1980/02/1980-170
C~ty ~al!, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 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
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
153: PRESENTATIONS: On behalf of the Council, Mayor Seymour presented 25-year
service awards to the following City employees: Sgt. Henry Bryant and Polly
Conrad, Police Department; Farris Kincaid, Utilities Department; Gilbert
Meierhenry, Parkway Maintenance; Tom Bouslog, Field Engineering (not present);
John McGraw, Engineering (not present). The respective Department Heads also
spoke on behalf of their employees, and as well, former Police Chiefs Harold
Bastrup and Mark Stephenson spoke on behalf of their former secretary, Polly
Conrad.
119:' RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A resolution of appreciation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Mrs. Sally White for her many con-
tributions while serving on the Park and Recreation Commission.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to the Esperanza High School Aztecs
upon winning the Central Conference CIF Championship. Mr. Dave Andrews, Principal
of Esperanza, then introduced members of the team who were present, as well as the
Boys Athletic Director Mike Ellison and Pete Yoder, Head Coach.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held January 15, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,542,932.94, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
80-171
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
160: CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized
as recommended by the Purchasing Agent:
a. Bid No. 3610: Sixty 150 KVAR Shunt Capacitors. Award to Maydell &
Hartzell, $18,160.98.
b. Bid No. 3613: Seven Fairmont sedans. Award to McCoy Ford, $44,651.95.
c. Bid No. 3617: One Trash Compactor. Award to S. Vincen Bowles, Inc.,
$17,132.78.
d. Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order to the Hertz
Corporation in an amount not to exceed $38,788, for 8 assorted 1979 passenger
sedans.
e. Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order to S & C Electric
Company in the amount of $17,011.94, for modification of an existing switchgear
installation servicing Disneyland.
MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: BROCHURES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION PROGRAM: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, an agreement was authorized
with Production Graphics in the amount of $6,268, for preparation of brochures
for the Neighborhood Preservation Program, as recommended in memorandum dated
February 11, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest.
MOTION CARRIED.
177/109: DEFERRED PAYMENT LOAN PROGRAM: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution
No. 80R-62 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 11, 1980
from the Executive Director of Community Development, authorizing the submittal
of an application in the amount of $200,000 for participation in the Deferred
Payment Loan Program with the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFERRED PAYMENT
LOAN PROGRAM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
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-62 duly passed and adopted.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Seymour commended Mr. Priest and his staff
for doing a superb job on the foregoing.
80-172
City Ha!~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
150: APPRAISAL ON 3 ACRES OF RIVERDALE PARK: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department
was authorized to obtain an appraisal on 3 acres of Riverdale Park at a cost
not to exceed $2,500, as recommended in memorandum dated February 13, 1980 from
Deputy City Manager James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
123: REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES GOLDEN WEST EQUITY PROPERTIES~ INC.~ SECONDARY
DISTRIBUTION MAIN IN PACIFICO AVENUE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with Golden West Equity
Properties, Inc., for the reimbursement of fees collected for the secondary
distribution main installed in Pacifico Avenue between Lewis Street and State
College Boulevard, am recommended in memorandum dated February 12, 1980 from
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt. MOTION CARRIED.
101/123: SCOREBOARD ADVERTISING - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES~ INC.: Councilwoman
~aywood offered Resolution No. 80R-63 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated February 14, 1980 from the City Manager's office, authorizing a Scoreboard
Sponsor Agreement with'Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $50,000
per year for a ten-year period for advertising on one trivision panel of the
Stadium scoreboard. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SCOREBOARD SPONSOR AGREEMENT WITH CARL
KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC. IN CONNECTION WITH ADVERTISING OF PRODUCTS IN THE
ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overhoit, Kmywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-63 duly passed and adopted.
Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth commended staff for bringing such
an agreement to fruition.
123: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (STATE ROUTE 250) CALTRANS DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO.
3543: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-64 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated February 12, 1980 from City Engineer William
Devitt, authorizing a Cooperative Agreement with the State Department of Trans-
portation in connection with the improvement of State Route 250 (State College
Boulevard) and subsequent relinquishment thereof to the City. (District Agree-
ment No. 3543) Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-64: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPROVE-
MENT OF .STATE ROUTE 250 (STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) ANDSUBSEQUENT RELINQUISHMENT
THEREOF TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO. 3543).
80-173
City Hall, Anahe.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~.. 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 Resolution No. 80R-64 duly passed and adopted.
173: THE ATCHISON~ TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD AGREEMENT NO. BM-70552-22: On
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, a License Agreement
was authorized with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company for in-
stallation of a drainage ditch and catch basin along Railway right of way at
Katella Avenue along with the payment of a $150 license fee therefor (License
Agreement BM-70552-22), as recommended in memorandum dated February 13, 1980
from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED.
174: MODIFICATION OF TITLE II-B GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGECOUNTY MANPOWER
COM~ISSION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-65 for adoption, as rec-
ommended in memorandum dated February 5, 1980 from Human Resources Director
Garry McRae, approving a modification to the Subgrant Agreement with the Orange
County Manpower Commission to increase the grant budget by $52,503, for a new
total of $613,549. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A MUTUAL MODIFICATION OF SUBGRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHOR-
IZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
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-65 duly passed and adopted.
123/112: LEGAL FEES FOR WITNESS - ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 32-67-15:
City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on staff report dated Feburary 4,
1980 from the Chief of Police relative to the subject in which testimony was
offered by Donna Path.
Councilman Bay moved the following: finding and determining that the testimony
offered by Donna Path in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 32-67-15 served a
public purpose; that payment in an amount not to exceed $2,500 for her defense
in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 32-77-77 would be a public benefit, as
recommended in the February 4, 1980 memorandum from Police Chief Tielsch.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if they had received a written
request from Mrs. Path to assist her in representing her; City Attorney Hopkins
stated that he did not have a written request from Mrs. Path, but understood that
80-174
Cit~ Hall, ._An.aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
she did request the Chief of Police and Police Department to provide such a
defense. He had also discussed the proposed agreement with her attorney who
concurred in the wording of the agreement which was submitted to the Council.
From the audience, a staff member of the Police Department stated that the
Department did have a written request from Mrs. Path.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the subject agree-
ment was authorized. MOTION CARRIED.
173: MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the Multimodal Transportation Study Report dated
February 13, 1980 from the City Engineer was received and filed as recommended.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: DESIGN OF HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR AND PUMPING STATION: On motion by
Councilman Roth~ seconded by Councilman Overholt, the second agreement to the
December 7, 1976 agreement with Boyle Engineering for the design of Hidden
Canyon Reservoir and Pumping Station was approved as recommended in memorandum
dated February 12, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED.
