1980/01/0880-15
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8, 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
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINgER: William G. Devitt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MANAGER: Nancy Johnson
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION: A resolution was unanimously adopted by the City Council,
extending a special welcome to all participants in the "Miller Highlife Classic"
Bowling Tournament to be held January 13-19, 1980.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan-
imoulsy adopted by the City Council, congratulating Mr. Gene Autry upon his
selection as "Sports Executive of the Decade" by the Westwood Shriners, to be
presented at a later date.
119: RESOLUTION: A resolution was unanimously adopted by the City Council
welcoming the Los Angeles Rams organization to the Anaheim Sports family and
proclaiming noon, January 13, 1980 through mid-evening, January 20, 1980 -
"Super Support Week" as the Rams prepare to bring the Super Bowl flag to Anaheim
Stadium. Mr. Doug France, Rams tackle, accepted the resolution on behalf of the
Rams.
119: PRESENTATION: Mrs. Charlotte Brady, representative of the Sister City
Committee~ then reported on the November 1979 trip to Mito, Japan by the Sister
City delegation, including Mayor Seymour. She gave the highlights of that visit
which at the time was on the occasion of the 90th birthday of Mito as a munici-
pality.
Mayor Seymour then gave the historical background of the Samurai warriors who
came from Mito, noting that on behalf of the City of Anaheim he had been presented
with a full set of armor of a Samurai warrior presently on display in the Council
Chamber which the Sister City Committee would subsequently present to the Mother
Colony History Room for permanent display.
80-16
City. Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hal Parker, Chairman of the Anaheim Sister City Committee, supplemented the
report with additional highlights of the trip, including the formal celebration
of Mito's 90th birthday. He then presented the Council with a commemorative
keychain minted in Mito, which Mayor Wada of Mito wanted to be presented to the
Council, containing the date December 21, 1976, the date when the Sister City
Pact was signed.
Mrs. Betty Lillis also reported that the Mito, Japan delegation had given her a
banner commemorating the 90th anniversary of the City to be placed in Anaheim's
historical museum, as well as several other banners to be placed in the Sister
City School--the Sunkist School--as well as the Library.
Mayor Seymour on behalf of the Council, thanked all the members of the Sister
City Committee and the delegation who came to the Chamber to make the pre-
sentation. He thanked them for their involvement, commitment and expression
of good will.
173: PRESENTATION - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MULTIMODAL TRANS-
PORTATION STUDY: Mr. A1 Hollinden, Chairman of the Orange County Transportation
Commission (OCTC) first introduced Jeaninne Kahan, Project Manager of the OCTC.
Mr. Hollinden then presented a Draft Final Report of the Orange County Multimodal
Transportation Study, Chapters I and VI, submitted to the OCTC dated October 1979
(on file in the City Clerk's office) which report was the most important ever
completed in the County. He then gave an extensive slide presentation which
included an explanation of the OCTC, the study process, assumptions, the socio-
economic forecast, travel behavior, fuel availability, travel costs, population
and job growth projections in Orange County. Other slides also showed alternative
transportation systems including the "Existing Plus Committed System." He gave the
key findings in the study (see Chapter I--Executive Summary, Page ! of the
subject report) which resulted in the conclusion that even with the most expensive
alternative, that the level of quality of highway travel service would be lower
than that seen today.
Mr. Hollinden also briefed the Council on costs of alternatives in present and
in 1995 dollars (see page 1 and 2 of Draft Report), the consultant's recommendations
(see page 1 through 3 of Draft Report) and finally the recommended multimodal
transportation system.
In concluding, Mr. Hollinden stated that the Commission wanted a response relative
to the Transportation Study recommendations and findings contained therein before
adopting their final master plan. He then clarified questions posed by the Mayor,
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth relative to the study, at the conclusion
of which, the Mayor thanked Mr. Hollinden for taking the time to bring the Council
up to date on the work of the Commission.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that they would be preparing a report in
response to the study.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held May 29, September i1 and October 9, 1979, subject to typographical corrections
on the October 9, 1979 meeting. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-17
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,646,938.06, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized as recommended by
the Purchasing Agent:
a. 160: Bid No. 3605: Three Phase Padmount Transformers. Award to McGraw-
Edison, $31,206.40, for 5 each of 150 KVA and 5 each 225 KVA Three Phase Padmount
Transformers, Item Nos. 1 & 2; and Award to General Electric Company,. $20,129.40,
for 2 each 1500 KVA Three Phase Padmount Transformers, Item No. 3.
b. 160: Bid No. 3584: One-half and 3/4-ton pick-up trucks and 3/4-ton cab/
chassis without pick-up boxes. Award to Southland Chevrolet, $110, 731.64, for
nine 1/2-ton pick-ups and eight 3/4-ton pick-ups; and Award to Hendricks GMC,
$40,678.32, for six 3/4-ton cab/chassis without pick-up boxes.
c. 160: Bid No. 3598: Four one-ton cab/chassis. Award to Southland Chevrolet,
$30,022.90.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION - JANUARY 16, 1980 THROUGH DECEMBER 31~
1980: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-9 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated January 2, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae
and Risk Manager Jack Love, authorizing an agreement with Daniel H. Ninburg,
M.D., and Anaheim Medical Clinic, Inc., to provide for pre-employment medical
examination services for the period of January 16, 1980 through December 31,
1980 and authorizing the City Manager to execute same. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT WITH DANIEL H. NINBURG, M.D.
AND ANAHEIM MEDICAL CLINIC, INCORPORATED, FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-9 duly passed and adopted.
80-18
80-18
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
123: SPACE-UTILIZATION STUDY OF THE POLICE FACILITY: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement with Prima Associates, Inc.,
for a space-utilization study of the pre~ent Police facility in an amount not
to exceed $15,000, was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated December 31,
1979 from Chief of Police George Tielsch. MOTION CARRIED.
