1981/01/27 81R-110
City..Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLA~MATIONS: The following proclamations were authorized by Mayor Seymour
and approved by the City Council:
"National Children's Dental Health Month in Anaheim" - February 1981
"Freedom Month" - February 1981
Mayor Seymour, after reading the Freedom Mo~th Proclamation adopted on the
return of 52 Americans held captives by terrorists in Iran for more than 440
days, stated it was their intention tha~ a personal proclamation be mailed to
each of the ex-hostages on behalf of the Council and citizens of Anaheim. He
felt that perhaps given a little time, the community, the home of Disneyland,
the Angels and the Rams, would find an even better way to welcome them home
and to thank them for the commitment they had made to their country.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be mailed to Mr. Clem M. McColloch and Mr. Glenn P.
Allen for their many years of dedicated service on the Metropolitan Water District
of Orange County Board.
148/173: PRESENTATION BY THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD)
ON SENATE BILL 33, VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: Councilman Roth first
briefed the Chambers audience on the makeup of the South Coast Air Quality Manage-
ment District Board, of which he was a member. He also briefly explained the
essence of Senate Bill 33 (SB33), Vehicle Inspection Maintenance authored by
State Senator Robert Presley. The bill would require annual inspection and
maintenance (I/M) of motor vehicles in the smog-affected areas of California.
He pointed out further that their Board was basically responsible for sta'tionary
sources of pollution and not motor vehicle pollution. The situation, however,
was of great import to industries since non-compliance with the Clean Air Act
had brought about funding sanctions resulting in a depressing of any appreciable
industrial growth in the State. (Also see memorandum dated January 19, 1980 to
the Mayors and Council Members of Orange County cities from Councilman Roth
as their representative on the Board, outlining the main features of the pro-
posed legislation along with a copy of the bill and a copy of an Environmental
81R-111
City Hall, A~aheim,' C~.liforn.~a -.COUNCIL MINUTES - Janu.ary 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Protection Agency (EPA) letter "...notifying government agencies of pending
limitations the Federal Government is imposing in California because the Leg-
islature has not yet provided the legal authority for an inspection and main-
tenance program"--on file in the City Clerk's office). He then introduced Mr.
Jeb Stuart, Executive Officer of the SCAQMD and Mr. Jim Baracos, the District's
Deputy Chief of Public Affairs.
Mr. Stuart then narrated a slide presentation outlining the need, the proposed
legislation and a further review of SB33, how it would work, and the three
methods of obtaining a certificate of compliance for those vehicles that would
be required to have such a certificate. In order to register a vehicle, the
owner would have to have a certificate. He pointed out that air pollution
control officials and policy makers from the smoggiest areas of California had
studied all of the previously rejected bills, removed all of the negative and
complicated elements, and after months of hard work, developed SB33. The bill,
therefore, provided a common sense program of inspection and maintenance with
built-in protection for the consumer, the goal of the program being to have
cars properly maintained thereby reducing air pollution in the South Coast Air
Basin by 10% for only 1% of the operating cost of the automobile (a $15 increase
in registration fee).
Councilman Roth then asked questions of Mr. Baracos relative to the proposed
bill, at the conclusion of which he also asked him to speak to the sanctions
California was now confronted with in not having adopted an I/M Program up to
this point.
Mr. Baracos explained that until an approvable I/M Program was adopted by the
Legislature, the EPA was holding up on all water treatment and highway funds
for the State, except those that may be directly safety related. The exact
amount was rather unsure, but he heard figures ranging from $200 to $300
million for the South Coast Air Basin being affected by that action. The EPA
had also instructed the District to disapprove any new permits for a new source
of pollution of any major size until the sanctions were lifted which meant there
could be no industrial growth of any magnitude in the District until the
sanctions were lifted.
Mr. Stuart pointed out, however, that although the financial burdens on
California, because of the sanctions were great, the program was sincerely
developed to reduce air pollution and had nothing to do with the sanctions.
Councilman Bay and Mayor Seymour then posed questions to both Mr. Baracos and
Mr. Stuart relative to the program, the Mayor's major thrust revolving around
his concern regarding the cost of such an I/M Program to the citizens of
Anaheim.
At the conclusion of discussion and questioning, the Mayor referred to letter
dated January 26, 1981 from Mr. Larry Sierk, President of the Anaheim Chamber
of Commerce, asking that the Council delay any action on the proposed bill
until the Chamber had sufficient time to make a thorough examination of the
bill. It was noted that the Chamber's Legislative Committee would be consi-
dering SB33 on Wednesday, January 28, 1981.
81R-112
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Larry Sierk explained that the Chamber took an early position sometime ago
on EPA and the inspection program'. They had not had full time to read SB33.
He wanted to be certain that the City Council had an opportunity to examine
it as well. (Councilman Roth interjected and explained that the bill had been
available to the Council).
After asking Mr. Stuart several questions for purposes of clarification, Mr.
Sierk stated that it would probably be two to three weeks before any action
would be taken at the State Level on the bill. Since the Chamber's Legisla-
tive Committee was going to be meeting to discuss the bill tomorrow, he
asked that the Council delay their decision on whether or not to support the
bill. They had first wanted answers to the questions previously posed to Mr.
Stuart because he was certain that those items would be broached at the meet-
ing.
Mr. Edward Sullivan, Automobile Club, stated that Councilman Roth asked him to
stop by today to see the slide presentation. At the time they talked last, the
Automobile Club had not taken a position on SB33, but since then had done so.