175: COMPETING LICENSE APPLICATION - ROCK CREEK-CRESTA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT
(FERC PROJECT NO. I962): A recommendation from the Public Utilities Board to
authorize the General Manager of Public Utilities to file Jointly with other
public agencies a competing license application with the Federal Energy Reg-
ulatory Commission (FERC) for the Rock Creek-Cresta Hydroelectric Project on
the North Fork of the Feather River (FERC Project No. 1962), was submitted.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Hoyt his professional opinion as to the odds of obtaining
approval from the FERC on the subject application.
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, General Manager of Public Utilities, referred to his report of
February 12, 1980, wherein he tried not to write an overly optimistic recommen-
dation of the odds of success. He felt their chances of succeeding were some-
where around ~0-50. It was a situation where final determination had not yet
been made by the FERC as to whether or not public agencies had preference in
the award of relicensing of hydro-electric projects. There were two cases
presently being litigated before the FERC, Bountiful, Utah and the City of
Santa Clara.
Since they had gone to the Public Utilities Board (PUB), new information had
been received which procedurally changed the situation to a certain degree.
They were required under what he referred to as the old FERC rules to file a
competing application by March 28, 1980. FERC had adopted some new rules and
there was doubt whether the new rules would apply to the situation or not. If
the new rules did apply, then a number of things would happen, which he explained.
They would not know until some time in March whether or not the old or the new
rules were going to apply so they were proceeding, if approved by the Council,
on the basis of being prepared to file their application on March 28, 1980. If
FERC determined that the new rules were applicable, they would then hold that
filing and would not file until September 30, 1980. Hopefully between now and
September 30 in the event that the new rules applied, FERC might make a deter-
minatfon as to whether or not preference existed for public agencies in the
80-175
C.itY Hal%, Anaheim~ Caliform~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
granting of such licenses. If so and they went forward, he believed they would
have a very good chance, depending upon the others competing for the license. If
the FERC determined there was no preference to public agencies in the awarding
of such licenses, if he had to make a recommendation today, he would say stop
and not go forward because it would be too great an unhill fight.
At present they were talking about the investment which would reach approximately
$40,000 and ultimately Anaheim's share could be $200,000 if they went forward with
the full application and proceeded through the hearings. They were risking the
money to prepare the application and to go through a hearing which, he reiterated,
would be somewhere around $200,000 assuming a contested hearing and against that,
they were looking at annual benefits of approximately $20 million if successful.
It was a case where he felt even though the odds were long, the benefits which
the electric consumer of Anaheim could realize were such that at this point he
believed it was in the best interest of those electric consumers to go forward
to the extent that they file the competing application. If their joint application
was the only one filed, that would be favorable. If for instance, the Sacramento
Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) filed an application, or others, they would
want to took hard at the situation at that time to decide what Anaheim's chances
would be. If it looked favorable, they might elect to proceed; if not, they
might decide to stop at that point and withdraw.
In concluding, Mr. Hoyt stated essentially, it was a project where the risks were
considerable, the gains were considerable, and in the long run, the opportunity
of benefit for the City's electric consumers outweighed the chances of having
spent $40,000 and receive nothing for it. It was unlike any project previously
brought before the Council where they had some clear cut rules to follow. PG&E
would spearhead its efforts to hold on to the license. This was one of the more
difficult decisions as to whether or not to participate, but he contended it was
a prudent business judgment.
Mayor Seymour then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Hoyt wherein he relayed
the following: There had not been a situation where relicensing had been denied
previously; the rationale for denial of removal of a license would be a preference
±n the law, stating that public agenices had first use of the falling waters of
the United States, as opposed to a private party; a municipally-owned utility
would, in fact, have a higher priority than a private utility; SMUD indicated
they were at least studying the possibility of filing; relative to transmission
of energy to Anaheim, that was one of the questions utilities would have to
answer in the next couple of months and formulate a proposal.
Councilman Bay stated that the original $25,000 which was appropriated is in
the "pot" and he presumed if they did not approve the additional $15,000, they
were going to lose the $25,000.
Mr. Hoyt stated they would not lose the $25,000. The recommendation he had
made initially was that they be authorized to study filing the application, either
alone or with others, and now others were involved, Riverside, Azusa, Banning or
Colton, together with the Northern California Power Agency consisting of approx-
imately 11 municipal utilities from as far south as Lompoc and as far north as
Redding. If they elected to go forward and Anaheim withdrew, whatever money
had been spent on the study he presumed would be prorated amongst the survivors,
and Anaheim would get some of its money back. If Anaheim dropped out and should
80-176
City Ha.l!., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ I980~ 1:30 P.M.
everyone else elect to do likewise, then whatever money had been spent, the City's
pro rata share of that would be lost. Therefore, it could be something between
nothing and the whole thing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if by March 28, 1980 SMUD should file an application,
would that mean that Anaheim would not file.
Mr. Hoyt answered "no". He believed they would all file an application, assuming
that the old rules applied. If the new rules applied, they would wait until
September 30, 1980 hoping there would be some decision made relative to the
present pending litigation. He also felt they had some innovative ideas and
did not want others to copy their application. If they did not set new rules,
the City's chances would be better. He did. not think there was any way that
SMUD could file by March 28, 1980, or that they had even started, and thus, they
would not be ready to file by that time. If March 28 turned out to be the
deadline, he believed there would be two applications filed, the City's on a
joint basis and on a competing basis with PG&E.
Mayor Seymour asked, assuming that SMUD did not file and knowing what he knew
today and nothing more, would Mr. Hoyt be back recommending the expenditures of
funds in Stages 3, 4 and 5 (see report).
Mr. Hoyt stated he would then recommend moving ahead onto Stage 3--the key point
being a decision from FERC as to whether or not preference would apply. Once
they confirmed that it did apply, they would be in a good position.
The Mayor asked the last day upon which the Council could take action to approve
the recommendation.
Mr. Hoyt explained that the work was going forward at the present time by Spiegel
and McDiarmid with all the participants indicating their desire to go forward.
If they hesitated today or indicated that Anaheim was not going forward, they
would essentially be at the end of the line because it would be difficult to do
the work in the limited time that would be remaining unless the new rules applied.
The current strategy of the participants was to be prepared to file on March 28,
1980.
