1980/01/0280-1
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
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
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION: Jack Kudron
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Mitch Garcia, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan-
imously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the Anaheim Rotary Club
for their 59 years of service to the citizens of the community.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred to the next 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 Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $489,783.97, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:38 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:10 P.M.)
129: APPOINTMENT OF NEW CITY FIRE CHIEF: Councilman Seymour moved to appoint
Mr. Bob D. Simpson as Anaheim's new Fire Chief, effective February 4, 1980.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 8OR-1 for adoption, adjusting the
salary schedule for Fire Chief from Schedule X2304 to Schedule X2250 ($3208.40
to $~900 per month). Refer to Resolution Book.
80-2
80-2
City Hali~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-l: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING THE RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR FIRE CHIEF, AND AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-338.
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. 80R-1 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Seymour then introduced Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Bob D. Simpson stated that he was delighted about two things: (1) that they
had exhibited confidence and trust in him to appoint him the City's new Fire
Chief. They could rest assured that he would work hard to verify that trust.
(2) He was relieved that the examination process was over since he had never
been more carefully examined or investigated.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - FIVE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1979: Council-
man Overholt moved to receive and file the Monthly Financial Statement for the
five months ended November 30, 1979, as recommended in memorandum dated December 26,
1979 from Director of Finance George Ferrone. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour noted that the operating expenses of the
Utilities Department was 71.4% over budget. He would expect that in Purchased
Power, but not Operating Expenses, and asked why that was so.
City Manager William Talley stated he asked the same question and on those Control
Centers, a report was expected from Utilities; however, because of the extensive
time required to prepare the Water Bond Statements for the forthcoming Water Bond
Sale, as well as the final 78-79 year-end financial report which they were working
on with Price-Waterhouse, Utilities indicated they would not be able to get the
information for another couple of weeks. When it was submitted, he would ask
the Director of Finance to send it to the Council.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1210 OF THE CITY CHARTER--REVENUE BONDS AND INTENT
TO ESTABLISH A FUTURE DATE FOR AN ELECTION ON THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT:
Placing a proposed amendment to Section 1210 of the City Charter regarding
Revenue Bonds on the April 8, 1980 Municipal Election Ballot, was submitted.
Expressing an intent to establish a future date for an election on the Inter-
mountain Power Project (IPP), was also submitted.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt first briefed the Council on his
memorandum dated December 21, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office) relative
to the proposed amendment to Section 1210 of the City Charter regarding Revenue
80 -3
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Bonds on the April 8, 1980 Municipal Election ballot. He further explained that
there were two parts to the proposed amendment and the reason for the separate
ballot issues was to make it clear that there were two parts. The first dealt
with the authorization to refund bonds already issued pursuant to a vote of the
Electorate. Bond Counsel informed him that without clarifying language, he did
not believe they could call any of the bonds out, when they all had call features.
The second proposed amendment would permit the issuance of bond anticipation
notes which he further explained. In concluding, he stated that it was another
way of dealing with bonds already authorized by the vote of the electorate and
in each case the purpose was to save money.
Councilman Roth asked if a June Election could be held as previously discussed,
what the cost factor would be relative to today's numbers.
Mr. Hoyt answered that he did not think there would be any change at all. Time
was not crucial and they did not anticipate now issuing bond anticipation notes
or doing any refunding in the immediate future.
Relative to the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) since the last meeting, he had
spoken with other representatives on the IPP Board, investment bankers, etc. and
he was convinced that the project would not issue short-term notes nor long-term
securities. The earliest possible date would be late Fall or the latter part of
1980. On the first issuance of the bonds, it was very important that they receive
good acceptance by the market. He did not believe whether they held an election
on April 8 or June 3rd, that it would affect the project costs.
In essence, the answer to Councilman Roth's question was that he did not feel
there would be any difference in cost to IPP, Anaheim or the participants whether
the election was held in April or June. The partners wanted to have the
election held as quickly as possible since Anaheim's was the only election to
be held. It could be a pacing item in the event the election failed, because
they would have to go back to their City Council's and pick up Anaheim's share.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if after, "... except bonds authorized for the purpose
of refunding any indebtedness..." (Section 1210--Revenue Bonds), could anything
be inserted such as, "... for the purpose of refunding for potential savings or
potential long-term savings...".
Mr. Hoyt stated the problem with doing so lay in the fact that there could be
a possibility of challenge on the grounds they might want to refund an issue in
order to reduce coverage. If there was a challenge and they wanted to move
quickly, they could only proceed at the pace of the courts.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that it would then be better as part of the
explanation, rather than a change; Mr. Hoyt agreed.