He prefaced his statements by stating that they were in favor of clean air.
He then referred to an article written by Congressman Dannemeyer who stated
that the mandatory inspection program was definitely not cost effective. He
then briefed the Council on that article and pointed out that Congressman
Dannemeyer's bill, H.R. 188, was practically the same bill, H.R.6466, which the
Council had previously voted to approve. Senator Hayakawa's bill was also
similar, other than it deleted the word periodic. Mr. Sullivan then elaborated
upon the ramifications of SB33. In concluding, he stated that he did not see
an urgency to adopt the bill immediately and also, with the new Reagan admini-
stration, they did not know what was going to happen. The President was cer-
tainly aware of California's problem, and he urged the Council to wait before
taking any action. He confirmed that the Automobile Club was opposing SB33.
Discussion then followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Sullivan during which
Councilman Roth explained how the environmentalists had been looking over his
shoulder as a member of the Board and he found it a very unique situation. There
was a possibility that those individuals and people in high government were
saying no motor vehicle inspections, using that am a vehicle for no growth in
the State of California. Thinking people should be aware of that because it
was possible to promote no growth through that method. If it were not possible
to run an extra surge line to pick up a new tract or area, it was a means of
regulating the amount of growth in the State. In that way, conservatives who
were concerned with the amount of government intrusion in their lives might
be teaming up and joining with the "no growthers".
Mr. Sullivan stated, relative to Federal sanctions, although they had a sanction
against the State of California, no money had been lost as yet, and each case
was going to be considered individually.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Stuart to speak to the number of permits that had been
denied in the State with regard to major growth.
81R-113
City Ha%l, An. ahe.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981,.1:30 P.M.
Mr. Stuart explained that in the last four years, they had not had one major
new activity that might be called a polluting-type activity come into the basin,
and approximately 60 applications had been denied during that time.
Councilman Roth stated he wanted to make it clear that the makeup of the SCAQMB
the elected officials on the Board, were people who were not interested in
stopping the world, growth, or industry. The main thrust of the Board had
been to help industry overcome the problems of air pollution. He reiterated
their Board was specifically responsible for stationary sources of pollution
and not motor vehicles, but they viewed it as one of the more cost effective
ways of cleaning up the air in the South Coast Air Basin.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, noted that the bill being proposed called for a
fixed dollar amount to be spent by the individual motorist on an annual basis.
He asked if any policing was going to be done by any agency to insure that the
annual inspection would take place.
Mr. Stuart explained'that the test station would issue a certificate of com-
pliance on the respective motor vehicle and if such a certificate were not
obtained, annual car registration would not be renewed.
Mr. Dick McMillan explained that he had been involved with the situation for
quite some time and he was having a problem with bo~h sides of the matter.
Fundamentally what they were fighting, as he saw it from his prospective, was a
credibility gap. Many felt they were blackmailed into accepting a position
which they may or may not really need. On the other hand, there were many
who were reluctant to "cut off their nose to spite their face" in the event
this was a truly advantageous position for the State. He wanted to offer
only one recommendation, realizing it could only be done at the State level.
This was an ideal situation for a sunset clause to be established with a legis-
lative issue. If in the event it proved to be a reduction to the pollution
problem, then it would be truly economically and technically feasible. If not,
and it evolved into just one more State agency controlling something that was
not necessary, as a result of increasing automobile technology, it should be
sunsetted. To him, that would be a reasonable compromise of a very highly
volatile issue across the State.
Councilman Bay asked Mr. Stuart, if there were a sunset clause, would he think
that Senator Presley would be in favor. Also if there were such a clause for
proof of the effectiveness of the bill, would they then have more problems
with the EPA on their "blackmail" position.
Mr. Stuart, answering the latter part of the question first, stated that he
thought the EPA would be glad to get anything they could right now with a
genuine effort toward inspection and maintenance even if it had a sunset
clause. The problem with a sunset clause, and he would be in favor as well
as having one placed on everything done in government, was that the number of
clean air repair stations and test stations were going to have to make a
rather significant investment in equipment to run the program. If there were
a sunset clause, in a couple of years, they might find it difficult to find a
facility willing to take that risk. While he could not speak for the District
Board, he would think that everyone would favor a sunset clause if it did not
become a problem with regard to the investment to be amortized during that
period.
81R-114
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Stuart, at the conclusion of
which, Councilman Roth stated he would offer whatever was necessary to support
the proposed resolution in support of SB33. They were all sophisticated enough
to realize that bills were proposed one way and they came out another, usually
having been amended in several ways. He was always delighted to see that citi-
zens were constantly adding to a bill. He could also see happening something
that was not mentioned today which could turn out to be a cost savings. If
they could get a handle on the air quality situation and get vehicles tuned up,
they might see General Motors and other car companies dropping the approximate
$400 cost for air pollution apparatus that had to be installed in cars coming
into California. He felt they should support SB33 with the thought in mind
that it would be amended to a point where it would be a viable bill and one
that they could live with.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that on February 11, 1981, there was going to be
a special meeting of the Sub-regional Planning Council when representatives
from all cities in Orange County would be present. Therefore, she felt that
there was an urgency in taking action today. It was not a new measure and had
been discussed for many years and there was no point in delaying it. Smog was
not going to go away by itself. If they tried to ignore it, it would simply
get worse and something had to be done. She looked at the $15 charge as a
cost of driving and no one had the automatic right to pollute. The right to
breathe clean air was mos~ important. If they wanted to keep building and
living in the area and have their children grow up without choking to death,
this was the first step they had to take.