Mayor Seymour asked if he would be incorrect in assuming that the FERC's history
had been favoring private utilities, basing that statement upon all the rate
increase cases; Mr. Hoyt answered "yes".
Mayor Seymour stated he was having a very difficult time relative to the matter,
but he could understand the logic since the returns would be tremendous. However,
he did not know if he could'bring himself to be the type of betting man it was
necessary to be in this instance.
Mr. Hoyt further clarified Councilman Bay's question relative to the $25,000
already spent. Riverside had moved to go forward, and he believed the other
Southern California cities had also taken action as well. When it came to having
spent the money which would authorize the work, Anaheim did authorize the work
and the first money to be spent was Anaheim's. There was a chance of getting
somewhere between nothing and $18,00 of the $25,000.
80-177
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated when the voters approved the $150 million bond issue, it
was with the direction that the City Council give policy direction to seeking
out, then researching various projects. To the degree that they had done so on
the subject project, he was satisfied, but on the other hand, in reviewing some
facts, they were looking for a favorable ruling from a political body that had
not been favorable to the City in the past and for a favorable ruling that had
heretofore not been granted to anybody. If he were sitting in that position,
he would have to be overwhelmed with reasons and logic as to why he should deny
the private enterprise company the right to continue to generate electricity
out of that plant and give that right to the public utility to serve a different
group of the same consuming taxpayers. Even overcoming that hurdle, then faced
with the tremendous challenge of transmitting the electricity to Anaheim, would
mean litigation, and they were all too familiar with how long such litigation
could stretch out in the courts. It was not so much his concern for the $15,000,
but what he saw developing was every possibility of not being able to back away
from the situation. It was too chancy from his standpoint, and he felt they
had to be more conservative with citizens' money than they might in a private
company with stockholders. He could not find it within himself to support the
request.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Public Utilities Board vote on the item; Mr. Hoyt
answered, four in favor, two against, and one absent.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-67 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated February 12, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO FILE JOINTLY WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES A
COMPETING LICENSE APPLICATION WITH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
FOR THE ROCK CREEK-CRESTA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON THE NORTH FORK OF THE
FEATHER RIVER (FERC Project No. 1962).
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that there had been a great
deal of discussion about the expenditure essentially of $11,500, with a contingency
of another $3,500, to carry forward one more step in the very preliminary stages
of a search for another energy source which, as he understood, the commitment the
voters of the City made when they authorized the bond issue. He did not see the
additional allocation of $15,000 as money committing them anymore than they were
now committed.
Secondly, it seemed if they stopped now, Anaheim, being in the position of leader-
ship on the project, that would be the end of the project. The search for energy
sources was chancy, but the people of the City asked the Council to continue
seeking out those energy sources. Further, the Public Utilities Board voted
to go ahead and also that was the reason they had staff. It was on that basis,
he offered the resolution.
Mayor Seymour contended that he could take those same remarks and apply them to
numerous requests they had for funding in search of generation. He was going to
oppose the request only on the basis that he felt it was too much of a gamble and
a long shot and not a responsible action on behalf of the people they represented.
He was totally supportive of the search for energy and always had been in the
80-178
City Hall~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
past. He led the cause getting the $150 million bond issue approved by the
voters, but he would not be part of what he considered a high risk gamble.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated when looking at the odds of the proposal with the
possibility of saving $20 million a year for rate payers, she felt it was a
gamble worth taking in this case. If they did not do it, they would have no
opportunity whatsoever. Going forward would give an extension to possibly
September 30, 1980, at which point they would know more and could decide not
to go into it at that time. She was supportive of the proposed resolution.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS:. None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-67 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, $15,000
was appropriated from the Electric Revenue Bond funds to pay Anaheim's 27%
share of Stages 1 and 2 of above application, and Spiegel and McDiarmid and
R.W. Beck and Associates was authorized to perform the required legal and
engineering work therefor. Councilman Seymour voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
123: LOW' AND MODERATE-COST CONDOMINIUMS - 950 SOUTH CITRON STREET (COLLINS AND
KOGLER): On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, a proposed
agreement and memorandum to agreement with Collins and Kogler, developers, to
assure maximum sales prices for an 86-unit condominium project located at 950
South Citron Street (former Citron Park site) was approved, as recommended in
memorandum dated February 11, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION
CARRIED.
127/142: GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 8~ 1980: Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 80R-68 for adoption, establishing voting precincts and polling
places, appointing precinct board members and fixing compensation therefor for
the General Municipal Election to be held April 8, 1980. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND pOLLING PLACES, APPOINTING PRECINCT
BOARD MEMBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID
CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980, HERETOFORE CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 80R-5 OF
THE CITY COUNCIL.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked the City Clerk what was budgeted
for the cost of the election; City Clerk Linda Roberts stated approximately
$55,000, excluding staff labor, which also included election supplies and
further that there were 76 consolidated polling places with three officers
working at each location, or a total of 228 people.
The Mayor then asked if it were an election combined with the June primary,
could she estimate what that cost might be; City Clerk Roberts explained when
80-179
City Hall~ Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
they consolidated with the County on prior occasions, it had been anywhere from
$12,000 up to $22,000.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would support the resolution, but would like to bring
to the attentiom of the Council the fact that the April 8th election would cost
the taxpayers almost three times as much than if it were held in June, and it
would also require somebody's labor in putting 228 people together to properly
conduct the election. He was suggesting that sometime in the near future he
was going to be asking the Council to consider an amendment to the City Charter
that would permit City elections to be held at the June primary, rather than
April. As other cities had come to conclude, it was (1) less expensive and
(2) guaranteed a much higher turnout of voters to decide local issues. He did
not mean to do anything more at this time than to bring the matter to the Council's
attention and to advise that he would be bringing it to them again in a couple
of weeks.
Councilman Overholt pledged his support regarding the Mayor's proposal.
Councilman Roth questioned why June when they could get more voters in November;
Mayor Seymour answered that they could discuss those questions when the subject
was brought forward, but suggested that the time they would get more voters in
November would be during a Presidential election year and the turnout was less
in off-Presidential years.
*(Pursuant to Council action of June 24, 1980, the following is a verbatim of a
portion of this meeting.)
Kaywood:
I'm very concerned what would happen if there were a June election when
we receive the budget May 1 and the budget must be adopted in June. For
someone to be newly elected and come in and have two weeks to work on
and adopt the budget would be asking a great deal of somebody.
Seymour: It used to be until a couple of years ago, Council never saw the budget
prior to June 1.