Mr. Hoyt then answered questions posed by the Council for purposes of clarif-
ication. He also read the two ballot questions as proposed.
80-4 80-4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney William Hopkins then explained that they were preparing a revised
resolution somewhat different than the one before the Council. The second
portion would have some modifications as far as the proposed wording. They had
consulted with the Secretary of State's Office that morning, and it was recom-
mended that they have two separate ballot measures since it would be clearer
to the voters. It would not involve two separate resolutions, but the revised
resolution would contain two separate questions to be placed on the ballot.
Councilman Bay stated that the only urgency was if the Council wanted to place
the questions on the April ballot. If not, that same urgency did not exist;
Mr. Hoyt stated that was correct.
Councilman Bay then surmised if they chose to put the two amendments on the
ballot and chose to do so in June, they could continue the entire matter until
the next week or the week after until the resolution had been rewritten; Mr.
Hoyt stated that the language had been checked by Bond Counsel.
Mayor Seymour asked, relative to the proposed amendments, Section 1210, why was
the language excluded that might have said something like, "except bonds authorized
at a lessor rate for the purpose of refunding," etc.
Mr. Hoyt answered that they might be able to save money by issuing bonds, not at
lower rate, and he explained how that could be done. It was possible to refund
at a lower cost to the people even though the refunding bonds might carry a
higher coupon rate.
The Mayor asked if he was correct in the understanding that if the amendment
was approved by the voters, the Council would be empowered to go to the market
again for an additional amount; Mr. Hoyt answered, "no", but merely to replace
what was out and not for new bonds. He also explained that it was necessary
to make good on the contract with the bondholder so it was necessary to pay
off the principal and interest unless the bonds were called. If called, they
could be subject to a premium; therefore, it was necessary to have enough
money in the refunding issue to pay the cost of any premiums, outstanding
principals, and any remaining interests. He further explained for the Mayor
what could be done with the money and that the bond resolution would list what
investments were authorized. In the final analysis, it did not do anything in
terms of a standing bond, other than give the City Council the ability to issue
refunding bonds if they wanted to do so.
Mayor Seymour then asked, referring to the point Councilwoman Kaywood raised,
if the only circumstance under which the Council would issue refunding bonds
was when they could save their constituents some money, he did not know why they
could not say that.
Mr. Hoyt repeated that, in his opinion, the problem would be establishing that
against a challenge.
Mr. Talley suggested that perhaps they could say, "where in Bond Counsel's
opinion that savings would accrue to the City or the Utility."
80-5
City ~.11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
At the time of the refunding issue, they would then have the new rates and the
investments and thus would be able to make a decision before accepting the bid.
Mr. Hoyt suggested without actually saying it, they could include an opinion
stating, "When in the opinion of the City Council, it is a good thing to do".
Mayor Seymour expressed his concern that too many ballot questions said one
thing when they meant another. He reiterated, if the intent was only to empower
the City Council to issue refunding bonds when capable of saving the taxpayers
money, then they should say so in one form or another.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would like to review the matter with Bond
Counsel before making it final. However, if the language were changed right
after the word "refunding" to, "...except bonds authorized for the purpose of
refunding on a basis more favorable to the City, any indebtedness..." that would
give the essence of what the Mayor was requesting.
Councilman Bay suggested that the matter be continued one week; Councilwoman
Kaywood stated if it was going to be on the April ballot, it could not be con-
tinued. Councilman Bay then suggested that it be placed on the June ballot and
also asked if anyone would be opposed to doing so.
Mayor Seymour questioned if there was any reason why it could not go on the June
ballot. If they wanted a lower voter turnout, they would get one in April rather
than June. He saw no reason to rush to judgment.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if his only reason was due to the fact that today was
the deadline for the April ballot; Mayor Seymour stated the reason was because
they had not seen what they were going to be voting on and not having an oppor-
tunity to check it with Bond Counsel.
Councilman Overholt stated it would be his guess that Bond Counsel would raise
a question about the additional language, and he would be personally opposed to
passing a resolution including that language. He felt it would beg litigation.
Mr. Hopkins stated there could be a question of litigation. He also noted that
the City Clerk was checking to see if the matter could be continued another week.
City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that it could be continued one more week, but
beyond that time it would not be placed on the April ballot.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue placing the proposed amendment to
Section 1210 of the City Charter regarding Revenue Bonds on the April 8, 1980
Municipal Election ballot for one week.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked that they look at the
language on the anticipation notes specifically, because it did not seem to come
through too clearly as far as he was concerned.