175: JOINT MEETING WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT:
By general consent, the Council set Thursday, January 31, 1980 and Wednesday,
February 13, 1980 at 7:00 p.m., as the dates and time for holding joint meetings
with the Public Utilities Board relative to the Intermountain Power Project.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC): Councilman Roth noted
that they had received a letter from Wilma Stratman, who appeared to be very active
in the Chamber. He, therefore, nominated Ms. Stratman to the Project Area Committee.
Mayor Seymour stated that would be in order, but they were first required by law
to advertise the unscheduled vacancy on that Committee which was brought about
by the resignation of Martha Robinson; City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that the
meeting of January 29, 1980 would be the earliest meeting at which they could
make nominations.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the resignation
of Martha A. Robinson from PAC, tendered in her letter of December 8, 1979, was
accepted (term ending June 30, 1981). MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the appointment of Steven H. Staveley
to the Park and Recreation Commission, representing the Magnolia School District
to fill the unexpired term of Mrs. Donna Riddell for the term ending June 30,
1980, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
175: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1210 OF THE CITY CHARTER - REVENUE BONDS:
(continued from January 2, 1980) Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt
stated that he had distributed some language, the first being a modification
suggested in connection with the refunding bonds and the second, language that
Councilman Overholt suggested in connection with bond anticipation notes. (see
minutes January 2, 1980)
In connection with the first modification, Mr. Bill Kramer, partner of O'Melveny
& Meyers, Bond Counsel for the City on all revenue bonds issued thus far, had
prepared that language submitted in the original section. Mr. Kramer had reviewed
the language in connection with the bond anticipation notes and found it to be
acceptable. The portion on the refunding bonds was acceptable, but he (Kramer)
had some problems with it which he wanted to discuss with the Council. He asked
Mr. Kramer to be present today to review the background of the matter, as well as
to describe the conditions under which the City might issue refunding bonds. He
further noted that O'Melveny & Meyers had recommended in the first place that the
question be placed on the ballot.
Mr. Bill Kramer, O'Melveny & Meyers, Bond Counsel, first relayed the background
leading to this point in time relative to refunding bonds. In April of 1976,
they discovered that the City Charter effectively blocked a refunding issue
because it required a vote of the people on all revenue bonds which included
80-19
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
refunding bonds. In order to meet the particular problem of the electric utility
and to give the City greater flexibility in the future in being able to refinance
its debt, it was their recommendation that the voters be asked to approve a Charter
Amendment which would, in effect, exempt refunding bonds from the general vote
requirement. He understood that suggestions had been made by the Council and
discussions held reflecting a reasonable concern--that the refunding power not
be abused and that there be certain limitation on its use. He then also discussed
what the already existing restraints were on refunding bonds even without writing
limitations into the Charter. After that explanation, Mr. Kramer stated that he
had looked at the latest draft of the proposed amendment to Section 1210, and it
was acceptable. The only thing that the Council might consider in view of what
he had just said, it might be necessary to add the phrase in the first and second
line--"on a basis which, in the opinion of the City Council, is more favorable to
the City." They might want to consider whether that determination was really
implicit in the City Council's resolution to issue the refunding bonds. The
phrase would do no harm and it was perfectly acceptable to him. He confirmed
for Councilman Overholt that the phrase was surplus and the Council had to
make that decision in any case. If the question was a matter of explaining the
proposal to the voters assuring them that the City was not going to recklessly
be refinancing its debt unless justified by the needs of the City, that message
could be conveyed to the voters by means of a ballot argument or some other
appropriate means without locking it into the City Charter.
Mayor Seymour stated if he understood correctly, if the voters were to approve
the refunding process, they would be empowering the Council to make a decision
without the voters' viewpoint being expressed, a decision that could take the
existing unpaid principal balance of the bond issue and refinance that balance
and extend the maturity to whatever period might be available.
Mr. Kramer stated that was correct and the Council could impose additional limi-
tations on itself by means of an ordinance.
Mayor Seymour stated he wanted to see what right the people were going to give
up if they voted favorably. They would give up their right to vote an extension
of the debt which, in turn, would be providing a more positive cash flow to the
Utility and that positive cash flow could be used by the Utility for whatever
purposes the Council saw fit to use it.
Mr. Kramer stated they would be authorizing that type of refunding, but the
refunding could take another form. It would not necessarily involve extending
the debt, but it could.
The Mayor questioned the significant sums of monies that might be created in such
a cash flow. He could not begin to fathom that sum, the numbers were so large.
Mr. Hoyt stated they had not even considered anything of that nature. There was
nothing before them now that would raise that question.
Mayor Seymour stated his concern relative to that aspect was that they would be
going to the voters to get their approval of a bond issue and having voted in
favor of that issue, they would be voting in spirit and in actuality for a specific
80-20
80-20
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES ..- January 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
mortgage payment and a specific time for that mortgage to be paid in full. There-
fore, in all practicality there would no longer be a liability against them. How-
ever, if they voted for the Charter amendment as it was presently worded, they
would be foregoing their right to approve or disapprove any modification of
that debt and would be relinquishing that power to the City Council to modify
the terms of that debt both interest-wise, as well as with regard to maturity
of the bonds.
Mr. Hoyt stated that was not entirely correct. He believed that when the
electorate approved the issuance of revenue bonds, the terms of the bonds were
not established by them, but by the resolution approved by the City Council
to sell the bonds. The bonds they were talking about were revenue bonds, as
opposed to market bonds, and thus the principal amount that would be refunded
would still be the amount which the electorate had approved.
Mayor Seymour stated he was not aware of any bond issue which they had taken to
the people in which they had not in the process of explaining that bond issue,
discussed maturities.