Ka~ood:
But if you have an election in June and the Council is seated the
following week means that they would be in with everything and no.
more than 2 weeks at the most to adopt a sizeable budget.
Seymour: I remind you that you and I when we were elected went through exactly
that.
Kaywood: Two weeks!!
Seymour: We were elected in April and never saw a b~dget until sometime in early
June and we had to adopt that budget by Juna 30.
Kaywood: We had the budget by June 1 and we had to adopt it by June 30.
Seymour: Some time early June.
Kaywood: It was June lst--we had 4 weeks for the budget.
80-180
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour recalled that when he and Councilwoman Kaywood were elected, they
went through the same process. Councilwoman Kaywood continued that, as well,
all of Anaheim would be "swallowed" up with a larger election and not get any
information on the candidates for City Council.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution relative to the April 8, 1980
General Municipal Election.
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-68 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:05 P.M.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-4A: In accordance with application
filed by Mr. Thomas Morger, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
a portion of Lincoln Avenue frontage road from Bel Air Street easterly 291.71
feet, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-45, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin
and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 4, 1980 and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must maintain the flow of storm drain waters from the property
east of and through the subject area. Plans to be submitted to the City Engineer
for approval. In addition, applicant will execute and record a save harmless
agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.
2. Removal of existing street and sidewalk improvements and import fill material
tO bring the subject area to level grade with the adjacent property will be
~ccomplished, at no cost to the City of Anaheim.
3. Construction and installation of new street improvements including sidewalk
area, as required by the City Eegineer, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A",
shall be installed at no cost to the City. Construction plans to be sumitted
to the City Engineer for approval.
4. In reference to Conditions 1 through 3, that a bond, and form satisfactory
to the City be posted with the City to guarantee installation and/or removal
of the above mentioned requirements.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what use would be made of the portion of land under
discussion.
80-181
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FebrUary 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Engineer William Devitt stated they would now be able to utilize that
frontage on Lincoln Avenue.
From the audience a gentlemen who indicated he was the buyer of the property
stated that they would be constructing a small shopping center on the property.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted it would have to be very small.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-69 for adoption, approving Abandon-
ment No. 79-4A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF LINCOLN AVENUE FRONTAGE
ROAD FROM BEL AIR STREET EASTERLY.
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-69 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-5A: In accordance with application
filed by James W. McAlvin, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
a portion of Hermosa Drive located north of La Palma Avenue, west of West
Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-46, duly published in the Anaheim
Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 14, 1980 and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-70 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 79-5A. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-182
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-70: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF HERMOSA DRIVE, NORTH OF
LA PALMA AVENUE, WEST OF WEST STREET. (79-5A)
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-70 duly passed and adopted.
139: CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT FOR AB 859 (NAYLOR) SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Mayor Seymour noted that Councilwoman Kaywood offered a
resolution of support at the previous meeting (see minutes February 12, 1980),
and it was continued to this meeting after a lengthy discussion. Councilwoman
Kaywood stated she wanted to continue to offer the resolution supporting the
sUbject bill but would wait until Councilman Overholt spoke to the matter.
Councilman Overholt stated Assistant City Attorney Jack White's report of
February 14, 1980 which they did not have at the last meeting pointed out that
the school district must offer the surplus property to the agencies "for any
amount equal to the school district's cost of acquisition (adjusted by consumer
price index changes) or 25% of the fair market value of the property, whichever
is greater." That sounded like new information to him.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that last week she understood it to be 75%.
Mayor Seymour stated that he read it differently and in the case just cited, what
would be paid for the property would be what the school district paid for it, plus
the CPI increase, and the greater number would be what they paid plus the CPI.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated they checked the law and not the interpre-
tation, and it was the school district's cost of acquisition adjusted by the
CPI or 25% of the fair market value, whichever was greater.
Mayor Seymour stated it sounded reasonable to him that the CPI, when applied to
the purchase price, would probably be greater; Councilman Overholt contended that
one of the measures of the acquisition cost by the non-school agency was 25% of
the fair market value, whereas if it would be sold by the school agency and
acquired under appropriate circumstances, that could provide funds that the
school district could use within their own agency for the education of children.
What bothered him was that the school district should be forced to sell the
property to a non-educational agency presumably, in some instances, at 25% of
the fair market value of the property.
City Manager Talley explained that a school district having bought a piece of
property and subsequently determined that it was surplus, if the local jurisdic-
tion wanted to keep it for open space purposes, then the school district would
be entitled to only what it cost them, plus a reasonable annual enhancement, CPI,
and not to charge the agency willing to take that open space burden on a moderate
amount merely because the price of land surrounding it had escalated beyond the
80-183
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Cpi. The City would agree to pay them a reasonable profit, but it would also
agree to put it to open space use. The school district would be reimbursed for
whatever they paid plus the CPI as appropriate or 25% of the fair market value,
whichever was greater.
Councilman Overholt stated as he viewed the situation, it meant that a school
district in shutting down a school because of decreased enrollment that that
school was going to be forced to make the land connected with the school open
space.- He used as an example Fremont Junior High School and he did not know
why the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) should be forced to make
that land available to another public agency at less than fair market value.
Mr. Talley stated that he agreed it caused a school district some problems,
but if a Council who had a continuing problem in some cities providing open
space to their constituents, they, too, had a problem which the subject legis-
lation was trying to address.
Councilman Roth stated that he agreed with Councilnmn Overholt and also thought
it unusual to single out schools. Also, some of the money belonged to the
State relative to those school districts who accepted the State aid.
Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, stated if the State in any way contributed
to the purchase or acquisition of the property initially, all the money that
the State paid for improvements must revert to the State. In response to Council-
man Overholt, the money could come back to the district--a one time maintenance
improvement for a physical facility improvement. That was the only way they
could get the money back. Their concern was that they already paid for the
property once through the taxpayers and sometimes there was only one opportunity
to preserve that land in perpetuity for open sapce. Considering the diminishing
space in the community and with all due respect to the school district, it
might be the only opportunity of preserving it at a reasonable cost. They felt
there was possibly an inequity to the school district, but they also felt it was
of benefit to the total community.
Councilman Bay used as an example the John Marshall School and Park where a lot
of the acreage was school and some of it park. If the school decided to sell it
off to the highest bidder and that entity decided to build apartments on it,
that would impact the park; Mr. Ruth agreed.
Mayor Seymour stated that argument had no logic, considering that the Council
had the clout of zoning properties.
Further discussion, debate and questioning followed between the Council and
Mr. Ruth at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood reoffered a resolution
supporting AB 859 (Naylor), giving priority to local governments in the purchasing
or leasing of surplus school properties.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated in her opinion if the
other cities did not have the opportunity afforded in the bill, they would not
have the open space. To be fair to the residents of the State, they should be
allowed the opportunity of exercising that option.
80-184
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he was going to vote against the resolution. It was not
a question of parks or no parks, but a question of whether one level of govern-
ment should take advantage of another level of government. It was also
questionable whether or not they wanted to further hinder the efforts of a
school board to try and best serve its constituents.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated "there are two issues. In most cases, what the
property is sold for does go back to the State and it may or may not come back
to a local community ... and the choice where you pointed out, if the City had
to sell to the State first, if it had to be the State keeping it in open space
and maintaining it, it is not quite the same thing."
Mayor Seymour pointed out if the bill passed, the Fremont School Site would be
impacted and it would be to the detriment of the school district. Councilwoman
Kaywood stated only the athletic field could be impacted if the City were to
determine to purchase it for open space or park purposes. If for housing or
any other purposes, they could not purchase it under those conditions.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, which failed to carry by the
follwing vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
NOES:: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
108: APPLICATION - AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT~ 2522 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE: Request
by Victor S. Eriksen, Attorney, for reconsideration of an Amusement Devices Permit
for the proposed establishment of the Supercade at 2522 West Lincoln Avenue,
Margaret J. Neel~, applicant, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour asked to hear first from the applicant.
Mr. Victor S. Eriksen, Attorney, stated he was appearing on behalf of the applicant,
Margaret Neel, who also was in the Chamber audience. He also served as General
Counsel for American Game Exchange whose President and General Manager were also
present to emphasize the importance of the subject location to them. The Sales
Representative with whom the'applicant had been dealing, Mr. Richard McDonnell,
was also present. He thanked the Council for the opportunity given for recon-
sideration of the matter. Notification of the January 15, 1980 meeting (see
minutes that date) was apparently mailed to Mrs. Neel, but not received for
some reason and, therefore, the applicant was not represented at the previous
meeting. He continued that they were encouraged by the passage of Ordinance
No. 4092 providing for waiver of the 600-foot requirement from a school. One
of the conditions of the waiver was the prerequisite of the approval of the
affected school district. He believed the Council had before it a letter from
the Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Anaheim dated December 20, 1979 and
another from the Assistant Principal of Savanna High School dated December 20,
1979, both giving qualified approval of the permit, subject to the condition that
the Family Amusement Center not be open during regular school hours.
He understood they had some opposition today and he did prepare and forward to
the Council a memorandum for their review and consideration (see letter dated
February 1, 1980 from Mr. Eriksen attached to which was a five-page memorandum--
Application for Amusement Devices Permit for Supercade Family Amusement Center
80-185
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
at 2522 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim--on file in the City Clerk's office) which
he submitted in the hopes of expediting today's proceedings. The only thing
he would add was that the applicant and her husband and their daughter and her
husband, were the projected owners/operators of that center. They were respon-
sible people having experience in business and dealing with people, especially
children.
He was aware that one of the concerns lay in the interest of the prospective
neighboring tenants in a small shopping center. They did not want the noise,
congestion of bicycles and kids running back and forth in front of their
stores. If the application would be denied simply because of those interests,
it would be somewhat shortsighted and not giving the applicant an opportunity
to conform her business to their interests as well as her own. He asked that
the Council allow the standards to fall upon the manner of operation of the
projected game center. Game centers in the past were notorious for juvenile
delinquency and all sorts of problems attendant with the pool hall type of
atmosphere. They had installed numerous units in Southern California (14)
without incident. They had one problem existing now in Fountain Valley because
their owner/operator was not taking advantage of his ability to restrain the
kids when outside of his store. The problem had been rectified by their
coaching that operator.
The neighboring tenants might not be aware that all Supercade Family Amusement
Centers were run on a club membership principle and each person patronizing
the game center had to register with Supercade which represented a good measure
of control for the owner/operator because they then had the patron's name, address,
telephone number, as well as that of the parents, in order to effect any action
should it become necessary. They did not have a significant level of control
over owner/operators at this time, but were awaiting franchise registration with
the State and expected to be franchised within the month of March.
Councilman Roth explained that at the last meeting, January 15, 1980 (see minutes
that date) a Mr. Vernon Hinch stated that the lease agreement in the center did
not permit coin-operated devices. He (Roth) considered that to be a civil matter;
however, the owner would not speak with him (Hinch) regarding the matter. He
asked Mr. Eriksen if coin-operated devices were permitted under his client's
lease.
Mr. Eriksen answered to the best of his knowledge and understanding, they must
be. He may or may not have seen that lease agreement, but he knew that the land-
lord was favorable towards the installation of the Family Amusement Center within
his shopping center.
Mr. Dick McDonnell, Golden West Realty, first clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood
that the landlord of the center was a firm by the name of Rumney-Romano, Property
Managers. He assisted Mr. and Mrs. Neel in drawing up the lease agreement and
the portion that had to do with coin-operated devices was deleted from the
agreement so that they could have such devices.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if ~here was an agreement with everyone in the
center precluding coin-operated devices, how could it Just be waived for the
Neel's; Mr. McDonnell answered that he did not know.
80-186
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Eriksen interjected and stated that the agreement was individual and inde-
pendent as to each tenant of the shopping center, and he did not believe there
was any master lease per se. Perhaps one of the reasons for the striking of
that provision was that Supercade operated commercial game equipment that was
token operated.
Mrs. Cathy Winn, 214 Gain Street, stated she circulated petitions throughout
the tract homes behind the center, the school nearby and other areas in the
community. She represented over 120 people in the community who did not want
to see another pinball parlor located in Anaheim. As the petitions were being
circulated, the response was overwhelming against even the possibility of such
a business opening in the neighborhood. She questioned if an individual had
a right to open a business that could be potentially harmful to their youth and
thus to all the community. They had nothing personal against the applicants,_
but the average person was becoming discouraged over having his rights overlooked.
They were parents greatly concerned about even a potential threat to the youth.
They had a right to protect their homes and families from negative influences.
Mrs. winn also stated that she had another petition signed by over 70 citizens
against the change in the ordinance that had made it possible for the business.
to apply for a license. The 600-toot requirement was clear cut and precise,
and they did not want to make it easier for such businesses to make money off
their youth. They did not want those businesses anywhere near their homes.
In concluding, Mrs. Winn stated if the Council wished to take into consideration
the will of the, people who they represented, they might want to know that all
the people ~hom she contacted, some 90 homes in the tract directly behind the
center, with the exception of two who did not understand the issue clearly, did
not want that kind of business in their area.
Mr. Vernon Hinch, lessee in the subject shopping center, stated that such
businesses had a place and in many cities that place had been designated as
a fun zone where they could be properly policed so that they would not become
a hangout. He then commended the Council for the .swift action taken in elimin-
ating the massage parlor masquerading as a dance studio which had opened in the
center. He continued that he did not just decide that he did not like pinball
parlors because they were located next to him, but he also went to look at some
that were established. He had the opportunity to discuss the situation with
many owners located next to the so-called pinball parlors, and they indicated
without exception that they opposed them strenuously. His opposition to ni~-
ball parlors was not that they were not his kind of business, but he did not
feel they were an asset to the community, and they did not add to the moral
atmosphere that they wanted to build in their children who would be frequenting
those establishments. He concluded by stating that he represented the occu-
pants of the plaza who strongly felt that the permit should be denied.
Mrs. Pat Yerman, resident on Academy, first referred to what she considered an
absurdity in that the applicants agreed that they would not open their estab-
lishment during school hours. She contended that the establishments were not
open during school hours because during that time their children would be in
school, and she could not understand how that stipulation would be meeting the
opposition half-way.
80-187
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth explained the reason that stipulation was agreed to by the
applicant was due to the fact that when the school districts were asked if they
had any opposition, they would usually indicate they had none if the business
was not open during school hours.
Mrs. Yerman recognized that that would help in deterring children from frequenting
the business during lunch time or during school hours. She stated, however, that
it would not help relative to the traffic, noise, loitering, spending of money
and other things mentioned that could happen. In her opinion, there was a
place for such businesses where it would be highly inaccessible for someone to
loiter or sell their drugs. She also noted the co~ent that was made indicating
that the school district was not opposed to the proposed establishment. She
understood that the school had been receiving many calls and she then questioned
if they had not, in fact, received a letter wherein the school had changed its
position.
Mayor Seymour stated that they had received such a letter dated February 25,
1980 from Cynthia F. Grennan, Superintendent, Anaheim Union High School District
stating in the last paragraph, "we sincerely hope the Anaheim City Council will
again deny the application for an Amusement Devices Permit." (on file in the
City Clerk's office)
Mrs. Judith Ann Hinch, 2918 Rogers Court, emphasized that she specifically asked
the leasing agent if they would ever allow a pinball parlor in the shopping center,
and they were assured that they would not do so. They had nothing against the
Neel's, but they simply did not want a pinball parlor located next to them.
She had also spoken with Cynthia Grennan who relayed her own personal experience
with the agreement made, where such centers were to stay closed during school
hours. However, on many occasions, she had to go personally to retrieve her
truant students. She also talked to the principal of Anaheim High School who
was not even aware of the ordinance restricting such amusement centers from
being within 600 feet of a school, but who fell into the same trap of making an
agreement on the basis that the center would not be open during school hours.
When Mrs. Franks, Principal of Savanna High School, initially indicated she had
no objection to the proposed Supercade, except that it not be open during school
hours, she too was not aware that an ordinance existed which provided for the
600-foot requirement and that her school properties were only 439 feet, rather
than 600 feet from the proposed center. Therefore, they changed their stand
and retracted their approval. She urged the Council to favor the opposition.
Mr. Eriksen then submitted cOpies of two letters from two different landlords
in centers where there were existing supercade locations, indicating that they
had experienced no problems with the Supercades and that they were happy to
have them as tenants. He noted that there was mention made that 20, 30 or 40
patrons might be in the center at one time, and although they wished that
would be the case, in reality, that did not occur. Owner/operators considered
themselves fortunate if 30% of their 30 game machines usually installed in their
centers were being played at any one time. After opening day, there was not a
large congregation of kids in the centers.
80-188
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Relative to the business not being open during school hours, they perhaps wished
it would be open during those hours because many of their units did a healthy
lunch business from business people in the area, and they were frequented by many
adults.
There was also reference made that their opening was somewhat surreptitious, and
it was certaimly not intended and 'they did not hide t~t from anybody.
With reference to the allusiom to gambling, he would argue strenuously against
that proposition. The games were one of skill, and he did not think it was
immoral, per se, to gamble. He felt that children should be oriented to a
gambling sort of life, noting that so many adults liked to go to Las Vegas.
He did not think they should hide the prospect of gambling from children. He
contended that none of the machines had anything to do with gambling, since
patrons were only playing against the machine.
Relative to loitering and littering, those were the two biggest obstacles they
had to overcome with the opening of each unit. They could not offer or guarantee
any panacea for those problems. Ail they could do was say that it was a function
of management and eventually they would have a prescribed pattern of operations
once they were franchised. It appeared they were present on a CUP type license,
and that it would be revokable or subject to suspension if they did not comply.
As to being a negative influence on children, he did not see that and it was
not supported by any facts since the business was not installed as yet. Out
of all the people who opposed them in other cities and jurisdictions, they had
not had any one of them come back to the landlord, City Council or themselves
with any complaints, the reason being they ran a good family center.
Councilman Bay asked if Mr. Eriksen was approaching the Cmuncil with permission
in writing from the school district to place the business within 600 feet of
the school; Mr. Eriksen stated that they did not have that specific permission
and the only letters they were aware of were the letters he referenced previously.
Councilman Bay stated it was his opinion, and had been for some time, that a CUP
and like applications were the exception which he personally approved when there
was agreement with the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, with petitions
that he had seen and a letter from the Superintendent recommending denial of the
location, it made it relatively simple for him to take a position. Two hundred
and forty signatures having been received on two different petitions encompassing
the surrounding neighborhood represented a heavy majority against the type of
privilege being requested.
MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved to reaffirm the denial of the application
for an Amusement Devices Permit at 2522 West Lincoln Avenue submitted by Margaret J.
Neel. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt first stated that he supported
Councilman Bay's motion. He then noted the petition indicating opposition to
the change in Ordinance No. 4092. He clarified that that ordinance was presently
~n effect. However, those who felt that the Council had opened the flood gates
to pinball machines within 600 feet of schools should not be concerned because
80-189
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
his attitude was that within that 600 feet, if there was virtually any feeling
of unrest or uncertainty or concern over that activity, that the Council, as well
as the School District, would preserve that 600-foot buffer. That was his inter-
pretation of the amended ordinance. He emphasized if there was any credible
opposition to such an operation within 600 feet of a school campus, he would
not support that type of business.
Councilwoman Kaywood recounted when the subject neighborhood was given the
commercial frontage on Lincoln, she recalled assuring the neighbors on Gain
that there would be a light-type commercial use not impacting the neighbors
and precluding the possibility and probability of people leaping the fence
and robbing the homes. She wanted to stick to that commitment. Further she
understood that there had been a great number of robberies in that neighborhood.
Mayor Seymour stated he would support the motion as well. He too recalled when
that small strip shopping center went in, the promises that were made to the
citizens surrounding that center. As Councilman Bay pointed out, with the
strong opposition of the neighborhood, he did not think the Council could do
anything but deny the request.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilman Roth asked that the Chief of Police be directed
to review the matter of amusement device centers in the City, as well as his
recommendations regarding allowing future permits. If some of the complaints
were true relative to such centers being a place for drug traffic, he was inter-
ested in receiving a report with the thought in mind of perhaps re-evaluating
the whole policy of issuing permits for amusement device centers.
Councilman Overholt suggested that they add amusement businesses that were pre-
sently operating illegally, those that had never obtained what was required to
be in business.
Mayor Seymour expressed concern over the cost of such a report not knowing how
many man hours would be involved.
City Manager Talley stated if it looked like a major study, he would first report
back to the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to request recommendations from the Chief of
Police relative to the policy of issuing permits for amusement device centers
and also to report on those centers which might be operating illegally. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
149: RECONSIDERATION OF PARKINGMETERS ALONG LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD AND MELROSE STREET: Mr. Arley Beeson, requesting reconsideration of
installation of parking meters along Lincoln Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard
and Melrose Street (_discussed at public hearing on January 15, 1980, see minutes
that da~e), was'submitted.
Mr. Arley Beeson, Motel Supply Company, 249 East Lincoln, stated that he had
lost some of his support, since they had to get back to their businesses. He
explained that since the parking meters had been removed, his business was
down considerably, as well as a number of other merchants in the area. They
80-190
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
were supporting the City and paying their taxes, but were not, in turn, getting
support. He felt the previous action taken was capricious in not giving any
of the merchants an opportunity to say anything about the meters.
Mayor Seymour explained the reason they were hearing the matter again was at
the request of Mr. Beeson so that he and all the businessmen in the area who
were notified would be assured of having their voice heard relative to the
question of why they felt the meters would work, where signs and enforcement
would not.
Mr. Beeson stated if an officer patrolling the street saw a raised meter flag,
he could ticket a vehicle. If the people were aware of that enforcement, they
would eitber feed the meter or move on. He did not believe the City could
afford officers to patrol the area two to three times a week to mark cars and
to return for the purposes of ticketing. Meters, however, seemed to be the
only logical way. They needed parking and needed it badly because lack of it
had played havoc with the merchants.
Mr. Larry Slagle, representing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, recommended the
installation of parking limit signs instead of parking meters primarily because
of the cost of reinstallation of the meters (see January 11, 1980 memo from the
City Engineer). Insofar as many of the downtown businesses had been impacted
by the current traffic detours and Redevelopment, they should do whatever possible
within reason to help those merchants. A concerted effort should be made to
enforce posted parking signs by assigning a cadet or police officer to force
the turnover of cars. If that did not work, they suggested increasing the
parking violation fees to $5 or $10 or whatever a sufficient amount would be
to make it painful and also to aid in offsetting the expense of signs and en-
forcement. Further, signs should be posted indicating that the parking struc-
ture behind City Hall was free and available. Although there was a sign currently
posted on Philadelphia Street indicating free parking, when approaching the
parking structure from Lincoln going south, there was a sign on that structure
indicating permit parking which was somewhat misleading and perhaps should be
replaced with a sign also indicating the free parking entrance.
Mr. Don Lee, owner of Jackson Drugs, stated there was a serious problem relative
to the two remaining merchants in downtown Anaheim and that was parking. He did
not think the answer was the reinstallation of parking meters because of the cost
to the taxpayers. On Emily Str~t (adjacent to his store) there were seven
parking stalls and one was painted yellow for the Masonic Lodge and for Mr. Beeson
to bring in his supplies and equipment. There was 30-minute parking and he con-
tended if that 30-minute parking was enforced, neither he nor Mr. Beeson would
have a.problem with parking for their patrons. He felt that signing and enforce-
ment would be effective. Another important issue was that City employees,
although they'were aware of the parking structure available for them, were
instead utilizing parking spaces that were for the customers of the merchants
of the area.
Councilman Roth stated that was his concern. There was a structure available
that should be utilized to a higher degree and he asked Mr. Lee if his customers
were also aware of that structure.
80-191
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Lee stated that his customers were not aware of those facilities, but people
patronizing his business did not want to walk that far because they were usually
not feeling too well. He stated that for his personal use, three parking stalls
would be adequate if they were not used by all day parkers.
Mr. Beeson also noted that there was a vacant lot in the same block that could
be utilized for parking that would be immediately available. If it was paved
and posted, it would be used.
In answer to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Beeson stated that he required two and
sometimes three parking stalls for trucks and for his help because they traveled
in and out of the business. He also required sometimes three for customers who
were at his business usually for 30 minutes to an hour, and thus, six spaces would
be sufficient to service his business. A Mr. Brown who was present earlier
needed four or five, and people up and down Lincoln were in the same position.
He would also prefer a 30-minute time limit as opposed to an hour.
Mayor Seymour stated what they had heard today should tell them (1) that they
were best advised to proceed without the parking meter program, but instead to
institute the signing program adequately enforced and posted and (2) as Council-
man Roth pointed out, that there be proper signing on the Civic Center parking
structure that would enable those who chose to park there to know where they
could park and that parking was free of charge.
ORDINANCE NO. 4103: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4103 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4103: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.150 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
THERETO SUBSECTION .040 RELATING TO ONE-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (both
sides of Lincoln Avenue between Melrose Street and Anaheim Boulevard)
The Mayor confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that posting should be as recommended
by staff, one-hour parking 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. pertaining to the north and
south sides of Lincoln Avenue. He asked the City Manager to make certain that
proper enforcement was instituted.
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 or allowed:
a. Claim submitted by James Kimball Browning for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of an accident caused by City-owned on-duty emergency
vehicle at East Street and La Palma Avenue, on or about January 15, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by the Libertarian Party of California, et al, for damages
purportedly sustained as a result of City employees signing false name on
Affidavit of Registration, presented by claimants for registration in the
Libertarian Party on or about December 26, 1979.