Mayor Seymour stated he was personally opposed to placing the question on the
April ballot, because they would get a higher voter turnout in June. Since it
appeared that they intended to take the IPP question to the June ballot, what
8o-6 80-6
City Hall~ Ana.h~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1980~ 1:30
they needed to do on the proposed Charter amendment and the IPP question, was to
hold a series of meetings to intelligently and diligently put proper language
together and to raise any other questions or concerns in those meetings, in
concert with the Public Utilities Board (PUB), Bond Counsel and all the expertise
that Mr. Hoyt brought into the IPP. To move ahead into issues that had very
long-term implications and impact on Anaheim citizens without such a public
process was not appropriate. He suggested that they consider such a series of
meetings, assuming they were going for the June ballot.
City Clerk Roberts clarified for Councilman Bay that the deadline for submittal
on the June ballot was towards the end of March.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the series of meetings was an excellent idea,
but wondered why those could not be held for an April election as well.
Mayor Seymour stated that they would then be considering placing the questions
on the ballot when they did not even have the ballot wording properly constructed.
After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman
Overholt asked if they could act on the proposed Charter amendment and then
move on to the IPP question.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon seconded Councilman Bay's motion to continue the
proposed amendment to Section 1210 of the City Charter for one week.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he considered the two items, the
Charter amendment and the IPP, as being interrelated, both having to do with
Utilities.
Councilman Bay stated his motion to continue was due to the fact that he felt
the Charter amendment was very close and they could have the final wording on
that by the next week in order to finalize it. If they were going to take the
Mayor's suggestion and have joint meetings, which he agreed with, then there
was no need to set up a one-week continuance, but perhaps they should consider
a plan as to how they wanted to handle the discussions on both items.
Councilman Overholt felt that the proposed Charter amendment appeared to be
remedial. He did not see that and the IPP as being interdependent or related
in any way.
Councilman Bay agreed especially having been on the Charter Review Committee
where the Charter amendment was discussed. The I?P project needed a great deal
more discussion.
Staff then confirmed that the Charter amendment could be continued one week and
still be placed on the April ballot if Council wished.
Councilman Bay thereupon stated that he would hold to his motion for a one-week
continuance on the proposed Charter amendment.
80-7
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he was going to vote against the motion for reasons already
stated; Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support it because it was a
housecleaning matter, while the IPP was a major issue. He did not feel it was
necessary that both items be on the same ballot.
Mayor Seymour reiterated, the June election would turn out better than twice the
number of voters than the April election if they were interested in getting the
proper response from their constituents and also, it did not make any difference
to the Utilities.
Councilman Roth stated he had a problem in separating the two items, one in April
and one in June. Both issues should be together at one time, either on the April
or the June ballot.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as long as they had one week to get the issue on the
April ballot, they should not cut off their opportunities.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman seYmour moved to direct the City Manager and Utilities
General Manager to set up a.series of Thursday evening meetings jointly with
the Public Utilities Board for the purpose of discussing and becoming informed
relative to the question of the IPP, with the intent of holding a June election,
and further, that the public be encouraged to attend. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that he remove the intent
of the June election, and she would support the motion. It would then still
leave the option of an April election.
Mayor SeYmour asked how they could hold any public hearings and still have an
April election; Councilwoman Kaywood answered that they could hold the public
hearings in the interim.
Councilman Seymour questioned putting the matter on the ballot first and then
holding public hearings.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was now a question as to whether or not the
Mayor was going to support the issue.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had said all along, having seen for himself the
economics of the question, he would not only support it, but also would lead
the charge for its passage. Until he saw that, he would not do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that the PUB voted five to two to not even hold
an election. She then asked if it was his feeling it would not become an election
issue if it was placed on the April ballot.
Mayor Seymour emphasized that his main purpose was to seek a higher turnout as
well as the reasoning that there was not enough time between now and April to have
an adequate public hearing process as suggested by Councilman Overholt.