Councilman 0verholt stated he was always reticent to take a'p0~ition when the
Chamber of Commerce had requested the opportunity to review the issue. It
appeared that the Legislative Committee was meeting as soon as tomorrow. He
then asked when the recommendation of the Chamber might be available to be
transmitted to the Cpuncil; from the Chamber audience, Mr. Sierk indicated
by next week.
Councilman Overholt continued that he was philosophically in favor of the bill,
but reiterated he was opposed to taking action until they had an opportunity
to hear from the Chamber. At the appropriate time, he was going to move to
continue the matter until next week at which time he would be prepared to
act. He was particularly impressed with Mr. McMillan's suggestion that
there be a sunset clause and he felt there should be such a clause as well.
His concerns revolved around the fact that ~he Council had been extremely
concerned in the past with regard to the economic cost of an inspection program.
It was pointed out in the presentation that there were approximately 8½ million
people in the area and it was going to cost approximately $82 million a year
or $10 a year for every man, woman and child to try to create a cleaner environ-
ment. He did not think anybody would refuse to pay $10 a year to breathe cleaner
air.
Councilman Bay stated he basically agreed with the intent of the bill, but would
like to see a sunset clause attached to it. He would also like to hear from
the Chamber and would support a motion to delay action for one week.
81R-115
~.ity Hal!~ Aqaheim, .C.al~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he too would support a motion to continue the matter a
week to provide the Chamber an opportunity to respond. Philosophically, he was
opposed to the bill and he had been opposed. He recalled the Council approximately
two years ago unanimously opposed such a plan although Councilwoman Kaywood
may have abstained (see minutes December 5, 1978, Page 78-1601--Resolution No.
78R-763). He was opposed to the bill now for the same reasons he was opposed
at that time, the first being cost. He felt the cost of $10 per person or $60
per family was extremely high on an annual basis, particularly in the present
times. The automobile industry was losing $4½ billion a year. Now was not
the time to be "socking it" to the automobile industry, but to find a way to
provide incentives, other than the Chrysler bailout plan, to get back on the
right track. From an economic standpoint, he was strongly opposed as well as
to the heavy handed techniques of the Federal government. If the situation
could be defined as a National issue such as inflation or defense, one that
touched at least 90% of the States, that would require National action. It
was clear to him this was not a National or Federal issue, but one that at its
maximum was a State issue. If the State of California had a problem, it was up
to the governmental and constitutional officers of the State Legislature to
deal with the problem. If they refused to do so in the fashion in which the
electorate would have them deal with it, they should be replaced with those
who would. He was, however, interested in what the Chamber would have to say
a week from now.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of support of SB33
for one week. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the ne~t regular meeting.
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 ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,186,883.47, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
123: SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY--
HARBOR CENTER: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize a Second Amendment to a
Lease Agreement with the Agency for lease of real property known as Harbor Center,
extending the Lease Agreement to April 30, 1981, at a monthly rate of $4,250, as
recommended in memorandum dated January 21, 1981 from Executive Director of
Community Development Norm Priest. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
164: AWARD OF CONTraCT - PELANCONI PARK STREAMBED IMPROVEMENTS: Account No.
16-809-7103. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-25 for adoption,
awarding a contract, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated
January 21, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book.
81R-116
City Hal. l~ Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: PELANCONI PARK STREAMBED IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 16-809-7103. (J. W. Mitchell Company, Inc., $121,600)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-25 duly passed and adopted.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER REMODELING: Account No. 16-
821-7105 and 17-821-7105. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-26
for adoption, awarding a contract, as recommended by the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated January 21, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER REMODELING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 16-821-7105 AND 17-821-7105. (Vance Construction Company, $27,800)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-26 duly passed and adopted.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - DISTRICT 17 STORM DRAIN~ WEST STREET-NORTH STREET-
CITRON STREET-CHARTRES STREET: Account No. 46-791-6325-E1070. Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-27 for adoption, awarding a contract, as
recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 21, 1981.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: DISTRICT 17 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT - WEST STREET - CARBON CREEK
CHANNEL TO NORTH STREET; NORTH STREET - WEST STREET TO CITRON STREET; CITRON
STREET - NORTH TO CHARTRES STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-
6325-E1070. (Poss Constructors, Inc., $3,783,178)
81R-117
City Hall., ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-27 duly passed and adopted.
123: ACQUISITION SERVICES FOR PLACENTIA LIBRARY DISTRICT: On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an agreement was authorized with the
Placentia Library District whereby the City provides acquisition services, in-
cluding ordering, cataloging and processing of books for the District, as
recommended in memorandum dated January 21, 1981 from City Librarian William
Griffith. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - COMPLIANCE WITH CON-
DITIONS IMPOSED UNDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2082: Councilman Bay moved
to authorize an agreement in the amount of $240,000 with the Orange County
Transit District to comply with Condition Nos. 1 and 2 of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2082, for the realignment of the intersection of Via Burton Street
and State College Boulevard, as recommended in memorandum dated January 20,
1981 from the City Engineer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
144: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION: ON
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Manager was
appointed alternate to the Orange County Manpower Commission, representing the
City through June, 1982, as recon~ended in memorandum dated January 27, 1981
from City Manager William Talley. MOTION CARRIED.
175: AGREEMENT WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
FOE FUEL REPLACEMENT ENERGY SERVICES: Contract No. DE-MS65-80WP39076. Council-
man Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-28 for adoption, authorizing agreement
with the United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration for
fuel replacement energy services and authorizing the Public Utilities General
Manager to execute same, as recommended in memorandum dated January 23, 1981
from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WESTERN AREA
POWER ADMINISTRATION FOR FUEL REPLACEMENT ENERGY SERVICE AbID AUTHORIZING THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-28 duly passed and adopted.
81R-118
City Hal~, Anahe%m, Calif.ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
105: JOINT MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood
questioned the reason for holding a joint meeting and felt that the matter
had been resolved (see minutes January 13, 1981); Councilman Roth did not
agree. Since the Public Utilities Board minutes of December 4, 1980 indi-
cated that they (the Board) were not going to participate in the Budget unless
they received some direction, he felt they ought to get that direction.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that they not hold a joint meeting with
the Public Utilities Board. The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that a joint meeting be held with the Public
Utilities Board on Tuesday, February 10, 1981, at 7:00 P.M., in the Council
Chambers. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he felt a meeting
with the PUB would be beneficial whether or not there was a problem. It was
a good idea to have direct dialogue with their boards and commissions from
time to time; Mayor Seymour added that Councilman Overholt expressed his
thoughts exactly.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: SERVICE MARK LICENSE - RAMS BOOSTER CLUB REQUEST: City Attorney Hopkins
referred to memorandum dated January 23, 1981 from his office recommending that
the Council approve a Service Mark License with the Rams Booster Club, as requested
in letter dated December 8, 1980 from Betty Bottorf of the Rams Booster Club.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve a Service Mark License with the Rams
Booster Club for the use of the Big "A" design. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was the Anaheim Rams
or the Los Angeles Rams.
Mr. Hopkins answered that the letter did not mention L.A., Orange County or
Anaheim.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she thought that was very clever and perhaps that
was the solution, to just drop the first two words. She was concerned that
it would still say Los Angeles Rams with the "A" incorporated in it.
Mayor Seymour stated he could speak to the matter since he served on the Board
of Directors of the Rams Booster Club. The Club's name was Rams Booster Club
and they were not called the L.A. Rams Booster Club, but Rams Booster Club which
was agreed to by both the Board of Directors, Supervisor Clark being the Board
Chairman, as well as the Rams organization. She could rest assured that their
logo would go along with the Booster Club name--Rams Booster Club.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was any way that the Club could put some
kind of pressure on to have the name changed.
81R-119
CitZ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager William Talley (also on the Board of Directors) stated at a
recent meeting the Charter of the Club was strictly to boost the Rams football
team activities and the fans watching it. It was determined that they would
prefer not to in any way discuss any of the problems that the Rams might have
that would divert them from the primary purpose. The reason they could not
use the Rams helmet logo was due to the fact that it was protected by an NFL
licensing agreement. Therefore, they had to come up with their own and they
were trying to relate it as much as possible to Orange County and the place
where the team played without getting into the other items.
Mr. Larry Sierk, Board Member of the Rams Booster Club, stated that he attended
a Board meeting last week where the Club decided on a logo. They wanted to use
the Rams and the "A" in the Rams was the "A" with the halo and that was why they
wanted the City's permission.
Mayor Seymour stated that they understood that, but Councilwoman Kaywood was
querying whether or not the Rams Booster Club might become the vehicle for
changing the name of the ball club. Mr. Talley rightfully responded by saying
that was not the mission of the club--but to boost the fans acknowledgment and
participation and support of the team.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
104/164: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS - $10 MILLION STORM DRAIN ISSUE:
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to report dated December 9, 1980 from the City
Attorney's office containing the requested information as to the possible hand-
ling of flood control matters in Anaheim, specifically the procedure for en-
acting and establishing an assessment district under the 1913 Municipal Improve-
ment~ Act. She did not know if an assessment was the way to proceed or not.
She felt, however, that when 50,000 Anaheim citizens voted for a $10 million
Bond Issue for storm drains, it behooved the Council to try to find a way to
be able to get that into action. She did not know how successful an assessment
district would be since it had not been used very often. She wanted to know
the feeling of her colleagues.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was an alternative. Councilwoman Kaywood answered,
not that she could see at the moment.
The Mayor continued, assuming that the cost of the installation of the storm
drain, for example, were to be $1 million and an assessment district were to
be created, he would presume, for the sake of his example, there may be 1,0OO
property owners involved. If so, and the cost of the storm drain to serve
that neighborhood or district was $I million, that would be approximately
$10,000 per property owner. He asked if that represented th~ economics of
an assessment district.
City Attorney Hopkins answered basically "yes". The City Engineer would have to
define the assessment district and then the means of determining how much to
be assessed to each property owner. That was one of the problems when dealing
with storm drains because it was a difficult thing to do.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it were possible to declare the entire City the
assessment district; Mr. Hopkins answered, it could. Again, that might be a
problem, but they would have to work on it with the engineers and staff.
81R-120
City Hall, An_aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he supported what Councilwoman Kaywood was trying to do.
However, if that would result in the example he previously described, he would
be strongly opposed. If it were possible to place the entire City within such
a district so that the cost of the storm drains would be spread over the entire
City, he could support such an action and that was the intent of the Bond Issue
so favorably passed. Once it broke down from that point and the price would
skyrocket, he did not think that citizens in that area would any longer support
the Storm Drain Bond Issue, because the price tag would be too high.
Councilman Roth stated that his interpretation of the information they received
indicated a vote of the people would not be involved.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that ~he vote had already taken place on
November 4, 1980 when 68% of the people voted to support a $10 million Storm
Drain Bond Issue.
Councilman Roth stated with all due respect to the people who voted favorably,
they were voting on a General Obligation Bond Issue and not the situation being
proposed. He recalled the Council was on record that if there were any major
financial expenditures to be made, they would go to a vote of the people. He
felt that there were certain areas in the City, and he happened to live in one
in Anaheim Hills, wherein the price of his home purchased four years ago included
payment for all of the necessary amenities, such as flood control, drainage, streets,
street lights, etc., and to be assessed again on a City-wide basis, he would have
to think about that. He felt the matter was something that should be analagous .....
to an assessment district for street lights. Considering the expenditure invol-
ved, and finding an area where they were necessary, it would be too small for
those citizens within that area to pay the freight.
Mayor Seymour stated he was supportive of the concept in general, because the
message he received from the voters was that they approved a Storm Drain Bond
Issue of $10 million and what they understood that to mean was a General Obli-
gation Bond, 30 years in term amortized over that time. If it were possible to
accomplish that same identical end, i.e., a 30-year amortization so that an
assessment would go to each property owner over that period of time and be
distributed equally to the entire citizenry, then he would say they had 100%
kept pure to the spirit of what the voters of Anaheim asked, having merely
found a way to circumvent the greatly misunderstood and, in his opinion, mis-
interpreted Proposition 4 that would have made i~ all possible under General
Obligation Bonds.
Councilman Bay stated relative to the points just made, there were areas in the
City, particularly in the hill and canyon area, where the storm drainage infra-
structure did become part of the price of the home. When talking about a City-
wide assessment area, to not only fulfill the intent of the bond issue, but
also to spread it and amortize it, they could possibly devise something that
might be even more fair than the bond issue. They could take the whole flat-
land area as an assessment district and ascertain the dollar figure, eliminating
those areas where the storm drainage had already been provided by the developer
with the cost ultimately becoming part of the price of the home. He also re-
called in the Northeast Industrial area that they originally had a $2,000 an
81R-121
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
acre assessment fee for drainage and that should also be taken into account when
talking about a City-wide assessment. At the same time, they must keep the area
as wide as possible because within the flatlands, from what he knew of the history
of storm drains in the City, everybody paid for those drains already installed,
and everybody should be paying for those yet to be installed.
Mayor Seymour stated he was a resident in the east end of Anaheim, but because
he lived there and because the storm drains in that area were paid for in the
price of his home, did not relieve him from the responsibility of paying his
fair share to put storm drains in Central or Western Anaheim. As long as
his motor vehicle traveled over those streets, he was a beneficiary of those
improvements. He would be supportive if the true A~sessment District were
formed and the property owners indicated their approval. Other than that
happening, he reiterated he would oppose any change in what the voters approved
in November.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with the Mayor. Storm Drains were of benefit to
the entire City since no one was confined to one small neighborhood. Flooded
areas affected everyone. The approval of the Bond Issue went City-wide and
50,000 citizens were willing to go to General Obligation Bonds. If they
formed one Assessment District for the whole City, she wanted to know what
that would come to.
Councilman Overholt stated that he supported Councilwoman Kaywood in placing
the Bond Issue on the ballot and was in support now and shared the view expressed
by the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood. It would be his suggestion to ask staff
to provide a report rather than putting them on the spot at this time. He was
interested in knowing if they did establish an assessment district City-wide,
if they would have the benefit of :he matching funds which would develop, in
essence, a $20 million fund. Secondly, he felt the will of the people dictated
that each citizen would be willing to be impacted in such a way as a $10 million
General Obliation Bond would impact them. What the Mayor was saying, if they
could accomplish that through another device without changing that impact, they
would, in effect, be carrying out the will of the people. He again recommended
that staff submit a report on the matter.
Mayor Seymour asked how long it would take for staff to create such a report.
City Engineer William Devitt stated they could provide a report in two weeks,
although he did not know how definitive it would be.
Councilman Overholt asked if they would include the legal ramifications as well;
City Attorney Hopkins answered "yes".
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of an assessment
district to handle flood control matters in Anaheim for two weeks. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chambers. (3:14 P.M.)
Mayor Pro Tem Overhol~ assumed chairmanship of the meeting.
81R-122
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1584 AND VARIANCE NO. 2766 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Re-
quest by John H. Collister, Ervin Engineering, for an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1584 and Variance No. 2766, to permit a model home
complex on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located on the east side of Anaheim
Hills Road, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, meconded by Councilman Bay, an extension of
time was granted to Conditional Use Permit No. 1584 and Variance No. 2766,
to expire January 27, 1982, as recommended in memorandum dated January 21,
1981 from Assistant Director of Zoning Annika Santalahti. Councilman Seymour
was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Bay, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted
by Stadium Motorsports Corp., to discharge fireworks on January 31, 1981, in-
termittently from 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. at Anaheim Stadium, with a request for
an exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code time limit, was approved, as recommended by
the Fire Marshal. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she noted that aerial color displays were
going to be used after 10:00 p.m. rather than those intented to detonate and,
thus, she could support the request.
Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chambers. (3:16 P.M.)
170: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS - TRACT NO. 8418: Annika Santalahti,4
Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that following preparation of the report
the City Council received (January 21, 1981), :hey subsequently received input
from Lusk Corporation, the original owner of the subject property. They in-
dicated, and staff verified, that there had been a fair amount of negotiation
between the property owners and Lusk, and the City to a certain extent was in-
formed of it at the time, regarding restricting all the houses on the north
side of the tract to only a one-story height. The property was subsequen:ly
sold to a second developer, who, in turn, sold it to Mr. Shulman. The infor-
mation about the one-story restriction was given to the second developer, but
apparently not given to the third one. Staff notified the property owners in
the area that the item was coming up at the Planning Commission on Monday,
January 26, 1981, and they did attend and expressed their opposition. The
Planning Commission did receive a modified staff report on Monday. The City
Planning Commission Members who had been present originally in 1975 felt tht
the original agreement was appropriate and that the present developer should
also retain one-story height limitations. He apparently was willing to do so
and thus, she would recommend that the subject request be denied.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the
request submitted by Jerry M. Shulman for approval of specific plans for
Tract No. 8418, to permit two-story dwellings on seven lots on the northern
perimeter of the tract a RS-HS-22,000 zoned subdivision located on the north
side of Noht Ranch Road, 1200 feet east of Villa Real Drive, was denied. MOTION
CARRIED.
105: JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION: Miss Santalahti stated
that the Planning Commission suggested either Tuesday, February 17 or Wednesday,
February 18, 1981, at 7:00 P.M., for the proposed workshop session with the Council.
81R-123
CitM.~ll, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the date and time for a joint meeting
with the City Planning Commission be Wednesday, February 18, 1981, at 7:00 P.M.,
in the Council Chambers. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Bay asked Miss Santalahti if she would restate the subject of the
meeting.
Miss Santalahti answered that there were three items the Council might wish to
discuss. The one she was personally interested in related to condominium stan-
dards. The other two items were condominium conversions and the affordable
housing issue as well. They were working on information on all three items.
Mayor Seymour stated ~hat he did want to talk about condominium standards and
condominium conversion standards, but, wrapped up in affordable housing. If
it were not for the affordable housing issue, he felt the present standards
were just fine.
Councilman Bay stated it might be a good idea to discuss what they all would
like to see on that meeting agenda. He wanted to talk about density and set-
back ordinances and many other things.
The Mayor asked if he was interested in discussing those as they pertained to
affordable housing or generally; Councilman Bay answered "bosh".
Councilman 0verholt wanted to be certain that interested members of the public
would be given the opportunity to speak, since he, as well as other Council
Members, had been contacted by members of the public for sometime regarding
the matter. They should be encouraged to attend.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Rose Marie Sanchez for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of trip-and-fall accident at the Convention Center, Section
28, on or about December 29, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Michael Spencer for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of traffic accident near the intersection of Orangethorpe
and Miller Streets, caused by malfunction of traffic signals, on or about
October 13, 1980.
c. Lawrence Robert Wilhelm for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a
result of accident involving City-owned vehicle at the intersection of
Broadway and East Streets, on or about November 6, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Bill & Dolly Parkman for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of golf ball from the Anaheim Hills Course striking window at 6401
E. Nohl Ranch Road, on or about December 28, 1980.
81R-124
City Hal.1..~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January .27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
e. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to underground cable and
duct purportedly sustained as a result of excavation operations by City crew
at Anaheim Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue, on or about November 24, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Jenny Louise Szalay for personal injury and vehicle
damages purportedly sustained as a result of traffic signal malfunction at
Orangethorpe Avenue and Miller Street, on or about October 13, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by Susan Hamilton for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of contact with liquid spilled from Utility facilities onto claimant's
vehicle in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Westmont
Avenue, on or about September 22, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by Larry Hickman for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a fall caused by debris left in front of 1537 Romneya
Drive, on or about October 8, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by Dana Patrick Smith for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of vehicle impounded in connection with a crime, on or about
December 6, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of December 11, 1980.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, relative to the Community Services Board minutes,
Page 1--Introduction of Visitors, that she had requested sometime ago that
Council be able to view the Civic Center mural that was going to be done by
the Emigdio Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez presented a small scale replica of the pro-
posed mural to the Community Services Board on December 11, 1980, but the Council
had not seen it as yet.
Mayor Seymour explained that Deputy City Manager James Ruth had been moving
that along. He had spoken to Mr. Ruth about i: approximately 30 days ago, and
it was going to be presented to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to be sure that was going to occur.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of December 17 and 24,
1980.
c. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly
Report for December 1980
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit: Anaheim Marriott Hotel, 700 West Convention
Way, for dancing seven days a week, 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that relative to the application for a Dinner
Dancing Place Permit submitted by the Marriott, there was a question as to the
time. The City's ordinance provided that Dinner Dancing may not start before
7:00 p.m. and, therefore, the time would have to be changed from 11:00 a.m.
as indicated on the application to 7:00 p.m. No special action was necessary,
merely a modification of the starting time to 7:00 p.m.
81R-125
City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~anuary 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated the Council would now assume that the hours of dancing
were from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Councilman Overholt asked if that meant that no dancing was permitted until
7:00 p.m.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that was correct and explained that the present
Dinner Dancing Ordinance prohibited dancing prior to 7:00 p.m., for a Dinner
Dancing Place. He had talked to the Manager of the Marriott Hotel that morning
and explained the situation to him.
b. Amusement Devices Permit: Anaheim Marriott Hotel, 700 West Convention Way,
for various amusement devices.
4. 169: SWAN STREET - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT, CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER NO. i: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer,
Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $3,882.96, wam authorized, bring-
ing the original contract price to $55,780.80. (Five States Plumbing, Inc.,
contractor)
5. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11362: Submitted by Conrad J. and Josephine M.