80-192
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to buried cable purportedly
sustained as a result of work being performed by employees of the City of
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency at Clementine Street, north of Oak, on or about
January 4, 1980.
The following claim was allowed:
d. Claim submitted by Edward W. Anderson for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a traffic accident at Lincoln Avenue and Beach
Boulevard involving an on-duty police vehicle on or about January 6, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correSpondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of January 9, 1980.
b. 109: Office of the Controller of the State of California--estimated shared
revenue.to be apportioned during the 1980-81 fiscal year.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of December 5, 1979,
and January 2, 16 and 23, 1980.
3. 108: APPLICATION - AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: In accordance with the rec-
ommendations of the Chief of Police, an Amusement Devices Permit, submitted by
John Lee Collar, Soft Water Wash,.525 South State College Boulevard, for an
Atari "Pool Shark" amusement device, was approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-71 and
80R-72, 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. 80R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Barton
Development Co., et al.; Centurion IV; Melodyland Christian Center)
]03: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED SERRANO NO. 2 ANNEXATION. (uninhabited, approximately 0.891 acre
located northwest of the intersection of the extension of Serrano Avenue and the
Edison easement, south of Nohl Ranch Road)
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-71 and 80R-72, duly passed and adopted.
80-193
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 28, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-24: Submitted by Lana Corporation, for a change
in zone from CL to RM-1200, to construct 3 four-plexes on property located at
530-610 West La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-23, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-24, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3130: Submitted by Atilano Flores and Natalia Jacobo Mondragon,
to retain an illegal garage conversion and fence on CL zoned property located
at 407 East North Street, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-17, granted Variance
No. 3130, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3131: Submitted by Roger Scott and Martha Lou Davies, to retain
an existing wall on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1179 West Vermont Avenue,
with a Code waiver of maximum wall height in front setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-18, granted Variance
No. 3131, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2050: Submitted by Kurt Guehr, Pomona Truck
Electric Inc., to retain a truck repair facility on ML zoned property located
at 2880 East Miraloma Avenue, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-20, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2050 in part, and granted a negative declaration
status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2051: Submitted by Joseph P. and Madeline Osborn,
to retain a limousine service on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1406 South
Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-16, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2051, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2054: Submitted by Radiant Technology Corporation,
to permit a truck freight terminal on proposed ML zoned property located at
1379 North Miller Street with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-21, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2054, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2055: Submitted by National Empire Company, Inc.,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 2801 West Ball Road, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
80-194
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-22, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2055, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
8. VARIANCE NO. 2454 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Thompson Pool Plumbing,
Inc., requesting a retroactive extension of time to Variance No. 2454, to permit
the continued use of a non-conforming building in an '~" zone, with waiver of
minimum front setback abutting a secondary arterial highway, on ML zoned property
located at 1332 North Miller Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2454,
to expire January 8, 1981.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1684 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Richard A. Del Guercio, requesting to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1684,
to permit boat sales on property located at 2165 South Manchester Avenue,
with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-24, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1684.
10. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10407, 10409 AND 10410 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted
by Daniel A. Salceda, requesting extensions of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 10407,
10409 and 10410, property located on the south side of Willowick Drive, south of
Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 10407, 10409 and 10410, to expire February 28, 1981.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-i5 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2027 - APPROVAL
OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Pushpa W. Patel, requesting approval of revised
plans to expand an existing motel on proposed CL zoned property located at 2145
South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans to Reclassification No.
79-80-15 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2027.
12. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10940 (Revision No. 1): Submitted by the Baldwin Company
Ltd., to establish a proposed 68-1ot, RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision on property
located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road and southwest of the westerly terminus
of Ridgeview Road. (Continued from February 12, 1980; Variance No. 3124 previously
approved December 17, 1979, PC79-234).
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10940 (Revision No. 1),
and EIR No. 166 had previously been approved.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4104 - REGULATIONOF OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE CG ZONE: Council-
man SeymQur offered Ordinance No. 4104 for first reading, as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
ORDINANCE NO. 4104: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .070
TO SECTION 18.45.025 OF CHAPTER 18.45, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM M UNCIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING.
80-195
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
142/150: ORDINANCE NO. 4100: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4100 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4100: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 17.08.230
OF CHAPTER 17.08, TITLE 17, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS.
(park acreage dedications)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Roll Call Vote:
ORDINANCE NO. 4101: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4101 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4101: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(96), CR)
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4101 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4102: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4102 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4102: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-16, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL Mtg{BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4102 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4105 AND 4106: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4105 and
4106 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4105: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-22, RM-3000)
ORDI'NANCE NO. 4106: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
T}IE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-46, RS-7200)
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4100 duly passed and adopted.
80-196
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
1~4: LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING THURSDAY~ FEBRUARY 14, 1980: Councilwoman Kaywood
reported on her attendance of the subject meeting wherein she was appointed to be
the delegate for the City of Anaheim for cities over 100,000 population on the
Orange County Subregional Committee for a two-year term.
Councilman Overholt interjected and stated that, in fact, Councilwoman Kaywood
was elected by the Orange County League of Cities. Councilman Bay noted that
she was elected by a heavy majority.
114: CONGRESSMAN DANNEMEYER BREAKFAST, FEBRUARY 16~ 1980: Councilman Overholt
reported on his attendance at the subject breakfast which he felt was a good
meeting.
Councilman Bay stated he was also in attendance and requested Congressman
Dannemeyer's attention be directed toward some kind of tax break to exempt
the first $500 per person savings interest per year to encourage savings,
capital investment, and housing loans. He felt that change in the Federal Income
Tax would help mitigate some of the percentage of inflation. There was not
enough motivation to save in the country and that was having a real effect on
monies being available for loans for new housing, industrial development and
many other forms of capital investment.
164: DRAINAGE PROBLEM IN THE HILL AND CANYON AREA: Mayor Seymour stated he was
very concerned, and if other Council Members had an opportunity to inspect some of
the drainage problems in the Anaheim Hills and Santa Ana Canyon area, they could
be equally concerned over that situation brought about by the heavy rains. He
observed numbers of situations at least in his layman's eye of a serious nature
in that area. He wanted to have a report through the City Manager's office as
to what steps had been taken or were being taken to insure that loss of property
was minimized and to take every precaution to insure there was no possible loss
of life in the hill and canyon area.
He thereupon requested that the City Manager submit a report as to what steps had
been taken and were being taken to insure minimizing loss of property.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Executive Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:14 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Overholt moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:14 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBER~ERK