80-7 80-8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Further Council discussion followed with Mr. Hoyt relative to the timing of the
public hearings. Mayor Seymour stated he would hope for a minimum of two, perhaps
up to four, between now and the end of March leading up to the late March deadline
for placing the questions on the June ballot.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was favoring an April election; Mayor Seymour
then suggested that she vote "no" on the question.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, to her, the most important election to the citizmns of
the City was the election of people to represent them. If they did not consider
that important, she did not know how to get the message through. Perhaps they
needed an issue, and it might be that the Utilities issue would bring that greater
turnout.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: VISA/MASTER CHARGE ACCOUNT - RECREATION DIVISION: Mr. Jack Kudron, Super-
intendent of Recreation, clarified questions posed by Councilmen Roth and Bay
relative to the subject proposed plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-2 and 80R-3 for adoption as rec-
ommended in memorandum dated December 27, 1979 fro~ the Deputy City Manager James
Ruth, the first authorizing a Bank Card Governmental Agency Agreement with the
Bank of America to allow the Recreation Division program participants to pay
registration fees through Visa or Master Charge cards, and the second authorizing
the creation of a Visa-Master Charge credit card account and designating the
Mayor and Finance Director to sign all authorized warrants, drafts and checks
to be drawn against this account. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A BANK CARD GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AGREEMENT
WITH BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A VISA-MASTER CHARGE CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT AND DES-
IGNATING THE MAYOR AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO SIGN ALL
AUTHORIZED WARRANTS, DRAFTS AND CHECKS TO BE DRAWN AGAINST THIS ACCOUNT.
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. 80R-2 and 80R-3 duly passed and adopted.
139/179: RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES - REINSTATING LOCAL CONTROL: Councilman
Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-4 for adoption, requesting action by the State
Legislature to restore the original language of specific sections of the State
Health and Safety Code and Welfare and Institutions Code in regard to local
authority in the establishment of residential care facilities. Refer to Resolution
Book.
80-9
City Ha!l,. A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, !980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING ACTION BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO RESTORE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF
SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND WELFARE AND INSTITU-
TIONS CODE IN REGARD TO LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL
CARE FACILITIES.
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. 80R-4 duly passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4092 - AMUSEMENT CENTERS NEAR SCHOOLS: City Attorney
William Hopkins briefed the Council on the proposed ordinance, pointing out that
it contained a waiver provision should the City Council wish to exercise same.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4092 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4092: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.020 OF SECTION 3.24.010 OF CHAPTER 3.24, TITLE 3, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT DEVICES.
Councilman Overholt questioned the language, "...and upon approval of the
governing board of the affected school district." He felt that could be
cumbersome because they would have to plan with the calendar of the school
board involved. If they eliminated it altogether and remained sensitive
to the school's problems, he would not be uncomfortable with that.
Councilman Bay stated he was in favor of the language if the applicant had to
go to the School Board. He did not see where there would be that much urgency
involved.
Councilman Overholt stated he would be opposed to that, but would be satisfied
with the wording, "Chief Executive Officer" of the particular School District.
Councilman Bay felt they had opened the door enough as it was, and if they held
it to the way the proposed ordinance was written, .they would be able to keep the
controls in force.
Councilman Overholt suggested that they could say, "on approval by the affected
school district." If they let the Superintendent sign it, that would be good
enough.
Councilman Roth amended his offering to include, "upon approval of the affected
school district" (change from "upon approval of the governing board of the
affected school."
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2039 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Ap-
plication by Kenny Golf Enterprises, Inc. to permit a water slide on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 3200 Carpenter Avenue (Camelot Miniature Golf Course).
80-10 80-10
City Hal!~' Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Counsel for the petitioner requested a continuance of consideration of the
subject CUP until April 15, 1980, 3:00 P.M.
Councilwoman,Kaywood moved to approve the requested continuance to April 15,
1980 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay questioned if a three and one-half
month delay was usual in continuing a public hearing; Miss Santalahti answered
that they typically did not receive requests for that long a continuance. She
noted, however, the petitioners were present and could answer any questions.
Mr. Fred Kenny, representing Kenny Golf Enterprises, 3200 Carpenter, stated that
there were a couple of reasons for requesting the long continuance. In the
Planning Commission meeting, a few of the neighbors expressed some problems and
they wanted to take a better look at those problems. They had to do with people
cutting through their neighbor's property in order to patronize their miniature
golf course or the Anaheim Recreation Center. They wanted to find ways to solve
those problems. The reason that they were initially in a rush to submit their
petition was due to the fact that a water slide was seasonal, and they wanted to
have it ready by the Summer. However, they needed more time to look into it
further and present it properly. They had shifted their priorities to another
water slide they would be building and thus, it was not as urgent as before.
They did not want to withdraw and resubmit the petition because they would have
to go to the Planning Commission again.
Mr. Kenny then clarified for Councilman Roth that they did anticipate submitting
the revised plans to the Chamber of Commerce Industrial Division, and they had
talked to Mr. Larry Sierk, who mentioned there was a liaison committee presently
looking into the Northeast Industrial area. He also confirmed that they originally
did oppose the Anaheim Recreation Center.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
127: GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 8, 1980: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution Nos. 80R-5 through 80R-8, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLTION NO. 80R-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980, FOR THE ELECTION
OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO
RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO SAID CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, PERTAINING
TO MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS THEREOF FOR THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980.
80-11
City Hall~ ~n~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked relative to the Spanish
translation, which was at the City's expense, if there was any way they could
require the State to reimburse those costs.
City Clerk Roberts answered that the matter had been researched and as far as
she was aware, the individual cities had to bear that cost.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if under SB 90, localities were permitted to sue the
State for reimbursement.
Mrs. Roberts answered they could, but the Federal Voting Rights Act also had
to be considered which required bilingual materials.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as long as they were requiring it.and the City had
to pay for it, everybody should be aware of that situation because the City had
no control over it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
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. 80R-5 through 80R-8, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Roth, 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. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Cormmunity Services Board--Minutes of November 8, 1979.
b. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly reports for October and November 1979.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of December 6, 1979 (unapproved) and
December 20, 1979.
d. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of December 12, 1979.
2. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10940: Submitted by Baldwin Company LTD, to establish a
proposed 48-1ot, RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property
located south of Nohl Ranch Road and west of the westerly terminus of Ridge View
Road.
80-12 80-12
City Hall~ Anahe.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~n.uary 2.,,.%989, 1;30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10940 and had previously-
approved Environmental Impact Report No. 166.
MOTION CARRIED.
142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4089: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4089
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4089: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING ANEW CHAPTER
7.44 TO TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNCIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO GRAFFITI.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4089 duly passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4090: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4090
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4090: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 4.53
TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING OTHER RELATED CHANGES
RELATING TO CARNIVALS AND CIRCUSES.
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. 4090 duly passed and adopted.
142/172: ORDINANCE NO. 4091: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4091 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4091: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
14.40.010, 14.40.020, 14.40.030, 14.40.050, 14.40.060, 14.40.070, AND 14.40.080
OF CHAPTER 14.40, TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
14.40.010, 14.40.020, 14.40.030, 14.40.0~0, 14.40.060, 14.40.070, 14.40.080 AND
14.40.070 IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD PERTAINING TO SPEED LIMITS.
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. 4091 duly passed and adopted.
80-13
city Hall,..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
114/156: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE - STATEMENTS MADE BY AMIN DAVID REGARDING POLICE
CHIEF: Councilman Overholt referred to the morning Los Angeles Times news-
paper article (January 2, 1980) regarding Chief Tielsch. It was his belief
that Anaheim Police Chief George Tielsch had done an outstanding job for the
City in the time he had been employed in all respects, contrary to some of the
statements made by Planning Commissioner Amin David, who seemed to delight in
attacking the Chief. He wished that Mr. David would become positive about the
City, instead of negative.
He (Overholt) felt that Chief Tielsch had made real advancement in developing
lines of cormmunication with the minority interests of the City. He personally
attended one of the earlier meetings of the Police/community Relations Committee
and observed members of the group. Mr. David seemed to align himself with trying
to disrupt that meeting of citizens who were trying to promote communications
between the Police Department and the citizens of the community. The Police
Chief had come out strongly on issues defending himself, and it was appropriate
for him to do so when he was attacked by groups without warrant. He noted that
former Mayor Bill Thom was another man quoted, and he wanted to invite Mr. David
and Mr. Thom to "tell it like it is". It was his understanding that Chief Tielsch
had ongoing dialogue with the people who criticized him in the past and that they
were assisting the Police Department with certain current problems and the Police
Department, in turn, was receptive to their suggestions. He felt it a shame that
those people did not put their shoulders to the wheel and work for the betterment
of the City. If Mr. David was listening, he would appreciate it if he would give
serious thought to accepting the challenge of being positive about Anaheim just
as he was on the Planning Commission, rather than always using the fact that he
was a Planning Commissioner to give him credibility and status to attack the
City's Police Chief.
114: SISTER CITY DINNER: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on her attendance at the
Sister City (Mito, Japan) Dinner held Sunday, December 30, 1979 where Mayor
Wada of Mito was made an honorary citizen of Anaheim.
114: ORDINANCE RELATING TO PROHIBITION OF SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: Councilman
Roth referred to the San Francisco ordinance relating to the prohibition of signs
on public property and private utility property, a copy of which had been dis-
tributed to the Council by the City Attorney. He thereupon read from the
provisions of that ordinance relating to prohibitions and penalties. He asked
that the Council review the ordinance which covered not only campaign activity
signs, but also the spray painting of properties to see how applicable it would
be to Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour asked that the matter be placed on the agenda for next week,
January 8, 1980, for consideration by the Council.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 3:45 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK