1980/04/0880-373
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 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
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
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: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be sent to Mr. H. George Osborne, Director of the
Environmental Management Agency, for three decades of public ser9ice given to the
citizens of Orange County.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Salute to Youth in Volunteer Service Day" - April 15, 1980
"Private Property Week" - April 13-19, 1980
"Don Baylor Day" - April 11, 1980
The Salute to Youth proclamation was accepted by Mrs. Eileen Anthony on behalf
of the Orange County Council of Women in Chambers of Commerce; the Private
Property Week proclamation was accepted by Mr. Jerry Grosso, President, Anaheim
Board of Realtors, who was accompanied by a contingency from the Board; and
the Don Baylor proclamation was to b9 presented to Mr. Baylor on April 10, 1980.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. Gene Autry, E.J. Bavasi, "Red"
Patterson and Jim Fregosi and the entire Angel team for an outstanding 1979
season and a pledge of even greater support during their 1980 season.
MINUTES: Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of December 18, 1979, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-374
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 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 of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $7,847,493.71, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
123: SCOREBOARD SPONSOR - PANASONIC COMPANY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 80R-143 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 25,
1980 from the City Attorney's office, authorizing a Scoreboard Sponsor Agreement
with the Panasonic ComPany in the amount of $75,000 per year for a 10-year period
for advertising rights on the new scoreboard in an area below the matrix board
of the two time clocks. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SCOREBOARD SPONSOR AGREEMENT WITH PANASONIC
COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH ADVERTISING OF PRODUCTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-143 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood come,ended Frank Lowry, Assistant City Attorney for the
outstanding job he has been doing relative to such agreements; Mayor Seymour
echoed the same sentiments on behalf of the Council and as well to staff.
153: DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION OF DWIGHT E. CLARK: Determining the
dis~ositionof the dieabilfty retirement application of Dwight~ E. Clark (con-
tinued from April 1, 1980).
City Manager William Talley stated that he had read the entire file relative to
the subject and concurred in the Committee's ~recommendation.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-144 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 18, 1980, from A~sistant City Manager William T. Hopkins,
Chairman of the City's Safety Employees Disability Retirement Committee, that
the Council grant an industrial disability retirement to the applicant, effective
the date.of Council action. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-144: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT DWIGHT E. CLARK IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE
POSITION OF POLICE SERGEANT.
80-375
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MI.NU. TES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30-P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-144 duly passed and adopted.
174: SIXTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION:
Council-
woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-145 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 31, 1980, from Executive Director of Community Development
Norm Priest, approving the Sixth Year Community Development Block Grant Application
pursuant to Title I, Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, and autho-
rizing the City Manager to execute and file same. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN APPLICATION
FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1977.
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-145 duly passed and adopted.
174: INTEREST RATE CRITERIA FOR CDBG SUBSIDIZED LOANS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
PRESERVATION PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, interest rate criteria was adopted for CDBG subsidized loans in the
Neighborhood Preservation Program, as recommended in memorandum dated April 1,
1980, from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF POTTED PLANTS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR THE CIVIC CENTER--
BID NO. 3627: Councilman Roth moved to accept the low bid of Visser's Florist
and purchase authorized in the amount of $11,958, including tax, for potted
plants, with a one-year maintenance service, as recommended by the Purchasing
Agent, in his memorandum dated April 3, 1980. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked what was done at present relative
to plant material.
Mr. Richard Jefferis, Purchasing Agent, explained that the plants were for the
interior of the new Civic Center and thus the problem did not exist at present.
The Mayor stated that he could appreciate that any structure should have plant
material, but he questioned having to pay for professional maintenance. He did
not think such expenditure was appropriate, while at the same time squeezing
for every penny they could get for other projects. He confirmed for the City
Manager that the problem he had was with the maintenance contract.
80-376
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager William Talley stated that the City would be prepared to address
that issue after the first year, but they wanted to be certain that the material
purchased was growingand viable.
The Mayor stated he would support the recommendation with the understanding
that it was more of an insurance that the plant material was good, but he would
vote against professional maintenance of plant materials in the new Civic Center
should it come up again. He philosophically could not support that concept.
Mr. Talley stated that he would not bring back a recommendation for further main-
tenance.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned about recurring costs and, along with
the Mayor, would not vote for future maintenance of plants.
Councilman Overholt stated he favored the maintenance guarantee for the first
year.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 50~000 FEET OF #4 ALUMINUM TRIPLEXED CABLE - BID
N013635: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the low bid of General Electric Supply was accepted and purchase authorized in
the amount of $15,012.25, including tax, for the subject cable, Code name
"Oyster", including the maximum allowable overage, as recommended by the Purchasing
Agent in his memorandum dated April 2, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
153: NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: Councilman
Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-146 for adoption, as recommended in memo-
randum dated April 2, 1980, from Human Resources Director Garry McRae, amending
Resolution No. 79R-591 and establishing a new classification of Housing Develop-
ment Coordinator and rate of compensation therefor, effective April 11, 1980.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
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-146 duly passed and adopted.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION - UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSES: Councilman
Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-147 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 2, 1980, from the Human Resources Director, establishing rates of
compensation for unrepresented part-time Job classes and superseding Resolution
No. 79R-137 and amendments thereto, effective April 11, 1980. Refer to
Resolution Book.
80-377
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES, AND
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-137 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
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-147 duly passed and adopted.
140: "FINE FREE DAY" - APRIL 19~ 1980 - ANAHEIM PUBLIC LIBRARY: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Saturday, April 19, 1980, was
declared as "Fine Free Day" for the Anaheim Public Library, thereby encouraging
citizens to return overdue library materials, as recommended in memorandum dated
April 2, 1980, from City Librarian William Griffith. MOTION CARRIED.
150: ANAHEIM COMMUNITY ENTERTAINERS (ACE) PROPOSAL: Councilman Bay moved to
support the Park and Recreation Commission's action to deny the request for
$10,000 and exclusive use of Pearson Park Theatre by the Anaheim Community
Entertainers to conduct three musicals and related rehearsals at Pearson Park
during the summer of 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated March 31, 1980,
from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt explained in line with previous
discussions, he intended to support the foregoing motion, but his vote should
not be interpreted as discouraging the Anaheim Community Entertainers from pro-
ceeding with their program. However, they should not have special treatment
over any other group. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her feeling as
well.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED
139/103: SUPPORT OF AB 2212 (KNOX) - PROPERTY TAX TRANSFERS UPON ANNEXATION:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-148 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated April 2, 1980 from the Planning Department, supporting the
passage of AB 2212 relating to property tax transfers upon annexation. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2212.
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-148 duly passed and adopted.
80-378
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P~M.
103/44/171: 'ANNEXATIONS--"FAIR SHARE" OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE: Directing the
City Attorney to prepare an emergency ordinance declaring a moratorium on the
issuance of any building or grading permits or the approval of any plan, zoning
reclassification or tentative tract map for any property annexed between January 2,
1978 and July 24, 1979, pending a property tax exchange agreement with the
County; directing staff to pursue negotiations with the County to insure the
City received its "fair share" of property tax revenue.
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on report dated April 1, 1980 from the
Planning Director, Ron Thompson. He explained that since the report, they had
received very strong reactions from the County wherein they indicated they would
be willing to sit down and work the problem out. It was a problem that was not
unique to Anaheim. With Council action such as that being recommended, it would
be an incentive for all parties to get together and speedily resolve the issue.
Mayor Seymour stated having spoken with the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
yesterday, as well as the City Manager, he was wondering if they could achieve
the same end by not taking action at this time in directing the City Attorney
to prepare an emergency ordinance for at least another three weeks, while taking
action on Item "B" of the staff report only. He offered that in the spirit of
cooperation with the County.
Mr. Talley considered it an appropriate action with the view that in three weeks
if the County had not made substantial progress in negotiating with the cities,
the Council would be prepared to consider the matter.
Councilman Seymour moved to continue action on Item "A" of staff's recommendation
contained in report dated April 1, 1980 but to approve Item "B", directing staff
to pursue negotiations with the County to insure the City receives its fair share
of property tax revenue. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay asked if they delayed such an emergency ordinance declaring a
moratorium, what possibilities were there of potential lawsuits relative to
vested rights in developments that would proceed. He wanted to know if the
City would then be putting itself in a position where they would be up against
investments that had been made, and then the City subsequently being sued for
stopping those projects.
Pla.nning Director Ron Thompson felt it could be anticipated that grading might
proceed on portions of the property in question in the not too distant future,
but he was not aware of any plans having been submitted at this time. If there
was a big push for any type of permit that would give anyone a vested interest,
they would come back to the Council and immediately alert them so that they
could then proceed with a moratorium.
Councilman Bay was agreeable and then recommended that relative to Portion "A"
of the staff recommendation, that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
ordinance so that it would be ready should they need to adopt it; Mayor Seymour
was not in favor of directing the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance at
this time.
80-379
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley explained that the group now negotiating for the County had recently
had a change in its composition and it had become more active and responsive.
Also, the Cities of Orange County were coalescing into a position where they
recognized they would have to move forward. He would not recommend individual
negotiations, but instead they wanted the County and Cities to agree on a common
plan so that with each annexation, the County would not "trap" cities into
individual negotiations.
The Mayor asked if there was any possibility that by not taking action on
Item "A", that Anaheim could lose one penny of tax revenue within the next three
weeks; Mr. Talley answered "no".
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
148: SCAG-78 GROWTH FORECAST POLICY: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
No. 80R-149 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 27, 1980
from the Planning Department, concurring with the use of SCAG-78 Growth
Forecast Policy for use in Regional Plans. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CONCURRING WITH THE SCAG-78 GROWTH FORECAST POLICY.
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-149 duly passed and adopted.
123: LEAA MANAGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an amendment was approved to the consul-
tant services agreement with Ms. Linda A. Gray, Administrative Aide/Researcher,
to provide travel reimbursement expenses in an amount not to exceed $2,500, for
the LEAA Managing Criminal Investigations Program, as recommended in memorandum
dated March 19, 1980 from the Chief of Police, George Tielsch. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CANYON HILLS LIBRARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION: (Account No. 01-904-6340)
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a letter
agreement was authorized with Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., in
the amount of $1,925, for the Canyon Hills Library Geotechnical Investigation,
and authorizing the City Engineer to execute same, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 2, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED.
123: STADIUM SCOREBOARD MODIFICATIONS: City Manager Talley explained that
they had a proposal from the Bank of America which they thought would have
been received by now; however, it was going to expire on next Monday, April 14,
1980. The commitment relative to the interest rate was 8.5%. Thus, they would
prefer to recommend that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute an amendment to the Political Subdivision Lease Agreement
dated June 8, 1979, with the Bank of America NT & SA to provide for an additional
$565,000 for Stadium Scoreboard modifications, at an interest rate of 8.5%, sub-
ject to the approval of all documents by the City Attorney. The adding of the
80-380
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
$565,000 to the current agreement would mean that the total annual premium or
payment for principal and interest would be $357,082 in lieu'of signed agree-
ments for $385,000. As the April 4, 1980 staff report pointed out, it was
possible that by the time the contractor had installed the Big A symbol on
the scoreboard, it might exceed the $565,000 amount. However, they knew they
would not be able to get 8.5% interest and were recommending, if the City Attorney
would approve the agreements when they were received, that he (Talley) be
authorized to sign them in order to protect that interest rate. Then, if
the contract would exceed $565,000, they would come back with the most favorable
interest rate at that time.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-150 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER 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-150 duly passed and adopted.
180: WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAM - CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION: City Manager Talley
briefed the Council on memorandum dated March 31, 1980 from the Risk Manager,
Jack Love, recommending giving notice of cancellation to R. L. Kautz & Company,
on its contract for Worker's Compensation claims administration, authorizing
the R±sk Management Office to assume those functions, effective July 1, 1980.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the request as recommended. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour referred to Page 2 of the subject memo-
randum wherein it stated, "Upon reviewing the work performed by contract claims
admin~stration firms, the best expectation that staff believes could be expected
would be to reduce our loss ratio from 62% of manual premium to 45%, for a
savings of about $494,000." He asked what was it about the process that caused
them to reason that it could be reduced by that sum where heretofore it had not.
Risk Manager Jack Love explained that the quality from one service provided to
another varied as in other business areas. Any contract administator admini-
stering the City's akcount during 1974-1975 would have not resulted in any greater
savings than with R. L. Kautz because there was tremendous dislocation in the
compensation industry at that time. Part of the $62,000 was made up of two
very'adverse years that any contract administrator would have experienced. The
last two years, they had been able to pull the loss ratio down to below 50%.
80-381
City Hall, Anahe%m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Price Waterhouse, the City's auditor, was accepting 50% to 55% at the present
time. He hoped .to convince them that a year from now they could reserve at 40%
and his objective was to pull it even below 40% which he believed could be done.
Mayor seymour wanted to know why the City would be able to do a better job than
R. L. Kautz or some other private enterprise entity. He had difficulty in
understanding how government could do something of this type at a lessor cost
than the private sector.
By way of explanation, Mr. Love relayed the following during a discussion between
himself and the Mayor: Presently because of the overlapping in the function performed
between the Risk Management office and the contract administrator, there was a
constant communication problem and a delay in getting information to them and
having them react on that issue. In communications he had with other companies,
they admitted that the City could better administer the program because of
Anaheim's size. They presently retained a Worker's Compensation Administrator
and a clerk who did nothing but process paper and monitor the results as they
occurred and subsequently communicated with payroll clerks which was essential.
They were going to have to maintain that function regardless of whether they
hired a contract administrator or not. Now, with the acquisition of the two
additional persons they could still provide that same service, plus take over
what the administrator was doing because they would be eliminating a great deal
of duplication. He had an expectation of hiring one of the individuals presently
working with Kautz, and he felt that better supervision and direction would pro-
duce a better product from that individual. He was suggesting that they would
do a better job because there were a number of essential items such as direct
contact with the employee that could be provided that they could get from only
a very few service providers.
Mayor Seymour stated he would be willing to support the motion if the maker
could agree that one year from now, they put the process back out to bid because
by then, they would have a fixed budget cost. He recommended in considering
the fiscal year 1981-82 budget that the process be put back out to bid, since
by that time they could isolate all those costs and determine if those savings
could be achieved. He wanted to know if it was the intent of the Council to
take a close, hard look and shop the process in the 1981-82 budget process.
Councilman Roth stated he would accept that recommendation in his motion.
Councilman Bay stated he would accept it also but noted the $8,000 start up
cost within the first year over and above normal operating costs of the second,
third and subsequent years. They had to take that start up cost into consider-
ation when bidding it, and it should not be considered a part of the projected
cost for the second year.
City Manager Talley stated the amendment would give him some concern. In the
figures before the Council, there was a start up cost of $18,000--$6,700 was
to provide an information system to the City to allow them to monitor the claims
and $12,000 for a two-month parallel system between Kautz and the City. There
was also the cost of'$7,200 for a loss information system that they would get
on a permanent basis. He would be concerned if the Council were going to take
an action, hire two employees, and then possibly ten months later redo the program.
80-382
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California -COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor clarified that was the reason why he recommended 1981-82 budget; Mr..
Talley explained that he was recommending 1980-81. It would go into effect
July 1980 through September 1980 representing the two parallel months and then
the City would be on its own from September 1 on. However, ten months later,
if he understood the Council's thinking, they would be rebidding the process
and possibly changing it over. Getting the ratio down close to 40% as explained
by Mr. Love could not be achieved in only ten months, and he was recommending
two years. His question was that if they hired two people, and then converted
the program in ten months, would that be a fair comparison to five years on the
outside to determine what an internal program could do.
The Mayor wondered what R. L. Kautz would say they could do if they were present.
Mr. Talley stated if they wanted to hold the matter, that would be acceptable,
but they were recommending, under any circumstances, not continuing with Kautz
if they were going to have an inside contract administrator. They believed that
the City's experience would be lower if they had more direct application.
Mr. Love stated he believed they should make a change and that the other two
bidders (CDS of-California and Bierly & Associates) would provide a higher
level of service than Kautz. He also explained further that it would take
approximately six months after policy expiration to accurately determine what
the incurred losses were for the year in question. They were looking at at
least six months after July 1, 1982 before they could determine those losses.
Mayor Seymour stated he needed to know if CDS, Bierly or whoever could do any
better than what Mr. Love was talking about. He was not satisfied with what
he heard to look favorably upon the request.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented if they looked at the situation in the 1982-83
budget, that would give a 1½ year trial period.
Mayor Seymour asked why they could not bring in the people involved to find
out what they could do.
After a brief discussion, Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor was apparently
suggesting that next week they have the three contractors appear before the
Council to tell them what they could do. He (Overholt) was not eager to have
that done in the Chambers because they had gone through such a situation pre-
viously on insurance matters. He shared the Mayor'~ concern that they should
be certain that the adjusting services knew the whole story in order to deter-
mine what they could do.
Mr. Love stated that the propomals were in his office, and he could make them
available for Council evaluation.
Councilman Overholt continued that relative to Councilwoman Kaywood's suggestion
that there be a review in the 1982-83 budget, they would then be giving the program
more than ten months, and at that time, they could decide whether or not to again
go out to bid. He reiterated he did not favor having an open session take place
in the Council Chamber as in the past.
80-383
City Ha~l~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
.Mayor Seymour stated it did not bother him where it took place, but it bothered
him it not taking place at all. He suggested the question be raised to the com-
panies, understanding what they had in Anaheim and having had an opportunity
to look over previous records and the history of workers losses', what could
'those companies do for the City; Councilman Overholt suggested that that question
be put to the company and have them answer in writing. The Mayor was agreeable.
Councilman Roth stated he would yield to the recommendation that written proposals
be obtained from all thr~e companies.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if the time element involved in so doing would
hurt anything; Mr. Love answered that it would because they were required to
give 60 days' advance notice of cancellation to Kautz and the deadline is May 1
1980. '
MOTION: Upon conclusion of further discussion between Council and staff relative
to the proposal, Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the sub-
ject request for two weeks to enable staff to submit whatever further information
they wished to submit. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she did not ever want to go through the
"circus" performance that they had about two years ago. As Councilman Overholt
had stated, when they went through such performances on insurance rates, Jack
Love won and the City had benefited over a million dollars due to his exper-
tise. If the City could provide a better service, they should not have to sit
through identical performances as in the past.
Mayor Seymour countered that Councilwoman Kaywood could call it whatever she
liked, but they had differed long and hard over the fact that it was her tendency
to rubber stamp anything that a department proposed, whereas he would not do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon stated that she would like to have a written
report on the amount of money that the Mayor cost the City taxpayers relative
to insurance with all of the nonsense they went through before.
The Mayor stated that he would like that report because he would fill the
Chambers with insurance people who would challenge it and the basis of it.
Councilman Bay stated in reviewing the situation, it was his opinion that none
of the companies were going to give contractual guarantees on what they would
reduce claims to. He was looking at four groups who said they would do something,
with the City indicating they could do it for $61,000 after start-up. The City
Manager and Risk Manager, having experience, were saying~they could do the job
and cut out the middle activities. He did not see the argument and they should
be given an opportunity to do what they said they could, whether 16 or 20 months.
He also preferred seeing the local budget visibility of what it was going to
cost and that would be afforded more so if done within the City than on a
contract going outside to private enterprise. He was still in support of the
original motion with the amendment allowing a reasonable time review.
80-384
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the time review meant 1981-82 as he had suggested; Council-
woman Kaywood clarified that she stated 1982-83.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to the motion to continue, pointed out that Mr.
Love had a deadline of May 1. Therefore, if the Council took action on April 22,
it would give him time to implement the action of the Council. Although he
shared Councilman Bay's concerns, he was concerned that there were members of
the Council who still had questions on the matter and there may be other infor-
mation they would like to have in two weeks to afford them the opportunity to
obtain that information.
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue to April 22, 1980. Council-
woman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
I75: RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE PROGRAM (RCS): On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, authority was delegated to the Public
Utilities Board to conduct a public hearing on the Anaheim Plan for Residential
Conservation Service (RCS), to be scheduled for May 15, 1980, at 4:30 p.m., in
the Council Chamber. MOTION CARRIED.
I27: ORDINANCE NO. 4117 - ELECTIONPROCEDURES - CANDIDATE'S FILING FEE: City
Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on memorandum from his office dated
April I, 1980, recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance amending the AMC
to provide a procedure for gathering signatures on petitions in lieu of payment
of $25 filing fee.
Councilwoman Kaywood a~ked if the State was going to reimburse the City in con-
junction with the staff time involved and, if not, could the City sue to have
them do so.
Mr. Hopkins answered "no", and also indicated that they could sue for anything,
but it was a matter of the outcome.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her thought that for a candidate to be able to
waive the fee was fine, but the alternative was to bring in 100 signatures
which would have to be checked and the candidate could bring in more. That
would take a great deal. of time in the .City Clerk's office, and she felt the
State should pay for that time.
Councilman Bay asked if they considered the cost of eliminating the filing fee
and balance that against the cost to check 100 signatures.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he supposed they could eliminate all the require-
ments for fees, but that might encourage those who had no serious intention in
pursuing the matter to flood the City Clerk's office with applications for
nomination papers.
Councilman Roth stated, in his opinion, the proposed ordinance was the best
alterna, tive, either a $25 flat fee or signatures in lieu of the fee. He thereupon
offered Ordinance No. 4117 for first reading.
80-385
Cit3 Hall~ Anaheim~ ,California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4117: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.12.090
OF CHAPTER 1.12, TITLE 1, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ELECTION
PROCEDURES.
110: POST-CENSUS REVIEW: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-151 for
adoption, urging the Bureau of the Census to allocate an additional 60 days for
the post-census review. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
URGING THE BUREAU OF CENSUS TO ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY (60) DAYS FOR THE
POST-CENSUS REVIEW.
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-151 duly passed and adopted.
124: .ORDINANCE NO. 4118 - AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF' COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY
REVENUE BONDSi SERIES D: Amending and approving as so amended Ordinance No.
3966, authorizing the issuance of Community Center Authority revenue bonds,
Series D, for the purpose of providing funds for the acquisition,' construction
and financing of additions to the Anaheim Convention Center facility (Better-
ment II Project).
City Attorney Hopkins explained if the parties desired to proceed with the
project as bid or keep their options open, it was necessary for the City and
the Anaheim Union High School District to adopt the ordinance amending the
amount of Series D bonds from $20 million to $38,500,000.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4118 for first reading, with the under-
standing that the CounCil's options remained totally and completely open and that
the action was merely to remain consistent with the time clock that was running.
ORDINANCE NO. 4118: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING AND APPROVING AS SO AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 3966 OF SAID CITY COUNCIL,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES
D, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND
FINANCING OF ADDITIONS TO THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER FACILITY, AND DESIG-
NATING THE ANTICIPATED SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT WILL BE PLEDGED TO SECURE SAID
REVENUE BONDS.
Mr. Bob Hostetter, 2129 Victoria, member of the Community Center Authority,
stated he had nothing further to add other than that they must keep their options
open. The only process they had to do so was the Council's support, as well as
the High School District. It was their only alternative and he was speaking
in favor.
163: REQUEST FOR CROSSING GUARD AT WATER STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD: Request
by Benjamin Franklin School for a crossing guard at the subject intersection
was submitted (continued from the meeting of April 1, 1980).
80-386
City Hall, .An~keim~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Richard Jimenez, Principal of Benjamin Franklin School, first thanked the
Council for respondingl He explained this was the third or fourth year that
they had petitioned the School Traffic Safety Committee (STSC) to have a
crossing guard at the intersection of Water Street and Harbor Boulevard.
Harbor was a very busy boulevard and two children had been injured in the
last nine months very close to that street. They were requesting that the
Council consider placing a crossing guard at that intersection. He then
explained that some of the parents present earlier had to leave but asked
those remaining to stand. Approximately five parents were present. He then
introduced Mrs. Hofstetter,.
Mrs. Cathi Hofstetter, PTA President, 861 South Dickel, stated that Traffic
Engineer P~ul Singer and the STSC had heard them numerous times over the past
five or six years. They were aware of the Council's decision several Weeks
ago to provide a crossing guard at the intersection of North Street and Harbor
Boulevard for the Horace Mann School and were in hopes that they had set a
precedent by having the crossing guard approved for the children at Benjamin
Franklin School as well, at Water and Harbor Boulevard. Harbor Boulevard was
and would continue to be one of the busiest streets in Anaheim: the traffic
count taken in November revealed that 1,400 cars per hour traveled north and
south on that street. They were told they were not able to have a guard because
there were not enough cars turning right or left in proportion to traffic on
the street. None of the children had been hurt at that particular intersection
and they wanted that record to stand. She then submitted a petition to the
Council signed by 85 families in the area. There were 130 children crossing
the street twice a day at that intersection. In driving around Anaheim, they
saw a number of crossing guards in the City at locations which they felt were
not as busy as the subject intersection. The only way Mr. Singer could grant
the crossing guard was by positive vote of the City Council, and they were
asking the Council to grant that guard.
Mrs. Lois Salaya, Community Liaison for the Anaheim City Schools, explained that
she was speaking for the Spanish-speaking parents who had to leave the meeting
to take their children home from school. They were very concerned about their
children having to cross Harbor Boulevard since many of the parents had to work
and leave their children with babysitters, and they could not be sure they were
being walked across the street. A lot of children knew about the different
colored lights, but did not know how to correctly use.them. The situation was
of major concern to all the parents in the area, Anglo as well as Hispanic.
They would appreciate the Council's vote in approving a crossing guard for that
intersection.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer prefaced his remarks by stating that crossing
guards were always a benefit to safety. His concern was that at the present
time they had over 40 guards, and he wanted tO know if they should or should not
reevaluate the warrants for the crossing guards and liberalize them even more
than they had liberalized them in the past. If so, that would carry a substan-
tial cost. Although the cost per crossing guard was only $3,600 for the current
fiscal year, he expected it to substantially increase because it was difficult to
hire a crossing guard at that salary and in order to attract people, it would
have to be substantially raised.
80-387
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked how Mr. Singer would equate the subject intersection with
the one involved in the approval approximately three weeks ago.
Mr' Singer stated they were about the same and he had nothing further that he
could tell the Council to justify a denial in this case.
Councilman Bay stated, to his knowledge, the Benjamin Franklin School was not
in the Redevelopment area. When George Washington School was closed, Redevelop-
ment had a lot to do with creating the situation relative to their decision to
approve a crossing guard at North Street and Harbor Boulevard. His concern
with the present request was that the STSC members were going to need new
guidance from the Council if they granted the subject request. When talking
about the City's crossing guards, whether 40, 41 or 42, they were still talking
about $151,000 a year.. It was his considered opinion if they sustained their
North Street and Harbor Boulevard decision as a precedent, then they might as
well eliminate the STSC and its rules and warrants. As well, if they approved
the current request, they would receive 15, 20 or 30 more requests from every
other corner and busy street throughout the City whether or not they met the
existing warrants. This was an important decision for the Council to make
because, in effect, it would change their current warrants and standards. If
they were ready to change the standards, liberalize them and pay for them, then
they should approve the request. If they thought the warrants were applicable
and fair now, then they should disapprove.
MOTION: Mayor Seymour stated he felt strongly about the matter. He thereupon
moved that the request be approved to authorize a crossing guard at the inter-
section of Water Street and Harbor Boulevard and further to instruct the School
Traffic Safety Committee to review their standards and to make whatever recommen-
dations they might have relative to any adjustments.
Before any action was taken,' the Mayor stated that he too was concerned that
their actions.could be interpreted as setting a precedent City-wide and, there-
fore, to insure a new level of consistent performance in decision-making, he
would ask that the STSC review the matter and ask the Council to deliberate
their findings and make a decision. He felt strongly that the request of a few
weeks ago and the present request were different than any other request they
might receive in other parts of the City. One of the goals around the down-
town area was to insure that the neighborhoods remain viable, living and safe,
receiving all the service the City could offer. They were trying to avoid a
second Redevelopment project and it was in the spirit of pledging that commit-
ment as they had done before with the CDBG program, that they owed it to those
neighborhoods, the parents and the children to give the best service to insure
a better place to live. Further, for an expenditure of $3,600 now and perhaps
$5,000 tomorrow, he felt that was a good investment in the greatest asset the
City had, the children of today and the citizens of tomorrow.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt stated he supported the motion with the comment that the
STSC dealt with matters other than school crossing guards and it served a very
important function in the relationship between the School District and the City.
80-388
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth felt that the Mayor's motion to look at the whole spectrum of
crossing guard needs in the City to be of high priority.
Speaking to the Traffic Engineer, Mayor Seymour statea that Mr. Singer was one
of the best he had seen and he did an outstanding job. He did not want any
interpretation made that they were casting aspersions on his work or that of
the STSC.
Councilman Bay asked if they took the North/Harbor decision and added the Water/
Harbor decision to that, taking the traffic figures involved in those two
crossings and applying them across the whole City, what would be his (Singer's)
estimate of how many new crossing guards they would need to pay for in the City
to fulfill those needs on that new criteria. He asked for an answer after Mr.
Singer had an opportunity to review the statistics.
Councilman Bay stated if they changed the criteria~ he wanted-the Council to
be aware of the situation at budget time when they were trying to find the
money to do so.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:35 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2052 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by California Service Corporation, to expand an existing automobile
auction and reconditioning facility on ML zoned property located at 1320 North
Tustin Avenue (continued from the meeting of March 25, 1980 at the request of
the applicant).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-26 declared that
the subject project be exempt for 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. 2052, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City 'of Anaheim along Tustin Avenue
including 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 the City Engineer.
2. That street lighting facilities along Tustin Avenue shall be installed as
required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works, within a
period of ninety (90) days from the date herein.
80-389
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
4. That fire hydrants be installed and charged as required and determined to
be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
6. That the owner(s) of subject 'property shall pay appropriate drainage assess-
ment fees to'the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer.
7. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay a traffic signal assessment
fee of $32,000.00; $10,660.00 being based on the current commercial assessment
fee ($130.00 per 1000 square feet) for the existing 82,000-square foot
building plus $21,340.00, which amount will be applicable to future construc-
tion on the property at future rates.
9. That the proposed automobile auction facility shall comply with all signing
requirements of the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone.
10. That all proposed automobile storage and parking areas be fully paved with
three (3) inch asphalt concrete.
11. In order to enforce the City of Anaheim regulation prohibiting on-street
parking along Tustin Avenue, the property owners shall paint the curb red along the
entire length of subject property and shall also maintain the curb. The paint
shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
12. That all landscaping along the entire Tustin Avenue frontage shall be in-
stalled and maintained as required by Code.
13. That subject property shall be develqped substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1
of Exhibit No. 1.
14. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13, above-
mentioned, shall be complied with within a period of ninety (90) days from date
hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
15. That this use consisting of a parking lot and open storage area for an
automobile auctioning business shall be permitted for one (1) year, subject to
possible extensions of time upon written request by the petitioner.
16. That under no circumstances shall car carriers be unloaded or loaded in
the Tustin Avenue right-of-way or in other nearby public streets, nor shall such
vehicles be parked on Tustin Avenue.
17. That all vehicles intended for auction or already auctioned shall be stored
in the fenced area only and shall not be parked in the parking area intended for
dealer-customer parking.
A review of the subject application was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at
the meeting of March 4, 1980, 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.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that Miss Santalahti pointed out
in her presentation the .fact that industrial land in Anaheim was rapidly dimin-
ishing. The staff, Anaheim Economic Development Corporation, and Planning
Commission were looking at various tools or methods to help evaluate CUP's and
other requests relative to industry that they wanted to attract to the City.
Staff had taken some rough cuts looking at various industrial land uses, the
results of which they wanted to share with the Council. Staff identified several
80-390
City Hall, Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
industrial uses and the annual General Fund revenue generated per acre by varying
types of industrial uses. The seven types reviewed were examined with respect
to business license, property tax, electric utility revenue and employment. He
then briefed the Council on the findings and in concluding stated that the re-
sults indicated the type of tool they were working toward, to help enable the
Council to make some very hard decisions with respect to developing the remain-
ing amount of industrial land in Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour stated that in the revenues discussed, no mention was made of sales
tax.
Mr. Thompson explained that they tried to analyze the pure industrial use but
they did not try to compare it to the commercial enterprises such as Curtis
Furniture or Mr. Jim's, etc. They did analyze the sources of revenue from an
automobile auction.
Councilman Bay pointed out that relative to that use, there was no sales tax
involved.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for the applicant, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, first
described and pointed to the location of the subject business from a diagram
posted on the Chamber wall. The basic addition they were proposing represented
an expansion of the existing operation to accommodate, not an expanded business
or a future expansion, but that which was presently existing. They were adding
400 parking spaces for dealers, 23 additional visitor parking spaces and the
rest to be devoted to storage of the cars to be sold, as well as an area for the
automobile carriers to off- and on-load vehicles to be delivered.
Mr. Farano then explained the corporate structure of CADE, California Auto
Dealers Exchange, dba California Service Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Cox Broadcasting, which was in the process of being acquired by General
Electric subject to the approval of the Federal Communications Commission. His
purpose in describing the structure w~s to emphasize that they were not merely
a South Anaheim Boulevard used car dealer. He then introduced Mr. Jerry
McDonald, Executive Vice President of Mannheim Services Corporation on the East
Coast and Mr. David Harrison, Manager of California Services Corporation in Anaheim.
The applicant was interested in, willing to, and fully intended to comply with
the requirements of Anaheim and would ex~rcise every effort to do so in order
to be a good neighbor. Great apprehension was expressed on the part of the
Planning Commission but they were assured, and he was again assuring the Council
today, that he had been instructed that if now or at any time in the future a
problem arose insofar as the applicant's compliance with the conditions estab-
lished by the City, he (Farano) was to be notified immediately and subsequently
confer directly with those on the East Coast. Those were instructions given by
Mr. Warren Young, the President, and Mr. McDonald was present to testify to that
~f necessary.
80-391
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The reason why they were present was due to the fact that they were caught doing
a "moonlight" job in paving approximately four acres of the property. However,
that job was done in broad daylight by Mr. Harrison in full and glorious ignor- '
ance relative to anything he was required to do by Anaheim. He had searched
the record and talked to many people and was convinced in his mind that Mr.
Harrison did it without any knowledge whatsoever and thought he was doing the
right thing, or that he misunderstood a letter from the City that led him to
believe that he could go ahead and do what he did. Staff wrote a letter to Mr.
Harrison's predecessor, Mr. Lange, and subsequently Mr. Harrison came to the
City and found out what he was supposed to do. They were willing to take full
responsibility for what happened in the past. It was error in action and he
hoped that the Council would realize that they had now recognized their error,
and they would not do anything like that again.
Relative to the merits of their project, theirs was an existing business dealing
only with licensed automobile dealers. No retail services were involved. They
policed themselves relative to seeing to it that only authorized automobile
dealers were permitted in the area and no retail buyers could accompany a
dealer.
As to the actual traffic flow, they made a physical count between the hours of
12 noon and 6:00 p.m. on February 4, 1980 which revealed the following number
of cars in the street and on the lot during those times: 12 noon, 374 vehicles;
1:00 p.m., 401; 2:00 p.m., 372; 3:00 p.m., 301; no count for 4:00 p.m.; 5:00 p.m.,
281; 6:00 p.m., 214. They found approximatley 130 vehicles in the street that
they could identify as doing business at their location. The "high water" mark
was approximately 400 vehicles, tapering off after that. Therefore, it was their
opinion and belief that 401 spaces for dealer parking would be adequate to keep
the traffiC off the street.
CADE committed that there would be no cars in the street. They had agreed to
accept the condition that the curbs be painted red on the east side of Tustin
Avenue, as well as maintained at their expense. They had also discussed the
possibility of the Police Department writing citations and if they did so, the
applicant would supply the tow trucks to tow the cars away and do anything else
they could to cooperate with the City as far as cleaning up the mess. He con-
ceded that the business was a mess and looking carefully at the situation, one
would realize it was so because the~room that they had was not adequate to
accommodate the operation and they were committing themselves to the improvements
to solve the problem. If they had to, they, would provide a valet parking
service to make certain that no one would park in the street.
Another problem revolved around cars that had been purchased and left in the
dealer's parking lot until they were picked up. Effective shortly after the
Planning Commission hearing, all purchased cars were taken into the storage lot
where they would remain until pick up. Anything driven into the dealer's parking
area would be marked and if there for 24 hours, would be towed away.
Ail loading and unloading had been done in the street in the past. There would
now be a special place provided for this operation.
80-392
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The applicant had between $2½ and $3 million invested in the property at present,
consisting of 24 acres and an 82,000-square foot building. The improvements, if
the application was approved, would cost approximately $473,000, not including City
assessments for drainage, water, etc, ultimately amounting to approximately
$600,000.
Relative to taxes, there were many uses within a City that did not pay any taxes.
He could not disagree with the obligation and thought of the City to try to get
bigger, better, more expensive and higher taxpayers, but if they were going to
judge land uses on what somebody paid in taxes, then lawyers might be the next
to be run out of town and then perhaps builders, realtors, etc. The City should
not be able to choose who they were going to allow in the City because they
might have more money than somebody else. It was not a good criteria on which
to judge land uses.
Relative to conditions, in reading the staff report he felt that there was either
a gross misunderstanding on the part of the applicant and himself or the Planning
Commission or somebody heard wrong. His understanding was not consistent with
what was recited in the staff report today. He understood that after the year
review, they Would have a permanent CUP, and they were requesting of the City
Council if the CUP was granted, that it be granted on a permanent basis. If
they wanted to' review the operation in a year's time or a month or three years,
· they could do so or for that matter at anytime. If found not to be in compliance,
the City could do something about it. To lay out $600,000 for one year was too much
to ask and they were requesting that the Council, if they granted the CUP, that it
be done on a permanent basis, as they could not accept a time limit.
Councilman Bay asked if the Planning Commission's decision granting the CUP on
a 7-0 vote was set-up on a one-year basis.
Miss Santalahti stated it was a policy when granting a time period that the time
periods were renewable and typically it was not, i£ ever, allowed for a one-year
period with a review with an automatic permanent extension. She recalled that
one of ~the Commissioners indicated he felt one of the reasons he was approving
the CUP w~as because he did not feel it was going to be a permanent land use and
sometime in the future they would perhaps be building regular industrial con-
struction in that area. It was for one year with possible extension upon request.
Councilman Bay noted if the matter had thus not been set for a public hearing
· before the Council and there was no action taken on the Planning Commission
Consent Calendar, the ruling of the Planning Commisssion would have stood, that
being a CUP with a one-year renewal.
Mr. Farano explained if he heard the condition at that time, they would have
clarified that point. As he recalled one of the comments clearly made was
that with a year review they would be better off because thereafter they would
have a permanent thing. Even assuming the one-year limitation was correct, they
could not accept that limitation. The Council was free to look at their operation
at any time and they were~encouraging them to do so. Relative to priorities,
number one was permanent approval. The last priority was a one-year approval
because one year for $600,000 was not reasonable. One or three years was not
tOO favorable, but they would talk about a permanent conditional use permit.
80-393
City Hall, Anaheim, California..- COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Relative to the traffic signal, he felt being asked to pay $32,000 was three
times more than the difference between the commercial and industrial rate.
They would be willing to pay the difference between the industrial assessment
and commercial assessment of about $11,000.
In concluding, Mr. Farano stated that they were dedicated to and would do every-
thing reasonably within their power to be good neighbors. They felt that they
could be good neighbors and wanted the opportunity to try.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mr. Farano was saYing that they felt the $32,000
traffic signal assessment was unreasonable and they were not willing to pay that.
Mr. Farano clarified that he would like to negotiate it, and they were proposing
to pay the fee of $11,000, that being the difference between the commercial
rate and the industrial rate, with the commercial rate being higher. He did not
believe it was fair that they should pay the penalty of the entire Tustin
Avenue traffic problem.
Councilman Roth stated relative to land utilization, when the property became
too valuable to park 420 cars on it and more feasible instead to build an indus-
trial plant, he felt that was what was going to happen. He recalled that in
the hearings they had regarding the Conrad Auto Impound Yard on South Anaheim
Boulevard, Councilwoman Kaywood insisted that such a use should be in the
industrial area rather than commercial. He was now perplexed over where they
would tell the subject business to go if not at the subject location.
Councilman Overholt inquired as to the misunderstanding relative to the per-
manancy of the CUP; Mr. Farano clarified that the way he remembered the situation
at the Planning Commission hearing was that the CUP was granted on a permanent
basis, but with a one-year review.
The Mayor asked if anyonewas 'present who wished to speak in opposition to the
subject application; no one was present in opposition.
He then asked to hear from those in favor.
Mr. William Erickson, Anaheim citizen, then read a two and one-half page letter
which he subsequently submitted to the Council giving all the reasons why he
felt Conditional Use Permit No. 2052 should be granted (made a part of the
record).
Mr. Jerry Sneegas, 1111 North Tustin, approximately four-tenths of a mile from
the subject use, stated he was on the Council when the use was first approved
and had since lived with that approval and the establishment. If anyone could
be impacted by. it, he could be as much as any citizen in the area. He had at
times been distressed seeing the number of cars parked in the street, the
loaders, and other things, but that business was at the edge of town and they
were not impacting anyone but themselves. He was glad to know that their
proposal was to alleviate the present problems, and he felt they could be
alleviated in total.
80-394
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
He took exception to several comments, one being relative to sales tax. Every-
one of the vehicles was taken someplace and resold with 6% of the selling price
going to the State and 1% to cities somewhere. Anaheim shared in that 6% and
automobiles probably were sold and taxed more times than anything else outside
of real estate. He felt that the business was probably a very heavy sales tax
generator. Their location was an ideal spot and he queried where they would
put such an operation if not there. What would the operation qualify as, if not
a wholesale operation. His greatest concern was that the economics of the real
estate itself would solve the problem. The land in the area was selling for
$1.25 million an acre for industrial land. People were not building industrial
buildings in Anaheim because they could buy land for $20 to $25,000 an acre and
thus economics was creating the problem to some extent. The man putting his
money on the line should be first and foremost in deciding what the priority
of that land use should be.
In concluding, Mr. Sneegas stated that he found no problem with the establishment[
He did not do business with them, they were not an account of his and he wished
them good luck.
Since there was no Opposition expressed, the Mayor did not feel a rebuttal was
necessary, and he therefore closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Traffic Engineer the cost of the traffic signal
that would be needed at the corner in that area.
Mr. Singer answered, $46 to $48,000 to upgrade the signal. The $32,000 figure
did not originate from staff but the Planning Commission. They felt there was
a differential between commercial and industrial if the entire acreage were
built up in industrial buildings, i.e., taking the 25 acres built up in indus-
trial buildings, what would the assessment amount be.
Further discussion followed between the Mayor, Miss Santalahti and Mr. Singer
relative to the assessment figure and how that figure was determined. At the
conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood stated as she recalled from the
Planning Commission minutes, the reason for the larger amount on the traffic
signal was because the horrendous traffic problem caused by the use; Miss
Santalahti stated, on the one day a week.
Mr. Singer further clarified that at the same time, if they paid the assessment
now, th9 entire property would forever be exempt from the assessment because they
would have essentially pre-paid the assessment unless they extended the square
footage projected.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she had asked the Traffic Engineer for any-
pictures they might have showing the conditions existing at the location of the
subject use. She thereupon passed the pictures to the Mayor (made a part of the
record) .consisting of seven aerial photographs illustrating the problems dis-
cussed relative to the parking of many vehicles mainly on Tustin Avenue.
Councilman Roth felt tha~ was the reason they were discussing the matter today.
The applicants wanted to expand the use and in so doing wanted to take the cars
off the street, put them behind the building, and load and unload the carriers
on private property. The pictures brought out vividly the fact that they needed
relief and that relief.would come in the expansion of their facility.
80-395
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked the Traffic Engineer if the CUP were granted, would he
recommend no parking on both sides of Tustin Avenue.
Mr. Singer answered "yes", although a portion of the street was in Placentia,
and they would have to contact that City and ask their cooperation. He clarified
for Councilman Bay that no parking on both sides would be north of Miraloma.
Councilman Bay felt that a problem would be created in that on Saturday and
Sunday mornings, traffic lining up to get into Anaheim Lake would be affected.
The Mayor suggested that since the auto auction business was closed on Saturdays
and Sundays, the "no parking" signs could indicate, except Saturday and Sunday.
Mr. Singer stated that could be done but it would not be necessary because
there was a difference between standing and parking and there was a distinction
in the ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have 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 Industrial 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 sig-
nificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, there-
fore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-152 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 2052, subject to the conditions and stipulations of the City
Planning Commission, including the traffic signal assessment fee as proposed
by the Planning Commission, but amending the condition dealing with the review.
It should be clearly understood that there would be a review at the end of one
year, but that the permit be granted on a permanent basis, subject to that review
and any other reviews that the Planning Commission might recommend. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT NO. 2052.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor clarified that his intent was to grant a
permanent CUP subject to appropriate reviews, periodic reviews by the Planning
Commission, to determine that the conditions of the permit were being met and
as long as they were conforming, that the permit would remain in existence.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they could merely omit Condition No. 15 of
the Planning Commission resolution.
The Mayor repeated that he wanted the CUP reviewed in one year by the Planning
Con~nission to determine whether or not they were conforming. If not, he would
expect a public hearing to be set to determine why their permit should not be
revoked. If they were conforming, then the permit would just continue.
80-396
· City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in reading the Planning Commission minutes, she be-
lieved if that condition were omitted, they would have voted against and not
for.
Mayor Seymour commented that he could not in any way expect anybody to invest
$100,000 for one year, much less $600,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern in turning around and saying they
could have it all when the business did illegally expand, and there had been
many noncompliances.
Councilman Bay stated what bothered him was that a hearing possibly to
reverse what the Planning Commission granted had been turned around and they
were to not'only consider granting the request, but also possibly adding to it.
He was concerned from the standpoint of putting no limit on CUP's in the indus-
trial area because he felt over the next three to five years, they were going
to find themselves in a touchy position as to how that land would be used and
it was going to be very germane to the economics of the whole City. One of the
problems that created the "green dots" (see minutes March 25, 1980) in the in-
dustrial area was due to the fact that they did not put a limitation on the
uses. He repeated in two or three years they might be taking a different view
of land use in the industrial area due to the economic necessity from the stand-
point of the City. He did not think they should pass the resolution with a never
ending CUP, and he did not see what was wrong with a three-year review.
Councilman Roth felt that the most interesting testimony was from Mr. Sneegas
who would be the most impacted. As well, there was no objection from anyone
at the hearings.
Councilman Overholt stated he supported the resolution. His only concern was
relative to the one-year limitation which to him did not make sense.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution as articulated.
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-152 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC-HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3137: Application by Conrad J. and Josephine M.
Letter, to construct a 7-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located
at 1260 East La Palma Avenue, with a Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-49, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, since there wouid be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project and further, denied Variance
No. 3137.
80-397
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlinad
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Walt Bowman, Broker and Agent for the Letter's, 7445 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton,
first read a statement that he stated would refute the claims of the Planning
Commission. According to the letter from the Commission dated March 21, their
variance for two story proposed at 62 feet from R-1 was denied for the following
reasons and after each reason they gave their rebuttal:
1. That the petitioner did not demonstrate a hardship - We feel that two.types
of hardships were shown. First is a hardship imposed on the community where the
loss of one single family is a loss in valuable housing. The other on the land
owner wherein the denial of construction of one unit represents a loss of approx-
imately $70,000 in completed apartment value.
2. That the structural height would restrict light and air circulation and
otherwise adversely impact nearby single-family residences - Mr. Goethe, the
architect, has discussed this point with engineers and they were of the opinion
that these two-story units would'not restrict light and air circulation any more
than the two-story single family residences at 715 North Hemlock, approximately
75 feet from the subject property or the trees in the area.
3. That a non-desirable precedent could be established - denial of two story
would affect approximately 170,000 square feet of approximately 205,000 square
feet total, or 83% of the RM-1200 zoned property on La Palma Avenue contiguous
to the subject. Five of the ten parcels on La Palma would be restricted to
one story only if the 150-foot limitation is enforced, resulting in the loss
of potential housing.
4. There were no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions ap-
plicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that
do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone - La Palma is scheduled to be 93 feet wide. Traffic generated from units
will have ingress and egress to La Palma only and, therefore, will not affect
the single-family residences to the rear of the property. The balconies of
the apartments face east, and there are no windows on the south side of the units
facing the R-1 zone.
5. That the requested variances are not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possesed by other property in the
same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question--recited four
properties with the same zone which had built two-story units within 150
feet of R-l; 623 North Anna Drive, southwest corner East and Cypress, 110
Ridgemont Drive, 200 North Dale. We believe there are numerous other examples
in the City.
80-398
C~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
6. That the request for variance will be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to their property or improvements in such vicinity and
zone in which the property is located.
7. That three persons indicated their presence at said public hearing.in
opposition.
Mr. Bowman then stated that Mr. Letter contacted Captain Mang of the Anaheim
Police Department to determine the incidents of criminals residing in apartments
vs. single-family residences and was informed that the Department did not main-
tain such statistics. Therefore, they felt that the neighbors' expressions of
fear of an increase in crime should be disregarded for lack of supporting
evidence.
Finally, in order to settle the real question, that of material detriment to
the neighboring property or improvements, they hired an expert appraiser to
answer that question and his findings were submitted in report entitled "A
Study to determine what effect a proposed apartment house would have on a
neighborhood in Anaheim", Submitted by Jack F. Blakesly, S.R.A. and Nancy I.
Caverly, 315 3rd Street, Huntington Beach, 92648 (made a part of the record).
Concluding that, "...it is my opinion based on my investigation, study, and
real estate experience that the proposed development would probably not affect
the privacy or cause any loss of value to the adjoining properties."
Mr. Bowman then concluded by stating that the housing shortage was well documented
and caused to a great extent by the shortage of buildable land. He asked that
the Council disapprove the action of the Planning Commission and approve the
units as proposed, 62 feet from R-1.
Councilman Bay inquired of staff if the development referred to by Mr. Bowman
at East and Cypress Streets facing East Street and backing up to Rose was two
stories.
Miss Santalahti responded that according to the interpretation of the Code, it
was considered one story for the purpose of building height because the base
story was a non-habitable base, a garage, and it was one-and-a-half stories
above the grade of the site.
Mr. Bowman then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was saying that less
than 150 feet had been approved previously and relative to their request, he
did not know if they had to change the Code, but on the other hand, he felt
that the Code should be changed.
Councilman Roth repeated his views that the next revolution was going to be
an uprising due to the lack of housing. Questionnaires returned to him from
many citizens indicated that they had to look at the whole housing situation.
He realized that the 150-foot setback to protect the integrity of single-
.family homes was a great idea when they had a lot of buildable land at an
affordable price. Neighboring cities did not have the same restrictions as
Anaheim and while he was not suggesting that they approve the subject project
today, it would behoove the Council to reevaluate and review the 150-foot setback
relative to what other cities in the County were doing and the financial impact
80-399
City Hall, Anaheim~ Californi.a- COU~C~% MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
on development. The Council had stated repeatedly that they wanted to provide
housing. If they were going to do so, there were going to-have to be changes
made in lifestyles. He was sympathetic to what the land owners on La Palma
were confronted with and sympathetic with the people looking for a place to
live at an affordable price. Many of his constituents were also demanding rent
control and more'housing was needed to overcome that problem.
Councilman Roth reiterated that the Council should direct the Planning Commission
to take a look at the situation and perhaps the 150 feet could be reduced to 50
or 60 feet. That was part of progress and in line with the concept of providing
an additional amount of housing.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
From the audience, the following people indicated they were in favor of Variance
No. 3137; Mr. Clifford Beckler and Mrs. Beckler, 1242 East La Palma Avenue, one
of the landowners; Mr. Gordon Slater, 1254 East La Palma Avenue; Mr. Norman
Keup, 1250 East La Palma Avenue.
The following persons spoke in opposition: Mrs. Audrey Barch, 703 Hemlock Place,
first stated that all of the foregoing people were naturally in favor because
they lived on La Palma Avenue and would benefit by it. When she and her neighbors
bought their property in 1952, the statement was made that there would be no
apartment units in the area and that was one of the reasons why they bought
their home there. She felt that they owed the other people who bought their
homes to stick with promises made at that time. If they could change the zoning
any old time, then they could not have any confidence in anything the Council
might do. It was not so much that she was against bringing in new houses,
because she realized the need, but at the same time, when buying their homes
they purchased them with the idea that the area was going to remain the same.
No one would want to buy a home and then find out they were living in the
middle of an apartment complex. That happened in her neighborhood. Apartments
were moving in all around them and one by one they were being closed in.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mrs. Batch was aware that at least to his understanding
the property had already been zoned for apartments; Mrs. Batch responded that
she did not have any idea when that zoning was approved, because she was never
notified that any change was going to be made.
Miss Santalahti explained that in 1968, all the larger parcels fronting on La
Palma Avenue did go through the public hearing procedure. In this instance,
they did meet the conditions and zoning, but it was not done at an advertised
public hearing.
Mrs. Barch repeated that they were never notified and it was a big surprise
to the neighborhood.
Mayor Seymour then explained that the question before the Council today dealt
with the requested variance. Even if they were to deny the variance, the ap-
plicant could build apartments on the property tomorrow. He also explained,
as did Councilman Roth, that they were faced with a housing crisis and he asked
Mrs. Barch if she had any alternate ideas such as rent control to keep rents
down or price controls to keep home prices down.
80-400
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Barch stated she did not set herself up as an economist but she did feel
that somewhere a cap had to be put on the prices of homes because they were
way out of line. She would favor some sort of price control and she would
not mind it on her own home as long as it was in line with everybody else's.
Mrs. Barch then confirmed the location of her property for Councilman Bay and
expressed the following concerns relative to what apartments and higher
density would do to either damage her property value or way of life: The
police helicopter flew over her house all the time and circled the area since
the apartment units were built. There were problems going on in those apart-
ment areas which she saw and read about from time to time. While they were
no more or less than she, it was a known fact that apartment complexes were
breeders of theft, not that the thieves were necessarily in the apartments, but
it was a good place for thievery.
Councilman Roth stated he was deeply concerned about her privacy and keeping the
integrity of single-family residences. The problem was that they could not put
a barrier around Anaheim and prevent people from coming into the City. His
responsibility was to share the goodness of Anaheim with all people with a
higher'and wider enjoyments of property ownership and a decent place to live.
Mr. Dennis Norman, 720 North Juniper, explained that his property bordered
directly on to the large vacant lot. Mr. Bowman had alleviated some of his
concerns. He also commented that he now knew that the area was zoned for
apartments, but he did not know that six years ago. There was still a question
of privacy that was of deep concern to him. He had a very small lot and that
there was a very narrow space between the back of his house and the fence. If
& two-story apartment complex was constructed, then the precedent would b~
set and nothing would then prevent an apartment from going up right next to
his back fence. There was no way he could then keep his property private.
Relative to Councilman Roth's concern regarding population growth, he could
understand that; however, there was only so much space and limits had to be
set somewhere, Otherwise in 100 years, for example, there would be 30-story
high-rise apartments over the entire Anaheim city area. The residents of
the area bought private property hoping to raise a family on their own private
land, and they could not do that with people looking down their neck. He was
aware of the housing' problem, but there had to be a stop some place and they
were going to have to expand outward rather than up and above people's back-
yards. He would have no complaints were a one-story unit going up behind him,
but had concerns about a two- or three-story unit.
Relative to the crime factor, he and his wife lived in apartments for 10 years,
the last five in a very nice apartment complex in Buena Park with a security
guard and other such amenities, but yet they had on the average of six to eight
burglaries a month.
Mayor Seymour wanted to have clarified that Mr. Norman's objection was that
if the variance were granted, the dominoes were going to fall and they were
going to be impacted with.two-story and they would encroach on his rear yard;
Mr. Norman affirmed the Mayor's understanding.
80-401
City Hal. l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
qpon queStioning by the Mayor, Mr. Norman responded as follows: They had to
come to a point where they had to stop, and the area of La Palma Avenue and
East Street was close to that point at present. He would have no complaint
over a single-story dwelling being built. He would favor down zoning of the
property and if that was going to drive up the cost of projects that might
be built, he would consider price controls.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, Mr. Bowman
was offered an opportunity to rebut.
Mr. Bowman stated there would be two-story units on the property regardless,
the question being how close they would be to R-1 zoning. Mr. Norman lived
on Juniper and kitty corner from his lot southeast, there was a two-story
house. Regarding Mrs. Barch, the two-story house should serve as a buffer
between her and any two-story apartments that would be built. If they dropped
back 150 feet, they would still be as close to those people's property as if
they did not get the variance. Either way, the two-story units would be
there. There were a number of apartments in the area and Mr. Norman pointed
out that there had been only one criminal problem in the last six years he
lived there, which seemed to refute Mrs. Barch's statements.
Before concluding, at the request of Councilman Bay, Mr. Bowman presented a
copy of the plans of the proposed project to the Council.
RECESS: By general consent ~he Council recessed for five minutes. (6:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting t6 order, all Council Members
being present. (6:55 P.M.)
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not favor a decision on the matter today. He
felt that an important question had been raised relative to the proper setback
consistent with what type of development had taken place in other cities and
how they turned out with the lesser setback consistent with today's state of
the art. The questign needed to be asked--what price were they willing to
pay to get affordable housing and more apartment houses built in the City. He
did not think they were willing to give up their environment in exchange for
housing, but it was clear that a new balance must be struck. He did not propose
taking action one way or the o'ther on this specific piece of property today,
because if they made a decision affecting this one parcel, they would be faced
with the decision on four additional parcels. They needed some consistent
guidelines and it was his thought, therefore, that they continue the matter
for 30 days.while asking the Planning Commission to take a look at the site
development standard of the 150-foot setback.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that something which had concerned her for a long
time was that somewhere there must be a trade-off and a limit between the need
for more housing and the protection of residential neighborhoods that they
continually talked about saving. Her feeling was that to go into an existing
R-i single-family neighborhood and impact them, was not a favor to anybody.
There was no question that with more people in a higher density there would
be more frustration, violence, crime and more of all the problems that did not
afford the goodness.of Anaheim that they wanted to share with all people. At
80-402
City Ha!~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980, '1:30 P.M.
some point there was a cut-off or there would be no goodness with anyone. She
would never want to be a part of creating that kind of scene. Her recommendation
was that when something was planned properly, they could get a good mix of housing,
and everyone would know what was there; they would make their choices and there
would be no surprises. Looking at the area with the intent to R-3, no one was
going to get a parcel out of that and land assembly would be the intelligent
thing to do with one very good apartment complex where the roads would be in
the right place, trash pick-up, etc. That way nobody in the single-family
residences would be impacted and their way of life destroyed and privacy gone.
She took some offense with Mr. Bowman's presentation. It was a fine presenta-
tion for' a broker or for the owner looking for a nice profit which he had every
right to see. ~owever, they did not live there and the people who bought
their homes there, did. In sitting on the Council, those residents were her
number one priority and if Council were serious in talking about preserving neigh-
borhoods, it had to be everybody's priority. She reiterated if there was a
land assembly package on the property, they could do something nice without
destroying the neighborhood.
Mayor Seymour stated he was trying to find that balance which would neither
destroy the neighborhood nor the environment, while at the same time providing
an opportunity for more housing--the seven units, for example, rather than six.
He did not know if it could be done but he would like to try to see if it
could be accomplished.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the people present who owned the land would have
any objection in looking into an assembly package amongst themselves, rather
than coming in one at a time. With the very deep narrow lots involved, they
could not do as good a job as with an assembled package.-
Mr. Bowman explained that the next three parcels, 1242, 1250 and 1254 were all
in escrow at present as an assembled package with the idea that they would not
have the same problem as with the subject project. In dealing with the people
on the street, he could report that was about the only assembled package they
were going to get on that street. They were attempting .to get 50 units on the
property with 63 allowed, but if the 150-setback was enforced, they would be
down to 30 units.
Councilman Bay stated if they were going to look for a variance or a CUP and
they were asking him, the applicants were going to have to make the neighbors
happy one way or the other. It was either going to be with their design so
that they would not encroach on the neighbors' privacy or something else because,
to him, in asking for that CUP or variance, they were asking for an exception.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was an impossibility to have the subject parcel
included with the next three.
Mr. Bowman answered "yes". The man was building the units with the idea of
living there some day. It was a little project and that was the way he wanted
it and he was adamant in the idea that there was no reason why there should be
a two-story house sitting right behind the property when he could not build a
two-story apartment.
80-403
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue the public hearing on Variance
No. 3137 for six weeks to May 20, 1980 and that the Planning Commission be
requested to evaluate the site development standard of the 150-foot setback.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
181: RESTORATION OF THE RAMON PERALTA ADOBE: Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz, requesting
a letter of support for a new proposal for the restoration of the Ramon Peralta
Adobe located on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard.
Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz, Commissioner, Fourth District, Orange County Historical
Commission, stated that she had a great concern about the preservation of the
subject historic structure and was asking today for a show of support for the
preservation of that structure. They needed to look to the private sector
for financial assistance.
Councilman Roth explained that he had asked the Assistant. Director for Zoning
at previous meetings to contact the County about three times relative to the
corner on which the structure was located because it was an eyesore due to
the vandalism that had taken place. He was hoping they would at least demol-
ish the building in front of the adobe and try to clean up the area. He was,
however, supportive of Mrs. Schultz's request.
Mrs. Schultz responded that there were problems that would need to be discussed,
but the structure was such an historic piece of property, that every effort
should be made to save it. She had sent a copy of letter dated March 12,
1980 from L. B. Rodgers, Vice President, Century'Federal Savings to the Council
and a copy was also sent to Supervisor Clark containing a proposal relative
to the restoration of the structure.
Mr. Bill Asawa, Ric Development, 540 North Golden Circle Drive, Santa Ana, owner/
developer of the property around the one-quarter acre site, explained that there
was a hole in the chain link fence surrounding the property which school kids
used to enter the site and there had been a fire inside the adobe hut. Also
the base of the hut was approximately 2 feet below grade and, therefore, if
two feet had to be taken off the side walls for grading purposes, the property
would actually be in a hole. He felt there was a problem in attempting to
restore the structure. If the Building Department would investigate the con-
dition of the hut, they would find that the walls were completely dirt with no
straw in evidence. Structurally it was not safe.
Relative to the letter from Century Federal Savings, he talked to Mr. Rodgers
who apologized regarding the letter because he never thought someone would take
it as being a commitment as to what Century Federal Savings was going to do.
They were merely a potential tenant of the site of his development and if
successful in relocating in the development, they were going to attempt to get
a lease with the County on that property and then talk about the possiblity of.
restoring the structure. The intent of Century Federal Savings meeting with
the Historical Commission was perhaps taken out of context and further assumed
that they were going to put up money for restoration. He contended that was
far from the truth. That was not the intent of the meeting and it was strictly
an exploratory situation. They were not in active negotiations with Mr. Rodgers
as yet. He did not want to get involved in a situation where the Council would
approve something with the understanding that there was a condition that did
not exist. It was strictly in the talking stages and not a matter of fact.
80-404
C%.ty Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if he understood the bottom line to be that it would be
foolish to try to save the building and to forget about it.
Mr. Asawa suggested that someone from the City Building Department investigate
the site because he felt the structure would be unsafe and to try to restore
would be virtually impossible and the cost would be horrendous.
The Mayor asked his opinion if the building were torn down and built in its
closest facsimile; Mr. Asawa responded that was the only intelligent thing to
do.
In that regard, Mayor Seymour asked what could be wrong with sending a letter
to the Board of Supervisors which perhaps would give them the motivation to
pursue the restoration. When the County found out that restoration was not
going to work, perhaps they would conclude that they could not restore it but
they could at least rebuild it as a historical monument in its original like-
ness.
Mr. Asawa agreed that that would be an acceptable way to proceed. Also, the
County had a fund set aside of approximately $25,000 for restoration, but he
understood that at the present time, that fund did not exist.
Mrs. Schultz stated that when Mr. Rodgers from Century Federal Savings appeared
before the Historical Commission, he gave them permission to use that letter and
she personally asked him if she could submit it to the Council. The Historical
Commission appointed a committee to look into the situation and Pamela Helen,
a member of that committee, was also connected with the City of San Juan
Capistrano where she had been actively involved in helping to restore three
adobes in that city.
Mrs. Schultz emphasized that she was only asking that they look to see if
it'was possible to accomplish.
Councilman Roth again expressed his support of the request and did not foresee
any problems. He also questioned whether it was up to staff to inform the
County about the hole in the fence at the site; Mrs. Schultz stated she would
inform the County tomorrow.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that a letter be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors asking them to investigate the Century Federal Savings proposal
and any others relative to the preservation of the Peralta Adobe for future
generations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated when he was serving on
the Park and Recreation Commission they had some very long debates on the
Peralta Adobe and at that time, the Commission recommended that the Council go
on record as supporting the preservation of that structure. Their action
today was evidence of their support to restore or rebuild that historical site.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-405
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
115/181: SCULPTURE AT THE ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER: Councilman Roth moved to
endorse the proposal of the Anaheim Arts Council to place a sculpture at the
new Anaheim Civic Center as requested in Joint letter dated February 25, 1980
from Suzanne Chapman and Violet Wheeler. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that he could approve the concept,
but was concerned that the motion not give the final approval of what sculpture
would be placed at the Civic Center. He wanted it clear that it was intended
merely to approve the concept, but to withhold final Council approval of the
actual sculpture.
Councilman Roth stated he had great confidence in Mrs. Chapman and Wheeler but
would incorporate Councilman Bay's suggestion in his motion that final approval
not be given until the Council had an opportunity to view the sculpture selec-
tion.
Councilman Overholt noted that both' Mrs. Chapman and Wheeler were in the Chamber
audience and had waited three hours for the item to be discussed before leaving.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
164: RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION OF A PROPOSED STORM DRAIN - WESTERLY
TERMINUS OF SAVANNA STREET: Request by Mr. Bill Waddle to discuss the subject,
was submitted (continued from meeting of April 1, 1980 for full Council action).
City Clerk Linda Roberts submitted a letter from Mrs. Joan Todd, 3620 Savanna
Street, spokesman for the residents of that Street, who had been waiting in
the Chamber audience which she requested be read. The City Clerk then read
in full letter dated April 8, 1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office) re-
counting the history of the drainage problems on that street and questioning
how they could Justify paying for the storm drain and a project located in
the City of Buena Park for which Anaheim would not receive any tax benefits.
Mayor Seymour stated it was his. understanding that one week ago when the matter
was discussed, the final vote resulted in a 2-2 split--two Council Members opted
to have the cost of the storm drain split 50-50 between the City and Mr. Waddle,
and two Members stated it should be at the City's expense entirely.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that the two members who spoke of the split
· were two members on the City Council at the time of the original hearings
(Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth).
Mayor Seymour stated he would cast his vote with the two Council Members voting
for the split.
Before action was taken, Mr. Bill Waddle, owner of the property, asked what
that would do to the rest of the project. His project was now finished, the
cul-de-sac was in, the blacktop installed, the utilities were in, everything
was complete. He was ready for occupancy except for the storm drain which was
going to take some time to complete. He wanted to know if he would then have
to wait for that to be constructed before Anaheim would turn on his utilities.
80-406
City. H~%l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
City Engineer William Devitt stated he would think not as long as they had an
agreement from Mr. Waddle that he would participate in the cost of the storm
drain. The responsibility for the plan preparation was Mr. Waddlers and he
did have his engineer prepare a plan. It was submitted to the Engineering
Department for checking seven months ago and it was returned to Mr. Waddle with
directionm, but it had not been returned to Engineering with those corrections.
Mr. Waddle stated that the corrections were made and he was certain Engineering
had them.
Mr. Devitt explained that there were some associated problems involved and
he referred to the pictures that were included in the Council's packet showing
that Mr. Waddle had encroached within the 20-foot construction easement. Thus,
there would be an additional problem in constructing the underground drain. In
addition, the plan that was prepared by his engineer showed the drain to be
extending outside the 10-foot easement which the City acquired. Either the
plan for the drain would have to change to get it back within the easement, or
there would have to be an additional easement acquired.
Mayor Seymour thereupon stated if the majority of the Council's direction was
that the cost of the drain was going to be split, that seemed to be the main
question. They were not present for a planning session.
Mr. Devitt stated if Mr. Waddle would concur that it was his responsibility to
have the plans prepared, Engineering would expedite the checking of those plans,
as well as expedite the construction of it. Mr. Waddle could get three bids
for the preparation of the work and an agreement with the City that he would
participate in 50% of the cost of the main drain. That would be an administra-
tive function, and he could handle it through his Department. What they needed
from the Council was authorization for the funding of. the drain because there
were no storm drain monies available for the construction of the project. On
the basis of the estimates, the City 8hare of the cost would be approximately
$10,000 and they would need an authorization from the Council that possibly the'
funds could be allocated from the Council Contingency Fund; Councilman Bay sug-
gested possibly from the unappropriated capital funds.
Mr. Waddle reported as he did the previous week that he had one bid at $27,000;
Councilman Bay suggested that he bid on the project himself.
Mr. Waddle stated he was hoping that the City could redesign the drain a dif-
ferent way.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Waddle if he had any objection to annexing to
Anaheim at this time and come in as a non-conforming use.
Mr. Waddle explained as he stated before, he did not really object to doing so
previously, but it wasgoing to take about six months and the City did not know
what it was going to do with the street at that time. He felt that it made
sense for the project to be in Anaheim for police, utilities, etc. He would
definitely entertain the thought and if it did not present some big hardship,
he would consider it.
80-407
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she was looking for a commitment; Mr. Waddle
stated he was not going to say that he would do so. He had no objection to annexing,
but that was the only way he would commit himself at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained the problem she had was that Mr. Waddle's original
request to Buena Park was for 12 units which was approved. She wanted to be sure
that at no point would Mr. Waddle go to Buena Park looking for an additional four
units to put on the property.
Mr. Waddle felt Councilwoman Kaywood was trying to pin him down much in the same
way as the Council did on several other occasions. When he was asking for 12
units, the storm drain issue was brought up. He felt it was unfair and he did
not think he should say that he would definitely annex to Anaheim until he saw
what it entailed.
Councilman Overholt noted that they spent a great deal of time on Mr. Waddle
at the last meeting and the issue was now resolved. He felt that staff could
work with him at this point and if the Council had to make further decisions
that those be brought before them.
Councilman Roth stated that the City had been holding up utilities subject to
the ending of the dispute. If they did not authorize having the utilities
'turned on prior to the completion of the storm drain, Mr. Waddle would be back
again and, thus, that issue should now be addressed. He asked if the utiliites
were turned on and charges made before completion of the storm drain, would they
place a lien on his property or require a bond to assure payment.
Mr. Devitt stated if the City were to construct the facilites, they could lock
Mr. Waddle in with a bond.
MOTION: Councilman R0th thereupon repeated his motion from the previous week
that the cost of the permanent storm drain be shared 50-50, the City to absorb
one-half the cost and Mr. Waddle to share one-half the cost, and additionally
that turn-on of utilities be authorized only after the City Engineer had secured
the necessary bonding or other documents required of Mr. Waddle. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Devitt stated the problem he would have lay in
the fact that Mr. Waddle indicated to him that he was not going to construct
the drain. With an agreement, he would not have that problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood then read an excerpt from report dated March 8, 1978 from
the Planning Department to the City Manager/City Council: "...that it is this
City's policy not to provide utility services unless new construction complies
with all applicable City regulations; and, furthermore, that it would be appro-
priate that the developer initiate annexation proceedings and file a variance
seeking waivers of the Anaheim Zoning Code.: On February 21, 1978, City Council
denied the revised plan (Revision No. 1 of Exhibit "A") because the size of the
project had been increased from eight to 12 units." She maintained it was
nothing new and there were no surprises. She would be in favor of the motion
as long as Mr. Waddle did what was necessary. She also cautioned the Council
unless an annexation~proceeding was begun, they were probably going to be looking
at the owner squeezing in another four units after those units were specifically
denied by the City.
80-408
City Hall, 'Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
129/126: DISNEYLAND SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT: For information purposes only, City
Clerk Linda Roberts reported that in conjunction with the application for a Public
Fireworks Display Permit on April 11, 1980, Disneyland had been issued.a Special
Events Permit Which included the use of spotlights.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Tammi Ramirez for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of defective construction and maintenance of a wooden
power pole located on or near the northwest corner of Santa Ana Street and
State College Boulevard, a portion of which fell and struck claimant, on or
about February 4, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Robert H. Graham, Jr., for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of tree branch knocking electrical wire on to parked vehicle
on Onondaga approximately i00 feet north of Dogwood Avenue, on or about March 17,
1980.
c. Claim submitted by Jean Scarpati for personal property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of sidewalk construction on Juno Street inadequately
barricaded, on or about March 16, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Bernice K. Schumpert for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of power surge caused by line broken by wind, on or about February 2,
1980.
2. cORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of March 12, 1980.
b. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of March 25, 1980.
c. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of March 20, 1980.
d. 114: Letter from the City of Norwalk urging support for continuation of
Federal Revenue Sharing funds for local governments.
e. 174: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application Nos. 59402 and
59403, Airport Service, Incorporated, and Orange Coast Sightseeing Company to
adjust their rates.
f. 175: Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division--Annual Report
for 1979.
80-409
Cit~y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
3. 115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER CHANGE ORDER NO. 6: In accordance with the
recommendations of the City Engineer, authorization for Change Order No. 6
was approved in the amount of $45,527, increasing the original contract
price to $12,105,703, Del E. Webb Corporation, contractor.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-153
through 80R-155, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Albert J.
Etchandy, et al; Jose Murillo; Euclid Shopping Center, a corporation; Brookhurst
Shopping Center)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIMFINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ORANGEWOOD
AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE TO CLEMENTINE STREET, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0210; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPEC-
IFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened May 8, 1980, at 2:00 p.m.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC
STREET AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-27A, public hearing set
April 29, 1980, at 3:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared. Resolution No. 80R-153 through 80R-155, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4116: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4116 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4116: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-78-13, RM-3000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4116 duly passed and adopted.
80-500
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
114: CITY ELECTION: Councilman Roth commented that he had been in the City for
23 years and with the exception of one particular candidate, the City was the
cleanest it had ever been on an April Municipal Election day. He was generally
proud of all the candidates and he felt it was a prime example of the fact tb~t
an election could be held in Anaheim without resulting in an expenditure of a
vast amount of money by the taxpayers in having Public Works and/or Utility
personnel removing signs from utility poles.
114: RECENT TRIP TO WASHINGTON, D.C.: Mayor Seymour reported that it was
evident from his recent Washington trip that things were not going well in the
nation's capitol~· Inflation was uncontrollable and the role of the federal
government in the current administration's attempt to show some physical res-
traint in proposing a balanced federal budget was to increase taxes primarily
through a windfall profits tax and through a 10¢ a gallon (conservation) fee.
Otherwisef there was no attempt whatsoever in his opinion that was going to
be made by Congress to hold the line. They would see typical inflationary in-
creases in the federal budget on all ongoing programs. Although there might be
some shifting, they would be dealing with at least the same budget as last year,
adding on a 10% to 15% inflation factor. He had dinner with Senator Alan Cranston
who stated his support for the President's program. He also indicated how difficult
it was to reduce the budget and gave no hope that they would hold the line. One
of the reasons given was, when beginning to cut a budget, special interests groups
began to vie and lobby, making it a difficult process.
The Mayor emphasized that unless they, as a City, and many other cities were willing
to absorb their fair share of reduced federal programs, they were never as a country
going to get the inflationary condition straightened around. He was aware that
the National League of Cities (NLC) and the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) lob-
bied for a continuation of the Federal Revenue Sharing which had done a great
amount of good for the community. If they were to adopt a position such as the
NLC, USCM and other municipal and state lobbying organizations, how could they
on one hand say they wanted to bring inflation under control for the benefit
of their constituents, and on the other hand say, but not me. They had to be
prepared to absorb their fair share of whatever reductions in federal funding
that would come their way. He did not care what they witnessed in the media
relative to fiscal restraint. It was not so, and it was not going to be so.
The only way it was going to happen was by some federal constitutionally amend-
ment limiting spending. The federal government was not capable of making those
hard decisions because they were impacted and lobbied by special interest groups
and they could not say no. He would recommend a Proposition Four to the federal
government. If~they would do nothing more than that, the country would be ahead
of the game. He also Calked with Congressmen not only serving Anaheim, but also
Orange County and L. A. County, as well as both California Senators, Cranston and
Hayakawa, relative to the state of health of the City of Anaheim.
148: CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING - APRIL 10~ 1980: (continued from April 1,
1980) Mayor Seymour referred to the March 13, 1980 letter from the City Selection
Committee announcing the meeting of that committee Thursday, April 10, 1980.
Councilman Overholt would be casting the vote at the meeting. He then read
Items 1 through 6 of the letter listing the actions to be taken at the April 10
80-501
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
meeting (see the March 13 letter on file in the City Clerk's office) and pro-
posed the following on each, asking for comments from the Council should they
have an opposing view: (1) He recommended the name of Alice MacLain as the
representative of LAFCO. (2) Donald Saltarelli for another four-year term on
LAFCO. (3) Phil Schwartze as an alternate member of LAFCO. (4) Confirm Tony
VanDyke's appointment on the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission. (5) Frank
Laszlo, Coastal Cities Representative to the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and
Parks Commission. (6) No recommendation one way or the other on Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the City Selection Committee.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (6:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:00 p.m.)
125: RESIGNATION OF THE DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: City Manager Talley announced
that he received word from the City's Data Processing Director Tug Tamaru that
he would be terminating his services with the City, effective June 30, 1980. He
had accepted the resignation and would do everything possible to replace that
position by July 1, although he did not believe he would be able to do so before
the end of'July.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:01 P.M.
LINDA D. ROB~ CLERK