1980/09/0980-1131
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING MANAGER: George H. Edwards
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Robert Herr
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
INVOCATION:
Invocation.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order and
welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
Reverend Mitch Garcia, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Pro Tem
Overholt and authorized by the City Council:
Constitution Week in Anaheim, September 17-23, 1980
The proclamation was accepted by Dr. James W. Cummins, Orange County Chapter,
Sons of the American Revolution.
119: RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION: Resolutions of commendation were unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to Alden E. Esping for his 21 years
of service to the community as a teacher, counselor and confidant; and to Jim
Garber and the Marketing Division of Disneyland for their outstanding sales
marketing and promotional program for Anaheim and Orange County.
119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A resolution of support was unanimously adopted
by the City Council for the Annual Pioneer Picnic to be held at La Palma Park
on September 13, 1980.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned
regular meeting held June 13, 1980 and the regular meeting held July 1, July 8,
July 15 and July 22, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
80-1132
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
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. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $8,122,651.49, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized as rec-
ommended:
a. 160: Fourteen IFU-100A and eight IFU-90-EMC 8000 Communication Interface
Units for City's existing traffic signal computer. Waiving public advertising
and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without com-
petitive bidding, to Computer Service Company in the amount of $76,320.
b. 160: Bid No. 3682--Seven 1980 Model Police Special Motorcycles. Award to
Southern California Kawasaki, $28,863.80.
c. 160: Bid No. 3677--0ne 3 to 5-Ton Static Roller. Award to Carde Pacific
Corporation, $21,178.80.
d. 160: Bid No. 3686--Five Cushman-Type Vehicles. Authorizing the Purchasing
Agent to issue a purchase order to Cushman Motor Sales, Inc., in the amount of
$25,190.90.
e. 164: Triple Crown Lane--Derby Circle Sewer Improvement. Acount No.
11-793-6325-E0190. Continue award of contract to September 16, 1980.
f. 165: Central City Neighborhood Strategy Area Alleys. Account No.
25-793-6325-3400. Continue award of contract to September 16, 1980.
g. 150: George Washington Community Center. Account No. 25-848-7105-84808.
Continue award of contract to September 23, 1980.
h. 123/164: Authorizing a Letter Agreement dated August 22, 1980 with Fugro,
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,700, to provide soil testing services for
the Lenain 2-Million Gallon Reservoir, and authorizing the City Engineer to
execute same.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Bay offered
Resolution No. 80R-395 through 80R-398, both inclusive, for adoption as rec-
ommended. Refer to Resolution Book.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-395: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LOARA STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT - FROM 203' N/O
WESTMONT TO WILSHIRE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3360.
(Mark Dakovich, Inc., $204,706.80.)
80-1133
City Ha. il, ~nahei~,..qali.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-396: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: SWAN STREET-ANAHEIM BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT - SWAN
STREET-ROMNEYA DRIVE TO ANAHEIM BOULEVARD - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD-100' E/O SWAN
STREET TO 50' W/O SWAN STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO.
47-793-6325-E3370. (Five States Plumbing, Inc., $51,897.84)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-397: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRAiqSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LINCOLN AVENUE TRANSITION ROAD - TOPEKA STREET TO OLIVE
STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-E2620. (Five
States Plumbing, Inc., $90,653.30)
181: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-398: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN HISTORIC MOMENTOS. (from Redevelopment Agency for use
in Carnegie Museum)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and 0verholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 80R-395 through 80R-398, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
177/158: SELECTION OF DEVELOPER FOR ORANGETHORPE/IMPERIAL HIGHWAY SITE:
Approving the selection of Goldrich, Kest and Associates (G & K) to develop
40 Section 8 New Construction rental units on the northwest corner of Orange-
thorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway, Scheme C,; finding it to be in the best
interest of the City to waive Charter requirements to sell said City-owned
land through advertising and public hearing; authorizing the Mayor to execute
a letter of endorsement for the proposal submitted by G & K to develop 40 units
of Section 8 New Construction.
Councilman Roth asked, relative to people qualifying to obtain Section 8 Housing,
was there a limitation on a person's income to be able to qualify.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development answered "yes",
80% of the median, or approximately $18,000 per year maximum.
Councilman Roth then stated he noted in reading the application, there would
be five, four-bedroom units, the monthly payment for which was $652 and $30
plus for utilities. He asked what the subsidy would be on that four-bedroom
unit for a person making $18,000 a year.
Mr. Priest answered, in general terms at $18,000 a year, they would normally
go to a maximum of 25% of the monthly income, and the balance, in large part,
would come from Section 8 (HUD) payments.
80-113A
Ci.tM ~.all, .Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth remarked that the rental payment schedule list was a shock to
him. What concerned him was that Section 8 housing was subsidized and the
taxpayers were picking up the large tab involved. Relative to the amenities
listed, he wondered whether they had to be that plush to the extent of supplying
air conditioning and refrigerators, which amenities were not included in many
regular rental apartments.
Mr. Priest first stated that the developer was present to speak to the matter,
but that the amenities were a HUD requirement.
Mr. Robert Hirsch, Partner in the Firm of Goldrich, Kest and Associates, 15233
Ventura Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, first relayed some details relative to the pro-
posed rent structure for purposes of clarification. He then confirmed that with
regard to the amenities, those were purely HUD constraints handed down to them.
Councilman Roth stated that the package they put together was well done and if
he was a strong supporter of subsidized housing, he would say they were fan-
tastic. However, he was not, and although he had compassion for those who
needed the housing, he felt more compassion for the people who were paying the
bill.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Hirsch if his company built any non-subsidized
housing and with comparable apartments, if he would be charging the rents in-
dicated.
Mr. Hirsch answered that they did build non-subsidized housing. Relative to
the rental, there were not many areas in Southern or Northern California that
could support the kind of market rentals that were approaching $700 or $800 a
month necessary for a developer to go into an apartment project today.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt as Councilman Roth did, the amount of the
rents were astounding and with the statistics quoted, that half of the people
renting today were paying more than 25% of their income on rents, to be sub-
sidizing the people who would live in those apartments would be a hard thing
to explain.
Mr. Hirsch conceded that although it might be difficult to explain, on the other
hand, they had an opportunity to create something in the City that would help
to alleviate the situation.
Councilman Bay asked with regard to Scheme C, he was looking for a map that
showed the structures and land without the trees so that he could get a better
idea of the circulation from the standpoint of automobiles, parking, fire
trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. He was also concerned with the northern
triangle of the property shown as open space. As with a number of mobile home
developments, as well as apartments, a secure area was necessary for campers,
storage, and the like. At the quality level he saw in the plan, they should
be considering an area for camper storage, etc., to preclude stacking in the
parking area and the drive-in and out areas. He was interested in knowing
if there was that much flexibility within Scheme C to change some of the
things in it.
80-1135
City Ha~, Anah~'.~Tq, Califp. Knia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hirsch answered "yes", and they could take his comments into consideration.
They submitted three plans and the one selected by the Housing Commission, in
his personal judgment, was the best submitted. They would have the flexibility
to expand into the triangle although he doubted if in this rental range and
type of occupants, they would find many campers. He then asked the architect
to describe the circulation system through the project.
Councilman Bay first commented on the noise element on Imperial and from the
railroad tracks immediately south of the development, stating that there was a
secondary need for air conditioning from a noise level buffering standpoint.
Mr. Ernie Vasquez, Carl McClaren, Architects, then described the circulation
through the project, as well as the areas available for storage and parking.
He also pointed out that although the Scheme depicted a project as being flat,
the grades in the project sloped down and thus when driving down Imperial, the
view would be looking over the rooftops of the project and the sound would be
transmitted over the roofs; Mr. Hirsch stated, however, that some of it would
be transmitted, but not all of it.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if someone moved in and later their income
improved, would they then pay a larger percentage of their income in rent
would they have to move?
Mr. Priest explained that income was recertified regularly on an annual basis
and as it improved, they would pay more. They undoubtedly could or might reach
an income where they might no longer be eligible for Section 8 housing and that
was why they recertified annually.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney on the second proposed motion, what
exactly was the Charter requirement they were waiving in this case.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated the requirement was that the sale of any
City property having a market value of over $50,000 be made only on a finding
and determination of the Council that the sale was in the best interest of the
City and thus authorized by the affirmative votes of at least two-thirds of
the members of the Council or four votes under Charter Section 1222.
Councilman Bay asked if there was a time constraint involved in making a
decision on the subject. Mr. Priest answered "yes"; the notice of fund avail-
ability which was published by HUD, allowing funding of the project this year,
was going to expire on September 12, 1980.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked, since they did not have a full Council today,
was there any way at all to defer action until next Tuesday when the Mayor
would be present.
Mr. Priest stated he could only make a jugment response to that. They had
worked very hard with HUD on the notice of fund availability to extend it to
October 12, 1980. His jugment was that it would be unlikely they would give
an additional extension.
80-1136
City Hall, Ana~gim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt presumed that would mean they would lose the project if
they did not act today; Mr. Priest answered that they would lose it for this
round of funding which, to his knowledge, was the last this year.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated the reason he and Councilman Bay raised the
question was due to the fact that there was a certain tone of controversy
about a project such as the one under consideration, and they would feel more
comfortable if the entire Council were present. However, if the project would
be lost if they took no action today, that put an even greater burden on them.
Mr. Priest reminded the Council that the site had been discussed since 1978 as
a housing site. He felt that they had to move on it now.
Councilman Roth also recounted the history surrounding the acquisition of the
property and the swap that was worked out with the owner and also his deep
concern over the fact that railroad tracks were located in close proximity
to the property. While on one hand he had problems with the project, on the
other, he commended Mr. Priest's Department and the Housing Commission for
all the work that had been done leading to this point. Reluctantly, he was
going to support the program.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Housing Manager Lisa Stipkovich whether the rents
outlined were those being granted at present under the Section 8 Program.
Ms. Stipkovich stated that they were within the Fair Market Rent (FMR) schedule
for new construction and that there was a different rent schedule for the existing
program. The existing FMR for the regular Section 8 Program was lower because
of the older existing units in the community.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the rents could be higher than
the going rents and, therefore, escalate all the other rents.
Ms. Stipkovich explained that they would have to perform a comparison of newly
constructed apartments in the area first and that there was a new construction
rental project directly opposite the subject property on the adjacent corner
which she felt certain would attest to the fact that the proposed rents were
within reason for the present maximum.
Mr. Priest also stated that if they were willing to do so, that they add at
the end of the first motion authorization for the Mayor to sign a letter of
option to HUD, thus giving an option to G & K to proceed with the development
which was a required step.
Councilman Bay asked the completion date of the project; Mr. Hirsch reported
that they anticipated the start of construction approximately June of 1981,
with one year or less for construction and full occupancy within 30 days after
completion.
MOTION: Coung~!ma~R~ Overholt moved to approve the selection of Goldrich, Kest
and Associates (G & K) to develop 40 Section 8 New Construction rental units
on the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway and autho-
rizing the Mayor to send a letter of option to HUD, thereby giving an option to
G & K to proceed, as recommended in memorandum dated September 3, 1980 from the
Executive Director of Community Development.
80-1137
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he would second the motion,
but wanted to know if the motion incorporated the approval of Scheme C.
Mr. Priest stated that Scheme C was recommended by the Housing Commission, and
it would certainly be in accord with the motion.
Councilman Bay stated if that was understood, he would be glad to second the
motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was going to be priority for Anaheim resi-
dents or would anybody qualify; Ms. Stipkovich stated there would be a residency
preference for Anaheim citizens.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion which incorporated Scheme C.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt moved to waive Charter requirements to sell City-owned land
through advertising and public hearing, finding it to be in the best interest of
the City to do so. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Mayor to execute a letter of endorse-
ment for the proposal submitted by Goldrich, Kest and Associates to develop 40
units of Section 8 New Construction. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR APOLLO AND
FREMONT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITES: Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if they
knew who from Ultrasystems would be working on the subject EIR.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, reported that the bid was
submitted by Frank Elkin, the consultant who worked on the regional shopping
center and Bauer Ranch EIR. Their work had been very satisfactory to date.
Councilman Roth asked if there were any plans for Section 8 housing proposals
to come out of the situation; Mr. Fick answered, affordable housing.
Mr. Priest stated that they would have different proposals than the one pre-
viously discussed. A portion could be Section 8 or affordable housing, but
at the present time, they did not know how much; it was likely it would be
at least 25%.
Councilman Roth felt that in talking to Ultrasystems perhaps they should give
them some guidelines as to what they were looking for. In saying that he sup-
ported affordable housing, he did not want the whole City to go to Section 8
housing, but would rather let private enterprise develop a project and work out
trade-offs. He asked if they would tell Ultrasystems what the City desired in
making their recommendations that would be more palatable relative to trade-
offs.
Mr. Priest stated they would hope to see a private developer do exactly that,
acquire the land in exchange for things, such as a density bonus.
80-1138
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated if that was what they were talking about in this case,
he was supportive because he was not interested in turning school sites into
Section 8 housing unless the private sector was involved in making recommen-
dations.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, a contract with
Ultrasystems, Inc., was authorized in the amount of $8,900 for preparation
of an environmental impact report for a proposed General Plan Amendment re-
lating to the Apollo and Fremont Junior High School sites, am recommended in
joint memorandum dated September 2, 1980 from the Community Development and
Planning Departments. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123/153: TRANSFER OF ANAHEIM FIRE DISPATCHERS TO THE CITY OF ORANGE: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with the City of Orange providing for
the transfer of Anaheim's dispatchers to the City of Orange, the designated
agency under the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Fire Training Facility
Authority, to provide permanent dispatchers to the facility, as recommended in
memorandum dated September 3, 1980 from Fire Chief Bob Simpson. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Fire Chief Simpson confirmed for Mayor Pro Tem Overholt
that the dispatch portion of his operation would not be diluted in its effective-
ness in any way if the agreement were approved.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
153: CREATION OF NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION - CROSSING GUARD SUPERVISOR: Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-399 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated September 3, 1980 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae, amending
Resolution No. 80R-147 creating the classification of Crossing Guard Supervisor
(P/T) and a rate of compensation therefore, effective September 12, 1980. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-399: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-147 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UN-
REPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES, AND CREATING A NEW CLASSIFICATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-399 duly passed and adopted.
123: REMOVAL OF PALM TREES ALONG THE CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAYS: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to authorize a letter agreement with Jerry L. Lee for removal of palm
trees along City rights-of-way at no cost to the City, as recommended in memo-
randum dated August 28, 1980 from Sam ~rita, Superintendent, Parkway Mainten-
ance. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
80-1139
City Ha!~,. Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
159: ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARD FROM SOUTHWEST INNOVATION GROUP: On motion by
Councilman Bay, seConded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a grant award from Southwest
Innovation Group, Inc., was accepted in the amount of $2,000 for activities in
conjunction with the Sulfur Extended Asphalt Project, and appropriated to Program
17-261, Engineering Administration, as recommended in memorandum dated September 3,
1980 from James Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
173/174: GRANT APPLICATION FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES: Mr. Jim Armstrong, Assistant
to the City Manager, first clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay relative
to the subject, as discussed in memorandum dated September 3, 1980 from Mr.
Armstrong.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Council
ratified the action of the City Manager in submitting a proposal to the Depart-
ment of Energy for the demonstration of ten electric vehicles. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
106/171: ORDINANCE AMENDING FY 1980-81 AD VALOREM TAX RATE: City Manager
Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated September 3, 1980 from the
Finance Director, recommending that t~e Council amend Ordinance No. 4155, nunc
pro tunc, relating to the fixing and levying of property tax on all property
within the corporate limits of the City for Fiscal Year 1980-81, $0.042 per
$100 assessed valuation and the discussion as to why that was necessary.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4159 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4159: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 4155, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON
ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 1980-81.
Councilwoman Kaywood also offered Emergency Ordinance No. 4160 for adoption,
which was read aloud in its entirety by City Manager Talley.
ORDINANCE NO. 4160: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
4155, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON ALL
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1980-81.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4160 duly passed and adopted.
121/123/175: ADDITIONS, REMOVALS AND SALES TAX IN ACQUIRING ELECTRICAL DISTRI-
BUTION FACILITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 11:
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, certain agreements for
Additions and Removals and for Sales Tax in acquiring the electrical distribution
facilities of Southern Ca%ifornia Edison on Santa Ana Canyon Road from Eucalyptus
80-1140
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Drive to Weir Canyon Road, designated at Condemnation Proceedings No. 11 was
approved, as recommended in memorandum dated August 22, 1980 from Public Utilities
General Manager Gordon Hoyt. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: REVISION OF RULE NO. 3, SECTION D, PARAGRAPH 1 OF ELECTRIC RATES, RULES
AND REGULATIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-400 for adop-
tion, as recommended in memorandum dated August 29, 1980 from the Public Utilities
Board, reducing the Service Establishment Charge to participating apartment
owners from $5 to $2.50 and revising Rule 3, Section D, Paragraph 1 of the
Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-400: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REDUCING THE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT CHARGE TO PARTICIPATING OWNERS FROM $5.00 TO
$2.50 AND AMENDING THE ELECTRIC RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS TO REFLECT SUCH
REDUCTION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-400 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED. (2:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:50 P.M.))
123: CROWD CONTROL SERVICES AT ANAHEIM STADIUM FOR RAMS FOOTBALL GAMES: On
motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Manager
was authorized to enter into an agreement with Peace Power, Inc., dba, Contem-
porary Security Company, a California Corporation, on behalf of the City, for
crowd control services rendered at the Anaheim Stadium for Rams football games
on August 3 and September 7, 1980. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
112: PORTAZZO VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded
by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were au-
thorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 28-94-74 (Portazzo vs.
City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed $2,500. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-3: To con-
sider objections to the improvements of the proposed Street Lighting District
No. 1980-3 on property abutting on Sycamore Street in Tract No. 1097.
Mr. Robert Herr, Civil Engineering Assistant, stated that letters were sent to
all the property owners involved, indicating that a fee would be charged, and
no comments had been received back from them.
80-1141
City H~i, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone wished to be heard relative to the pro-
posed Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-3.
Mr. Ralph Price, 4151 Sycamore, stated he lived directly across the street from
the Cactus Garden at Pearson Park. He had requested the street lighting and he
also passed the petition around. He had quite a few people who, after receiving
the letter and signing the petition, said they did not realize there was a cost.
It was not that he disagreed with the cost, but there was one factor in the
letter sent by the City which was omitted. One land owner was not included
to pay part of the funds for the street lighting, that being Pearson Park,
those 20 acres directly across the street. Mr. Lester Reas at 325 Sycamore,
sent a letter to the Executive Director of Public Works, Thornton Piersall, as
follows.
"In reviewing your letter dated August 25, 1980, I'm a little shocked in the
proposed lighting district as stated. It would seem that if a thorough study
is conducted, we have overlooked one small area. The small area as I see it
is the entire of Pearson Park which when evaluated with its dense foliage and
cactus garden creates a blackout effect at the northwestern end of the park.
Pearson Park which has redevelopment funds availability for relocating the
swimming pool, updating tennis courts, a better light system for the baseball
field and putting in new walkways, it would seem that there would be fund
available to light up the blackout areas to accommodate reasonable security
surveillance and safety of its neighbors."
Mr. Price continued that he had numerous burglaries in his house, several auto-
mobiles destroyed, his motor home broken into, and his house was a constant
"first aid" station for accidents at the corner of Harbor and Sycamore. Numerous
dope exchanges took place across the street in the cactus garden area. At night,
there were campers parking in the park itself. There was a light post in the
northwest corner approximately 75 feet from Harbor and 35 feet off of Sycamore
which had been there for a number of years with no light fixture. It had broken
off and not been repaired. They felt lighting was needed on the park side of
the street and not on the residential side. They felt if the Park Department
would repair that one street light or move it 25 feet closer to the street,
they would not have the overnight camper and a light that would light up the
cactus area. That would stop people from hiding in that area and coming out
and surprising unsuspecting people walking on the sidewalk. It would also be
less costly, and he felt the Parks and Recreation Department should be involved.
He felt that the City lighting department had done a tremendous job based on
what they were trying to do, but Parks and Recreation, who created the problem,
should pay a substantial amount of the cost and not just the residents. He had
attended several meetings held to discuss redevelopment of the park and in one
of them, they were going to install a restroom right next to the cactus garden.
He explained, however, that was the area where the "fruits and nuts" approached
the kids and the residents did not want that restroom on that end of the park.
They wanted it located back towards Harbor with the doors facing Harbor and
near the street lights. He had also suggested at one of the three meetings he
attended, setting the sprinklers off in the cactus garden area around 10:45
P.M. continuing to 1:00 A.M. which would eliminate people hiding there. He
would prefer to see the gardens removed, but realized their historical signi-
ficance. He asked the chances of having the Parks Department help absorb some
of the lighting costs.
80-1142
City Hall, Anaheim,..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980,. 1:30 P.M.
Later in the meeting, Mrs. Bernadette Heinz, 852 South Helena Street, suggested
that the cactus garden be fenced in unless it proved a problem to lock it every
night.
On questioning by Councilman Roth, Mr. Price explained that they knew there was
going to be a cost for street lighting, but they did not know the amount. The
letter was sent to six property owners on the north side of that portion of
Sycamore, of which he owned two properties. He did not mind paying the cost
and that was not the problem. However, the City owned property equal to their
six portions, plus, and thus should pay its part also.
Councilman Roth stated that in the future, he would like to have staff include
an estimate of costs on the petition for a street lighting assessment district
in bold print. He then asked Mr. Price, knowing what the cost would be, would
he say that the majority of the people in his community were opposed to the
assessment.
Mr. Price stated he would not answer that. He did not oppose the charge and
would gladly pay it. In fact, he offered to pay for security lights in the
walkways between their properties. He reiterated that he felt Pearson Park
was the problem.
Mr. Herr confirmed for Councilman Roth that lights would be installed only on
Mr. Price's side of the street.
In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Price stated that he
was satisfied with the changes proposed for redevelopment of the park, except
for the location of the restroom by the cactus garden as he mentioned previously.
He felt that staff had done a tremendous job. He also commended the Police Depart-
ment and stated that the neighbors were pleased with the attitude that the City
took in trying to solve their problems.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked staff if they could supply an answer to Mr. Price's
su8aestion that out of fairness, Parks and Recreation should pay one-half the
cost of the lighting.
City Manager Talley stated they could reply from a conceptual or philosophical
point of view. The Parks and Recreation Department did not have such funds and
they would have to come from the Council or the other taxpayers. Typically
when any assessment district was created, private beneficiaries were the only
ones assessed directly. In this instance, not only had they followed the normal
public policy, but also the Council directed and block grant had picked up 50%
of the cost already. Thus, the residents involved were only being billed for
one-half of the cost. If they wanted to assess any value to the adjoining
public park, they would be saying that General Funds should pay for part of the
cost. It was his recommendation that they follow what had been public policy in
the past, that the people who wanted the improvements pay for them, and in this
case, it was 50% of the cost.
80-1143
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they needed to know whether there were more than
two out of the six who objected because that would have a bearing on the decision;
Mr. Talley stated that he did not know whether Mr. Price introduced the letter
read as an official protest.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Mr. Price was not protesting and he owned
two of the properties involved.
Mr. Price interjected and reiterated that the unrepaired light in the park
belonging to Parks and Recreation could have solved a lot of the problems had
it been repaired.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt presumed then that it would 'be his (Price's) position
that the repair of that light would not alleviate the necessity of the street
lighting assessment district he was proposing.
Mr. Price stated he was asking for the street lighting to protect his vehicles,
home and property because of the fact that Pearson Park was not lighted as it
should be, and that the street lighting be installed to stop the accidents.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked Mr. Price, considering Block Grant funds were paying
for half of the cost and that it might well be that a damaged street light on
the Pearson Park side, if repaired, could provide more light than before, would
he still want to have the Street Lighting Assessment District; Mr. Price answered
that he would still pay for the lights. He also stated that there were Block
Grant funds for lights when the tract was originally built around 1941, but he
did not know what happened to them.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if any of the other four property owners objected
to the Assessment District; Mr. Price answered that he was present to defend
himself if he had to, and he was not speaking for the other four property owners
today.
Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Price made the statement that funds for lighting
were allocated in 1941 and they were not used. He asked if staff had any
information on that and felt it should be explored. He commented, however,
that he did not believe the Federal Government had gone that far at that point
in time.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the various grants allocated to develop
Pearson Park had been acquired through great innovation and a lot of hard
work on the part of staff. She further explained that even though street
lights were located in the park, that was not a function of the Park and
Receation Department, but the Utilities Department. Perhaps no one ever
called to complain about the light that was out, and it might be that the
standard itself was there but inoperable. However, staff would investigate
that situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he had the impression that Mr. Price was
not objecting to the establishment of the Assessment District and that he
wanted to proceed with it. Relative to the light in the park, that would be
investigated immediately and if it should be installed, it would be installed.
He interpreted Mr. Price's remarks to suggest that perhaps the City should
pick up half the cost and the response to that was that by the allocation of
Block Grant funds, the City, in effect, was picking up one-half the cost.
80-1144
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Price asked if they would do the lights in good taste; Mayor Pro Tem Overholt
stated that was an answer that would be supplied by staff.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-401 for adoption, declaring there
were no majority protest to Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-3. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-401: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET LIGHTING ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT 1980-3, TRACT NO. 1097.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-401 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-402 for adoption, as reconm~ended
in memorandum dated August 12, 1980 from the Executive Director of Public Works,
finding and determining the need for work to be done and opening of bids on
October 9, 1980 at 2:00 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-402: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CON-
STRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: STREET LIGHTING ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-3, TRACT NO. 1097, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
24-676-6329-11270-37300 & 25-676-6329-11270-37300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE
INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened
October 9, 1980 at 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-402 duly passed and adopted.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-4: To con-
sider objections to the improvements of the proposed Street Lighting Assessment
District No. 1980-4 on property abutting Helena Street in Tract No. 1392.
Mr. Robert Herr, Civil Engineering Assistant, stated that letters were sent to
all the property owners involved, indicating that a fee would be charged, and
no comments had been received back from them.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone wished to be heard relative to the pro-
posed Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-4.
80-1145
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Bernadette Heinz, 852 South Helena Street, stated that she and her sister,
Mrs. Cherry, lived together and they had no objections to the proposed street
lighting Assessment District. She asked if staff could tell her whether or not
they were going to have a light in front of their house. She had talked to
several engineers who indicated that perhaps it could be installed not as
close to their big tree, but right next door to the north where there was more
space available in front of Mrs. Anderson's home. She was wondering if that
were possible.
Mrs. Heinz and Mr. Herr then conferred working from a street map relative to
the proposed site for installing the street light, at the conclusion of
which, Mrs. Heinz indicated she then had no problem. There being no further
persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-403 for adoption, declaring no
majority protest to Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-4. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-403: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET LIGHTING ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-4, TRACT NO. 1392.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-403 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-404 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated August 12, 1980 from the Executive Director of Public Works,
finding and determining the need for work to be done and opening of bids on
October 9, 1980 at 2:00 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-404: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CON-
STRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: STREET LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-4, TRACT NO. 1392, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 24-676-6329-11210-37300 & 25-676-6329-11210-37300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS,
PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF;
AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids
to be opened October 9, 1980 at 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-404 duly passed and adopted.
80-1146
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Before concluding Mrs. Heinz asked for clarification if the correction that was
just made in talking with Mr. Herr relative to the location of the light was
included in the foregoing action.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt answered that was something between her and staff, and
he understood that she was satisfied with what she had been told.
105: REQUEST BY THE LIBRARY BOARD FOR JOINT MEETING WITH THE COUNCIL: Suggested
dates, times and places: Tuesday, September 16, 1980 at 10:30 a.m., Multipurpose
Room at the Library; Thursday, September 18, 1980 at 4:00 p.m~, Council Chambers.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt suggested ~hat they defer consideration of the subject
until next Tuesday for full Council action. He was aware, however, that Mayor
Seymour had a very full agenda in September.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, consideration of the
subject request was continued one week. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that his personal feeling was
that it was more convenient to meet in the afternoon, rather than the morning,
and also from a staff standpoint, in the Council Chambers.
Councilman Bay stated he was also interested in seeing an agenda of the subject
intended to be discussed
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt suggested that Mr. Dahi should be advised so that he
might be willing to submit some kind of agenda for next Tuesday; City Clerk
Roberts stated that she would check with the Library Board.
Councilwoman Kaywood added that when meetings were scheduled for Tuesday morning,
she personally found it disruptive to the day, since they often continued meeting
straight through until night. Thus, without time for lunch or dinner, she did not
know that they got the best decisions from the Council.
Councilman Roth stated he liked an early Tuesday meeting becuase that way, it
did not tie up another day.
108: APPLICATION FOR AN ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Submitted by Jette Birgitte
Holgersen for Foxey's, 1007 East Balsam Street, for two dancers daily, from
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that although she saw a report dated September 4,
1980 submitted by the Police Department, it really did not answer her question
and thus, she was going to vote "no" on the subject request.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, application for
the subject Entertainment Permit for Foxey's was approved as requested. Council-
woman Kaywood voted "no". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
127: PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES REGARDING THE ELECTION OF
THE MAYOR: Councilman Roth explained that last week the City/County Government
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce had a long discussion on two of the City's
80-1147
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
ballot measures that were going to be on the November ballot. The one that
seemed to cloud the issue was the measure relative to the election of the
Mayor, Section 500, City Council Terms. The Committee appeared to be hung-up
on the second paragraph of that section and spent most of their time trying
to clarify one point--"Three members of the City Council shall be elected at
the General Municipal Election held in June of 1982." For clarification pur-
pomes only, the resolution should be corrected to read, "That three Council
Members including the Mayor..." realizing if the ballot measure passed, there
would be two Council Members and Mayor elected in 1982, rather than three
Council Members. That was a deterrent point because there was no clarification.
However, it should have no bearing as to whether or not one was supportive or
opposed to the ballot measure and would merely be for clarification of that
paragraph. He spoke with several members of the committee afterwards, and they
asked for his clarification. He felt the last paragraph stating, "The term of
each member of the City Council including the Mayor shall commence on the first
Tuesday following his or her election..." should have been adequate to clarify
the second paragraph of Section 500. Due to the misunderstanding by so many
people, and he had talked to the City Attorney who had until Thursday to get
the two resolutions approved, it would be nothing more than clarifying a point.
The City/County Government Committee was so confused that it would be in the
best interest to clarify it for everybody.
Councilman Roth clarified for Mayor Pro Tem Overholt that the only change he
was proposing were the words "including the Mayor" as he had articulated.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that at the time the matter came up originally in March
she recalled pleading for more time to go over the proposals more carefully and
was not given that opportunity. They never even saw the final resolution.
She would object to making any change now. She felt there were other concerns
also and further was very concerned about a lot of the things contained therein.
Councilman Roth stated that the Committee did not have any other problems except
that particular one; from the audience, someone indicated that was not right.
Mrs. Eleanor Bay and Eileen Anthony were in the Chambers and Councilwoman
Kaywood asked to hear their concerns, since they were both at the City/
County Government Committee meeting.
Mrs. Eleanor Bay, 2148 West Grayson, stated at that meeting, the hang-up was
not that, but the fact that, in posing the hypothetical question, in the next
Municipal Election, three Council seats would be vacant. If none of those
three, although perhaps improbable, but possible, chose to run for the Mayor
and someone else ran for the Mayor, there would be a Mayor and three Council
people reseated. Thus, there would be a Mayor, plus five Council people, creating
six Council Members or one of the Council people who ran and won would 'have
to be dropped from the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that was a fallacious hypothetical because there
could never be anymore than five members on the Council.
Mrs. Bay answered that was true, but what would happen if the hypothetical
situation would come about; Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that two people
would be elected, there would be two Council seats vacant and one Mayor seat.
80-1148
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt pointed out that was the way the proposed amendment read;
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that was correct. Sectionr504 on Page 3 clari-
fied the situation. The Mayor was actually a member of the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that under the proposal, which was Mayor Seymour's
proposal, the Council would be made up of four Council Members and one Mayor,
each having one vote. If the Charter Amendment carried, there would only be
two Council Members positions open in 1982 and one Mayor position. Thus if
three people chose to run for City Council, only two would be elected.
Councilman Roth noted that was a hang-up, and it was imperative to clarify it
for the average person.
From the audience, Mrs. Anthony agreed that Mrs. Bay had covered the matter.
Councilman Bay recounted that he had chaired the earlier Charter Review Committee
that studied the problem of public confusion over the election of the Mayor. The
arguments he heard for the change to the Charter were to clear up those problems.
He then gave a historical retrospect on what the Charter Review Committee had
done along that line. In concluding, he stated that they could not ignore the
political side of what was now occurring whether they wanted to or not. Poli-
tically, it was very germain as to how any of them voted on a change to further
clarify something that was supposed to be clarified originally. Therefore, he
could not support the motion to start changing anything further, since politic-
ally the change was based on an argument to simplify a very complex problem.
It had not been done, but on that basis, he could not mupport a-change a~ain at
this time..
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as far as putting anything on the ballot, her concern
had always been to have it worded very carefully and simply.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated the issue was whether or not to approve a clarifying
resolution; Councilwoman Kaywood did not see it as clarifying anything, but only
making it worse.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt explained that initially he joined Councilmen Seymour
and Roth in signing the argument in favor. He did not think that the wording
of the proposed amendment was confusing at all. As Councilman Bay stated, the
problem was the fact that it was a difficult concept to grasp--a Council made
up of five elected officials, all of whom were Members of the Council, but one
of whom happened to be the Mayor, and to qualify that person would not have to
be a Member of the Council previously. He was certain that any committee
girting down long enough could ~ind about twenty other things that might be
changed to clarify the language. Ris feeling was that the inserted language
might almost tend to confuse. In taking all of the facts in the Charter
relating to qualifications of the Mayor as suggested to be amended and rela-
ting them to qualifications for the Council, altogether, it was not confusing.
He was concerned with piecemeal, "band-aid" tampering with the language that
they had previously approved. He would oppose the resolution.
Councilman Roth stated that he wanted to go on record clarifying the language
for his constituents and the rest of the Council's constituents so that they
could understand what they were voting on.
80-1149
~itY Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it would be out of order even if it would clarify
the situation to make any change to Mayor Seymour's proposals during his absence.
Councilman Roth thereupon withdrew the suggestion of a proposed clarifying
resolution because he saw no purpose in a three to one negative vote.
No further action was taken.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-63 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by Ken
Paddock, Architect, Hill, Danietson & Associates, Inc., for an extension of
time to Reclassification No. 77-78-63, proposed CL (SC) zoning on property
located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road at the southerly terminus of
Anaheim Hills Road.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the requested
extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-63 was granted, to expire
August 29, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated September 2, 1980 from
Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
162/124: REQUEST TO ..FLY A HELIUM BLIMP OVER THE WESCON SHOW: Carol E. Weiland,
Executive Department Manager of the Western Electronic Show and Convention
(WESCON) for permission to fly a helium blimp over the Convention Center during
their convention to be held September 16-18, 1980, as requested in their letter
of August 29, 1980.
Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone from the WESCON show was present to speak to
the matter; no one was present.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, request for per-
mission to fly a helium blimp over the Convention Center during the WESCON show
September 16-18, 1980 was denied, as recommended in memorandum dated September 3,
1980 from Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: JAPANESE PHYSIO-THERAPY & SAUNA: Submitted by Ronald M. Morrison, Attorney,
on behalf of William D. Adams, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant
to Code Section 18.89.040, for the Japanese Physio-Therapy & Sauna, 924 South
Euclid.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone wished to be heard on the matter.
Mr. William Adams stated that he was the owner, and the only thing he had to
add to the material already submitted was the packet of approximately ten letters
he had given to the City Clerk to give to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt acknowledged that they had received those letters.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Adams if he treated anybody under the age of 18.
Mr. Adams answered "no" and that he could not do so by law. He explained for
purposes of clarification that when he first applied for his permits and licenses,
he was given the opportunity of having someone under 18 or over 18 patronize
80-1150
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1.:30 P.M.
his establishment and at that time he opted for licenses for people over 18
only. He just did not want to treat any minors and he did not believe they
ever had anybody under 18 request to utilize their services.
Mr. Adams then confirmed for Mayor Pro Tem Overholt that he had prepared the
list of building improvements submitted under Exhibit D and that he would be
willing to testify under oath.
City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that
the testimony he was about to give was true and correct to the best of his
belief and knowledge; Mr. Adams answered affirmatively.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated the reason he asked Mr. Adams to be sworn was that
in his opinion, the only issue involved was whether indeed to enforce the~
ordinance against him would create an undue hardship which had nothing to do
with whether he was well known in the community. The ordinance provided that
in the event undue hardship was created, that the Council had the right to
extend the period for up to two years, not two years total necessarily, but
up to two years. He understood that Mr. Adams had a lease on the premises.
Mr. Adams stated that he did have a lease and that would expire on May 31,
1982.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then first asked, relative to Exhibit D, he presumed
the expenditures listed were made to prepare the business premises for the
business and they could not be recovered if he had to move out. He also asked,
if the extension were not granted, could he use any of the items in another
business or use them personally.
Mr. Adams answered "yes" to the first question and relative to the latter stated
that he probably could not use the items in the business because he did not have
another business and they were specifically designed for his present business.
Councilman Bay noted that Mr. Adams did not answer the question if the items
could be used by him personally.
Mr. Adams stated he supposed there were some things he could use, although he
did not have a need for them and the use would not recover any of his invest-
ment, but would merely be getting the items out of the building.
Councilman Bay then read some of the items from the list such as Sparkletts
Drinking fountain at $150; a Mr. Coffee coffeemaker, $44; a stereo center,
$550, etc. As he went through the list, he could think of numerous things
which, in his opinion, were removable and also resellable at some dollar
amount. There were a great deal of items not permanently attached to the
present building he was leasing. If he would move, he was curious as to how
much of the $17,000 was removable and resellable for some amount.
Mr. Adams supposed that he could recover some percentage.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, for the record, what hours Mr. Adams business was
open?
80-1151
C.~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Adams answered, 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but they actually closed at 6:30
p.m., and he would stipulate that those would remain to be his business hours.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he also thought there were items on the list
that could hardly qualify as non-recoverable expenses. He would guess that
Mr. Adams' total hardship was really not $17,000 although there were major
items on that list such as the panelling, refurbishment of the men's room, air
conditioner repair, etc. His concern was that the dollar value of the hardship
was probably not $17,000, but, in his opinion, it was substantial even if one-
half that amount, representing an out-of-pocket, non-recoverable loss. He con-
sidered that a hardship. If he were going to pick the application apart, he
would throw out some of those items as being non-recoverable.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to grant an extension of time to William D.
Adams, dba Japanese Physio-Therapy & Sauna, 924 South Euclid Avenue, pursuant
to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.89.040, in order to prevent undue hardship
according to staff recommendations. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if he was stipulating a
date on the extension. The staff recommendation was to extend to May 31,
1982 to when the present lease was going to expire.
Councilman Roth confirmed that was part of his motion.
Mr. Adams stated that he and Fujuika Smith combined their incomes and he was
the surrogate father for her children and had been for seven years. She was
51 years old now and they needed all the time they could get. One boy was
just accepted to the UCI Medical School.
Councilman Roth asked if he was saying that he felt an extension to May 31, 1982
was too short a period of time.
Mr. Adams answered that was seven months less than he was hoping for.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated on the other hand, the Council was being asked to
extend the term to relieve undue hardship. He presumed when he (Adams) went
into the building, he understood the lease expired on May 31, 1982.
Mr. Adams replied that he had an option to that lease and the landlord was very
glad to have him as a tenant. He did not realize it would end so soon; Mayor
Pro Tem Overhoit pointed out that, if approved, they would be granting a 17-
month extension.
Mr. Adams reiterated that he was hoping for 24. If they could save some money
in that seven months, it would help the children. Also, it would be very
difficult for then a 52-year old lady to get a job. He explained for Council-
woman Kaywood that the option on the lease was for two years.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that his reaction was that the hardship, as he
understood the ordinance, referred to the recoupment of investment. The power
given to the Council to extend for any part of the two years was to avoid any
hardship resulting in a shut down of the business before recoupment of an in-
vestment. It seemed that Councilman Roth's motion and the recommendation of
80-1152
City Hal. l, .A. naheim,' California- COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
staff was to give Mr. Admas till the end of his lease or 17 months and that
17 months should allow him to recoup his investment. There may be personal
considerations, but he did not know am a Member of the Council if he could be
concerned with that. He was concerned mainly with carrying out the ordinance
Therefore, he intended to support the motion.
Mr. Adams emphasized that he was concerned with the ordinance in 1975 and had
since complied with everything in it. They had planned to make Anaheim their
future and could not foresee something like this happening five and one-half
years ago. He reiterated he had lived up to the ordinance and every ordinance
since until the present time and if there was a possibility of getting a two-
year extension, he would continue in the same method they had been operating
in. It was seven more months to save a little more money. He questioned where
they were going to work otherwise.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that was beyond the scope of the ordinance and
they were bound to that ordinance, providing that they could grant an extension
to relieve hardship and the hardship related to recoupment of investment. His
inclination was that they had gone the extra mile to relieve what the ordinance
contemplated as hardship.
Councilman Roth, speaking to Mr. Adams, stated that he was sympathetic and he
wanted him to survive, but he was concerned that he might be denied his request.
Therefore, to make certain that a majority of the Council would be supportive,
to request an extension over and above staff recommendation at this time
might put him in a very precarious position relative to getting that extension.
He felt it was in Mr. Adams' best interest to accept the 17-month extension and
that he should look down the road to see what could be done.
Councilman Bay stated the issue was the interpretation of the ordinance to pre-
vent undue hardship, not just hardship. He could not support the motion and
would not do so the same as he could not the first time a similar issue came to
the Council, not because he had any doubts about the integrity of Mr. Adams'
business. He reiterated the issue was in finding the hardship and he did not
believe undue hardship had been defined. He felt strongly that the first time
the Council voted for an extension and today, as they would probably vote, they
were rescinding their abatement ordinance by such action.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was in support of Councilman Roth's motion
to grant the extension to ~he end of the present lease term which was not. for
two years. The ordinance stated that the Council had the power and would
exercise that power to avoid undue hardship upon application of businesses
affected by the ordinance. As well, Mr. Adams testified under oath to the ,
investment that had been made under the premises which he could not recover
if forced to move on December 20, 1980, and thus the case of undue harship had
been made. He disagreed that they were rescinding the ordinance. He intended
to be consistent in applying that ordinance in trying to be fair in avoiding
undue hardship.
Councilman Bay stated on the question of defining undue hardship, they had a
statement of $17,115 which, and the Mayor Pro Tem knew that a great deal of the
expenses, could be cut out of that list. In taking the remaining expenses and
amortizing them back over five and one-half years or some portion, the figure
80-1153
City Hall,.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
was going to be considerably lower and one which, in effect, would be estab-
lishing a dollar amount that in the future was going to cause the Council
trouble in the enforcement of their abatement ordinance, so that it would not
be enforceable for the two-year period.
Councilman Roth commented as he had done in the past that he could not see
punishing the good with the bad. He was getting to a point where he felt they
might have to look at the ordinance again. He was insistent upon the option of
determining his right to cast a vote in deciding the important issue of whether
or not someone would be put out of business. He did not want some ordinance
destroying that right.
Councilman Overholt again stated that he was supporting the motion, but disagreed
with Councilman Roth's evaluation of the present ordinance. It was a good
ordinance and he would be opposed to any change in it, and he felt they could
work with it.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if Councilman Roth's motion had been to extend the
period to December of 1982, then part of what Councilman Bay said could be
valid. When she seconded the motion, she did so because the lease expiration
date would make Mr. Adams liable to pay up to that time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10167 RESCINDING THE EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED SEP-
TEMBER 2, 1980: To establish a 15-lot subdivision on proposed RS-HS-22,000
zoned property located on the northeast side of Country Hill Road, south of
Mohler Drive.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the action
of September 2, 1980 granting a one-year extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 10167 was rescinded, as the developer's initial request was untimely, pur-
suant to the Anaheim Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act as recommended in
memorandum dated September 5, 1980 from Assistant Director for Zoning Annika
Santalahti. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Bay, 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 and the Application for Leave to Present
Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Veronica L. Melendrez for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of a vehicular accident caused by malfunction of
traffic signals at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue,
on or about June 9, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Paul D. and Marion Harris for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of inadequate maintenance of slope adjacent to property at 4910 Santa
Ana Canyon Road, resulting in earth settlement and lateral movement, sometime
in February, 1980.
80-1154
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Mrs. A. Marie Liederbach for damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of condition of curb located on the north side of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway, causing puncture of tire, on or about
July 14, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Christian Perreiah for personal injuries and property
damages purportedly sustained as a result of design of street at intersection
of Broadway and Helena Streets, causing, bicycle accident, on or about August 17,
1980.
e. Claim submitted by William J. Barry for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of golf balls driven against building at 2341 Crescent Way
in July 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Wrather Inns, Inc., for damages purportedly sustained
at the Inn at the Park Hotel, purportedly caused by failure of main transfor-
mer supplying power to the hotel, on or about June 23, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by Lacie Marie Mounger by Larry D. Mounger, father, for
personal injury dammges purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused
by personnel conducting gymnastic activities at the Sycamore Junior High
School Gymnasium, on or about August 14, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by Steven Paul Ehler for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident caused by City-owned vehicle, on Harbor Boulevard near the
Disneyland entrance, on or about August 11, 1980.
i. Application for Permission to File a Late Claim submitted by James E.
Rasmussen for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of
fall while claimant was employed by Heller Construction Co. at Anaheim Stadium,
on or about October 29, 1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of August 7, 14 and 21, 1980.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of August 20, 1980.
c. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of August 25, 1980.
d. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of June 25, 1980.
e. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of August 13, 1980.
g. 105: Community Services Board Resolution No. CSB80-1, establishing the
second and fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Ground Floor
Training Room of the Anaheim Civic Center as the time and place of regular
Community Services Board meetings.
3. 108: PRIVATE PATROL APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendation of
the Chief of Police, an application for a Private Patrol Permit was approved
for Maximum Security, 1327 Chevy Chase Drive, to provide patrol and security
guard service. (James Alan Roundtree, applicant)
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1155
Cit.y..Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION - REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF IN-DEPTH ECONOMIC
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1980 .(~R 6121): Councilwoman
Kaywood noted the request from the Public Utilities Commission in their letter
of August 29, 1980 asking that the Council support their concern against the
Phone Company's request for increases which would throw the burden on residen-
tial and small business phone customers and could, in effect, double the rates
and make many people unable to have telephone service. She recommended that
they write the letter as suggested in the subject communication in opposition
to the Federal change, and she would so direct staff.
Councilman Bay asked if she would hold any action for one week for a full Council;
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed.
Councilman Overholt suggested that perhaps in the meantime they could get staff
input.
Councilman Roth stated that he read with alarm the possibility of a doubling of
monthly telephone rates for residents and small commercial customers throughout
the nation. He then realized it was a pitting of one government entity, the
Public Utilities Commission, with another agency, somewhat over private industry,
the Telephone Company. He felt it would be appropriate to discuss the matter
in one week and to ask for comments from Mr. Joseph Wright, a representative
of the Telephone Company and President of the Chamber of Commerce, to respond
and discuss the matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt suggested that it be placed on the next Council agenda
and that Mr. Wright be invited to be present.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration
of the Public Utilities Commission request for support of their position for
an in-depth economic evaluation of the proposed Telecommunications Act of 1980
was continued one week with Mr. Joseph Wright of the Telephone Company to be
invited to speak to the issue at that meeting. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11176: Submitted by Michael Hale, et al, to establish
a 1-lot, 12-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property
located on the south side of Savanna Street, west of Knott Street. (Submitted
in conjunction with Reclassification No. 80-81-4 and Variance No. 3163 which
will appear on the September 16, 1980 agenda under Planning Commission Consent
Calendar)
The City Planning Commission approved 10 units for Tentative Tract No. 11176, and
granted a negative declaration status.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11178: Submitted by Ebrahim Talebi, et al, to establish
a l-lot, 30-unit condominium subdivison on proposed RM-3000 zoned property
located at 175 South Webster. (Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification
No. 80-81-3 and Variance No. 3161 which will appear on the September 16, 1980
agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar)
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11178, and granted a
negative declaration status.
80-1156
C~ty Hall~ ~n~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11211: Submitted by Cheryl Jo Matlock, to establish
a l-lot, 6-unit affordable condomium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned pro-
perty located at 649 South Beach Boulevard. (Submitted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 80-81-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2102 which will
appear on the September 16, 1980 agenda under Planning Commission Consent
Calendar)
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11211, and granted
a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that on the subject tracts (11176, 11178, 11211)
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1980, they had not
as yet received the minutes of that meeting and the reclassifications and/or
variances would appear on next week's Council agenda. She asked that
consideration of all three tracts be continued for one week so that the
tracts and zoning application could all be heard together.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if there would be any problem in so doing; Annika
Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, first stated that the City Attorney
would have to answer that, but basically each tract was in connection with
another zoning action, a reclassification, variance or CUP. The tracts were
all subject to the approval of those zoning actions. She would say if they
were continued now, theoretically they would have to be continued to a public
hearing. If they had any strong concerns after reading the minutes, the
matters could be set for public hearings. For instance, on the CUP (Tenta-
tive Tract No. 11211) the tract, as approved, would not be active because
the CUP could potentially be denied. It was her feeling that the tracts could
go through as they were right now based on the fact that the zoning actions
would have to be approved, or no action taken next week. If they were denied,
the tracts would no longer be any good.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that her concern was that if they just approved
the tracts as they came through, that the builders would then be able to point
to the fact that their tentative tracts were approved.
Miss Santalahti explained that the condition was that the variance, reclassifi-
cation or whatever also had to be approved. If a developer started to work
on his tentative map, which had not been done, he would have nothing
because he would not have met a condition, and he had to meet the conditions
of the specific zoning requirements.
No action was taken by the Council on the subject tracts.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-405
and 80R-406, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, rec-
ommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on
the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-405: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WINSTON ROAD STREET IMPROVE-
MENT, W/O SUNKIST, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-792-6325-E2510 (Holmes
& Trott) '
80-1157
Cit. z Hall, Anaheim,. Cal.iforDi~ - Cou~q!L MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
103: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-406: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED FRONTERA NO. 3 ANNEXATION. (uninhabited, approximately 8.96
acres located southeast of Glassell Street, and Riverside Freeway)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 80R-405 and 80R-406, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
175/137: ORDINANCE NO. 4158: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4158 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4158: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 2890 OF SAID CITY, RELATING TO ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS. (to pro-
vide for sale of Revenue Bonds at a discount not to exceed 10%)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4158 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4161: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4161 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4161: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-28, CL)
169: TIME FRAMES FOR COMPLETION OF REALIGNED LINCOLN AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARD:
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt, speaking to the City Engineer, stated that he under-
stood that some of the openings in the Towne Center development had been de-
layed to October. He asked Mr. Devitt if he contemplated any more delays.
Mr. Devitt explained that the work on realigned L~ncoln, Anaheim Boulevard and
Harbor Boulevard had experienced some delays which were anticipated to be com-
pleted on September 9. Each time he received a report from the contractor, he
had not completed his work in the most expeditious manner and thus, he had a
very difficult time holding him to time frames. As indicated in the infor-
mation only memo submitted to the Council recently, from the discussion he
recently had with the contractor, the final surface street cap would be com-
pleted on September 25. The completion of the irrigation system and the
plantings were to be completed by October 12. Thus, there had been approxi-
mately a month's lag.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that the delay had been an inconvenience to the
tenants who were moving into the Towne Center and he hoped that the City was
not a party to that delay.
80-1158
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Devitt stated there had been a delay in their work, but he was not aware
that it had adversely affected any tenants as yet.
Councilman Bay asked if in working with the contractor, the penalty clauses
were being enforced.
Mr. Devitt reported that he recently wrote a letter to the contractor indicating
that he could expect little sympathy from the Office of the City Engineer if he
did not expeditiously proceed with the work.
177/134: HOUSING ELEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that after the joint
meeting with the Planning Commission on September 2, 1980, she understood the
City's Housing Element was close to completion and would be presented to the
Planning Commission and Housing Authority. Included in it, would be the
number of units that would be Anaheim's fair share. She asked that staff pro-
vide a report on the Housing Element next week, if available. She wanted to
know the total built in 1980 and the total approved, so that they could not
get rushed into approving anything in a panic.
164: WE TIP REQUEST FOR FUNDS: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to letter dated
August 28, 1980 from Bill Brownell, Founding Director of the subject organization,
giving an update on their successful operations in helping to combate crime in
various areas and requesting cities to contribute two cents per person in each
City. She did not know if the Council wanted to discuss the matter at this
time, but she would be glad to give the material to staff and to ascertain if
the Council wanted to agendize the matter for the next meeting.
Councilman Bay suggested that the Council be polled on a contribution figure
or that it be agendized and discussed as Councilwoman Kaywood proposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood also felt it would be in order to have a report from the
Police Department show$ng how helpful the organization had been to Anaheim
specifically.
164: MEETINGS ON STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it
was time to set up a meeting on the Storm Drain Bond Issue which was on the
November ballot. She had a list of names of people who wanted to work on that
issue. If the press wished to write an article on the matter, it should be
noted that anybody else who wished to serve on the committee would only have
tO be involved for a short two-month period, and they would be very welcome.
They could call her or the City Manager's office giving their name, address
and phone number.
132: DUMPING ON SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD AND FAIRMONT BOULEVARD: Councilman
Roth recalled that on July 8, 1980, he brought to the Council's attention
the fact that the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard was
being, used as a dumping site for local citizens and pool companies, and he had
since expressed his concern over that situation. He was glad to report that
the owners of the property had posted signs, "No Dumping Under Penalty." It
now appeared that the dumping and the atrocious appearance of that corner
also involved the City right-of-way. If so, he requested that the corner be
cleaned up accordingly by the City.
80-I159
Hall, ~qahe. im,..qal.~Knia - .COUNCI~ MINUTES - September 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
156: EMERGENCY SERVICES PLAN: Councilman Bay referred to the letter received
from Supervisor Ralph Clark regarding the Blue Ribbon Committee on Emergency
Preparedness. The data mentioned the Emergency Services Plan that they were
hoping would be reviewed on a yearly basis. He did not recall knowing much
about those services or the Plan for the County or the City and thus, he was
requesting some information or a briefing to bring him up to date.
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt also joined in the request.
Councilman Bay continued that there was an action taking place at the County
level and what appeared to be some very good suggestions coming out of the
Blue Ribbon Committee, and he felt they should perhaps be taking a closer look
at that.
Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that was part of the subregional Planning Committee and
she had attended the recent meeting, and they would be discussing that Disaster
Plan. She also commented they were trying to change the name of that committee
to OCAG.
110: 1980 CENSUS: Councilman Bay noted that they had a good deal of action in
the City during the last census taking, recalling that they leased an office
next to the census office and spent some money. He had not heard back as yet
on the results of the census and what they gained by setting up an office. If
there were still actions in progress preventing them from being brought up to
date, over the next three days or so, when it could be worked in, he wanted to
be brought up to date on the situation.
City Manager Talley stated they would be provided with a report, but he could say
as a result of the Council's decision to actually appoint a Census Coordinator
and to physically establish a census office, Anaheim was one of the very few
cities in the Nation and perhaps the only one in Orange County that not only
had what they thought was a fairly effective census, but also were able to
accept the Federal information. A letter was written to the Census Bureau
commending them on their activity in the City. Although Planning Director Ron
Thompson could comment further, he believed the actual population figure was
approximately 216,000.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, reported that they should be getting some
official word around the third week of September. The Census Bureau asked them
not to publish a figure as yet. He concluded that they were very pleased with
the results and they were able to verify the results through their land use
survey with respect to the number of dwelling units.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:45 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK