1980/03/11 80-249
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 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
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
CITY LIBRARIAN: William J. Griffith
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Takuji Tamaru
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
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 Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
"Quality Control Week" - March 17-21, 1980
Mr. Ray Kraetz accepted the proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention
Center and Golf Director, on his being selected as 1980 Manager of the Year by
the Orange Coast Chapter of the Society For the Advancement of Management and
for his many contributions to the members of City staff and most importantly for
his untiring dedication to the entertainment needs of Anaheim's 210,000 citizens,
residents of Orange County, and the entire Southern California community; and
further declaring March 13, 1980, as "Thomas F. Liegler Day."
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held January 2 and January 29, 1980 and adjourned regular meeting of
January 15, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after read-
ing 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 $2,472,027.89, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
80-250
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 10 KAWASAKI 1000cc POLICE SPECIAL MOTORCYCLES -
BID NO. 3622: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth,
the low bid of Whittier Kawasaki was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $41,732, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his
memorandum dated March 5, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
150: DONATION BY ANAHEIM HILLS KIWANIS CLUB FOR THE AMPHITHEATER AT OAK CANYON
NATURE CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the $3,200 donation of funds
presented to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department by the
Anaheim Hills Kiwanis Club for construction of an amphitheater at Oak Canyon
Nature Center and authorizing the appropriation for the expenditure of these
funds during the current fiscal year, as recommended in memorandum dated March 3,
1980 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth asked that a letter of thanks be sent to the Anaheim Hills
Kiwanis Club for their generosity. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like
to see more publicity relative to the gift catalog program.
123: HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR USE OF JULIETTE LOW SCHOOL: Councilman Roth
moved to authorize a hold harmless agreement with the Los Angeles Rams Football
Company for any and all losses and injuries arising from the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department's use of Low School for park and recreation
activities, as recommended in memorandum dated March 3, 1980 from Deputy City
Manager James Ruth. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
150: NAME FOR PARK WEST OF THE ANAHEIM SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER: Councilman
Bay moved to designate the new park west of the Anaheim Senior Citizens Center
as "Colony Park", as recommended in memorandum dated March 3, 1980 from Deputy
City Manager James Ruth. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth stated he had been hearing complaints relative to the lack of
parking at the subject Senior Citizens Center. He wanted to know what was being
done to provide an additional amount of parking for the seniors.
Mr James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, explained that the lot was only approximately
one-third of an acre, primarily used to accommodate the people using the building.
They had performed an in-house study on the parking problem and submitted reports
to the Redevelopment Department to analyze. Mr. Priest was going to review the
matter with staff, and Mr. Singer and would be submitting recommendations in a
couple of weeks.
103: ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 29 ANNEXATION: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
No. 80R-94 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 29, 1980
from the Planning Department, requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission
to commence proceedings for the annexation of certain uninhabited territory
designated as Anaheim Hills No. 29, consisting of approximately 22.182 acres
along the City's southerly boundary, extending from the southerly extension of
Imperial Highway eastward for a distance of approximately 8,000 feet. Refer to
Resolution Book.
80-251
City Hall, Anaheim.,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 29.
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-94 duly passed and adopted.
123/140: ANAHEIM HILLS BRANCH LIBRARY SITE GRADING: Award of contract--Account
No. 01-904-7105. City Manager William Talley referred to the memorandum dated
March 4, 1980 from the City Engineer, recommending that the Council award the
contact for the subject grading to the low bidder, Fuller Construction, in the
amount of $28,800. He also referred to a letter dated February 25, 1980 from
Anaheim Hills to the Council wherein they discussed the proposed grading plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they had any records on Fuller Construction as to
how they performed since there was a substantial difference between their low
bid and the nine others submitted.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that they had checked with the low bidder
who indicated he was willing to do work at the price bid.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered a resolution awarding a contract to Fuller
Construction in the amount of $28,800 to perform the site grading for the Anaheim
Hills Library, as recommended by the City Engineer.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that undoubtedly the Council
would be interested in hearing from Mr. Salceda, the architect, Mr. Griffith,
City Librarian and Elizabeth Schultz, Vice Chairman of the Library Board.
Mr. Dan Salceda, Anaheim Hills Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, reported that in
the past couple of weeks, they submitted a letter to James Ruth, Deputy City
Manager, suggesting the possibility of a different grading concept to allow a
more integrated park, school and library facility in the subject project. He
thereupon displayed their proposed plan on the Chamber wall. They also did some
cost estimating relative to their proposed program. He asked that the Council,
prior to acting on the award of the contract, allow them an additional two weeks
to talk with the Department Heads of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
and the Library, so that they might come up with a coordinated effort for the
location.
He continued that they heard from the residents as to the need for a neighborhood
park site and that particular site to the immediate west of the subject location
had been dedicated to the City, and presently it was approximately 20 feet higher
in elevation or actually 40 feet higher than the library site. They felt by
having a cut and fill operation, the outcome would be a usable park site and
a more pronounced facility for the library.
80-252
City Hall~ Anahej~n~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
During the ensuing two weeks, Anaheim Hills would volunteer, at their cost,~
to provide a grading plan so that when they returned to the Council, they
could ascertain what those additional costs would be for grading. They believed
those costs would be offset by the fact that they would not need to extend Via
Cabrillo to the north. They were talking about saving the cost of approximately
520 lineal feet of roadway, plus the attendant maintenance.
Mr. Salceda stated they would appreciate the Council taking their comments and
requests into consideration.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Salceda could give some idea of the economics of the
situation and how large was the proposed Imperial Park going to be.
Mr. Salceda answered approximately 1.2 or 1.4 acres, but it would not have any
access at present because it was 20 feet higher than the roadway. They believed
by doing the cut and fill they recommended, the park site would become large
enough, or a two and one-half acre site, to accommodate a football-soccer-
baseball field complex. The cost would be approximately $120,000 to $150,000.
They also had figures to suggest the fact that the City would not have to con-
struct 500 feet of Via Cabrillo for approximately $150,000, and thus, it would
be an absolute push. As a result, the library site would be elevated approx-
imately 20 feet which would not be detrimental to the community because the
tract immediately to the south of Nohl Ranch Road was 30 feet higher than the
grade level of the street so that there would be no impact to the views that
they purchased. Relative to the tract to the north, he felt it would make it
better because the Via Cabrillo traffic was going to be going through those
tracts. If it were stubbed, it would maintain the neighborhood integrity of
the units to the north.
Mayor Seymour asked the Traffic Engineer his opinion if Via Cabrillo was not a
through street.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he could not comment at this time since
it was the first time he had seen the proposal. However, he did have problems
with access from Nohl Ranch Road relative to any pedestrian load because it was
a very heavily traveled street. The facility, being at the same level as Nohl
Ranch Road, would encourage pedestrian crossings at the middle of the block.
Deputy City Manager James Ruth first stated he had not seen the letter that was
supposedly sent to him two weeks a§o~ since he had been out of town. He ex-
plained that eventually their plans could call for taking the hills down. What
they did with the dirt and how it tied in with the library would be up to the
architects and the library people. They did not have any money now, and they
had requested that Anaheim Hills give them permission to sell the eastern
portion of the property, but they had been reluctant to do so. He felt it
served no useful purpose for Parks and Recreation, and they did have interested
parties who indicated they would like to see some development on that land.
Mr. Bill Griffith, City Librarian, explained that he met with Anaheim Hills rep-
resentatives last Wednesday and Friday which was the first time he had seen the
plan presented by Mr. Salceda.
80-253
City Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked what type of delays would be created if the proposed bid was
not accepted today.
Mr. Griffith answered that Mr. Jordan, the architect, was present and he also
met with Anaheim Hills representatives last Friday to review the proposal. Both
parties agreed that a period of three weeks would be necessary to make an intell-
igent analysim of the plan and to give a report as to whether the plan had merit
and, if so, to what extent.
Mayor Seymour then asked to hear from the architect on three points: (1) relative
to aesthetics, what would happen if the library mite were raised 20 feet; (2) what
would happen to circulation if Via Cabrillo did not go to its terminus; and (3)
"ball park" wise, did the $150,000 savings on the street and the $150,000 increase
in cost on the site make any sense at all.
Mr. Jordan, Blurock and Associates, answered if the library site was elevated
beyond its present height, there would be a necessity for retaining walls and
a drainage system at considerable expense. The advantage to having the site
at its present configuration was due to the fact that it was a relatively
balanced cut and fill, the building being on the solid part of the cut, and the
parking on the fill. As well, it would not present a vehicular distraction for
the cars traveling by it, but at the same time when approaching it from the hill,
it would show the front of the library so that people could see where it was
located. He saw a real advantage to stubbing Via Cabrillo, but he did not think
the people in the tract, to which he pointed on a map, were going to suffer
from traffic going through the subdivision. Originally, Anaheim Hills objected
to their considering a site near the Golf Course because of vehicular and pedes-
trian conflicts along the same Nohl Ranch Road and now it did not seem to be such
a serious problem when other goals were in mind.
Relative to cost, when they discussed the matter with Anaheim Hills last Friday,
they were all three in accord that it would cost one-quarter of a million dollars,
and the $150,000 was a new figure. Mr. Salceda was not at the meeting and he (Jordan)
did not know where the figure came from.
Mr. Jordan confirmed that it would take three weeks to do a careful analysis of
the proposal, and he was concerned that the bid the City had on the grading would
not stand for that long a time and they would have to go out to bid again.
Further, they had considered the condition Anaheim Hills was now proposing earlier
and decided not to proceed in that fashion. They were now halfway through working
drawings and proceeding to conclusion very shortly. He confirmed for the Mayor,
however, that if the site were raised 20 feet, they would not have to redesign
the structure.
Mayor Seymour asked, if the Council delayed two weeks, would that impact or delay
construction of the structure and the improvement.
Mr. Jordan answered that it was a matter of scheduling. They were contemplating
a groundbreaking ceremony on March 25, 1980 for the site itself, and thereafter,
they wQuld be ready for drawings to go to bid and, therefore, some time could be
lost.
80-254
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated the way he interpreted the comments on the bidding was
that if they continued the matter two or three weeks to consider the alternative,
they could ·lose the low bid which was $13,458 lower than even the second lowest
bid. They should take that into consideration on any delay.
Discussion then followed with staff relative to the possibility of jeopardizing
the low bid by any delay at the conclusion of which, City Attorney William P.
Hopkins stated that in his opinion a two-week delay would be the maximum allow-
able from a legal standpoint.
City Engineer Devitt stated that they could possibly get three weeks with the
consent of the low bidder; both Mr. Griffith and ·Jordan clarified that three
weeks was necessary to make a proper analysis.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the award of
contract for the Anaheim Hills Branch Library site grading for three weeks, sub-
ject to the consent of the low bidder to hold to his bid, with a report to be
submitted by the Library Department relative to the Anaheim Hills new site
proposal.' If the low bidder chose not to hold to his bid beyond the two-week
maximum, that the matter be brought back to the Council in two weeks. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she understood Mr. Ruth to say
that they were not going to be using the excess land as a park site; the Mayor
clarified that the Department wanted to sell the eastern portion, but the
western portion would be a park site. He also stated that the objective they
were trying to reach, if possible, was to get a graded park site and the library
built at no extra cost without destroying the aesthetics of the library in the
process.
167: CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL - TUSTIN AVENUE AND THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-95 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 5, 1980 from the City Engineer, approving a supplemental
agreement with the State for the installation of Traffic Control Signal Systems
at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and the Riverside Freeway, increasing the
City's cost to $86,000. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R~95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING'THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS AT THE INTER-
SECTION OF TUSTIN AVENUE WITH STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 91 AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT-
ING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MMMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-95 duly passed and adopted.
80'255
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
175: WATER REVENUE BONDS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-97
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 6, 1980 from the Public
Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, supplementing Resolution No. 80R-75,
relating to the issuance of the $7,350,000 Water Revenue Bonds. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-97: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-75.
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-97 duly passed and adopted.
123/125: DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES LEASE: Mr. Tug Tamaru, Data Processing
Director, clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay relative to the alter-
natives used in the final selection of the proposed site located at the north-
east corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway for the subject facility as out-
lined in his memorandum dated March 11, 1980.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Data Processing
Department was authorized to enter into negotiations with Willdan Associates for a
lease to house the Data Processing Department, as recommended in memorandum dated
March 11, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
127: SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JUNE 3~ 1980: Proposed resolutions ordering,
calling, providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be
held on June 3, 1980, for the purpose of amending Section 1210, Revenue Bonds,
of the City Charter; and authorizing certain of its Members to file a written
argument for and against said measure, were submitted.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt stated they had submitted the
language which the Council requested be prepared in December when the matter
was brought before the Council. He then explained that there were a couple of
changes. The Council indicated that they felt refunding bonds should be author-
ized only when the interest cost was less than the cost of the bonds being re-
placed or whether they could mitigate or terminate a bad contract condition in
that they should not extend the maturities on any issue. The language in the
resolution was prepared to meet that requirement, but on page 2 of the proposed
resolution, Section 1210.1(b), fourth to sixth line, they used the phrase, "total
net interest cost." He was now suggesting that "total net" be struck and the
word "true" be inserted instead. They decided "true" interest cost was a better
way to reflect whether or not a discount was considered and they felt true interest
cost would consider a discount on the refunding bonds, and the discount cost if any,
on the bonds would be refunded.
He continued that he submitted two sets of wording, one recommended by staff; and
last Thursday at its regular meeting, the Public Utilities Board expressed a
80-256
City Hall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
preference for the language preferred by staff for the reasons set forth in
memorandum dated March 3, 1980 to the City Manager/City Council from the Public
Utilities General Manager.
Mayor Seymour stated at the outset that he concurred with the Public Utilities
Board (PUB) and if he were casting a vote from their perspective as to the most
efficient, quickest managerial, straightforward way to conduct the affairs of the
Utility, he supposed that staff's wording was correct. On the other hand, the
Council was not sitting in that seat and instead had to report to the voters. He
had expressed his concern before, that long-term debt could be incurred at the
will of the Council without the expressed approval of Utility customers, and he
was reluctant to see the Council empowered in that way. Under staff language
approved by the PUB, they would be faced with a situation of making a political
decision relative to an increase in rates because of some impending condition.
They could choose to refinance the mortgage and extend out the maturity as a less
painful way than to go to the voters and ask if they wanted to pay off the bonds
as originally approved, or, because of the impending conditions, did they want a
higher rate increase.
Mr. Hoyt stated that situation could occur.
Councilman Bay stated he could think of another situation on the other side of
the argument. With a projected inflation rate and the very serious budget prob-
lems which they would be facing in the next two years within the City, a Council
might like to have that management tool in order to refinance and extend the
maturity out on bonds to be paid off with inflated money years later, rather
than at the time when the need was so great. The issue was whether they wanted
to put a vote to the people to give a certain amount of power to the City Council
or whether they wanted to retain that power, so the Council would not have that
tool. In his opinion, since they were going to the people with a choice relative
to a Charter change, he would encourage giving the people the choice as to whether
they wanted to go one way or the other, because a very valuable tool was involved
in which he had a great deal of confidence that a Council would use very carefully.
The matter was discussed in detail in the last Charter Review Committee and rec-
ommended by that Committee for the same reasons the Mayor articulated, but it did
not go on the ballot.
Mayor Seymour stated if the action of the Council followed the spirit of Council-
man Bay's suggestion, he would ask for the option to write the argument against.
He felt stron§ty that short-term indebtedness should be the power and prerogative
of the Gouncil~ but long-term indebtedness the power of the people. He did not
want to see the electorate giving up that right, and thus would oppose the alter-
nate wording as preferred by staff.
Councilman Bay stated that he did not present his suggestion as an ultimatum,
but primarily for discussion among the Council. He wanted to see the issue on
the ballot with full Council concurrence. If it was to limit and control
maturity points, he was perfectly willing to vote for it going on the ballot
in that way. If he thought there was a consensus on the Council to leave that
choice to the people, they should do so along with the amendment.
Councilman Overholt stated that the proposal was remedial in nature and not
anticipated to give the Council any greater power than now. He felt that the
revisions that had been made at the direction of the Council did just that. It
80-257
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
would not extend their power to create the ability to fund additional projects
about which the Mayor was concerned, and he was supportive of the Mayor's position.
With due respect to Councilman Bay's suggestion, he believed that the issue was
clear in the manner proposed and if they started including alternatives, it would
make a very difficult issue to begin with, more difficult.
Mr. Hoyt stated that no matter what action was taken, if it did not work, they
could always come back and try again. The only situation they could imagine
that would not fit the wording outlined in the resolution would be an imminent
default, which he did not see occurring.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Section 1210.1(b), last paragraph and asked if
the word "additional" should not be included in the second sentence, "...except
that no additional election shall..."
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hoyt stated that the word "additional" could be added
without any problems; Special Counsel Alan Watts agreed.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-96 for adoption, ordering, calling,
providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held on June 3,
1980, for the purpose of amending Section 1210, Revenue Bonds, of the City Charter,
including the minor wording changes as previously articulated to read--Section
1210.1(b)--(1) the true interest to maturity on such refunding bonds is less than
the true interest cost to maturity on the bonds to be refunded or...
Section 1210.1(b)--all provisions of Section 1210 are applicable to refunding
bonds except that no additional election shall be required to authorize their
issuance. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON JUNE 3, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
CHARTER OF SAID CITY AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE.
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-96 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Seymour then requested that he be authorized to write the arguments for
the measure with input from the Council and also with the option of their turning
in and signing the argument as well. He questioned if there was any Council
Member who did not want to have their name included relative to the argument
for; nobody indicated that they did not want their name included.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-98 for adoption, authorizing certain
of its Members to file a written argument for and against said measures. Refer to
Resolution Book.
'80-258
City. Hall, Ana. heimL, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1210 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-98 duly passed and adopted.
163: REQUEST FOR A SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD - INTERSECTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND
NORTH STREET: Request by Naoma J. Sweet, for a crossing guard at the subject
intersection, was submitted.
Mrs. Naoma J. Sweet, 1252 Placentia Avenue, first relayed the accident which
took place on December 3, 1979 at the subject intersection in which her son was
struck by a car and seriously injured on his way home from school (see Mrs. Sweet's
letter dated December 7, 1979 to the Anaheim Elementary School District, Mr.
Harold Franzen). Subsequently she went to the authorities of the School District
and Mr. Franzen submitted her letter to Mr. Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer,
and subsequently several studies were conducted at that corner. A week after
the accident she personally sat at the intersection for two days and counted
cars and pedestrians, the results of which were contained in the survey submitted,
covering Monday, December 10 and Wednesday, December 12, 1979 (on file in the
City Clerk's office). She also attended the meeting of the School Traffic
Safety Committee (STSC) wherein in the first five minutes, a motion was called
for to deny the request for a crossing guard at that intersection. She contended
the majority of the members did not know anything about the facts of the accident
and thereupon the meeting continued for another one and one-half hours at the
conclusion of which, they called a special meeting for January 31, 1980 to come
up with alternatives that might meet the warrant requirements. However, they
did not come up with any because the alternatives indicated, if they altered
the current warrants, it would cost the City a 17% to 25% increase in redoing
the whole crossing guard program.
At that time, Mrs. Sweet also asked Lieutenant Mitchell how many crossing guards
were allocated in the current budget and he indicated there were ~our.
reported in the 1979-80 budget thus far, only two had been hired, leaving two
additional positions which would not cost the City any money because the money
was just sitting there. For 1980-81 one additional position for a school crossing
guard was included, paying a maximum of $3.40 an hour, plus 5% in fringe benefits.
An Officer Lemon also informed her that it was difficult to attract people to
that position because it was a low-paying job.
Mrs. Sweet could not see that it would hurt the City by hiring a crossing
guard for the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and North Street for the fol-
lowing reasons: In 1977, George Washington School was closed and the children
in that School District were sent to Horace Mann School approximately nine-
tenths of a mile away. At that time, the School District supplied a busing
service for the primary grades, kindergarten through third. In 1978, the buses
80-259
.~ity Ha%l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
were taken away for one week until School Districts studied the situation. In
1979 they were advised bus service would no longer be available for the children
because of Proposition 13. Horace Mann had a staggered beginning and dismissal
time, resulting in primary grade children walking the distances to and from
school at several different times during the day without any supervision in
crossing major streets. The current warrants had a minimum number of pedes-
trians vs. the minimum number of turning vehicles. She saw no threat in the
turning vehicles because they traveled between five to ten miles an hour at
the most, where the vehicle that hit her son was traveling between 35 and 50
miles per hour. A crossing guard would relieve the tension of receiving a
phone call during the hours when the children were walking to or from school.