Mr. Hoyt stated that in the previous $150 million bond issue, they did not taik
about maturities. Generally it was assumed it was over the life of the project.
He could not imagine doing otherwise unless they were faced with a default situation.
The Mayor stated he could support the amendment if it was strictly structured
to either reducing the rate or eliminating onerous bond covenants. Both of
those factors had to do with improving the position of the people who were
paying, i.e., the citizens as far as the extension of maturities was concerned
in order to avoid a default, the people should decide its future themselves.
He did not want to see that power taken away, but instead vested in the people.
Further discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Hoyt relative to
calling a special election which Mr. Hoyt felt would hamper their ability to
move quickly if necessary; the Mayor reiterated that extending the maturity of
the debt and avoiding a default were decisions that should be made by the rate
payers.
Mr. Kramer stated it was a political judgment and they could draft whatever
limitations the Council felt was appropriate. The important thing was clarity;
the City Charter being the constitution and it should be absolutely clear.
Councilman Overholt stated as he had done previously (see minutes January 2,
1980) that the matter of reducing cost without extending the obligation over a
longer period of time as well as the matter of avoiding onerous provisions
were remedial measures; the Mayor agreed. Councilman Overholt continued that
it was his hope that the measure could be on the April ballot, but now that
it was going to have to be redrawn, he wanted to know if they could still make
the April ballot.
Mr. Hoyt stated that today was the last day and if they were going to change
the language, they ought to accept the fact it was going on the June ballot.
80-21
qity Hall,__~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that they had a big issue in June which was not
remedial, and he would like to see the present matter on the April ballot; the
Mayor stated if there was some way to word it yet today for the remedial portions,
he would be supportive.
Mr. Hoyt then suggested that they pass the item to give time to see if they could
draft some language to accommodate what the Council decided.
Councilman Roth stated that he did not see the need for the big push for the
April ballot and felt that both items should be included together, the IPP and
the bond issue.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt that the power issue on the June ballot should
be as clean, clear, and succinct as possible. To have further issues on that
June ballot dealing with power might interfere with the clear understanding of
the big issue, the IPP. He did not think that the bond issue had anything to do
with IPP.
Councilman Roth stated knowing the people and the way they were voting and looking
at bonds today, the vote would be negative. The public had to know why the project
was necessary, and there had to be a greater understanding of both issues by the
voters.
Councilwo=mn Kaywood stated that she would like to see the bond issue on the April
ballot. If the issues were together in June, no matter how much explaining,
they would tend to meld together. The bond issue was purely a housekeeping item
for the benefit of the people to take advantage of any possible rate reductions
that could be made.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to place the proposed amendments to Section
1210 of the City Charter regarding revenue bonds on the April 8, 1980 Municipal
Election ballot if they could devise the final language this afternoon. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that he went through many weeks
of discussion on the subject as a member of the Charter Review Committee some
time ago. He felt strongly for some time that if the administrative management
in the City, including Utilities and other areas where there were revenue bonds,
needed remedies to the Charter to save the City money by management moves, he
was in favor and had been for some time. He was not concerned about taking the
issue to the public as to whether or not they were going to misunderstand or that
the Council was trying to change maturity dates on them or doing anything other
than to give management the tools to save money. He tended to agree with Council-
man Roth to the extent that if the matter became a point of contention rather
than a simple management remedy to improve the position of the City, then perhaps
it would be better to have public discussion and subsequently wait until June to
place it on the ballot. He had no fears relative to the IPP power program. In
his opinion, he felt the issue would pass with a large majority in June when
properly explained to the public. He still maintained it was a choice between
OPEC oil and American coal. He also felt that the bond issue, if it became
complicated, could lose on a ballot if it was placed before the voters as quickly
as April.
80-22
80-22
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not have to run for office in April and
he did not want to put something onto that ballot if two of the present Council
Members who he assumed would be running in April felt uncomfortable with it. He
thereupon withdrew his second to the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her motion.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated, having withdrawn his second and with Council-
woman Kaywood withdrawing the motion, it would be his thought that further refine-
ment of the language be again presented at a later date with the idea of proposing
it for the June ballot, and he so moved. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that Councilman Bay seemed to be
saying something different. If they were going to direct language for the
June ballot, he wanted it clear now as to whether or not that language would
include extending maturities and avoiding defaults or if it would be truly
limited to a housekeeping measure which would be to reduce rates and eliminate
onerous bond covenants.
Councilman Bay stated that his second had to do with the fact that they would
have from now until June to discuss those points. He felt there should be
some coordination meetings, discussion and public input on all those subjects
between now and the March 21st deadline for the June ballot. He saw no reason
why the subject could not be brought up in the meetings they had planned for
discussing the IPP. He knew there was no tie between the two subjects, but
as long as they were going to have meetings with the public, they should get
input on those issues as well.
Councilman Overholt stated that hi~ motion covered only the latter two points
as articulated, and thus the second apparently did not cover the motion.
Mayor Seymour asked if Councilman Bay wished to withdraw his second to the motion;
CoUncilman Bay thereupon asked Councilman Overholt to restate his motion.
Councilman Overholt stated that the motion intended that further language be
developed that would limit the housekeeping measure to two points--(1) reducing
the rates and, (2) avoid onerous conditions and provisions which would keep it
to a housekeeping measure.
Councilman Bay thereupon withdrew his second; Councilman Roth then seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Hoyt asked if the motion was specifically aimed at
bond coupon rates, utility rates or, what rates?
Mayor Seymour stated that the intent was the coupon rate.
Councilman Overholt stated they were talking about reducing costs, but not extending
the life to get that cost reduction.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Overholt. Councilman
Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
80-23
City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes.
(3:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:20 P.M.)
Mayor Seymour asked that since a large delegation from the Chamber of Commerce
was present to be heard on Agenda Item 3, if the applicants involved in the two
public hearings scheduled for 3:00 p.m. would have any objection to waiting until
after Item 3 was discussed; there was no objection expressed by the applicants.
167: NEED FOR INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL - STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND
WINSTON ROAD: Request by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and letter dated
December 5, 1979 for the subject signal.
Mr. Larry Slagle, Chairman of the Orange County Transportation Committee, stated
that the subject intersection posed a serious problem which had businesses in
the area quite concerned. To date, the Chamber had received correspondence from
38 different companies and 22 additional employees expressing their concern. The
intersection was a very busy one and needed a traffic signal to avoid a serious
accident. The project had been bypassed or delayed too long, and they felt it
needed immediate attention. Mr. Slagle noted that four speakers were present
to address the subject need for signalization.
Mr. Jerry Jacobs, Personnel Manager, Pacific Scientific, 1350 South State College
Boulevard, prefaced his remarks by stating that under Cai-Osha, it was a violation
of California statute to permit an employee to work in a situation at which there
was a known safety hazard. The intersection of the corner of State College
Boulevard and Winston Road as it presently existed without a traffic light was
a known safety hazard. He then explained that there were 450 employees at the
facility which was rapidly expanding, and there were approximately 100 visitors
per day. If only one-half of the employees left the plant for lunch, there
were 1650 separate entries and exits per day. As well, the entrance to their
major employee parking lot and shipping and receiving departments was on Winston
Road. He then gave a brief overview of the traffic flow to and from the plant.
A major concern of the employees was the lack of a traffic signal at the subject
corner and they received an average of 8 to 10 complaints a week with the request
that they try to do something about the problem before a death or serious accident
occurred. He concluded that if immediate action was not taken and a traffic light
not installed, it would result in such occurrences and he urged the Council to
have a traffic light installed at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Dave Deboux, Vice President and Branch Manager, Young's Market, 1360 Vernon
(Winston and Vernon) stated that he had 94 employees and.they added about 10 per
year and his business generated approximately 300 crossings per day. They had
26 delivery vehicles, received 8 semi-trailers per day, an average of 20 visitors
and during peak season 100 to 200 visitors a day. He had received approximately
600 complaints throughout the last year and a half relative to that problem
intersection. State College Boulevard was becoming a very heavily traveled
thoroughfare causing many anxieties and frustrations in trying to cross that
street. At times there was as much as a 15- to 20-minute wait to turn left on
State College Boulevard because there was no light. He asked that the Council
consider a traffic light installation at that intersection basically for public
safety.
80-24
80-24
.City mall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bob Williamson, Manager of Industrial Relations, Ozite Corporation, 1515
East Winston, first displayed a sketch on the Chamber wall depicting the
subject area showing the location of the various businesses in the area.
Ozite had 275 employees at present and their anticipated growth in five years
was 50%. In past studies, no one had taken into consideration the new con-
struction underway in the area including all the restaurants presently planned
or under construction. The problem at the corner of Winston Road and State
College Boulevard was so bad their employees left the parking lot and, on
purpose, traveled the whole area in order to avoid that intersection. The
Planning Commission had investigated the situation and concluded that there
should be a traffic light at the intersection but indicated it was a three-
year wait. He emphasized that installation of a traffic light should be
immediate and asked that the Council give the matter favorable consideration.
Mr. John Moynihan, District Customer Service Manager for Southern California
United Parcel Service, stated they wanted immediate action on the traffic
signal. UPS and other businesses within the geographical area were concerned
about the life and safety of all using that intersection. They took the liberty
of asking their business neighbors several pertinent questions about traffic
and complaints received. UPS had 1,150 employees: others, 2,253, total 3,403.
Average daily number of customers and visitors to UPS--756; others 735, total
1,491. Number of company vehicles maintained at UPS daily, 410; others 491,
total 901. Number of complaints from employees and customers, 916.
Additionally, the area was one of the fastest growing industrial complexes in
Anaheim and projected business growth in five years was phenomenal. He hoped
the Council was as concerned as they were and urged them to act on the request
immediately. Perhaps they could base their decision on the fact that they were
represented today by most of the business people in the area. He then asked for
a show of hands of those who took the time to support the installation of the
traffic signal; there were approximately 20 people present.
Mr. Slagle thanked the Council for listening to their presentation. They had
worked with Traffic Engineer Paul Singer who indicated he had money problems,
as well as the fact that the street was presently owned by the State.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained they were trying to fit so many
projects into so little money. At the present time, they were conducting their
normal studies for budgetary purposes. The particular signal was obviously
warranted and he had no argument on that point. Signalization was included in
a three-year budget, but not yet refined to the point as to which year the light
was included. In their budgetary considerations, they tried to stretch money
as far as possible, especially the Signal Assessment Fund. If they could use
it as matching funds, they would obviously get a great deal more for their dollar
and priorities were established accordingly. There were a number of signals at
present on the waiting list. There were three school signals and three signals
to be shared with the State. Another was to be shared with the County and still
another to be shared with the Federal Government. They had essentially only
three signals in the next three years that were not shared with anyone and the
Winston/State College signal was one of those three.
80-24
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8, 1980, 1:30 P.Mn
Mayor Seymour noted that it was then a matter of setting priorities capital wise.
He asked if there were any other conflicts.
City Engineer William Devitt stated there was one other consideration. State
College Boulevard was presently a State highway. They had discussions with the
State approximately one year ago continuing up until the last six months regarding
the installation of a traffic signal at the subject location. The State was
presently in the process of putting a new cap on the street, preparatory to the
relinquishment of State College Boulevard to the City of Anaheim. They were
required by law prior to the relinquishment to bring the road up to a state
of good repair. The State did not consider it necessary nor a requirement
for them to install that signal. Therefore, it was an accepted fact that the
City would have to install the signal, but they eould not do so without going
through the State if it were done now because it was still a State highway,
and they would have to get a permit. They anticipated the relinquishment would
come within six months. Further, they had every reason to anticipate in the
establishment of priorities that the signal would become quite high but he did
not think they were in a position at this point to proceed with installation of
that signal. He also confirmed for the Mayor that it would take approximately
six months to two years to process a permit with the State. They anticipated
they would build the signal at their first opportunity, presuming it would have
a high priority, or unless the Council made another decision.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Council would be reviewing the Capital Improvement
Priority List on January 29 and at that time, would be in a position to render a
decision on the subject request. If they decided to move the project up, then it
was necessary to know what had to be done to cut the red tape in order to get
the job done. He would be hopeful of receiving recommendations from staff as
to how that could be done in less than six months unless the Council wished to
make a decision on priorities before receiving that funding report on January 29.
At the request of Councilman Bay, Mr. Singer then reported that the cost of the
signal would be approximately $85,000.
City Manager William Talley pointed out that they could take $85,000 of Anaheim
money to install the signal or match it and install two or three signals some-
where else with the same amount of Anaheim money. This way, there was no
leverage on using the funds.
Councilwoman Kmywood asked if everyone in the area had contributed to the Traffic
Signal Assessment Fund and, if not, how much it would amount to if they did.
Mr. Singer stated that only those buildings constructed since June of 1978 would
have contributed to the Fund and although he did not know how many had not con-
tributed, he presumed the amount would be substantial if they did so.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the matter until January 29, 1980
when the Capital Improvement Priority List would be considered by the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor encouraged the submission of any further
evidence in writing for the January 29, 1980 meeting.
80-26 80-26
~ity ~1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8, 1980, i:30'P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-8A: In accordance with application
filed by Bruce B. Bowman, United California Bank, Trustees, public hearing was
held on proposed abandonment of certain portions of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
adjacent slope easements pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-692 duly published in
the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated December 18, 1979 and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of the said abandonment
subject to the following conditions:
1. Reservations of required storm drain easements.
2. Dedication of the right-of-way needed to accomplish the proposed realignment
of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
3. Relocation and change of grade of Santa Ana Canyon Road to be done at applicant's
expense.
4. That the new slope areas to be landscaped, irrigated and maintained by the
property owner.
5. Subject conditions to be finalized within 2 years from date of approval of
Resolution of Intent, or such further time that the City Council may grant.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the deter-
mination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the
requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-lO for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 79-8A, subject to all conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET AND SLOPE EASEMENTS SHOULD BE ABANDONED
AND ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ABANDONMENT. (Santa Ana Canyon Road)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-10 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 8OR-11 for adoption authorizing an
agreement for purchase of City property with Kent Land Company in the amount
of $37,000, as recommended in memorandum dated December 18, 1979 from the City
Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-27
City Hal.!~. Anaheim~ Cal~.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
123/158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH KENT LAND
COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-11 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2033 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Appli-
cation by Edward D., Ellen M., Howard D. and Lois M. Anderson, to expand an existing
mobile home park on RS-A-43,000 and CL zoned property located at 2770 West Lincoln
Avenue, with waiver of minimum setback in special areas.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-222 declared the'
subject project to be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse envi-
ronmental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit
No. 2033 in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance With approved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for
each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. That the proposed development shall be in accordance with the requirements
of Title 25, California Administrative Code and that the plumbing shall be
provided in order that the travel trailer park will accommodate all trailers
and not be restricted to "California approved trailers" only.
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;
provided, however, that the block wall shall be located a minimum of t0 feet from
Lincoln Avenue and only one mobilehome may be located 15 feet from Lincoln Avenue.
6. That Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the subject application was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at
the November 27, 1979 Council meeting 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.
80-28
8O-28
~.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard; Mr. Edward Anderson, applicant, stated he was present to answer
any questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was very much concerned about the requested
setback on Lincoln. The required setback of 35 feet was instituted for a reason,
and they should not be granting waivers. Her understanding was that a restaurant
was removed and the applicant now wanted to place one extra mobile home unit 15
feet from Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Anderson answered that was correct and the second unit would be 45 feet back
from Lincoln Avenue, fully within the Code. He also explained for Councilwoman
Kaywood that there was no way of rearranging the units so that both could be
set farther back. He and his architect had discussed the possibility and
found it could not be done. It would only accommodate one mobile home if they
went beyond the 10 foot setback on the fence. He wanted to do something nice
with his mobile home park and he stated what was there before was disreputable,
and he was ashamed of it. It was a home converted to a restaurant in the 1960's
but he had now torn it down. Although his income would be somewhat less than
with the restaurant, by putting two mobile homes in that big space instead of
one would enable him to recoup a portion of the loss. He also explained that
he vacated property when Dale Avenue was widened, and the City allowed him to
install a 7-foot fence on the sidewalk and approximately 400 feet of his park
had a 7-foot wall right on the sidewalk.
Mr. Anderson also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that there would be windows
facing Lincoln on the coach planned to be located in the setback area, but there
would also be a wail and a landscaped area.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that if they continued to change the
35-foot setback requirement on Lincoln, it was going to be extremely unfair to
all those who complied with it and that such action would set a precedent. There
was approximately 10 miles of strip commercial along Lincoln at the present time.
Allowing more things closer than 35 feet made it a more dangerous and hazardous
situation for those who occupied the buildings along Lincoln, as well as those
driving by.
Mayor Seymour stated that a four-foot wail now existed and if the Conditional
Use Permit were approved, that wall was going to be moved back 10 feet resulting
in a six-foot improvement in the existing condition. Further, a restaurant was
formerly located on the property that could be called strip commercial and Mr.
Anderson had torn it down. He maintained that the applicant was doing nothing
other than to improve the existing situation.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that he was asking for an additional unit that
would be placed 15 feet from Lincoln and someone would have to be deaf to live
there without complaining.
80-29
.qity ~.11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
~aywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that there would be
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the
approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates
the subject property for General-Commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal;
that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt
from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit Noo 2033.
The resolution failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-12 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 2033 subject to the Planning Commission conditions. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING, IN PART, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2033.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-12 duly pasmed and adopted.
166: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - PROHIBITING AFFIXING SIGNS TO PUBLIC PROPERTY: Council-
man Roth explained that as a result of his request the previous week (see minutes
January 2, 1980) relative to the San Francisco ordinance regarding the subject,
the City Attorney had modified that ordinance in a minor way and it was being
proposed for Council consideration and possible adoption. He realized it was
far-reaching particularly relative to political signing. He felt the proposed
ordinance closed the last gap and would assist in cleaning up the City especially
with regard to illegal signing on utility poles. It was also broad enough to
where it included a provision so that the taxpayers would be reimbursed for the
cost of removing the signs and there was also a reward provision in apprehending
violators who were actually convicted. He thereupon read excerpts from the
proposed ordinance covering those provisions.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that they include street sweeping signs along
with those other signs permitted in the public right-of-way (Section l(b));
or if the words official City signs might be all-encompassing thereby elimin-
ating the need to enumerate; City Attorney Hopkins stated that the street
sweeping sign could be enumerated in the proposed ordinance and/or they could
add official City sign.
80-30 · 80-30
City...Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January .8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he was not necessarily locked into the ordinance. He
realized it was all encompassing and very strict. He brought the question up
in 1976 and he was concerned throughout the years over the double standards
regarding signing in the community. He felt that at election time, politicians
had special rights, and he did not believe they should be exempt. Such an ordin-
ance was long overdue and they would be cleaning up the City at the same time.
Councilman Overholt stated that his concern revolved around the reward provision
and how much they were going to have to allocate to cover that aspect. If they
passed the ordinance, they should be very serious about it in its enforcement,
fair, and expect everyone and every group to comply with it. Under those cir-
cumstances he was totally supportive.
Councilman Roth emphasized that the reward provision would be in effect on con-
viction and he did not foresee any large amount being spent on rewards. He felt
there were many loopholes in the way the City operated at present relative to
signing. The ordinance would also cover the spray painting of buildings by
putting more teeth into the removal aspect and penalties if someone was caught.
Perhaps now someone would turn the offender in for a $50 reward, and it would
be part of law enforcement.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if it was not now against the law to post
signs on utility poles.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that was correct. The present ordinance was passed
on the intent that it was to protect the personnel in the Utilities Department
from injury in climbing poles.
Councilman Bay then asked if there were present laws to prevent just about anything
mentioned in the proposed ordinance, and were they talking about the question of
needing a new law for enforcement of the present law.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the proposed ordinance included some of the provisions
contained in other ordinances presently in effect. However, the proposed ordin-
ance did give more enforcement provisions. He confirmed for Councilman Bay that
it was based on conviction which involved witnesses.
Councilman Bay then stated he could see where that might add teeth to the ordinance.
He questioned whether they needed only to make the few changes to the existing
ordinance to add the necessary teeth. Also when talking about signs affixed
within the public right-of-way, he wanted to know if this would prevent signs
on bus shelters.
Mr. Hopkins answered that the City granted a special franchise for the bus
shelters and the provision would not be in the ambit of the ordinance.
Councilman Bay stated he was not questioning the intent of the proposed ordinance,
but was concerned about the actual legal implementation as to whether it was
going to succeed any more than the current law did, and also the cost aspect.
80-31
City Hall., ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
A brief ~discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and the City Attorney
relative to the matter, at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood stated
that she was in favor of no signs using as an example the great proliferation
of~political signs last November. The appearance of the City deteriorated with
such signing. She wanted to be certain the ordinance was enforceable and, if
not, they had to look to other means.
Councilman Roth stated if a copy of the proposed ordinance was passed to a
candidate when he or she filed nominating papers, it might be a deterrent to
such political signing.
Mayor Seymour stated it was clear that each Council Member was interested in doing
something to eliminate signing. Although it was difficult to enforce, Councilman
Roth's thrust was to do everything possible. He suggested that they continue the
discussion for a couple of weeks, during which time each Council Member could
provide input that would be satisfactory to the City Attorney and then bring
those recommendations back.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that the timing was important. She asked that the
City Attorney recommend wording that would cover the instances she was referring
to, a non-identified sign, and how that could be enforced.
Mr. Hopkins stated that hopefully they would be able to determine who the person
responsible for achieving the sign was, since that was the key; Councilman Overholt
asked if it was the person posting the sign, or the employer. Mr. Hopkins stated
the person responsible for the affixing of such signs and normally they construed
that to be the employer.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Counc%lwoman Kaywood, further
consideration of the proposed ordinance was continued for two weeks. MOTION
CARRIED.
105: COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY VACANCY: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Clerk was directed to schedule consideration
of an appointment to fill the vacancy on the Community Center Authority ~for the
meeting of January 15, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
149: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO PARK A MOTOR HOME AT 2001 EAST KATELLA AVENUE:
Mr. Lonnie G. Gerard of Gerard's Union 76, requesting permission to park a motor
home on a lot at 2001 East Katella Avenue, was submitted.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that, due to a family emergency, Mr. Gerard
requested a one-week continuance on the subject.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, consideration of the
request for permission to park a motor home on a lot at 2001 East Katella Avenue
was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
127: CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITATION FOR ELECTORAL CAMPAIGNS IN ANAHEIM: Request
by Mr. Louis Dexter, to address the Council relating to the subject, was submitted.
80-32
80-32
~i.ty. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, stated that he had put together some well
thought out comments relative to disclosure of campaign expenditures and making
them more suitable for disclosure to the public--see Section I; official disclosure
section of proposal submitted entitled--Anaheim City Ordinance: Campaign Receipts
and Expenditures Disclosure and Voluntary Expenditures Limitation--and also a
second section--Section II: Voluntary Limitations Section (on file in the City
Clerk's office). Either section could be adopted by the Council or both sections.
Section I was very important and could be accomplished without hardly any extra
work required of the City administration staff. Under (b) in Section I, he
would not be concerned if the Council changed the $100 figure to a higher total
contribution. He felt that his proposal could be adopted without going to other
extreme measures of limiting contributions by law. Ail the necessary information
would be in a concise report easily available to the public.
Mr. Dexter felt they should take the candidates votes and divide the total expen-
ditures into the number of votes and someone should start compiling that data and
subsequently render a report. He felt that if they wanted to control expenditures
that took place during campaigns, it could not be done by law. City Attorney
Hopkins had informed him that it was unconstitutional to control expenditures
but it was possible to control contributions. He was amazed at the amounts
involved and the number of people donating who were involved in servicing
business to the City. In the future, if there was such an ordinance as he
proposed, those contributors would be cautioned about things appearing in the
minutes of the meeting. He felt it was important for future researchers to have
not only the votes the candidates received, but also the expenditure made to
get those votes as well as the major contributors. It was necessary to get
something started that was organized and consolidate it to let the Council know
what people spent not through the newspapers, but officially, and that was the
intent.
Councilman Roth noted that in reviewing Section II he had said that the City
Attorney stated it was unconstitutional to limit expenditures and, therefore,
part II had to be voluntary. He questioned what would occur if someone did not
comply.
Mr. Dekter stated that he would initially like to see a voluntary program to first
ascertain if it would work and, if not, that they could always go to a mandatory
program. The proponents of a mandatory limitation were going to say that the
incumbent would then have a tremendous advantage in raising funds.
Councilman Roth stated in his opinion somewhere down the line it was going to
be said that it was morally bad for someone to contribute to a campaign and the
ultimate goal would be to have the taxpayers support all the elections through
a certain monetary contribution, and an individual would not be allowed to raise
campaign funds; Mr. Dexter felt that was the best reason to adopt the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, in principle she agreed with what Mr. Dexter was
saying and she had been very vocal about it since 1976. He was looking to
limit the amount of expenditures which had been ruled unconstitutional. A
wealthy person could spend whatever he liked. She was certain that Mr. Dexter
did not want to limit campaigns to only the wealthy. Agreeing in concept was
one thing, but finding something workable and constitutional was very different.
80-33
City Hall, Anaheim, California .-. COUN.~IL MINUTES .- January 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
It should be noted, however, that all the figures Mr. Dexter obtained were able
to be obtained because they were public documents and anyone would have access
to that data.
After further discussion, Mr. Dexter stated that he did not wJnt new forms, but
somebody to summarize the data and put it in a report for him.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that they would have to hire additional people
in the City Clerk's office to do so and all of the data would be after the fact.
She was, therefore, questioning its purpose. As well, the press had access to all
the forms.
Mr. Dexter stated if they were not favorably inclined to Section II, that was
acceptable, but he still felt it was easy to compile a summary report that could
be presented to the Council, and they could approve it. He wanted to see something
official relative to who spent what.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many people came to the City Clerk's office to
look at Proposition 9 forms; City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that generally
members of the press did so around election time and Mr. Dexter--approximately
five to six people.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that it was unfortunate that so very few people seemed
to be interested; Councilman Bay stated that the information was there and a
summary was available all on one page. There was nothing complicated about the
Proposition 9 reporting system.
Mr. Dexter stated the missing factor was that the City Council should be reviewing
those things. He was trying to avoid mandatory controls.
Councilman Overholt stated that he felt all Council Members agreed with Mr. Dexter
in his basic philosophy since he was suggesting that the contributors should be
more easily subject to public scrutiny and because of that, contributors and
candidates alike may think twice before accepting large amounts. He was glad
that Mr. Dexter would be agreeable to eliminating Section II, otherwise he
(Overholt) would not run for office. He was concerned if the Council took the
average of the successful campaigns, it would be about $27,000 and that was not
a fair picture as a campaign could be run on a lot less than that. They all
shared his concern and the question was how to accomplish it, but they were not
interested in doing so in the present campaign because it had already started.
Mr. Dexter felt that Section I could be adopted almost immediately and it would
not affect the present campaign to a great extent. He reiterated he was anxious
to at least get something started.
Mayor Seymour con~nended Mr. Dexter for making an attempt to bring his proposal
to the Council. The Council had unanimously gone on record that there should be
limitations imposed. His interest was (1) to give the greatest number of people
an opportunity to cast their decision as to who their representative was going
to be and, (2) to permit those in the competition to reach as many people as
possible who would be making the decision. He favored limitations on contribu-
tions and such limitations must be regulated. He was hopeful that they would
80-34 80-34
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
receive other recommendations as well as Mr. Dexter's. He did not feel it
appropriate however to place a limitation on a sum based upon the number of
people voting. Any formula should be based upon the number of registered
voters rather than the number of people voting. He also felt that they should
perhaps consider changing the time and date for elections to a time when the
greatest number of people could turn out.
Additional comments by the Mayor relative to Mr. Dexter's proposal were as
follows: he was not certain that limitations could be accomplished volun-
tarily, but that it was necessary to place a mandatory limitation on contri-
butions; placing limitations on expenditures was clearly unconstitutional;
unless there were Councilmanic districts, it was impossible to reach 60,000
households in Anaheim for $10,000 as suggested by Mr. Dexter.
The Mayor then thanked Mr. Dexter for his input and presentation and further
expressed that they would like him to be part of the process as they deliberated
ways and means of placing some type of control on campaign contributions.
148: U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS: Invitation to the City to avail itself of six
months' "free" membership in the U.S. Conference of Mayors, was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the six months "free" membership in the
U.S. Conference of Mayors as recommended in memorandum dated December 14, 1979
from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it would be valuable
to receive the mailings and information the Conference had to offer. As well,
there was no obligation to continue the membership and thus, they had everything
to gain and nothing to lose.
Nancy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, explained the last time Anaheim
was a member of the Conference was in 1976. At that time, in conjunction with all
the other pressures on City government, they decided to discontinue membership in
the organization due to the City's membership in another organization.
City Manager Talley noted that it also required the participation of the Mayor
and in 1976, the then Mayor was not interested in participating.
Mayor Seymour stated he would be surprised if the City Manager or anybody having
done research would say that they could recommend the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and eliminate the National League of Cities. The National League was almost a
prerequisite; however, if Anaheim really wanted to be more influential as a
City, they should consider the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Mr. Talley agreed and he felt that Anaheim should be more prominent in the
National scene which would give the opportunity to meet and discuss the City's
problems with other strong cities.
Mayor Seymour stated that he made the move to eliminate membership in the
U.S.C.M. in 1976 because the Mayor was not that involved, and it was, there-
fore, a cost effective move. Since dropping from the organization, the
80-35
City H~i, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
U.S.C.M. had been very aggressive in trying to "woo" Anaheim back into the
Conference. The City had been through Proposition 13 and Proposition 4 and
thus, he had not been interested.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (5:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilwoman Kmywood. (5:30 P.M.)
148: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES - REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF ANNUAL DUES: On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, request for payment of
annual dues for the National League of Cities for the period of January 1 through
December 31, 1980 was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood was temporarily absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber. (5:31 P.M.)
158: DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-13 for
adoption, accepting deeds of easement. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS OF AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Robert P. Warmington;
Robert W. Clemmer; Dennis L. Milton)
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-13 duly passed-and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held December 17, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3121: Submitted by Euclid Shopping Center Inc., to erect a
free-standing sign on CL zoned property located at 1646 West Katella Avenue
(Arby's Restaurant), with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-233, granted in
part Variance No. 3121 and, ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3124 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10940}: Submitted by the Baldwin
Company Limited, to establish a proposed 48-1ot, RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision
on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located south of Nohl Ranch Road and west of
the westerly terminus of Ridge View Road, with Code waiver of minimum building
site width.
80-36
80-36
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-234, granted
Variance No. 3124, and EIR No. 166 had previously been approved.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2043: Submitted by Abbey Services Corporation,
to permit the construction of a mortuary addition to an existing funeral facility
on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2303 South Manchester Avenue (Melrose
Abbey), with Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-235, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2043, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2044: Submitted by New England Mutual Life Insur-
ance Company, to permit fireworks storage in a portion of an existing warehouse
on ML zoned property located at 710 East Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-236, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2044, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2045: Submitted by Ira L. Newman and Patricia A.
Newman, to permit the expansion of an existing service station on ML zoned property
located at 1505 North State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of required land-
scaping.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-237, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2045, and granted a negative declaration status.
6, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2046: Submitted by Anaheim Insurance Leaseco,
to permit a bus terminal on CL zoned property located at 2165 South Manchester
Avenue, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-238, granted in
part Conditional Use Permit No. 2046, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2047: Submitted by Southern Pacific Transportation
Company, to permit a truck trailer storage yard and repair facility on ML zoned
property located on the west side of Lewis Street, north of the centerline of
Katella Avenue, with Code waiver of required enclosure of outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-239, granted in
part Conditional Use Permit No. 2047, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9602 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills,
Inc., request for an extension of time to establish a 49-1ot, RS-HS-10,000(SC)
subdivision located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of the centerline
of Andover Drive.
An extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9602 was approved by the City
Planning Commission, to expire February 15, 1981.
9. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9864'- EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills,
Inc., request for an extension of time to establish a 36-1ot, RS-HS-10,000(SC)
subdivision located at the southeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Meats Avenue.
80-37
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
An extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9864 was approved by the City
Planning Commission, to expire February 15, 1981.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1593 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by G. J.
Lindquist of Don Greek and Associates, request for an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1593, to permit a motel-restaurant-coffee shop
complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the east side of Tustin
Avenue, south of the Riverside Freeway, with Code waiver of maximum allowed
building height.
An extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1593 was approved by the
City Planning Commission, to expire February 18, 1981.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items, therefore the
action of the City Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1905 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Charles M.
Farano, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1905, to permit
an automobile parking lot with waiver of permitted encroachments of a 6-foot
high wall and parking in front setback on property located at the southwest
corner of South Street and Helena Street.
Approval of the time extension was recommended by the Planning Commission, to
expire January 2, 1981.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, an extension of
time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1905, to expire January 2, 1981, was approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 4092: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4092 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4092: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.020 OF SECTION 3.24.010 OF CHAPTER 3.24, TITLE 3, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT DEVICES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kmywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4092 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4093: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4093 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4093: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-44, CO)
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (5:35 P.M.)
80-38
.City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:25 P.M.)
112: PANDICK PRESS, INC. VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger
& Spriggs was authorized to arrange for payment of $65,000 due in connection with
litigation in United States District Court Case No. ~9-02181MRP, (Pandick Press,
Inc. vs. City of Anaheim, et al) subject to concurrence of the Board of Directors
of City of Anaheim (California) Stadium, Inc. MOTION 'CARRIED.'
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Tuesday, January 15, 1980 at
11:00 a.m. for interviews with Youth Commission candidates. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:27 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK