Council Members
and staff relative to the square footage wherein Councilman Bay suggested that
the motion be amended that the square footage be 600 square feet ~ 150 square
feet or two hundred square feet.
Mr. Hamrol then explained it was not only his understanding but that of others
that the 500-square foot figure was in the contract to help establish the
City's financial obligation in the project. That figure was arrived at well
in advance of the proposal and there was no specific proposal at the time the
500-square feet figure was settled on. When asked many months ago what kind
of physical disturbance to the site he could anticipate, he used the figures
that were in the contract as a rough estimate only to help City staff
establish the financial obligations. What they saw in the model was what they
would get in terms of dimensions. If the footing requirement was more than
500 square feet, it would all be underground in any case. Otherwise, the real
configuration of the exposed portion would not change substantially from that
presented.
Councilman Bay then explained that his vote was going to be "no" in principle
and had nothing to do with the judgment on the work of art itself. He was
opposed in principle to Federal taxpayer money being appropriated by the
Federal Government to works of art controlled by the bureaus who provided the
monies through the National Endowment of the Arts. He had never agreed with
the philosophical concept that governments had the right to choose artists or
art, or provide the dollars for it. Thus, he did not approve of the Council
appropriating $11,000 or $12,000 of taxpayers' funds toward the sculpture as a
proper action of government.
765
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, amended as follows: Approving
the sculpture designed for the Civic Center by Sculptor Lloyd Hamrol, amending
the agreement approved by the Council on April 13, 1982, with Mr. Hamrol and
the Anaheim Arts Council, to state that the reinforced footings shall not
exceed six hundred (600) square feet, plus or minus one hundred-fifty (150)
square feet, subject to the approval of the Arts Council and Mr. Hamrol, and
appropriating $11,092 from the Council Contingency Fund to Account No. 16-841,
representing City costs. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
Roth moved to accept the resignation of Mr. Arley Beeson from the Project Area
Committee (PAC) submitted in his letter dated August 24, 1982 (term ending
June 30, 1983). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Colleen B. McGregor
(Boskell) from the Mother Colony History Room submitted in her letter dated
August 25, 1982, with regret, and that a letter of thanks be sent to Mrs.
McGregor for her services. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
~.~%~_A~_~I~p~P_m~_!~!P~I~3 The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held August 9, 1982, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
l.~__~P~PlZ!~6~_P!g_~_~M_!~_~9~_!}!!: Submitted by Southern California
District of Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, to permit a private day school
(grades K through 8) with a maximum enrollment of 370 children on
RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 5900 East Santa Aha Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-152, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2361, and granted a negative declaration status.
~___R~_~Lh!!!E!~6T!O~_~0,_~Cr~}r}: Submitted by Automobile Club of Southern
California, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC), to construct
a Lwo-story office building and bank on property located at the southwest
corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Avenida Margarita.
Tha City Planning Commission, pursuant ~o R~solu~ion No. PC82-153, grantad
Reclassification No. 82-83-5, and granted a negative declaration status.
}.a~._~_Ag_!~_~O~_}~: Submitted by Chester H. and Agnes Y. Chiya, to
construct a two-story commercial building on CL zoned property located at 3169
West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-154, granted
Variance No. 3286, and granted a negative declaration status.
766
~..~9~.~.!~!0~_A~__p~_~_P~_!~_~p~_))~)_- T~_R)J_!~I~O_~: Submitted by Aurora
Kerley, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1171, to permit
establishment of a commercial stable for the boarding of horses on ML zoned
property located north side of Miraloma Avenue, east of Red Gum Street, as a
condition of approval under Conditional Use Permit No. 2295.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-158, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1171.
,~__8~L~!F!~A~!O~_~O)_~Pz~)~)_~_~g~!P~_OF_~!M~: Submitted by Bay
Development Corporation, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 80-81-1, proposed CL zoning to construct a commercial office complex on
property located on the south and west of the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Rio Vista Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 80-81-1, to expire July 28, 1983.
.~ ..... ~,~L~!F!~8~!P~_~P~_~0r~)~_r_~g~!P~_PF_~!M~: Submitted by Leoncio T.
Laurel, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-6,
proposed CL zoning to permit a three-story office building on property located
at 1575-1595 West Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 80-81-6, to expire August 25, 1983.
.Z.~..~%~%!y~.%.R~..~_~p~_!O~_6~p_!p~.z_~g~!p~_pF._~!_M~_: Submitted by
Kent Land Company, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No.
10983, a proposed 164-1ot, 162-unit, RM-3000(SC) subdivision on property
located at the southeast corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road,
and to Tentative Tract No. 10984, a proposed 151-lot, 150-unit, RS-5000(SC)
subdivision on property located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of
Weir Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 10983 and 10984, to expire September 23, 1983.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
~p~p!%)p~_A~__pp~_~_m~.!%.~p~.g~_~_m~__Ap_~%~p~p~: Submitted by Alfred D. Paino,
et al, Kim Shik and Myung Shik Yun, to permit a lOl-unit motel with on-sale
alcoholic beverages on CL zoned property located at 727 South Beach Boulevard,
with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-150, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2355 (Readvertised), and granted a negative
declaration status.
767
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2355.
~p~p!~!p~_..A~._P~?~_m~_!~.~P.~_~}!: Submitted by Abel and Carol A. Mendez, to
retain a used auto sales lot on CG zoned property located at 1039 North
Anaheim Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-151, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2356, and disapproved a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore,
a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
~!~-~Q~-~'~: Submitted by Shell Oil Company, to retain two canopy signs
on C-R zoned property located at 601 West Ball Road, with the following Code
waivers: (a) maximum number of freestanding signs and (b) minimum distance
between freestanding signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-155, granted
Variance No. 3282, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
Councilman Pickler requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on
Variance No. 3282. His concerns specifically revolved around the freestanding
signs.
.~.R$~LA~!¥!g~!O~_~,. ~7~O~_A~_~_~_AI~_I_A~_~_E_~O~_}~}: Submitted by Pablo V. and
Laura Knowlton Dominguez, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to
permit two canopy signs on property located at 1200 South State College
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum number of
freestanding signs and (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC82-156 and
PC82-157, granted Reclassification No. 82-83-2 and Variance No. 3283, and
granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Pickler requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on
Reclassification No. 82-83-2 and Variance No. 3283. His concerns specifically
revolved around ~he freestandin~ si§ns.
~9.~.p.!i!QF_AL~.U~.~_R~.!i.~p~_!~_g$QU~p%: Submitted by Mr. Bare Unfinished
Furniture~ requesting temporary display of flags, banners and other special
events for Conditional Use Permit No. 1831, to permit a restaurant and certain
commercial uses in a proposed industrial complex with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces on ML zoned property located on the south side of La
Palma Avenue between White Star Avenue and Armando Street.
The City Planning Commission recommended denial of the request to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1831.
The City Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
768
.~7.P~ .... MP~!~Q-M$-...~--Agg--Q~-RL-~Y-~M~P)-~P~ To consider a proposed ordinance
adding a new Chapter to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
Zoning, to add a Mobilehome Park Overlay (MHP) Zone.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that the City Council determined to hold a
hearing on the subject proposed ordinance on September 14, 1982, at 7:00 p.m.
at the Brookhurst Community Center, 2271 West Crescent Avenue, and the subject
appeared on this agenda only as an item from the August 9, 1982, Planning
Commission meeting.
Harry S. Rinker requesting an additional six-month extension of time for
temporary access from Imperial Highway to the Shopping Center--continued from
the meeting of July 27, 1982 for a progress report from the developer (see
minutes that date).
City Clerk Roberts announced that a request had been received from Mr. Rinker
for a one-week continuance, since he would be unable to attend today's meeting.
Councilman Roth moved to continue the subject request for one week.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Prior to voting on the motion, Mr. Alan Watts, attorney for Mr. Rinker, stated
he was present to answer any questions pertaining to the letter submitted
dated August 25, 1982, by Mr. Rinker (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Since Mr. Watts had been in on all negotiations, Council Members Pickler and
Kaywood did not see a need for a continuance. Council Members Overholt and
Roth favored a one-week continuance. Councilman Bay felt they needed further
information from Mr. Rinker or his counsel, and now would be the time to let
his counsel know what they expected, so that Mr. Rinker could be prepared when
he was present in one week. He would not oppose the motion of continuance,
but he was opposed to cutting off discussion between the Council and Mr. Watts.
Councilman Overholt stated the intent was to cut off discussions so the matter
would not be handled piecemeal and would require two sessions.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for the Schantz property (north of Canyon Plaza
Shopping Center), 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, stated that he and Mr. Watts
had been almost singularly engaged in the progress that had taken place to
this time.
The motion to continue was withdrawn, with the understanding that the Council
might still want to have Mr. Rinker present.
Mr. Watts explained that the August 25, 1982 letter outlined what had been
occurring, pursuant to the temporary access agreement. It indicated that not
only themselves, but also other property owners and City staff had been
involved in trying to reach some type of solution and it did show some
progress being made toward the solution of the access problem.
769
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated, as she expressed earlier, her shock that the
letter was suggesting that certain properties involved be added to the
existing Redevelopment project or that a new redevelopment project be created
so that the City could pay. She further expressed, as she had done in the
past, that the situation from the beginning was one of a self-created hardship
by Mr. Rinker.
Mr. Watts stated that one of the ideas that had been suggested and discussed
with Redevelopment and Planning Departments was the possibility of either
amending the existing Redevelopment Project Alpha Area or creating a new one,
the thought being that the tax increment developed by such a mechanism would
pay for the access problems; Councilwoman Kaywood felt the other mechanism was
to have Mr. Rinker pay for the situation he created.
Mr. Watts stated he did not believe it was entirely his (Rinker's)
responsibility to cure an access problem for both the Canyon Plaza Shopping
Center and the Schantz property.
Further discussion then followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Farano,
at the conclusion of which Mayor Roth stated that he did not feel six months
was too long a period of time to accomplish what they were trying to do, in
essence, redesigning the eastbound onramp to the Riverside Freeway.
~O~!O~ Councilman Bay moved to grant a six-month retroactive extension of
time from the expiration date of the Temporary Access Agreement between the
City of Anaheim and the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center (July 22, 1982) with a
report to be submitted in three months from the expiration date, as well as a
report in the fourth, fifth and sixth month. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked Mr. Watts if he would stipulate to
Councilman Bay's motion; Mr. Watts stated they would do so.
Councilman Overhol~ stated he agreed the problem was inattention, and he
questioned whether any progress was really being made. That was why he felt
that Mr. Rinker should be present. He personally wanted to talk with him,
either at the Council meeting, or on the phone. As he previously expressed,
unless a report was submi~ted~ he was going to vote ~o close the temporary
access.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Bay. MOTION
CARRIED.
.$$TA~L!$_H~_gNT_~AM$~.ON_THg. COUNQ!L._6GgNP~ Discussion relating to inclusion
on the agenda of the names of establishments on Planning Commission items
submitted to the City Council, and whether conditional use permits can be made
personal to a particular applicant--continued from August 17, 1982 (see
minutes that date).
770
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated she did not see anyone's opposition in putting
an identifying name on something that could make it easier for the Council and
the public to i~entify what they were talking about. She saw no problem in
including the name of the establishment on the Council Agenda.
Mayor Roth stated that Councilman Overholt explained it well, that when a
change of ownership occurred, the establishment name would remain the same and
might prejudice the Council's decision. That was why he was opposed.
Councilman Bay stated that two different subjects were involved, the first,
Councilwoman Kaywood's concern regarding the inclusion of establishment names
on the agenda. The second subject, which he broached, was whether conditional
use permits could be made personal to a particular applicant, rather than the
property owner. They received a response from the City Attorney's office
dated August 17, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office), which adequately
answered his questions, advising it would be inappropriate for the City to
attempt to limit a conditional use permit to the particular applicant or owner
of the property at the time of the grant.
Questioning of staff then followed relative to the feasibility of including
the establishment name on the Council Agenda during which Councilman Overholt
again expressed his concern that if the name of the previous business were
included on the agenda, it could prejudice somebody who was applying for a use
for a new business at that location.
~0%IO~; Councilwoman Kaywood moved that where names were easily available and
appeared on the staff report to the Planning Commission, that those names also
be included on Council Agendas under Planning Commission Consent Calendar
Items. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Overholt and Roth
voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
171: ORDINANCE ~Q. 4362, PRQ~T¥.T.A%..L~V¥.FQg__FISQ.AL..Yg.Ag.!~2rS~ The
following is a verbatim transcript of the tape of the proceedings on this
subject, as requested by the City Council:
ROBERTS:
Item 17, Ordinances for Adoption. There is one. Ordinance No.
4362 is an Ordinance of the City of Anaheim fixing and levying a
property tax on full cash value of all property within the
corporate limits of the City of Anaheim for the Fiscal Year 82-83.
KAYWOOD:
I would like to speak to this and have verbatim into the minutes,
and I will give you copies of them with the following statements
which I wish to make. This i$ the last day, and I would ask that
even though minds may be made up and closed, that they open at
least temporarily to listen and see. I'm going to...
771
C.%t~ Hal~., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
OVERHOLT:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
OVERHOLT:
ROTH:
OVERHOLT:
ROTH:
OVERHOLT:
BAY:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
I have a motion. Under our new agenda, does this part of our
meeting continue until the end of our Council day? What happens if
we don't discuss this before noon?
Nothing...We're just coutinuing on...
This is the last item.
This last item.
What do we do after we get done here?
Nothing. We're going home.
We' re through?
Well after a Closed Session.
Ail right, then there's nothing after that.
Council comments?
Council comments, Closed Session, then we adjourn.
May I continue? I'm going to read the argument in favor of
Proposition C, which was the election of November 4th, 1980, which
was signed by myself and Councilman Overholt, who was Mayor Pro Tem
at the time.
This bond makes good--and this was a $10 million bond--this bond
makes good economic sense to protect the taxpayers investment and
make the streets safer for everyone. Many streets are presently
flooded, even in minor rains. Motorists stranded in stalled
vehicles; children staying home, unable to cross intersections to
attend school; inconvenience; personal expense of wear and tear on
tires and vehicles; and danger to life and property. Standing
stagnant water becomes a breeding ground for mosquitos and other
insects, adding to the nuisance and health hazards. Our streets
are designed for fifteen years' normal service with adequate
drainage facilities. Without proper drainage, in only five years
we get severely eroded riding surfaces; potholes; and a
continually, increasingly, expensive and sometimes ineffective
maintenance nightmare. As Anaheim continually develops, covering
more land with paving and roofs, runoff water increases and more
storm drains must be constructed. Orange County maintains the
major channels for storm water runoff, but Anaheim must provide the
facilities to drain into these man-made channels. The inflationary
spiral is destroying Anaheim's ability to finance construction of
storm drains. We're losing grouud while the needs become greater
772
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
each year. Approval of this $10 million bond would provide
necessary funds for Anaheim to actively pursue cooperative projects
with the State or County that require cities financial
participation, thereby creating a leverage to construct $15 million
or more in vitally needed storm drains City-wide. Since 1968 we've
been using gas tax funds for storm drain construction, which limits
the amount available for repair and reconstruction of City streets
to the desired service level for all. It is imperative that this
bond be passed to allow construction of urgently needed City-wide
storm drains. Keep Anaheim's local decisions out of Sacramento.
Vote yes on C and 4. And it was signed by myself and Councilman
Overholt. There was no argument against Proposition C.
Now I will read the statement that I read last week. If that went
in verbatim, we don't need to repeat that in these minutes.
Otherwise, I would like it in verbatim. It's a Five cents, and
that's not five percent, but five cents ad valorem tax to service
PERS obligations, releasing that money to accomplish storm drain
construction in Anaheim.
"At the November 4th, 1980 State-wide General Election, the then
City Council placed a $10 million storm drain general obligation
issue on the ballot, payable through property taxes. Although a
two-thirds vote was required for passage, and there was not much
optimism, the Anaheim voters overwhelmingly approved it by
sixty-eight percent, almost 50,000 voters, with a sixty-six percent
turnout.
Even though Howard Jarvis personally stated, and Paul Gann just
reiterated August 18th in the Times, Proposition 13 needs a
two-thirds vote of the people to increase taxes, the amendment
contained confusing language which prevented the sale of the bonds,
and caused loss of local control.
We have been committed since the election to find a way to
implement the will of the people and construct the storm drains
that are so desperately needed throughout Anaheim. We explored an
assessment district, which proved to be too expensive, slow,
unwieldy, cumbersome and inequitable.
Now at last the opportunity has come and there is no better time.
Since we cannot back up one year or more, we can take immediate
steps to inaugurate a three-year program to address the
ever-increasing critical storm drain needs Anaheim's voters
approved at the polls, while protecting Anaheim's investment, and
make our streets safer. This action will provide the necessary
funds for Anaheim to actively pursue cooperative projects with the
State or County that require our financial participation, creating
773
City Hall, Anaheim, Cal.ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - August_.~!,_..1982, 10:00 A.M.
BAY:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
HOPKINS:
ROTH:
HOPKINS:
the leverage to construct perhaps $15 million or more in vitally
needed storm drains City-wide. The added benefit to the taxpayers
is that it is interest-free, unlike the general obligation bonds
that were already enthusiastically approved by a sixty-eight
percent vote.
The time is right for lower, competitive bids on construction,
stretching every dollar for the taxpayer's greatest bang for the
buck, while also creating jobs and putting more people to work
right now.
The property tax is also a deductible item on State and Federal
income tax, further cutting the cost for homeowners.
The voters of Anaheim have spoken. It is now time for the elected
leadership to listen and respond."
Now if there's any discussion in between, that would be fine,
otherwise I'll read this final statement at this time.
Oh, I intend to make some comments. Do you want them now or after
your final statement?
I think now would be fine.
Okay, also, let me just interject one thing. I think that the
question was asked by Councilman Overholt at the last meeting
whether this was a legal procedure in trying to formulate the bond
issue, and he said he didn't want to tell us in public, he wanted
to go to Closed Session and tell us, so maybe this is all in vain.
No, it's not in vain.
That maybe it's not a legal procedure.
It is a legal procedure.
Are you the attorney?
I've spoken to the attorney.
No problem regarding Mrs. Kaywood's statement, sir, but I was just
going to give you further information on the cases that are
involved.
It is a legal procedure.
Yes, sir, it is.
774
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 1982, 10:OO A.M.
ROTH:
HOPKINS:
BAY:
Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Last week you said you wanted
to discuss it in Closed Session. Is that correct?
Before the Council took action I would want to discuss it.
Let me again clarify my position. I stated very clearly last week
that while there was an opportunity under a court ruling that
opened holes in Prop 13, it's not the only court ruling. There's a
couple of court rulings that have occurred in the last few months
that to the proponents of Prop 13 and to a lot of people who voted
for Prop 13, the intent was not for those loopholes to be opened
that are being opened by those courts. There will be a great deal
of discussion on those loopholes throughout this State in the
coming year. There may be even initiatives. There may be moves by
the legislature. I, for one, am not in any hurry to jump on a
court loophole to impose a new tax on the citizens of Anaheim, for
any reason.
Without discussion of the need for storm drains, nor the bond
issue, nor the fact that I couldn't agree more with Mrs. Kaywood
that I felt there were things in Prop 13 that were not fully
understood by the voters when they voted for it. Nevertheless,
with the various court rulings, which we predicted would happen on
Prop 13, I think they need a little more time to firm up in the
appeal system, and also in the initiative system, if it occurs.
Your call for verbatim minutes is very interesting. I presume that
you've taken this on as a political move, and from your speech I
can then assume that you are making it a political move.
Therefore, I'm glad you stressed the fact that the increase in this
tax was five cents, not five percent. If you will play the
percentage of the general obligation bond tax rate that we are
voting on, which is 6.57 mils, and you apply five cents to it, you
are in effect increasing it eight hundred and si~ty-one percent.
So, if what you're proposing from a political standpoint is to
increase the ad valorem taxes in relation to general obligation
bond redemption by eight hundred and sixty-one percent, then maybe
we should talk about percentages. I can only say that I thought
this issue was fully clarified by at least two~ and maybe three
members of this Council last week. Since it's moved into the
political arena, then I will take exception to your comments on
that this is the only way to ever get the money for storm drains,
because in my opinion, it isn't the only way to ever get money for
storm drains, or any other capital improvement in this City. I
would rather see this Council concentrate on cutting operational
costs around here, within the City budget, so that more money
within the total budget went to capital improvements sorely needed
in this City, not to mention storm drains and street repair and the
other things that are needed, including the alleys and the rest of
down town.
775
City Hall, Anaheim,, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 3~, .1_982, .lp.:~O A.M.
KAYWOOD:
BAY:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
OVERHOLT:
KAYWOOD:
OVERHOLT:
But those were'hr voted on.
That's all I've got to say on it.
I just want to say well, well said Councilman Bay. Excellent
presentation. I also want to tell this Council that as I came into
the parking structure this morning, an announcement was made on the
radio that there was going to be a news conference today by Jarvis
and Gann to plug the loophole of the two-thirds vote and so they
have kicked off their initiative today, because they've seen the
activity of San Francisco and Los Angeles and now the attempt of
Anaheim to circumvent Proposition 13.
There's no attempt to circumvent Proposition 13, and if you were To
pick up the phone now and call Mr. Jarvis or Mr. Gann, I assure you
that they would fall over in shock to know that we in fact had a
two-thirds vote and could not sell the bonds because of a fluke in
Proposition 13.
Is there any additional discussion?
Yes, there certainly is.
Okay.
Mr. Overholt, did you want to say something?
Well, last week I had a severe concern about whether the procedure
that was suggested was indeed a subterfuge. I'm mindful of the
fact that August of 1982 is a different environment from November
of 1980. That's when this issue was brought before the people,
wasn't it. I'm mindful of the fact that people are very concerned
now about increasing their cost of living by way of taxation, and
that's where we seem to sit. I agree with many of the things
Councilman Bay, or Mayor Pro Tem Bay has said. I disagree
violently with the accusation of political activity by Councilwoman
Kaywood. I think Councilwoman Kaywood, and I for that matter, and
those who supported placing the matter of storm drains before the
people in November of 1980, recognize the need, as did sixty-eight
percent of the people who voted, that the bomb is ticking, the time
is ticking, and that we do have to give attention to the, I guess
the fancy word is infra-structure isn't it?
Yes o
Of this City. You know, it can just go on so long and then
eventually we're going to get that big flood, or that big rain, or
whatever, and then we aren't going to be able to move around in
this City, and my only reason for not supporting your ordinance
today is that I feel that the legal procedure that has been
776
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
KAYWOOD:
OVERHOLT:
PICKLER:
developed is not clear, that I think it's gray and if, as the Mayor
states, there's going to be au effort to block it, I think that's
further proof that it's a gray area. I notice in an excerpt from
the Los Angeles Daily Journal that maybe an Assemblyman Robert
Naylor is going to offer a bill to block the effect of the San
Francisco case, and I don't know if we want to get into municipal
financing with that kind of a legal cloud over our head. With due
respect to our City Attorney, I notice that he was quoted as saying
that we're studying the matter, and if it needs to be studied then
in my opinion it is not crystal clear. Councilwoman Kaywood, if we
can find a legal and clear way to get on the plan of getting the
storm drain program going, my support will be there. I do not
think this is a legal and clear way, and therefore, I am not going
to support the ordinance.
I keep hearing confusion with the San Francisco decision, which is
not this decision. This is not what I've brought up. This is the
San Gabriel, with the elected charter, and it's entirely different
from the San Francisco.
I think that the principles involved are the principles that are
going to be attacked by those who feel they are punching holes, as
Mayor Bay said, Mayor Pro Tem Bay said, in Prop 13, and I think
these court decisions are going to have to be tested until we
finally determine what...power...I guess is the word, the local
governments have to raise funds for purposes that are certainly
worthy. So, I'm not prepared at this point to jump into the pond.
I think that's...I personally, as an elected official, am not
prepared at this point to jump into this pond. I think that the
legal means have to be clarified.
I, again I have no idea whether this is legal or illegal and I
imagine this question will be answered down the road apiece. I
look at the area I've lived in for twenty-seven years, and having
again we back a proposition that the State wants to put through
where the people will have to spend $25 to $50 to have an
automobile checked, and I guess the reason for that is, more or
less, the conditions we have maybe that doesn't help on our roads.
This is an area that we can actually, according to what the law
states, and again, when the law states it and the attorney says
it's ~till legal, I f~el w~ can ~o that way, a~e~ th~ ~iva cants
with the idea that we're going to use it for the roads, for the
storm drains that we need to help clear up the conditions that we
have in Anaheim, which have been just awful, and it's something
that once it's complete, we can remove that tax. We could say,
Okay, we don't need that any longer and pull it back, and again, if
we sell bonds we have to pay taxes, interest on it. This one we
don't, and I feel its a method of accomplishing something, and
777
qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 198.2, 10:00 A.M.
KAYWOOD:
we're talking about 310 million, and that's something I imagine we
might find something in the budget, I don't know that we'll find
the total amount, but I don't think we'll even come close to the
amount of money needed to take care what we need in the City. I
believe in Proposition 13 because that's what the people voted
for. I also feel that they mention the fact that in the election
that Ms. Kaywood's referring to, that they wanted the storm drains
in. They want to be able to drive down the streets without having
to get stuck in the the middle and again, when I think of the cost
of the fixing the roads and the problems that causes it, I think
this is a better method of going.
I would like to read my statement for today then, because it is the
deadline for adopting the tax rate.
"Last week two Council Members wanted to hold public hearings
before adding the five cents to the property tax rate. Why hold
elections if the results are ignored. When were hearings ever held
after an election. The greatest public hearing was held on
November 4th, 1980, with 48,340 voters, sixty-eight percent,
shouting, yes, we want storm drains now, and we'll bond 310 million
payable by property taxes.
As Mayor Pro Tem Bay always reminds us, in this country, majority
rules. Yet this City Council appears to be deliberately ignoring
the will of the people, and disenfranchising sixty-eight percent of
Anaheim's voters twice, once by Sacramento when we lost local
controls through contradictory confusing language in the amendment,
and now by two or three of their own elected officials, the City
Council elected to represent the people. Although two Council
Members voted against allowing the people to vote on the issue at
all, they must, nevertheless, accept the outcome of the election.
They insisted it would not pass, but it was an overwhelming yes.
Even more amazing, the total campaign funds that were spent were
31,300. It must be obvious to all of you that there was no need
for fancy phrases or slick promotion. The people of Anaheim
understood very well what storm drains are and what they will
accomplish. How can you turn a deaf ear on the voters' choice?
Mayor Roth said he wants to keep the costs down and not raise
taxes. If that is true, there is no choice but to vote for the
five cent tax. The City must respond to emergencies. Filling pot
holes and constant patchwork is the most expensive and wasteful way
to go. Allowing new streets to erode in five years without
drainage, instead of lasting fifteen years does not require a
college degree to understand how costly and inefficient that is.
Save taxpayers money. Vote that five cent tax today. Mayor Roth
also is on the board of the Santa Aha River Flood Protection
Agency, SARFPA. We are constantly being reminded we're in the
778
Ci~% Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 198.2, _!Q:00 A.M.
ROTH:
HOPKINS:
ROTH:
HOPKINS:
ROTH:
BAY:
worst flood hazard west of the Mississippi. How can you ignore the
storm drain needs in Anaheim, the storm drains the people voted
for. To delay beginning a three- or four-year program today is to
deliberately invite disaster, an unconscionable act by elected
officials.
As one constituent said to me, Anaheim is the best run City in the
State and Country. Don't jeopardize that. There is no free
lunch. There are no miracles. We must act now if you choose to
represent the people. If you refuse to implement the people's
choice, 48,340 Anaheim voters, and think you know better than the
voters, or don't believe they know what they want, I intend to keep
reminding you gentlemen. It would be a foolhardy decision to
thwart the voters and endanger the residents, tourists and business
and industry of Anaheim. We can save up to twenty percent on bids
now, compared to last year and 1980. There is no better time. We
must begin as responsible, responsive elected leaders."
I will again offer the resolution for an emergency ordinance and a
first reading, adopting the ad valorem tax percent for general
obligation bond redemption at .05657 per hundred dollars for
1982-83.
Prior to the reading, City Attorney, would it be appropriate then
to take a roll call vote to see whether there is enough four-fifths
vote to obtain it prior to the reading?
No objection to that sir, if you can...
Ail right, is there any discussion?
...determine if there is a four-fifths vote for an emergency
ordinance.
Right.
Mr. Mayor, I can't let the last comments go by without some
comment. As I said when I started my other discussion, this has
taken a political, taken into the political arena. I have no
doubts about it now. Back when we voted whether or not to put the
proposition on the ballot, I was never quoted as saying that it
would fail. My concern at that time was another proposition from
the §tare that would make the implementation o~ the storm drain
proposition impossible. My concern with putting it on the ballot,
and the reason I voted against putting it on the ballot was not
because I didn't want the people to vote on an issue, but because I
sensed that it might win, it did win, and then it could not be
implemented under the law, and that was my stated reasons for not
putting it on the ballot. I wanted to correct that.
779
C%t~ Hall.,...Anaheim,. Cal.if.or~a - COUNCIL MINUTES -August 3.!,_19.82, 10:00 A.M.
KAYWOOD:
PICKLER:
ROTH:
EVERYONE:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
ROBERTS:
KAYWOOD:
ROBERTS:
KAYWOOD:
ROBERTS:
KAYW00D:
BAY:
ROBERTS:
0VERHOLT:
Well, there's another stated reason, Councilman Bay. It was that
you would not agree to have it go on a November ballot because
people do not remember the rain and the flood in November. So you
did say you didn't want it on the ballot. You felt it would fail.
I want to state one thing, and Mr. Bay is entitled to his
interpretation. I don't feel that my opinion is voiced because of,
I don't think its being political. That is not the reason I state
my case the way I did. I feel its something that I think the City
of Anaheim really needs. We've been talking about it for years and
years and nothing has been done, and my main purpose is doing
something about a situation that has to be cleared up, and the
longer we wait, the worse it's going to get.
Are we ready for a roll call vote? This is on the emergency
ordinance to increase the five percent. We would...
Five cents.
Five cents, not five percent. Five cents. We will take a roll
call vote. If we get indication four-fifths votes, then we'll go
ahead and read the emergency ordinance. Right?
Mayor Roth, somebody wanted to speak.
Oh, sure.
While he's on his way down, I need a little clarification after I
heard a statement made. The verbatim transcript was only the
statements that you have read.
Ail three statements that I read.
But not the entire meeting.
No I don't think so.
Thank you.
I'd like it a little lengthier than our coudensed minutes, but I
don't want...
It's going to be verbatim on this subject?
0nly on the statements read by Councilwoman Kaywood will be
verbatim on the minutes.
Well the whole discussion of the issue should be verbatim, should
it not?
780
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
ROBERTS:
OVERHOLT:
ROTH:
BAY:
OVERHOLT:
ROBERTS:
BAY:
ROTH:
STANTON:
I'm sorry.
The whole discussion of the issue should be verbatim, should it not?
Sure.
Yes,
I think it's unfair to take it verbatim only on one Council
Member's...
That's the direction I need. Thank you.
Only on this issue, not the whole meeting.
Okay, give us your name and address, and spell your last name for
the record please.
Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dale Stanton. Stanton,
and I live at 1509 Harle Place. About a year ago or less, I was up
here on a condominium situation located at Euclid and Cerritos, and
there were a number of issues that we were addressing at that time,
one of which was storm drains, and at that time, we brought in a
number of photographs showing the flooded condition on this one
street in the City of Anaheim, in which we were going to pave over
a strawberry patch and in effect, create a canal which would put
more water into this same area. There is a storm drain being put
in by the contractor and it was our understanding that it would not
be connected up until such time as the main storm drain could be
increased in size, and when asked when that was going to be it was
indeterminate because the money wasn't available. Now that's just
one corner that I really know about. I've got a problem with, when
you put up a building, it's necessary to put in the services and
amenities that go in with that building, and when you put up a
building you have to build a street. You have to maintain the
street. You have to put in sewers. You have to put in storm
drains. When you get enough buildings you got to look at police
and fire protection. These things should be budgeted and should be
accounted for in a reasonable time frame. You can't just keep on
building and forget these things.
In 1980, somebody decided that we really had a problem with storm
drains. It is now two years later and nothing has been done.
You've talked about all the legal aspects of not being able to sell
bonds. Well, I don't think, as some of you've said, that this is
in a political arena anymore. It came out of the political arena
in 1980 when the people said, put the storm drains in. Now, the
only decision to be made is when are you going to sell the bonds
and impose the tax, or whatever is necessary to get the storm
drains built.
781
City _Hal!., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 19.~2, 10:00 A.M.
ROTH:
OVERHOLT:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROT H:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
HOPKINS:
ROTH:
HOPKINS:
ROTH:
The one thing that you haven't really taken care of is you haven't
looked at, or assessed the fact that you've got a public safety is
your highest priority, and in a storm, there's all kinds of
ramifications in which you now become liable, because the people
told you two years ago to build storm drains. You've neglected to
do it. Now you become even more liable for any accidents or
disasters that occur.
Mr. Overholt made a statement that he didn't want to jump into the
pond. I submit that Mr. Overholt doesn't have to jump in the
pond. Just wait a few more years and the pond will come to him.
Thank you very much.
Any questions?
I was talking about the legal pond, Dale, not the wet pond.
Do I understand this vote is in response to my offering the
resolution for an emergency ordinance, or is it a separate one to
see if there's anyone who's going to vote for it?
Well, rather than read the whole ordinance with the amount of the
increase...
No, I'm not asking that it be read. You don't ask, you don't have
it read till after it's voted on.
Well, first of all, you ask a question and you don't let me
respond. All right?
You do that to me all the time.
I certainly do not: I've just said, asked for clarification to the
City Attorney in which he nodded his head yes, which says, can we
take a vote and see whether we have a four-fifths vote to read the
ordinance into the record. Right?
This would just be a straw vote if you will, sir...
A straw vote to see...
...to determine whether or not we have sufficient, then we would
later take action on the ordinance.
To me, I'm just saying it takes a considerable length of time to
read the whole ordinance into the record. Why don't we get
indication whether we got four-fifths vote in support of it before
we read it? Is that clear? Well, lets, you understand what I...
782
CitE Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, ~%~.~...10:.00 A.M.
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
OVERHOLT:
ROTH:
PIGNONE:
ROTH:
No, I really don't because if I ask for an ordinance...
Okay, will the City Attorney please explain for Councilwoman
Kaywood...
...and we have a vote, then we will see whether we have the vote.
If you have a vote to see if you have a vote, I don't know what
that's for.
We have another citizen that wants to address us. Why don't we
hear from the citizen.
Yes, ma'm.
Good afternoon. My name is Sheri Pignone. I live at 1181 Crown
Street. Romneya Drive desperately needs a storm drain. We have an
elementary school on Romneya Drive. When it rains, the water is up
over the sidewalk, the children wade home soaking wet. We asked
last year, because we knew first off that there wasn't the City
budget for storm drains, so we looked for block grant fund money to
fund a storm drain. We were told that the anticipated amount for
block grant funds for the fiscal year 82-83 was approximately $1.8
million. All of the neighborhood councils had to scale down their
requests needed for the area. One of them that we wanted was a
storm drain, which we were told was approximately $250,000.
Because of the anticipated amount being so low, we then went to a
drainage swale to be removed on Romneya, which was $75,000, so we
scaled down our needed capital improvements and so forth in the
area. We did put, request $25,000 be put aside for initial study
for a storm drain in our area.
In January 12th, 1982, recalling the minutes here, I won't read it
all, but it said, "Mayor Seymour first stated it was clear that the
Council was legally empowered to make appropriations of CDBG funds
wherever it saw fit." Then down below it said, "he excluded the
$25,000 for the initial study for a storm drain in the Patrick
Henry area, since he was optimistic that in the future they were
going to find a way to fund storm drains." Two years ago, we voted
for this, and it is something I think all will agree is desperately
needed in this City. Sure, our taxes are going to go up a little,
but I don't think anyone's going to squawk over it. Sixty-eight
percent were in favor of having their taxes raised to get the storm
drains implemented. I'm definitely in support of it. I've talked
to several of my neighbors about this. We all feel it's necessary
and want it and would like to have it implemented. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions? Mrs. Pignone, thank you.
783
City Ha.i!.,. ~qaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 1982, 10:00 A-M-.
KAYWOOD:
I just would like to remind the Council, too, that just a month ago
we set aside $670,000 in the listed priorities of our capital
improvement projects from our new budget that we couldn't even
begin to look at. We placed $640,000 in reserve in the event of an
NFL strike. That wouldn't cover just those three. We have had
complaints from the industry and business on Lemon Street in that
area for the Lemon Street storm drain, the Ball Road storm drains,
State College and Sunkist, the Broadway, Euclid, Lincoln storm
drain supplement. When there is rain that isn't even a heavy one
and I'm coming back from here, I have a lot of trouble getting
home. I can't get out of my street when there's been a rain. I
don't know what you need after the people have told you what they
want. Can we take a vote on the emergency ordinance?
HOPKINS:
Mr. Mayor, if I could suggest, I would prefer to wait until after
emerg...after the Closed Session. There's a technical detail that
I have to get figure if we're going to read the urgency ordinance,
because the previous emergency ordinance would have to be rescinded
and then a new one read if we were going to take the vote, and I
would recommend it be after a Closed Session.
PICKLER: I would so move, Mr. Mayor.
KAYWOOD: Second.
ROTH:
The idea is again that we're saying that the straw vote would be
not appropriate at this time.
TALLEY:
No problem on the straw vote, but if you're going to vote on the
emergency ordinance, I would have to read that, and then have all
the figures plugged in to rescind the previous emergency ordinance,
which would take a little time.
OVERHOLT: Well, I would support the motion to have a Closed Session.
ROTH: Fi~e.
BAY: Second.
ROTH: Ail right.
KAYWOOD: That's...we already...
ROTH:
With actions anticipated.
Later in the meeting after closed session (1:22 p.m.), additional discussion
took place, and the following is a verbatim of the proceedings:
784
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES.T, ~u$~st 31, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
ROTH: Item 17 on the agenda.
BAY: Are we still going to straw vote it?
KAYWOOD: I will introduce a resolution for an emergency ordinance, fixing
and levying a property tax of .05657 per hundred dollars.
ROTH: We'll take a roll call vote and if we get a four-fifths vote, then
we'll go back, read it in the read it in the record, and vote
again. Is that correct?
HOPKINS: Fine, sir.
ROTH: Everybody's happy with that, alright? Roll call vote.
ROBERTS: The ordinance has failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Roth
ROTH: Okay. Ail right. Is there any reason whatsoever then to read the
ordinance into the record?
HOPKINS: No, sir.
ROTH: I just want to make sure that we're all sure of what's going on.
All right?
HOPKINS: No, sir. There is the ordinance for adoption that is presently on
the agenda, 4362...
ROTH: Right.
TALLEY: ...which would finalize the action taken last week.
ROTH: Right. I'll offer that and we'll have a roll call vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 4362: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A
PROPERTY TAX ON FULL CASH VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982/83.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4362 duly passed and adopted.
785
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August...31, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
(Of the three statements read by Councilwoman Kaywood, only the second
entitled, "Five Cent Ad Valorem Tax to Service PERS Obligations, Releasing
That Money to Accomplish Storm Drain Construction in Anaheim (Employee
Retirement Benefits)" was submitted to the City Clerk.)
101: REPRESENTATION AT NFL OWNERS MEETING,.. OCTOBER 19, .1.9.8.2.:' Councilman Bay
stated that since the subject meeting fell in the middle of the Annual League
of California Cities Conference, the Council should be considering who it was
going to send back to New York City for that meeting.
Councilman Overholt suggested that a liaison meeting be held some time this
week to discuss the matter.
148: CONSIDERATION OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY WASTE
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION: Mayor Roth referred to memorandum dated
August 26, 1982, from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Cindy Cave,
regarding membership of the proposed Orange County Waste Management Advisory
Commission wherein it was reported that the Orange County General Services
Agency proposal recommended a seventeen-member commission, and the League of
Cities a fifteen-member commission. He recommended that they monitor both
proposals to see what would come to pass before they made their final
decision. He had spoken to Supervisor Ralph Clark on the matter to advise him
of the importance of having an Anaheim representative on the commission.
144: COMPOSITION OF ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: Mayor Roth
referred to memorandum dated August 30, 1982, from Cindy Cave,
Intergovernmental Relations Officer, regarding the subject, which was
requested by him, to ask for Council consideration and guidance on issues
associated with alternate proposals for Commission membership and the
resubmittal of legislation to finance transportation projects. He (Roth) was
a member of the Special Committee on Transportation to study the subject
Commission. He felt they should have a very vocal voice in the make-up of the
Commission and recommended that the Council direct him to hold their options
open and to keep monitoring the situation, as well as the proposed one percent
increase in sales tax to finance transportation projects.
Councilman Bay stated he agreed with the Mayor's position to continue
attendance in a "watch dog" fashion, since there might be other major issues
that would develop. One that he sensed was a move by the Orange County Board
of Supervisors on the question of whether a commission or an elected body of
officials would determine funding allocations. He restated his concern that
he would never support an increase of sales taxes in the County without
pre-allocation of the revenues from that tax. He would actively oppose
expenditure discretion being left open on the millions of dollars that would
be involved with the one percent sales tax.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:55 p.m.)
786
.qity ~1!,' Ana~e. im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 31, 1982, 10:00 A..M..
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:22 p.m.)
For action taken after Closed Session, see the portion of the verbatim
transcript of the proceedings of this meeting relative to adoption of
Ordinance No. 4362, fixing and levying a property tax for Fiscal Year 1982-83.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess for a lunch break. C°~cilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:22 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:00 p.m.)
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed
Session. (3:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Bay called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present with the exception of Mayor Roth. (5:12 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:12 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
787