Letter, to establish a l-lot, 7-unit condominium subdivision on RM-1200 zoned
property located at 1260 East La Palma Avenue. (Submitted in conjunction with
Variance No. 3192 which has been appealed by the owners and will be set for
public hearing)
The City Planning Commission denied Tentative Tract No. 11362 and granted a
negative declaration status.
6. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11364: Submitted by Ephriam Beard, et al, to
construct an 81-lot, 80-unit condominium subdivision (25 percent affordable)
on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 1241 South Beach Boulevard.
(Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 80-81-21 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 2164 which will appear on the February 3, 1981 agenda under
Planning Commission Consent Calendar)
The City Planning Commission granted Tentative Tract No. 11364 and granted a
negative declaration status.
114: ROOS BILL NO. 2853: Correspondence from the City of Fullerton dated
January 12, 1981 urging support of an amendment to the subject bill relating
to requirements of the Housing Element of the cities' General Plan.
Councilman Roth referred to letter January 12, 1981 to Assemblyman Ross Johnson
from the Mayor of Fullerton, Wayne Bornhoft, relative to AB2853, the Roos Bill.
He wanted to know if the Council might consider supporting Mr. Bornhoft's
recommendations contained in his letter to Assemblyman Johnson.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if that was not the exact opposite of what
the Council wanted to do.
81R-126
Ciqz Hall~...Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated according to the letter, he (Bornhoft) was suggesting
that the guidelines remain advisory and not mandatory. He was supportive of
that recommendation.
Councilman Bay stated he recollected the Council had always taken a position
that they would prefer it to be advisory. When the Housing Element was sub-
mitted to the State, that was still one of the unsettled questions--the difference
between mandatory and advisory. The way he read the data, it had now become
law and mandatory, and he never approved it as a mandatory measure.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she definitely agreed as far as local control, but
on the other hand, as far as affordable housing, if everyone said no and, for
instance, let Santa Ana do it all, they were going to have one giant slum. It
was also a question of who was going to determine a fair share.
Councilman Roth direc:ed the Intergovernmental Relations office to review the
situation and that any input from the Council be given to IGR so that a letter
could be prepared accordingly and action taken in one week.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - NEVER ON SUNDAY:
Application by Jose Gusman Castellanos, Never On Sunday, 2810 West Lincoln
Avenue, for a live band Friday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
(continued from the meeting of January 20, 1981-- see minutes that date) and
for various amusement devices.
Councilwoman Kaywood again referred to letter dated January 14, 1981 from the
Magnolia School District opposing any kind of expansion or any amusement devices
at Never On Sunday. They did not say why and she was curious to know their
reasons.
City Manager Talley stated from the Police Department standpoint, they did not
have any admissible or concrete evidence that would make a recommendation of
denial feasible and the business was not within 600 feet of a school. There-
fore, the Police Department in an act of extreme caution, was not recommending
disapproval. They did~not have anything, if questioned, they could bring to
the Council of a concrete nature, and they were very cautious in such areas.
If they would like his recommendation, he would recommend that the Council
deny anything that the business would ask for.
Councilman Overholt questioned if it was appropriate to ask the School District
to be more specific if they cared to, as to their objections. If so, it would
seem to him they would then have more ~o go on.
Mayor Seymour stated that was why he would suggest a continuance.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that consideration of an Entertainment Permit and
Amusement Devices Permit for Never On Sunday establishment, 2810 West Lincoln
Avenue, be continued two weeks and that a request be made to the Magnolia School
District to provide more specific information as to the Board's position on the
matter. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81R-127
.City Hall, Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 81R-29
through 81R-31, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Rafael
Fernandez, et ux.; Evangel Church of Southern California, Inc.; Hillview
Associates; Castille Builders, Ltd., et al.; Homes by John Lyttle; Sunburst
Development; Gorden E. Mullens, et ux.; Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.--four
deeds; Coronado Company; Robert N. Jackson; State of California)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-30: 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: PEARSON PARK
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16/25-820-7103; AP-
PROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CON-
STRUCTION 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 February 26, 1981, 2:00 p.m.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-31: 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: SWAN STREET-ANAHEIM BOULEVARD
STREET IMPROVEMENT-SWAN STREET-ROMNEYA DRIVE TO ANAHEIM BOULEVARD-ANAHEIM BOULE-
VARD-100' E/O SWAN STREET TO 50' W/O SWAN STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT
ACCOUNT NO. 47-793-6325-E3370. (Five States Plumbing, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-29 through 81R-31, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4205: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4205
for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4205: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.52.191 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (relating to a 72-hour parking restriction on streets,
City-owned and/or maintained property, parking lots and parking structures)
81R-128
City. Hall, An.aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4205 duly passed and adopted.
105: LIAISON MEETING WITH GOLF COURSE COMMISSION: Councilman Overholt reported
that this morning at 11:00 a.m. he attended a Liaison Committee meeting with
the Liaison Committee of the Golf Cours~ Commission and members of staff, held
for the purpose of determining the procedure for bringing to the Council the
proposal for private operation of the Anaheim Hills and Municipal Golf Courses.
The procedure considered was that the proposals and the Manager's recommenda-
tions be presented at a special meeting of the Golf Course Commission to be
held within the next two weeks. At that time, they would deliberate and even-
tually make a recommendation to the Council.
132: PROPOSED TRASH TRUCK USER FEE BY THE COUNTY: Councilman Roth urged the
Council Members to attend a special 5:30 p.m. meeting at the Orange County
League of Cities, Thursday, February 5, 1981. At that time, there was going
to be a presentation relative to the proposed user fee that the County wanted
to apply to every trash truck going into the dump. That would undoubtedly mean
that the user fee, first applied to the Crash collector, would, in turn, be
applied .to the City and ultimately to the citizens of the community. He
considered it to be a very serious issue and Mr. Raul Rangel, Jaycox Disposal,
had been close to the matter for the last two years. He (Roth) foresaw in-
creased costs to the City's residents as a result of the attempt by the County
to apply such a fee. Perhaps they did need the user fee, but they would have
an opportunity to be briefed on the matter at the February 5th meeting. He
again urged the Council Members to attend and in the interim familiarize them-
selves with the proposed fee.
159: STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM: Mayor Seymour recalled :hat the Council had
raised some concern relative to the Street Sweeping Program (see minutes
December 30, 1980) regarding those neighborhoods that did not have adequate
off-street parking and the feasibility of al:ernate day parking in those
areas and the cost of such a modification. He wanted to know when they might
expect to see the report requested.
City Manager Talley answered that he reviewed the draft of the report late
last week, and he was certain they would receive it by the end of this week.
He felt there were some statistics contained therein on which the Council would
want more information, because some of the statements indicated, if Street
Sweeping were done alternately, it would cost 233% more. He felt if that was
their view, the Council should have details. He sent the report back and asked
that all the percentages be documented. Subsequently the report would be dis-
tributed.
Mayor Seymour presumed that they could expect to see in that report a map or
something that would delineate those neighborhoods which in staff's opinion
had an undersupply of off-street parking, necessitating a changing of the sides
of the streets.
81R-129
City Hal!~ Anaheim, Cali.f. qrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated he did not say changing, but it would delineate the
areas where they did have problems and the ways that they worked toward miti-
gating problems. Staff's view in nearly every area of town was that if people
would park in the alleys or off-street, that they had the ability to do that.
Maps would be included showing where they did have problems
Mayor Seymour stated, if the area of the 1300 block of West Pearl Street was
not one that had been delineated as one of those areas, he would appreciate
staff responding as to why not.
114: COMPLAINT REGARDING GARDEN CLEAN-UP BLOWER EQUIPMENT: Mayor Seymour
explained that they had received a letter from Mr. Herb Eggett going back to
November 26, 1980 wherein he complained about his neighbor using a blower to
blow his leaves, etc., into the gutter and the noise caused which he thought
was very offensive. The City Clerk sent a reply on December 3, 1980 and
explained that copies of his letter had been furnished to the Council for
their information. On January 8, 1981, Mr. Eggett again wrote to him in-
dicating that he had not heard anything and asked if the Council was going
to consider an ordinance against the blowers or not. He (Seymour) was prepared
to respond, since he had written to him personally, but he wanted to be able to
speak on behalf of a majority of the Council. He asked if they were prepared
to consider an ordinance that would control such blower equipment.
Councilman Overholt questioned what would be meant by control. He believed
that Newport Beach had an ordinance limiting the use of such blowers, but he
would be interested to know what the impact of a gardening blower ordinance
would be and suggested that they should have some kind of anaylsis as to that
impact.
Mayor Seymour stated if three Council Members felt the matter should be pur-
sued, that would be fine. If not, he would write to Mr. Egget~ accordingly.
Councilman Overholt felt that it should be pursued because blower equipment was
irritating and sometimes a nuisance to the neighbors.
Councilman Bay stated he personally would not like to consider such an ordinance.
He felt it would be the beginning of control of everything else that might be
a little irritating, one way or the other. They would then have ordinances
controlling everybody's actions in the City, and he did not feel they should
consider pursuit of such an ordinance.
Councilman Roth stated he did not have any objection to pursuing the matter;
Councilwoman Kaywood also felt that they should look into the possibility.
Mayor Seymour then asked that staff consider the possibility of pursuing such
an ordinance, and he would respond to Mr. Eggett accordingly.
114: HOTLINE COMPLAINT - LANDLORD/TENANT DISPUTE - MRS. FERN CALL: Mayor
Seymour explained that Mrs. Fern Call, 12221Anzio, Garden Grove, an Anaheim
apartment house owner of 123 Leatrice Lane, #2, registered a Hotline Complaint
(January 19, 1981) relative to some difficulty she had at her apartment house
with a tenant she had evicted. She did not feel that the Police Department
had appropriately responded to her needs (see reports from the Police Depart-
ment dated January 20, 21, and 22, 1981 outlining the actions taken with regard
81R-130
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 27, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
to the complaint). After having assisted her and an arrest made, Mrs. Call
called Councilwoman Kaywood and him and subsequently she called him (Seymour)
back indicating that she was still not satisfied. He explained to her that
there was not much more that he could do and if she wanted to take further
action, that she engage an attorney and do so, or come to the City Council
to share whatever she wished. She was present to do so today.
Mrs. Fern Call then relayed to the Council the circumstances of the complaint
which were documented at the time of her call to the Mayor.
After discussion and questioning between the Mayor and Mrs. Call, no further
action was taken by the Council.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed
Session. (3:53 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (4:00 P.M.)
105: APPOINTMENT OF YOUTH COMMISSIONERS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, Sco~t Freeman, Charles Edward Smith and Kimberly T.
Patin were appointed to the Anaheim Youth Commission, subject to confirmation
of the residency requirement, to fill existing vacancies. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:33 P.M.)