She urged the Council to place a crossing guard at that intersection.
Mr. Paul Miller, Principal of Horace Mann Elementary School, stated he was present
to appeal to the Council the decision of the School Traffic Safety Committee in
connection with a crossing guard at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and
North Street. To help the Council better understand the concern of the
community and to assist them in making a decision on the merits of providing a
crossing guard, he relayed what had occurred over the past two years relative
to their request for that guard.
It was as a result of a second investigation of the matter by the City Traffic
Engineer and the STSC that they met the first criteria relative to pedestrian
traffic to qualify for a crossing guard but not the second relative to right
turn vehicular traffic on North Street. The existing warrant of the Committee
stated that there must be at least 200 right-turn vehicles at an intersection
before a crossing guard could be justified. He felt that the City Council
should take exception for the following reasons: The right-turn standard did
not appear to be appropriate in their situation. Very few students from the
Horace Mann School crossed North Street. The vast majority moved east and
west across Harbor Boulevard where the accident occurred. Since school busing
was eliminated from the area, many more children, kindergarten through third
grade, had to walk to school. Many parents in the community had formed car
pools be6ause they would not allow their children to walk across Harbor Boule-
vard without supervision.
He had received many irate phone calls from parents who did not understand why
a crossing guard could not be provided, and they also did not understand it was
a function of the City and not the School Distirct. In the near future, the
Redevelopment program in Anaheim would be concluded and at that time, traffic
on Harbor Boulevard would be much heavier than now, thereby endangering more
children from the Horace Mann School. He asked that they look ahead to that
threat.
Recently a survey of parents in the community was taken and every parent respon-
ding indicated a demand for a crossing guard at that intersection for the protec-
tion of the children. Mr. Singer was quick to point out that there had been no
fatalities at the intersection. However, there had been many collisions. He
felt it important that they make certain they did not have a recurrence of Mrs.
Sweet's incidence. He had asked several parents to attend the meeting today and
80-260
~ty Hall, ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES'- March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
asked them to stand; there were approximately 15 in attendance. He thereupon
introduced Mrs. Priscilla Molina, a Community Aide at the Horace Mann School,
to act as interpreter for some of the parents who were going to speak whose
children had to cross the subject intersection.
Mrs. Molina interpreted the following for a Mrs. Behar: She asked the Council
to please put a crossing guard on Harbor Boulevard and North Street because
there were many children who crossed that street. Parents like herself were
very busy. They needed to work and did not always have time to walk their
children to school. Many of the parents did not drive and they needed a cros=
sing guard.
Mrs. Maria Chavez: If they would please do her a favor. She had four children
attending Horace Mann School and they all left at different times. She spent
her day walking back and forth to the school with her children.
Mrs. Molina then stated that neither woman indicated how many blocks they walked,
but on the way down to the meeting, they counted them and they walked thirteen
blocks every day at different times because they had children attending the
staggered sessions. If they had a crossing guard, perhaps they would not have
to worry so much about their children.
Mrs. Pat Reese, 325 West Sycamore, stated she had a little girl who attended
Horace Mann School and they lived approximately seven-tenths of a mile away.
She either drove her to school or rode her on a bicycle. She then emphasized
how dangerous it was for children and adults alike when crossing the corner of
Harbor Boulevard and North Steet. Once off the curb, there was no chance to
return because there were four lanes of fast traffic moving north and south.
If they did not get a crossing guard, she personally would want to know why
not. The STSC should evaluate other schools to see if they still qualified
for a crossing guard at this time.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, reported that the School Traffic Safety
Committee met twice on the matter, once at a special meeting to see if there
was any possible way a crossing guard could be provided as requested by Mrs.
Sweet. A special study was conducted which reported the results of what a
further reduction in crossing guard warrants could do. It would mean a certain
amount of liberalization, thus increasing the annual cost, dependent on the
alternatives taken. It could increase the cost from $79,000 annually to $131,000
annually over a ?eriod of four years. The STSC reviewed the matter and rather
than liberalizing the pro§ram, which at this time they felt was the most liberal
in Orange County, recommended that it remain as it was at present. If citizens
found that they received no satisfaction from the STSC because of the limitation
of the warrants, they had the right of appeal to the City Council because the
Council was the only body that could override the warrant. Mr. Singer also
stated that he would prefer that they not be liberalized any further because
they would put a substantial strain on the Police Department budget.
As Mr. Miller pointed out, the School District, by AB 2119, was able to provide
crossing guards. Therefore, the school could expend funds to provide a crossing
guard. Normally they did not have schools making the requests, but citizens.
80-261
C~ty Hal. l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Relative to collision frequency at the subject location, he had provided the
Council with a Collision Diagram, Harbor Boulevard and North Street, 1978 and
1979, showing that there were very few collisions, considering the traffic
volumes. The cost of the crossing guard was presently $3,500 annually. How-
ever, due to the inability to get crossing guards, they would probably be
approaching the Council to request that the salary be raised. The Police
Department had a difficult time getting crossing guards at the minimum wage.
Mr. Singer concluded that the recommendation would be to uphold the STSC finding,
since there were no'extenuating circumstances to provide for additional crossing
guards.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she understood Mrs. Sweet to say that four crossing
guard positions were budgeted and only two were used.
Mr. Singer explained that the positions were used only at warranted locations.
The Police Department budgeted with a sufficient number of crossing guards in
mind that might become warranted during the year and, therefore, they would
be assignable without going to the Council for additional funds. At the present
time, there were two ~positions not filled, but warranted crossings had not been
found for them and thus, they had not been assigned.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted according to the report, there were 40 crossing guards
at present and she wanted it clear that they did not have only four crossing
guards in the entire City.
Councilman Overholt stated that Mr. Singer had referred to a bill that would
permit the School District to finance crossing guards; Mr. Singer reiterated
it was AB 2119 approved in 1977.
Councilman Overholt asked if they had financed any crossing guards under that
bill; Mr. Singer answered that he did not believe so and it was permissive leg-
islation.
Councilman Bay asked if, in Mr. Singer's opinion, would a decision by the Council
to furnish a crossing guard at the subject intersection necessarily break the
precedent of the Committee adhering to its basic rules. In other words, if
the Council were to take exception to the basic rules and decide to furnish a
crossing guard at least for a trial period, would that break down the standards
of the Committee.
Mr. Singer stated that he would expect that the Committee would continue to uphold
the existing warrants and try not to let such an action influence them. He could
not say how many more requests they would be getting as a result of a successful
appeal to the Council today.
Councilman Roth noted that since they had 40 crossing guards throughout the City
at.present, he questioned the last time all 40 of the traffic locations had been
evaluated to see if the crossing guards at those locations were still needed.
Mr. Singer stated that they were evaluated each year, which brought up another
consideration. If the Council provided a crossing guard today, next year when
the reevaluation took place, it could well be that it would not meet the warrants
80-262
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
again. He needed some instruction because the question would then be whether
to remove the guard or not, or review the matter again.
Mayor Seymour stated that the subject request deserved special consideration.
Mr. Singer, as usual, had done a professional job and presented them with facts
that would certainly lead one to deny the request based upon the standards which
the Council adopted. However, there were special merits to the present situation
and, therefore, the Council should consider those:
The George Washington School, which many children attended, was closed, thus
requiring a longer commute, whether walking or riding, by the children who
then had to attend Horace Mann School. That longer walk entailed a higher
risk and had meritorious considerations. He commended both Mrs. Sweet and
Mr. Miller in bringing the matter to the attention of the Council, as well as
bringing a representation of the student population which included a high per-
centage of Hispanics in attendance at Horace Mann. That School had just as
much right as other schools in the City and perhaps involved greater walking
distances. For an investment of $3,500, which he would be happy to see appro-
priated at least for the remainder of the year out of the Council Contingency
Fund, he felt it would be a good investment in that neighborhood.
MOTION: Based upon the foregoing reasoning, without removing or amending the
current standards or warrants, Councilman Seymour moved to approve the place-
ment of a school crossing guard at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and
North Street. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she agreed in this case,
especially since the Redevelopment Project closed the George Washington School,
making it necessary for tiny children to cross the busy intersection of Harbor
and North. Even though there was a traffic light at that corner, she felt there
was a need for a guard as well. She cautioned the parents, however, to contin-
ually remind their children that their personal safety was up to them, and there
was no substitute for such good personal safety habits. She was supportive of
the motion.
Councilman Overholt stated he was pleased to support the motion. He was on the
School Board of the Anaheim City School District when they were agonizing over
what they were going to do with the George Washington School attendance area.
The effect of that closing was to relocate that entire attendance area. He was
pleased to see the City take the responsibility for the citizen~ and children
affected. To expect little children, particularly kindergarten through grade
three, t° cross that corner on a day-to-day basis without assistance was too much
to expect.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (3:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:40 P.M.)
80-263
City Ha.~l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2049: Application by American
National Properties, Inc., to retain an existing billboard on ML zoned property
located on the north side of Katella Avenue, east of Douglass Road, with Code
waivers of maximum height and minimum setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-19, reported that
the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to
the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, cate-
gorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further denied Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2049.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Pacific Outdoor
Advertising Company, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Councilman Roth asked the thinking of the Planning Commission relative to their
decision; Miss Santalahti explained that the property was presently under develop-
ment with an industrial building. The Commission once or twice brought up the
issue of perhaps amending the Zoning Code to actually prohibit billboards except
on vacant property. Staff discouraged that because there might be times when
they would be appropriate, but the present case involved a location where bill-
boards were not permitted by right. It was also within the setback area and it
was too high.
Councilman Bay asked, when talking about the 8-foot setback, was Katella Avenue
widened since the sign was originally placed there; Miss Santalahti answered
that she did not know if it had been or not, but after the original use permit
was granted, the Code was amended and Katella Avenue was declared a scenic
highway for the purpose of billboards and they were now prohibited along Katella
Avenue altogether unless a CUP was sought.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Jay Kingry, Area Manager, Pacific Outdoor Advertising, 1740 Narva, Los
Angeles, first submitted a sheet to the Council showing the location of the
billboard in relation to the building. He explained that the sign leaned and
it was cantilevered on one post. It was off about three inches at the post and
off about one foot at the end of the sign, but they would repair it and put it
back in proper position. The sign was wholly contained in the planter area and
they also planned to landscape in order to hide the post as much as possible.
He also stated that he thought the Planning Comission was thinking of bill-
boards in general and not the one specific location, however, his arguments
were relative to the subject location only.
The-sign had been in place for 10 years. The corner was developed originally as
Douglass Road and their original lessor was also the owner of the sign which
they leased from him, rather than the owner of the property. At the last Planning
80-264
City Hal.l.., Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- March 11~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Commission meeting, there was no opposition either verbal or written, and, there-
fore, he did not believe there were any complaints for those in the neighborhood.
It was ideally located and as much as it was right next to the river, it blocked
no neighbors. They did not require any police, fire, sewers or City services
other than electricity. He also felt that it was beneficial for the sign to
be illuminated during the hours of darkness until midnight, since it offered
protection to the area. It also had economic value both to the owner and to
Pacific Outdoor Advertising and to their many workmen. Distribution was an
important thing in their business. There was a scarcity of the type of sign
involved, and it was very important to them in that location, and a plus to the
advertiser, considering its proximity to Anaheim Stadium.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated when the sign was approved by the Council in 1970
after it was denied by the Planning Commission, it was approved for one year.
She asked if it was built with that in mind.
Mr. Kingry answered "~o". They built it under a County permit and the County did
not realize that annexation had been approved. That was the only reason he had
to obtain a CUP. If it were still County property, it would be legal.
Mr. Terry Tweedt stated that they acquired the property on which the billboard
was located in September of 1979, and they proceeded to build an industrial
building on it. The sign had not hindered their project in any way and they
were very much in favor of it. It did no harm to their property whatsoever and
there was some monetary benefits to the sign as well. They favored having the
sign remain on the property.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were not being paid for the sign, would they
still favor it; Mr. Tweedt answered that the sign was on the property when he
bought it and he would not have forcefully kicked Pacific Outdoor Advertising
off the property. He also confirmed for Councilman Roth that they would not have
stopped building their industrial building if the sign were not removed.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the location was obviously the entrance to Anaheim,
the Stadium area, and to Disneyland as well. They had been trying to improve the
aesthetics of the City, and the canyon sign ordinance was being monitored care-
fully and successfully. Lookin§ to the east, there was a beautiful view and
there were no billboards except this giant one. She believed it was up to
the Council, "to do what was best to keep the City looking as good as it can
and not as bad as it can." If they approved the subject CUP with the bill-
board originally having been approved for one year and then extended to 1975
and now it was 1980, there was no way that Pacific Outdoor Advertising could
claim a monetary loss on it. If they allowed the use, she questioned how they
could deny anybody else. It was a special privilege, and she was opposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.0i, Class 3, 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.
80-265
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2049,
upholding the decision of the City Planning Commission.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Roth stated he did not think'they could
take the canyon area and match it with the industrial area. The sign had been
in place since 1970 and permitted under County regulations. To his knowledge,
he had not heard one complaint from the industrialists in the area, and he saw
no problem whatsoever if the sign was still a business factor in the community
and if billboards could not be placed in an industrial area, he questioned
where they could be located. He was opposed to the resolution of denial.
Mayor Seymour stated that Councilwoman Kaywood reminded him that they were both
on the Planning Commission at the time the subject billboard was heard before
the Commission, and they subsequently denied it. The City Council then over-
ruled the. decision and the sign was presently still in place advertising cigar-
ettes. Later on the agenda and in a location not far from the subject location,
they were going to consider approval of a billboard of another cigarette manu-
facturer which would bring to the City $110,000 a year. He did not know how
on one hand they could approve that and deny the request under consideration.
He did not feel it was in the canyon corridor; if so, he would vote to deny it.
They had been able to keep billboard signing out of the canyon area, but there
were many billboards in the part of the City under discussion. Therefore, al-
though he was certain that the Planning Commission had good reason to deny the
request, having a different perspective as a Council Member, he could support
Councilman Roth's position of opposition to the proposed resolution of denial.
Councilman Overholt stated he, too, would support Councilman Roth's position.
The Planning Commission found that the sign was detrimental to the industrial
area, but they received testimony from the property owner that it was not detri-
mental as far as he was concerned.
Councilman Bay asked if there was a time limit on the Conditional Use Permit;
M±ss Santalahti answered that no time limitation was discussed and also con-
firmed that unless the Council placed a time limitation on the CUP, it would
run for an indefinite period.
A vote was then taken on the resolution of denial offered by Councilwoman Kaywood
and failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kay-wood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-99 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 2049, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission,
subject to the following Indepartmental Committee recommendations:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Katella Avenue
inctudtng preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements
such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks street grading and paving, drainage facilities
or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of
80-266
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Katella Avenue shall be
installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accor-
dance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager;
and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to
occupancy.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1204 to the Planning Department.
5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1.
6. That Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date
hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission
may grant.
7. That Condition Nos. 2 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE~CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2049.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay offered an amendment placing a time limit
of 3 years on the CUP with a review at the end of that time.
Councilman Roth stated he would accept the amendment, however, with reluctance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution including a three-year time
limitation.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Koth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-99 duly passed and adopted.
156: ORANGE COUNTY MEXICAN-AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE
COUNCIL: Mr. Jess J. Araujo, President of the Orange County Mexican-American
Bar Association, 1200 North Main Street, Santa Ana, first stated' that it was
his pleasure to have been one of the signatories to the letter dated February 21,
1980, commending the Council regarding the recent censure of Redevelopment
Commissioner Mary Dinndorf because of an ethnic slur she made at a Commission
meeting (see Council minutes February 5, 1980 where the matter was discussed).
80-267
City. Ha.ll,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The letter of February 21, 1980 also referred to Anaheim Police Sergeant Jon
Beteag who slurred the Hispanic community and the internal publication of the
Anaheim Police Department "Hotsheet" of November 1978. The purpose of the
request to address the Council at this time was in view of the fact that, al-
though numerous months had transpired relative to the latter incident, they believed
it was timely because of the recent indication and demonstration of the Council
of being sensitive to the importance of statements made by public representatives,
Mrs. Dinndorf being a Redevelopment Commissioner and Beteag, a ranking police
official.
In that regard, he had been asked to act as a spokesperson for the joint Hispanics
Organization Committee made up of members of 18 different Hispanic organizations.
To that effect, they had prepared a statement to the Council dated March 11, 1980
which he then read, the highlights of which were as follows: It is of great
concern and extreme dismay that we come before you to discuss not only the
specific incident involving Officer Beteag's improper statement, but also to
provide you with important and critical information which can serve to demon-
strate the significance of the statement in the context of police/community
relations in Anaheim. The common interest shared by all of these organizations
is shared by the vast majority of citizens and residents of Orange County gen-
erally. That interest is to insure no individual or entity is allowed to destroy
or diminish the limited progress which has been achieved in reducing the tension
and conflict between law enforcement and the Hispanic community it is supposed
to serve. We do not suggest that the chain of command be dispensed with nor
that Officer Beteag's constitutional rights be violated. What we do ask is
that the City of Anaheim clearly state whether or not it does not share those
feelings and whether or not it will consider that type of disparagement to be
appropriate for a supervisory level police officer.
The fact that the statement was made in a "union" publication as opposed to a
City publication or public media is likewise of no significance. Considering
the specialized nature of its leadership, along with Beteag's position in the
Department, the statements become even more damaging and counterproductive.
Unfortunately, his statements received broad coverage, and failure of clar-
ification of the position of the Chief of Police and the Council may be inter-
preted as condoning or ratifying the statement. While we recognize and support
the need for administrative prerogative in given situations, we feel there are
situations which require appropriate review of actions by City employees by the
Council directly. Without this procedure, intolerable circumstances could not
be remedied. Therefore, the Joint Hispanic Organizations Committee and its
respective organizations hereby request that appropriate action be taken to
make public the position of the honorable Council and that Officer Beteag be
requested to make a public apology and that he appropriately be censured for
his despicable and racial ethnic slurs.
After reading the letter, Mr. Araujo then explained that they had received a
written statement by the Jewish Federation Counsel of Orange County representing
approximately 72 Jewish organizations signed by their Chairman basically joining
in the Hispanic Organization Committee's condemnation of the statements made.
Mr Araujo then quoted the words Councilwoman Kaywood used earlier in the meeting
on a specific agenda item which he felt appropriate to illustrate his case--
"I believe it is our position that the City look as good as it can, and not as
bad as it can." He felt that set the stage for the Council to take the second
80-268
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
opportunity within a month to set a standard of moral and social conscience
that they, as leaders of Anaheim, possessed. He felt it was very unfortunate
and regretted that the Council had to be involved in such a sensitive and
delicate situation that it did not create. Fairness required that the allocation
of responsibility for the situation be decided appropriately. It should be
placed upon the shoulders of the person who caused it.
The alternatives were not numerous--either the Council request an apology or
censure or not make such a request. There was a liability in neglecting to
follow through with the precedent decision that was hailed and applauded in
their community with the recent censure. It was that that created the enthus-
iasm, need and interest to come again to request the Council to continue in
the very representative gesture of setting the moral conscience. By requesting
a public apology of Officer Beteag and by censuring him, they felt it would
dispel any suspicion or any disparity of remedies that would otherwise result.
The reason that Officer Beteag's remarks could not be overlooked by the Hispanic
community was because his record indicated it was not an isolated incident at
all. He was one of the main proponents of litigation involving two different
incidents with himself and the same members of the community. He was referring
to both Little People's Park cases happening 10 months apart.
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Araujo emphasized the request of the members of the
Hispanic organizations urging the Council to consider the censure of, and request
for an apology by, Officer Beteag.
Mayor Seymour asked if any other representatives present wished to speak; Mr.
Araujo stated that they unanimously asked him to be spokesman for the entire
group.
Mayor Seymour stated he would attempt to respond and hopefully he was speaking
on behalf of the Council. Relative to his personal feelings regarding the remarks
as he stated publicly concerning the previous ethnic slur, it was unfortunate,
uncalled for, demeaning, unwarranted, and he wished that it never happened. He
thereupon apologized personally to those present and the entire Hispanic community.
Admittedly, it was wrong. On the other hand, the present situation was not
similar or identical to the former situation. The first involved a Redevelopment
Commissioner serving at the pleasure of the Council; the second case involved
a City employee serving subject to rules and regulations for all public employees
and under the direction and correction of his superiors, ultimately the City
Manager and not subject to disciplinary action of any kind by the Council as
stated clearly in the City Charter.
Secondly, it was his understanding that the remark occurred in an off-duty time
where he was not serving in an official capacity and, as Mr. Araujo stated, the
remarks were not contained in a public communication but a private internal house
organ, of the Police Association itself. Further, it was his understanding from
the City Attorney that certain constitutional rights were afforded individuals
in such an organization and, like it or not, those constitutional rights were
protected by law.
In addition, the Mayor stated he found it strange that Mr. Araujo, as well as the
other organizations who signed the request, would come forward almost two years
after the event seeking redress. He suspected it was a continuation of political
80-269
City Hall, Ana~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
confrontation by certain groups who seemed to seize upon every opportunity to
create confrontation with the Council and with, what he felt, represented the
majority of the citizens, not that their particular position in the matter was
not a fair and reasonable one. The manner, timing and the attitude with which
they came to the Council, to him personally, smacked of confrontation politics,
and he nor did he believe the Council would be dragged into confrontation
politics. They were going to continue to evaluate requests by the Hispanic
community, as well as the Caucasian, Oriental and Black community, all of the
constituents they served. They were not going to yield to the style of
politics dealing from the end in which they had observed the activity taking
place.
He assured Mr. Araujo as he had previously assured Mr. Amin David and other
Hispanic leaders in the community that the Council was willing to do everything
it could to improve relations and communications and to get to the very basic
social and economic issues which faced their Hispanic constituents in the City.
For example, the previous agenda item requesting a school crossing guard and other
such things wher~ the Council could react to those types of needs. However, to
be faced with political confrontation, he for one, was not going to bow his head.
He could just as easily demand what the organizations present were demanding.
In reviewing the entire article, he (Seymour) too, was personally slurred as
much as the Hispanics in that particular release.
Finally, he had been reviewing the particular publication involved from time to
time as well as the Council and in the most recent past, it was found to no
longer cQntain that same type of dialogue, which was a very positive improvement
and to the credit of the current Police Chief.
In concluding, Mayor Seymour again apologized for something that should never
have happened.
Mr. Araujo stated with respect to the observation that certain police officers
had constitutional rights, he believed that they had already heard the classic
textbook case of the limitations of freedom of speech--one could not falsely
express that which violated the principle of a clear and present danger, which
basic principle applied to this case. If that expression and the negative
results it produced far outweighed the benefit of expressing it, there was
cause for concern and such expression could be limited. In the present case,
the method of expression by a high ranking officer to a captive audience, the
uniformed police officers, could affect their mentality and attitude in dealing
with people in the street, many of them in the Hispanic community. It rightfully
brought to mind the concern to what extent that could go unbridled without any
kind of indication from the Council, the Chief or whoever was appropriate in
the chain of command. There was a concern that there should not be "venting of
fires" by someone who was a known "hothead" and who had been involved with num-
erous confrontations that it at least be tempered with the appropriate cautionary
instruction from the appropriate authority. In this case, it did not matter if it
was an immediate supervisor, the Chief or the Council.
With respect to whether or not it was a political confrontation, that was not
his intent and, if so, he could have filled the room 15 times over. It was not
his style or purpose. He had advised the Council in writing of his request well
in advance so they could know exactly what he was talking about. He deliberately
wanted an educated intelligent discussion of the issue.
80-270
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March lip 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if he contacted any member of the Council; Mr. Araujo stated
it was done in Mr. David's office.
The Mayor asked Mr. Amin David, who was in the Chamber audience, if he called any
Council Members; Mr. David answered "no"
After a further brief discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Araujo, a gentlemen
from the audience asked to address the Council.
Mr. Rueben Avalos from the City of Stanton, stated he was very active in his
community. He expressed his concern over the remark that the statement had been
made off-dUty. Since he worked with Stanton City staff and representatives, he
had asked just when City representation stopped. The answer given that it really
did not stop and a person off-duty should watch what they said, because it would
ultimately reflect on the City.
Mayor Seymour agreed, but otherwise today they were accomplishing nothing by
continuing to fan the flames of an event which took place sometime in the
past and undoubtedly every person in the City was saddened that it had taken
place. He felt it was time to devote their energies to positive things.
Before closing, Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor certainly spoke for
him 100 percent.
123/101: ADVERTISING ON NEW SCOREBOARD AT ANAHEIM STADIUM - PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A.:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-lO0 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 6, 1980 from the City Attorney, authorizing an Advertising
Agreement with Philip Morris U.S.A., in the amount of $110,000 per year for a
10-year period for advertising rights on the new scoreboard at Anaheim Stadium.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 8OR-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ADVERTISING AGREEMENT WITH PHILIP MORRIS
~.S.A. 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.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth commended staff for a job well done
relative to the subject agreement which would bring $110,000 a year to the City
for a 10-year period.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had a problem with the item. Although she
agreed with Councilman Roth, in all good conscience, she could not vote "yes", on
smoking. However, inasmuch as she represented all the residents in the City who were
concerned with revenues, she could not vote "no" and therefore she would abstain.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
80-271
City Hall~ .Anaheim~ C.alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Ruth and Seymonr
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL M~BERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 8OR-100 duly passed and adopted.
156: DRUG PARAPHERNALIA: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that yesterday she
attended an all day conference in Lakewood held jointly by the City of
Lakewood and the League of Cities concerning drug paraphernalia. Anaheim had
previously adopted the Lakewood ordinance, but it was not upheld, whereas
Lakewood's ordinance was upheld in the Courts. The consensus of the meetings
was that they felt it critical to have a State law to prevent the sale, display
and advertising of drug paraphenalia to minors. One person referred to it as
death on the installment plan. If was also pointed out that the crime rate
increased with residential burglaries and purse snatching while teenagers attempted
to get more money for the drugs used with the paraphernalia. She hoped that the
Council would join with her in an all out war and a joint approach to combat the
problem in the community. Parents should be made aware of all the different
and innocent looking type of paraphernalia used with drugs. Drug paraphernalia
was a big business of approximately $5 billion annually, and the feeling was
that within a year, that would rise to a $10 billion business.
Councilwoman Kaywood then requested that the Police Depar~nent through the City
Manager devise a program for working jointly with the schools, parents and all
citizens. The Youth Commission was also interested in being a part of the program.
She felt it would also be advantageous if the press could publicize the fact and
invite people interested in joining such a campaign to supply their name, address
and phone number.
She noted that a question often raised was, why does the City let such businesses
into the community. She emphasized that the City did not let them in--when such
businesses applied for a license~ the names were misleading, for example, Prissy's
High Fashions, and it was difficult to know that in reality that was a "head" shop.
She asked that they take strong action to support whatever State bills were nec-
essary.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood
stated that she was going to ask that they nominate Donna Riddell to be appointed
to the Parks & Recreation Commission to fill Sally White's term due to her res-
ignation.
Mayor Seymour stated he believed the Council had discussed this would be the
week to fill that vacancy and he thereupon declared nominations open.
Councilman Ruth nominated Gladys Wallace.
Councilman Overholt interjected and stated it was his understanding that there
had been no publicity generated that they intended to fill the position. He
felt that an additional week would give all citizens who might be interested
an opportunity to contact the Council.
80-272
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March lip 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor pointed out that the position was advertised as being vacant when it
was vacated; City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that posting, as required by
law, had been made, but there was no news release.
After a brief Council discussion, Mayor Seymour stated he felt it was a dangerous
precedent to be determining that unless advertising took place, they were not
going to make an appointment. As long as such an action was not going to set
precedent, he had no objection to a one-week continuance.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not intend to set that precedent, but emphasized
that although they had two good candidates, it was interesting to note that there
were only two for such an important position.
Councilwoman Kaywood was not in favor of a postponement and had asked that they
make an appointment on February 26. At the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting
held on February 27, some Members had to leave early and they were left without
a quorum. She did not think it fair to the Commission, Department or the City
if the Commission was unable to act, and she felt it important that they make an
appointment today. Donna Riddell had previously served on the Commission for two
years and did so very well and the only reason she had to resign was due to the
fact that she did not run for the Magnolia School Board again. Mrs. White had
said that Mrs. Riddell was her first choice as a replacement and was pleased to
know that she (Riddel!) was interested. She continued to offer the name of Donna
Riddell.
Councilman Overholt moved they receive nominations today and then continue them
for one week to enable the PIO to release an appropriate article indicating that
the Council would be making an appointment in one week. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Ruth stated he felt that they had complied
with the law in the posting of the vacancy. They were now proposing to announce
an extension of time in the hopes that the press would publish a news release, and
he felt there had been enough publicity.
Mayor Seymour stated he would vote against the motion to continue because he had
the u~most confidence that they had two very qualified nominees, and he was pre-
pared to take action today.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion for continuance and failed to carry
by the following vote:
AYES: Overholt and Bay
NOES: Kaywood, Ruth and Seymour
Mayor Seymour announced that nominations were still open; there were no additional
nominations.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they had a letter
request from Gladys Wallace to serve on the Senior Citizens Commission and she
wholeheartedly supported Mrs° Wallace as an appointee to that Commission. Mrs.
Wallace had asked her for such support.
80-273
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to close nominations. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Roth stated he had known Gladys Wallace personally for many years,
and the way she conducted herself on any board or commission was outstanding.
She could add some fresh ideas and good thoughts to the Parks & Recreation
Commission. She was very energetic and very enthusiastic about serving.
The Mayor stated he was also going.to support Mrs. Wallace, not that Donna
Riddell was not eminently qualified, expecially since she had served on the
Parks & Recreation Commission in the past. Mrs. Wallace represented a fresh
look which he felt was needed from time to time, and he was going to support
her nomination.
Councilman Overholt stated that although he regretted the Council did not choose
to give an opportunity for others to make their names known, he was going to
support Donna Riddell. She served on the Parks & Recreation Commission as a
nominee of the Magnolia School District and appointed by the Council. The
position they were currently considering was a commissioner at large. Mrs.
Riddell had been active in City activities in addition to the School District.
It was obvious that she had time to serve and she had an excellent background
as a school representative to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Therefore, as
a representative at large, he felt she would be sensitive not only to the City's
interest, but also to the schoolsv interest which he believed was important on
that particular Commission.
Councilman Bay stated since it was obvious that the Council was split two and
two between two excellent candidates, that put him in the position of having
to make a decision.
Discussion then followed between the Council and the City Attorney relative to
the implications of an abstention by Councilman Bay. At the conclusion of dis-
cussion, the Mayor stated he was going to call for the question in the order in
which nominations were made and in so doing, if Councilman Bay cast an abstention,
he would be casting a vote for the nomination of Donna Riddell.
Councilman Seymour thereupon called for a vote on Donna Riddell as appointee
to the Parks & Recreation Commission.
AYES: Overholt and Kaywood
NOES: Bay,.Roth and Seymour
Councilman Seymour called for a vote on Gladys Wallace as appointee to the Parks &
Recreation Commission.
AYES: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Gladys Wallace thereupon was appointed to the Parks & Recreation Commission to
fill the unexpired term of Sally White expiring June 30, 1982.
80-274
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
108: , COSMIC AGE LODGE AND GALAXY MOTEL - PENALTY ASSESSMENT: Communication from
Mr. Ken Baxter for a one-week continuance of consideration of his request for
waiver of the penalty assemsment for late payment of the November 1979 Transient
Occupancy Tax (continued from meeting of March 4, 1980), was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of
the subject request was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
127/175: INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT - ADVISORY VOTE: Proposed resolutions
ordering, calling, providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal
Election to be held on June 3, 1980, for the purpose of an Advisory Vote on
the Intermountain Power Project; requesting the Board of Supervisors to
consolidate said Special Municipal Election with the Statewide General Elec-
tion to be held June 3, 1980; and authorizing certain of its Members to file
a written argument for and against said measure, were submitted.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt referred to his memorandum dated
March 6, 1980, attached to which was the revised ballot measure which he believed
was in accordance with Council's direction the previous week (see minutes March 4,
1980).
Mayor Seymour stated he felt ~hat generally the language was "right on", but
suggested adding to the explanation portion of the measure after, "...a savings
of $39 million for Anaheim consumers" whatever the number of millions of savings
would occur each year thereafter.
After a brief Council discussion with Mr. Hoyt, the consensus was to add to the
last line of the ballot measure explanation, "and an average savings of $39 million
each year thereafter."
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution Nos. 80R-101 through 80R-103,
both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON JUNE 3, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUBMITTINGTO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SAID CITY, FOR AN ADVISORY VOTE ONLY, A
PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID
ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 3,
1980, PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST A
BALLOT MEASURE RELATING TO THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT.
80-275
Ci..ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 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 Nos. 80R-lO1 through 80R-103, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Before concluding, the Mayor stated that he would write the argument for the
Intermountain Power Project; all Council Members indicated they would sign the
argument for.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Clerk
was directed to transmit copies of the proposed measures to be placed on the
June 3, 1980 ballot to the City Attorney for preparation of impartial analyses
therefor. MOTION CARRIED.
127/I42: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS - DATE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS -
ELECTION OF MAYOR: Proposed resolutions rescinding Resolution No. 80R-88, re-
lating to Municipal Election dates; ordering, calling, providing for and giving
notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 1980, for the
purpose of submitting to the voters proposed Charter Amendments relating to
Municipal Election dates and election of the Mayor; and requesting the Board of
Supervisors to consolidate said Special Municipal Election with the Statewide
General Election to be held November 4, 1980 (continue from meeting of March 4,
1980), were submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there were several clerical errors in the pro-
posed resolutions and, as well, she had not had as much time as she would have
liked to consider them. She thereupon suggested a one-week continuance since
there was no rush regarding the November election. Discussion then followed
between Councilwoman Kaywood and City Attorney Hopkins relative to the minor
changes involved.
At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor stated he was not opposed to a contin-
uance of one week.
Councilman Seymour moved to continue the three proposed resolutions one week.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the discussion the
previous week (see minutes March 4, 1980) relative to the election of the
Mayor. She had a lot of people very concerned with a four-year term for Mayor
and who would instead prefer a two-year term.
The Mayor stated that he expressed his views as well as the rest of the Council,
with Councilmen Roth and Overholt indicating a preference for a four-year term,
and Councilman Bay indicating that either would be acceptable to him. He (Seymour)
felt it should also be a four-year term.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it would be appropriate to let the people decide.
80-276
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated it was going to confuse the issue, and he wanted it to be
very clear. He personally wanted to leave it at a four-year term.
Councilman Overholt then referred to one of the questions Councilwoman Kaywood
raised (Section 504--Mayor--page 4 of the resolution) relative to the designation,
office of Member of City Council, Member of the City Council, and the Mayor as
Member of the City Council. He asked City Attorney Hopkins to take a close look
at that because it was a new concept.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested if it were not illegal that they state Office of
Mayor, Office of Councilman rather than Member of; City Attorney Hopkins stated
that they could perhaps change the wording to Councilperson rather than Member
of the Council.
A vote was then taken on the motion for a one-week continuance.
105/140: SELECTION OF NAME FOR THE NEW HILL AND CANYON LIBRARY:
MOTION CARRIED.
Mrs. Elizabeth
Schultz, Vice Chairman of the Library Board, stated that the Board asked her to
make the recommendation to the Council that the new library to be built in the
hill and canyon area be named, Canyon Hills Library.
MOTION: The Mayor commented that he felt it was a "super" name for the library.
He thereupon moved that the name for the new library be, Canyon Hills Library.
Councilman Rotb seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they had discussed calling
.the library the Anaheim Hills Library.
Mrs. Schultz answered that they had done so and also that they had debated the
name for about three months.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the name did not mention Anaheim; Mrs. Schultz
stated it would be, Canyon Hills Library, City of Anaheim. She also reported
that the names considered were--Anaheim Hills Canyon Library, Anaheim Hills
Library, Hill and Canyon Library and Canyon Hills Library° She confirmed for
Councilwoman Kaywood that they also did consider Anaheim Canyon Hills Library,
but did not choose it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
181: MULTI-MEDIA PRESENTATION ON THE HISTORY OF ANAHEIM: Request by Charles T.
Allee, Ascom, Inc., for approval, in concept, of a proposed multi-media pre-
sentation on the history of Anaheim, was submitted.
Mr. Charles'T. Allee referred to and briefed the Council on his letter dated
March 3, 1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office) discussing his plan to pro-
duce a major multi-media sound film presentation depicting the story of Anaheim
through the newly formed communication company, Ascom, Inc. (Allee's/Sh0P Commun-
ications and Marketing).
Mayor Seymour thanked Mr. Allee for making the offer because it was a story that
needed to be told. No one had yet told it in audio-visual for~, and he believed
that every member of the Council had borne witness to the quality of the multi-
80-277
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
media presentations that Mro Allee put together. Of particular interest was the
fact that it was Mr. Allee's thought to coordinate the timing of the release of
the story with the official opening of City Hall. As they would invite their
constituents and citizens through City Hall, they would alSo be able to view the
Anaheim Story. He asked that the matter be agendized for the Council after
meeting with Mr. Allee, and meeting with Mrs. Schultz, Bill Griffith and Bettie
Vandiver, since they would be a natural resource for material and they, too,
would screen to insure the quality of the information provided for the presen-
tation. He asked the matter again be scheduled and brought to the Council for
their edification.
Mr. Allee confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there would be no cost to the
City although there would be the impact of staff time which would not be supported
by his company.
Councilman Roth noted for the amount of dollars Mr. Allee's company was going
to put into the production of the film, the amount of personnel time would be
very minute in comparison. He felt it was an excellent idea and that there
were people like Mr. Allee in the community willing to do something for govern-
ment.
Councilman Bay concurred that it was an excellent idea; Councilman Overholt felt
it was a tremendous thing that Mr. Allee was doing and the people should be most
appreciative of his efforts.
By general consent, the Council approved, in concept, the proposed multi-media
presentation of the history of Anaheim.
RECESS: By general con~ent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:45 P.M.)
105: CONFIRMATION OF PAC ELECTION: Councilman Roth moved to confirm the election
of James E.. Robinson to the Project Area Committee (PAC) for the term ending
June 30, 1981, as requested by PAC in letter dated February 29, 1980. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
181: ANAHEIM COMMUNITY ENTERTAINERS (ACE): A request for approval of a concept
for "ACE" to stage musicals and related rehearsals on behalf of the City at the
Pearson Park Amphitheatre, and for an annual appropriation of $10,000, therefor,
was submitted.
Mr. John Parkson, resident of Buena Park and speaking in lieu of John Yench,
stated he was present relative to the five-page draft proposal of "ACE" sub-
mitted to the Council dated February 1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mayor Seymour stated as he recalled, the bottom line of the request was to sub-
sidize up to an appropriation of $10,000--it might be nothing, but it could go
all the way to $10,000.
Mr. Parkson answered "yes" although it did not necessarily mean money, but
services, material or whatever could be substituted.
80-278
City Hall,~Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 PoM.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Parkson if he had seen the memorandum dated March 3,
1980 from James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, relative to their submitting a
detailed budget to the City by May 1, 1980 and if it had been discussed with
him; Mr. Parkson answered that it had not.
Mr. Parkson then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that their proposal had not
been presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Councilman Bay stated that the request was a complex one, as well as the response
by the Deputy City Manager in his March 3, 1980 report. As well, he had a blue-
note relating to some current potential problems involving 114 North Topeka,
the building used by "ACE" for set construction and storage. He offered the
opinion that the whole idea be presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission
and that the proposal be ironed out before coming to the Council. He felt it
should start at the Commission level for review initially, rather than the Council.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved to have the request directed to the Parks &
Recreation Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was any thought of having the Cultural Arts Foundation
review the proposal; Councilman Bay was agreeable and stated he felt it should
be coordinated back through the normal steps such as through the Foundation and
the Arts Council as well, not directly to the Council and that would be a part of
his motion.
Councilman Overholt stated he would go along with that but he saw those groups
as serving different functions° Their primary concern was the fact that it had
not passed through the Parks & Recreation Commission, the body who would evaluate
the details to see if the proposal had viability.
The Mayor clarified that the motion was then to direct the matter to the Parks &
Recreation Commission for response.
Councilman Roth recalled that they had discussed the Anaheim Community Entertainers
some months prior and the Council was supportive of their concept. He hoped by
sending Mr. Parkson to the Parks & Recreation Commission that it would not dis-
courage ACE from coming back. He felt they provided a service vital to the
community, but the Council bad to always be sensitive to the dollar implications.
Mr. ?arkson stated he was present primarily to ask Council, the Departments and
the City to be behind them so that when they went to another source, for example,
the North Orange County Community College District, to ask them to be a co-sponsor,
they could say that the City Council was behind them in what they planned to do.
They already had the date for their performance, and he was not anxious to have
the matter postponed another month.
The Mayor asked what the Council could do short of giving them a $10,000 commit-
ment of one form or another today.
Mr. Parkson repeated that they verify that the Council was behind them and supported
their summer program without a financial commitment at this time, until such time
as the proposal cleared the Parks & Recreation Commission~
80-279
City H~.ll~ A~a.hei~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with the proposal. The blue note
to which Councilman Bay referred indicated there was a past due bill for utili-
ties on the building ACE had used. As well, in reviewing the sheet provided
by ACE, the group put on a total of 25 performances of three shows last summer
averaging 158 people per performance and going as low as 54 people in a 2,000
seat theater. She had a problem in their asking the Council for any money to
back such a program.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Parkson was asking for two things--he was asking
for money, but understood that he had to first go to the Parks & Recreation
Commission. Setting the money question aside, he was then asking the Council
to support the idea of ACE conducting summer performances at the Pearson Park
Theater so that he could approach other entities and state that the Council
supported the idea of their conducting a summer theater at the park. At this
time, there was no money commitments involved, but merely endorsement and
encouragement of the program.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated hers was a history problem based on the bills that
had still not been paid by ACE, and staff had already spent an inordinate amount
of time on the situation and that was not free. As noted in the March 3, 1980
report, rental rates for Pearson Park Theater were $15.75 an hour, and all hours
used by ACE should be cbarged directly to them. If they did not have any money,
they were not going to pay anything and that would mean the City would have to
absorb that cost. The Council had never given a penny to other groups, such as
the Ana-Modjeska Players.
Mayor Seymour reiterated that they separated the money issue from the request;
Councilwoman Kaywood noted however that the monetary aspect was going before
the Commission and after looking at the budget cuts that had been made and the
frightening cuts that would be made if Proposition 9 passed, she could see no
way of funding something new and different.
Mayor Seymour stated that they might never fund them; Councilwoman Kaywood felt
that the statement would be misleading.
Further questions, discussion and debate followed between Councilwoman Kaywood
and Mr. Parkson at the conclusion of which, Councilman Overholt offered the
following: a resolution of commendation to the Anaheim Community Entertainers,
Inc. for their summer theater workshop program, encouraging them to appear before
the Parks & Recreation Commission at its next meeting to thoroughly air their
plans for the 1980 Summer Workshop, and, with the Council's blessing, try to work
things out so that they could have a more successful workshop this surmner.
Councilman Bay noted there was a motion on the floor; Mayor Seymour clarified
that it was to direct the matter to the Parks & Recreation Commission to report
back to the Council on the proposal.
Councilman Overholt then offered his comments as articulated as an amendment to
the motion. Councilman Seymour seconded the amendment.
80-280
City Majl_~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated, having been involved in the
Arts aspect of the City for some years, he realized how difficult it was for
groups to get started. He felt that the Council should encourage any group to
exercise their best talents to put together their resources to bring to the
community culturally beneficial programs. He was not aware, however, of any
other groups having been subsidized, and that idea might be one that other such
groups would resent. They had given encouragement in the services of the
cultural aspects of the Parks & Recreation Department, and that was what he
was proposing--that they utilize those benefits and to the extent of the Council,
give moral support. He was all for itc That was the thrust of his amendment,
rather than coldly passing Mr. Parkson to the Parks & Recreation Commission.
A vote was then taken on the amendment to the motion, as articulated by Council-
man Overholt, and on the original motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
149: PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON BLUE GUM STREET: Request by Jim Fletcher for a
change in parking restrictions from "No Parking Any Time" to 2-Hour Parking"
on Blue Gum Street from La Palma Avenue to La Jolla Street, was submitted.
Mr. Glen Fletcher, speaking on behalf of his brother who could not be present,
referred to and briefed the Council on letter dated February 14, 1980 (on file
in the City Clerk's office) outlining the problems evolving from the posting of
"No Parking Any Time" signs the entire length of Blue Gum Street on both sides,
from La Palma Avenue to La Jolla Street. He emphasized the fact that in front
of their place of business, they were set back an additional 8 feet which would
leave room for temporary parking of a possible two-hour limit or, as his brother
suggested, no overnight parking. They had a number of people who frequented their
shop who stated there was not enough area in the street for overflow parking. As
noted in their letter, there are occasions when they were busy and their lot would
fill completely, and customers would have to wait in the street for five minutes
to an hour. Mr. Fletcher then presented a crude map of the area which he passed
to the Council to further illustrate the reason for their request, especially
with regard to the 8 additional feet in front of their business.
Councilman Roth questioned why the public telephone on the southwest corner of
Blue Gum and Coronado was of such a concern and why that was vital to their
business.
Mr. Fletcher answered that that public telaphone was vital to the people in the
area and they had requested that it be installed on that corner. Since it was
the only visible one, it was used quite heavily. Many people stopped to use it
and when they did so they blocked the right of way for traffic. He noted that
they also had a phone installed in their building at their cost.
Councilman Roth referred to staff report dated March 3, 1980 from the City
Engineer, stating that there was adequate offstreet parking available and he
asked Mr. Fletcher if he agreed.
Mr. Fletcher answered "no". Most of the available parking on. Coronado was taken
up by 8 o'clock in the morning. He then explained for Councilman Roth that they
had an area inside their premises where employees parked and most of the cus-
tomers drove in and were serviced, but he confirmed they had an overflow of
parking in their retail trade which required parking at the curb until they
could be serviced.
80-281
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour noted since there was an additional 8 foot setback, perhaps special
consideration should be given to that portion where the present street development
was 73 feet instead of 64 feet from curb to curb.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that was not the problems The problem was
originally brought to their attention by businesses along Blue Gum, and at the
time, they investigated the situation. He then submitted photographs of the
area to the Council showing that truck parking and trailer drop-off were
making adjacent driveways completely blind. Thus, the width of the street was
not the problem, the truck and trailer parking was and that was the reason for
instituting no parking. The entire street had not been widened as yet and ul-
timately it was going to be striped for five lanes of traffic, one to provide
left-turn access to all the driveways. The Police Department could not easily
enforce a two-hour parking limit, nor no parking all night in the industrial
area. Truck parking would co~tinue because there was a demand and he, there-
fore, recommended the change in the ordinance not be granted.
Councilman Roth asked, when making a change in parking in an area, did they
advise the tenants or owners that they were going to make a change.
Mr. Singer answered that was normally done through the ordinance process, and
they had not gone beyond that stage. The street was designed specifically with
traffic in mind. If they needed travel lanes, they utilized the ordinance process.
If they wemt through the procedure of notification, even people who never parked
on the street would be against the change.
Mr. Fletcher then described the services provided by Pete's Road Service at the
request of Councilman Bay. Their's was a Tire Shop with 12 service vehicles
that traveled to on-site locations to assist vehicles that had broken down on
streets. The Blue Gum facility was their main headquarters, they also had
a retread and warehouse facility in Orange, and they were also looking to expand
into Corona. They also sold tires at their place of business. Relative to
on-site parking, they had approximately 8 spaces for parking for employees.
When they started ten years ago, they had no idea they would grow as big as
they had.
Councilman Bay stated he wa~ interested in the zoning of the property, as well,
and asked if it was commercial; from the audience, a gentleman answered that
it was industrial.
Councilman Bay noted that the parking requirements were then under the industrial
zoning and, in effect, their tire sales business had reached a point to where
industrial parking requirements were not adequate for the commercial sales in
their tire business.
Mr. Fletcher stated he believed the only parking requirements were for employees,
and he was not aware of any other requirements.
Mr. Pete Fletcher, father of Jim and Glen, then stated that they had no problem
with the no parking any time situation, other than sometimes. They had room to
work on approximately six' trucks at a time, while also changing truck tires. If
their yard was full of trucks, there was no place for other trucks to wait in
80-282
City, .Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1~,__198~_ 1:30 P.M.
the street. They were now parking in the no parking zone and causing a potential
accident problem. On the front of their property and down the road, there was
plenty of room for parking, and it would cause no problem whatsoever. At pre-
sent, people were parking on the street all night.
Mayor Seymour explained that the Traffic Engineer was concerned about people
coming out of driveways in the area.
Mr. Fletcher stated that there were no driveways involved in that immediate area.
The only situation that seemed dangerous to him was the fact that trucks, in-
stead of parking in ~ruck Haven, in order to avoid the fees, parked in the
street and also.overnight.
Mr. Singer explained fer the Mayor that there were three driveways on the west
side and approximately five or six on the east side.
The Mayor thereupon stated that he owed it to Mr. Fletcher to investigate the
area himself.
Councilman Se~nour moved to continue consideration of the subject request for
one week for further investigation. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
109: ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PROPOSITION 9 ON
GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA: Councilman Bay moved to approve Attorney General
George Deukmejian's request for support of his proposal that the Governor
convene an advisory committee to study the potential impact of Proposition 9
on government in California, as outlined in his letter dated February 28, 1980.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134: GENERAL PLAN ~ENDMENT NO. 157: Councilman Roth moved to set Tuesday,
April 1, 1980 at 3:00 P.M., as the date and time for public hearing on General
Plan Amendment N0..157, Land Use Element amendment on property located south of
the Riverside Freeway between Glassell Street and Tustin Avenue, and a Circula-
tion Element amendment. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
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 ~em~er an~ as llste~ on the Consen~
Calendar Agenda:
1 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed, and the Application for Leave
to Present Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim.submitted by Emelio F. Rodriguez for property damages purportedly
sustained a§ a result of accident involving City vehicle on Olive Street between
Lincoln Avenue and Chartres Street, on or about February 7, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Otto Franz Lohstroh for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of debris in roadway on State College Boulevard north of
Cerritos, on or about February 7, 1980.
80-283
City Hall_~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Marco Antonio Gonzalez Alvarez for personal injury and
property damages purportedly sustained as a result of City of Anaheim ambulance
turning left in front of claimant's vehicle at Lincoln Avenue and Gain, on or
about December 15, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Safeco Insurance Company of America, as subrogees of
Mary Alyce Erazim, for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result
of malfunctioning traffic signal at La ?alma Avenue and Tustin Avenue, on or
about January 30, 1980.
e. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Ernest R. Cariker
for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of insufficient
warning to public and failure to protect claimant against dangerous and defective
condition on "Dad" Miller Municipal Golf Course, causing loss of vision to
claimant's left eye, on or about October 30, 1979.
The following claim was allowed:
f. Claim'submitted by John McAndrew for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident caused by City-owned vehicle striking claimant's parked
vehicle in Haster Street parking area of Ponderosa Park, on or about January 21,
1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of February 7, 1980. (Unapproved)
b. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of February 19, 1980.
c. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of February 13, 1980.
3. 108: APPLICATION: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit submitted by the Vietnamese Dance Club, for a public
dance to be held April 5, 1980, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Conven-
tion Center.
b. Amusement and Entertainment Premises - Pool Rooms Permit submitted by L. Dean.
and Judy Ann Brainard, Hideaway Amusement Center, 3156~ West Lincoln Avenue, for
5 pool and 3 foosball tables.
c. Amusement Devices Permit submitted by L. Dean and Judy Ann Brainard, Hideaway
Amusement Center, 3156½ West Lincoln Avenue, for various amusement devices.
MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10941: Submitted by Beam Development Company, to
establish a l-lot, 24-unit'condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000(SC) property
located at the southwest corner of Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Road. (Submitted
in conjunction with Variance No. 3123 and EIR No. 234 which will appear on the
March 18, 1980 agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar).
80-284 '
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
T~e City Planning Commission certified EIR No. 234, and approved Tentative'
Tract No. 10941, subject to conditions..
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the subject tentative
tract map one week to be heard in conjunction with Variance No. 3132 and EIR
No. 234. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-104
and 80R-105 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.
167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-104: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD
AND WINSTON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4170; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened April 3, 1980, at 2:00-p.m.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-105: A RESOLUTION OF IME CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS' AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:. PEARSON PARK RENOVATIONS, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-808-7105-80811. (Hondo Company, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-104 and 80R-105 duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 9749: Developer Pacific Coast Builders, tract is located
south"of-Nohl Ranch Road, east of Imperial Highway and contains 55 proposed
RM-2400 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the proposed subv
division, together with its design and improvements, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract
No. 9749, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 4,
1980, subject to the posting of tract improvement bonds and payment of tract
fees prior to the City Engineer's approval. MOTION CARRIED.
123/124: ORDINANCE NO. 4108: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4108
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
80-285
C~ity Hall, Anaheim, California -- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4108: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(A) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE DATED FOR
CONVENIENCE AS OF MARCH 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY
CENTER AUTHORITY, AND (B) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND
DELIVER SAID FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE.
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. 4108 duly passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NOo 4109: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4109
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4109: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF'THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PARKING. (no parking on the N/s of Cerritos Avenue, from Moonstone Street to WCL)
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. 4109 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4110 THROUGH 4113: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos.
4110 through 4113, both inclusive, for first reading.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4110: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
SECTION 17.08/435 'TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (construction of fire protection facilities)
!42/175: ORDINANCE NO. 4111: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
SECTION 17.08.437 TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (construction of public utility facilities)
ORDINANCE NO. 4112: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY'OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-68(4), RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 4113: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-22, CL)
127: SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION~ JUNE 3, 1980 ON THE QUESTION OF RECALL: Pro-
posed resolutions calling and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal
Election to be held Tuesday, June 3, 1980, for submission to the qualified voters
the question of the recall of certain officers of the City and the question of
filling the vacancy or vacancies if the recall prevail's; and requesting the
Board of Supervisors to consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be held
on June 3, 1980 with the statewide primary election, were submitted.
80-286
City Hal%, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
City Clerk Roberts announced in accordance with the Elections Code 27216, it was
her duty to inform the Council that the signatures on the petition to recall
Councilmemberm Kaywood and Overholt were sufficient.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney the Council's alternatives.
City Attorney. William Hopkins reported that the Elections Code provided that
within 14 days of receiving the Certificate of Sufficiency, the governing
body shall issue an order stating that an election will be held pursuant to
the article determining.whetber or not the officer named in the petition shall
be recalled. If the Council failed to take action within 14 days, then the
County Clerk would take action within 5 days thereafter. He noted there was a
problem of which the Council should be aware, that being Elections Code Section
27231 provided that the election will be held not less than 80 nor more than
125 days after the issuance of the order. If the Council did not act this
week, then the period of time would be less than 80 days and that would require
a special election to be held rather than the June 3rd primary. Under the cir-
cumstances, he had prepared for Council consideration a resolution calling an
election for June 3 in order to avoid the special election requirement.
Mayor Seymour stated it seemed obvious the appropriate time would be to hold
that election in conjunction with the June primary election which would fall
within the 80 to 125 days.
Councilman Overholt stated he would support any action by the Council to set the
election for June 3. As one of the targets of the recall and having sat on the
Council for approximately 18 months and being subjected to the harrassment Mr.
Valenti and his advisors and cohorts had inflicted upon the two Council Members,
he welcomed the opportunity to finally get to battle. He looked forward to
the election on June 3rd~ and he was glad that Mr. Valenti was now present in
the Chamber audience to hear what he (Overholt) had to say.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would just repeat the same thing Councilman
Overholt stated, the recall matter had now gone on officially since November of
1978 when she was first served. That dragged on for 10 months without having
~ny money, and then they obtained approximately 2,000 signatures according to
the word she received. After they were served again the following week with
the big Bingo money involved, the $16,000 that they knew of through December,
and the paid solicitors who went out and told from little misconceptions to
outrageous lies, it would have been interesting to see how many signatures
they could have obtained doing it properly.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-106 and 80R-107 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 1980, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE
QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY THE QUESTION OF THE RECALL OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF
SAID CITY AND THE QUESTION OF FILLING THE VACANCY OR VACANCIES IF THE RECALL
PREVAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE CHAPTER OF THE CITM OF ANAHEIM AND THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
80-287
City Ha~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON JUNE 3, 1980, WITH THE
STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF
THE ELECTIONS CODE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Now 80R-106 and 80R-107 duly passed and adopted.
105: SELECTION OF M~BERS - SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION: Councilman Roth stated
inasmuch as they were going to have a selection of members for the Senior Citizens
Commission next week, he asked the City Clerk to include in their agenda packet
the applications of all of those who submitted them, so that they could make a
wise selection of seven 'outstanding seniors. The ordinance specified an age of
60 and in making appointments, there had to be some clarification that those
interested in serving were age 60 or over.
114: 1980 CENSUS: Co~ncilman Bay reported that at Supervisor Ralph Clark's
breakfast, the first o~e he had attended, the 1980 Census people spoke indicating
their desperate need for help. They needed 520 people with an eventual need of
1500. Anyone interested should call 527-5127 and, as a public service, he was
hopeful that number would be published in the Anaheim Bulletin.
114: LIAISON MEETING WITH PLANNING - ML ZONING ISSUE: Councilman Bay reported
on his attendance, along with the Mayor, at the morning liaison meeting where they
again reviewed the subject issue knowing that the Council was waiting for some
direction from that committee on industrial zoning. What they did, in effect,
was agree to disagree on some basic differences and, therefore, on March 25,
staff would be submitting some items that were requested at the meeting.
Mayor Seymour stated staff was asked to take them back to the time of the public
hearing on the General Pian Amendments and the three alternatives proposed. At
that time, they adopted an alternate and an ordinance and subsequently, Council-
men Roth, Overholt and he stated that they did not understand it to mean what
it said which then led inl~o the whole series of meetings. Staff had now com-
piled a significant amount of data which was going to be presented. The split
at the morning meeting was Councilman Bay's and Planning Commissioner Herbst
saying "no", that the industrial zone should remain "pure", meaning what they
had previously adopted. He (Seymour) and Commissioner Barnes indicated "no",
that was not going to work, and it had not worked in the past. They had to look
for an island concept which would permit a mix of uses in certain areas.
Councilman Bay stated they could not find a middle ground and, therefore, the
issue was coming back to the Council on that basis.
The Mayor noted that the viewpoint of the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation
was also probably that of Councilman Bay's and Commissioner Herbst.
80-288
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated when the item was heard again on the 25th, he hoped that
word would go to all the groups interested in order to make a decision at that
time and to give staff direction.
105: RESIGNATION OF ~IARJORIE FISK FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING
COUNCIL: Councilman Seymour moved to accept with regret the resignation of
Marjorie Fisk from the Orange County Health Planning Councii and that a letter
of commendation be sent for the services she rendered while serving. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114: AIR RAID SIRENS - EARLY MORNING MARCH 11~ 1980: Mayor Seymour stated he
did not know how many Council Members were awakened by the air raid warning device
that inadvertently went off at 3:45 that morning impacting a great deal of the
County. He remarked that it was a scary situation not knowing what happened.
He received a busy signal when he phoned the Police, Fire Department, Information
and Operator and as a community leader, he wondered how to reach someone so
that he might know what was going on. He asked if there was a phone number
to which at least the Council, the elected officials, could be privy in order
to be in direct communication with the Police Department or Emergency Prepar-
edness. He turned on the radJ~o which quickly reported the incident was purely
an accident. However~ the inability of the City Council to communicate was
an eerie feeling.
City Manager Talley stated that he asked the Director of Emergency Preparedness
to address that problem. They did have a series of phones in the Police Department
that were not on the centrex system and the Council should have been provided
with that information. He had requested the Director to supply him with a complete
report.
Mr. Talley also reported that the Telephone Company called today and was very
apologetic about the situation that had occurred. They had had a minor problem
and found that when they went to repair the malfunction they had sealed off
the manhole cover used for access. When they finally reached the problem and
were working on the phone lines, they inadvertently cut the lines and short-
circuited the alarms, and it took some t~me to shut the alarms down.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Se)~our seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:58 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:10 P.M.)
15~: RATES OF COMPENSATION - HOSPITAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND TRUCK DRIVERS:
Councilman Seymour offered. Resolution No. 80R-108 and 80R-109 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING TERMS AND coNDITIONS OF ~MPLOYMENT FOR PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
REPRESENTED BY THE HOSPITAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO. 399 AND RE-
PEALING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-108.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-109: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 952 AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NOo 77R-107.
80-289
City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley stated he was pleased to report
that they had settled a three-year agreement well within the present guidelines.
They believed it was not only an amicable settlement, but also one that was
fair and reasonable for both parties.
Mayor Seymour stated the settlement showed at least from the City's standpoint
they would be ready opening day for the Angels and the Rams, and they were well
served with a multi-year contract.
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 No. 80R-108 and 80R-109 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to March 18, 1980, at 12:30 p.m.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:10 P.M.