1980/09/1680-1160
City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach
ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Pamela Lucado
POLICE EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR: Frank Madden
DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL: Garth Menges
BATTALION CHIEF: Martel Thompson
POLICE LIEUTENANT: Dale Wilcox
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gordon St. George, Anaheim Friends Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
Cystic Fibrosis Week in Anaheim - September 21-27, 1980
The proclamation was accepted by Barbara Boyle, who also introduced three-year
old Jennifer Haninger, who was chosen poster child not only for the County, but
also the nation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was
unanimously adopted on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Anaheim Plaza
to be presented by the Mayor at a later date.
119: PRESENTATION: Mr. Paul Barnett of the Downtown Anaheim Rotary Club and
Rotary Club President Lynn Thompson presented their new collector souvenir coins
commemorating the Rams move to Anaheim. The proceeds from the sale of the coins
would be used for charitable purposes.
MINUTES: The minutes were deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1161
City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Septmmber 16, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,309,820.55, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
160: CHANGE ORDER TO PURCHASE ORDER KO7443-D - ELECTRICAL METERS: On motion
by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Purchasing Agent was
authorized to issue a change order in the amount of $1,433.09 to Purchase Order
KO7443-D issued to Westinghouse Electric Supply for changes to 42 of the 92
meters ordered, as discussed and recommended in memorandum dated September 10,
1980 from Purchasing Agent Richard Jefferis. MOTION CARRIED.
165: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA ALLEYS: Account
No. 25-793-6325-3400. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-407 for adoption,
awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated
September 10, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-407: 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 PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT: CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - AREA BOUNDED
BY HARBOR BOULEVARD, LA PALMA AVENUE, ZEYN STREET AND NORTH STREET, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 25-793-6325-E3350. (Sully-Miller Contracting
Company, $256,790.50, P.C.C. Alternate)
Roil 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-407 duly passed and adopted.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRIPLE CROWN LANE - DERBY CIRCLE SEWER IMPROVEMENT:
Account No. 11-790-6325-E0190. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No.
80R-408 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer
in his memorandum dated September 10, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-408: 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, FUML AND WATER, AND PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT: TRIPLE CROWN LANE-DERBY CIRCLE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0190. (Changing Times Enterprises Inc., $19,632)
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-408 duly passed and adopted.
80-1162
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
150: READVERTISING OF THE SCHWEITZER PARK IMPROVEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 80R-409 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 80R-361
relating to inviting sealed proposals for the Schweitzer Park Improvement,
Account No. 16-817-7103, with bids to be opened October 9, 1980 at 2:00 P.M.,
as recommended in memorandum dated September 10, 1980, since no bids were
received. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-409: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-361 RELATING TO INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE
SCHWEITZER PARK IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 16-817-7103.
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-409 duly passed and adopted.
177/109: DEFERRED PAYMENT REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS: Councilman Overholt offered
Resolution No. 80R-410 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 10,
1980 from Executive Director for Community Development Norm Priest, authorizing
the filing of an application for participation in the Deferred Payment Loan Program
with the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-410: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFERRED PAYMENT
LOAN PROGRAM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-410 duly passed and adopted.
123/175: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH GRISSOM AND JOHNSON - COMIKUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AREA IV: On motion by Councilman Bay seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, a first amendment to the agreement with Grissom and Johnson, Inc.,
was authorized for conversion of 4 KV to 12 KV distribution line, Community
Development Area IV, to add the Department of Labor Miniumum Wages for Federal
and Federally Assisted Construction; General Wage Determination Decisions dated
April 4, 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated September 4, 1980 from the
City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
158/176: EXCHANGE OF CITY-OWNED FEE TITLE PROPERTY: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the request of Kent Land Company to exchange
a portion of City-owned fee title to Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Weir Canyon
Road, in return for a new fee title grant to Santa Ana Canyon Road in.a proposed
new alignment, was approved, and the City Attorney was authorized to prepare an
agreement therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated August 26, 1980 from the
City Enginer. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1163
City H~i!,' Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
123/173: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'S SB 283 GRANT - TRAIN PLATFORM AT
ANAHEIM STADIUM: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum
received September 10, 1980 from the Planning Department, Planning Division,
recommending an amendment to Contract No. 64050-E dated March 27, 1979, amending
the expiration date of the City's SB 283 grant to June 30, 1981.
Councilman Bay questioned the requested time extension; Pam Lucado, Associate
Planner, explained that the bill (SB 283) was set up in a way so that if they
were unable to build with the monies by the present expiration date of the con-
tract, they would be prohibited from being able to tap those monies for project
construction. The invoices actually had to be in. The current expiration date
of December would make it prohibitive for them to actually invoice the monies.
By the extension to June, they should have enough time to do so. If they were
able to secure a site lease by the end of October as they were striving to do,
they should be under construction four months after procurement of that budget.
No further extensions were available after the one being requested.
Mayor Seymour stated it would then be helpful to the Council if they could
receive an update on ~he matter as of October 1, and if necessary for the Council
to take other more aggressive action, they would have time to do so.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
an amendment was authorized to Contract 64050-E dated March 27, 1979 with the
State, to obtain $79,227 in SB 283 monies for construction of a train platform
at the Stadium, extending the contract date to June 30, 1981, as recommended
in memorandum received September 10, 1980 from Pamela Lucado, Associate Planner.
MOTION CARRIED.
106/150: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - ADULT SOFTBALL: Councilman Roth moved to authorize
a budget appropriation of $6,066 and 408 workhours to Program 274 to cover in-
creased expenditures caused by the increase in the Fall adult softball team
registration, as recommended in memorandum dated September 5, 1980 from Deputy
City Manager James Ruth. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, the Council commended Mr. Ruth and his staff in meeting
the urgency created by the increased need as evidenced by an overwhelming response
received for Fall registration in the adult softball program. They had received
many calls and also calls on the Mayor's hotline and were pleased that Mr. Ruth
was able to accommodate the need expressed.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (AUHSD):
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an amendment to the agreement dated
November 30, 1976 with the Anaheim Union High School District to provide for
replacement of the gymnasium floor at Ball Junior High School in an amount not
to exceed $50,000, as recommended in memorandum dated September 9, 1980 from
Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt commented as an alumnus of the
Park and Recreation Commission, as was Councilwoman Kaywood, it was the fact
that the two agencies, the High School District and the City, cooperated to
furnish Yacilitie$ used not only for citizens as citizens of the City, but also
the School District constituents. The School District had laid out the money
80-1164
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
and the City was now picking up its share. He felt that the cooperation was
exemplified by the Joint Powers Agreement that was presently in effect, and he
commended the continuation of that agreement.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AMENDMENT TO TIMOTHY M. & DONNA J. GOLLEDGE AGREEMENT: Authorizing an
amendment to an agreement dated May 13, 1980, with Timothy M. and Donna J. Golledge
to provide for two additional trees to fully eliminate the glare problem form
the Peratta Canyon Park ballfield lighting.
Councilman Bay stated that he was not going to support the proposed amendment
because he did not support the original request discussed at the meeting of
May 13, 1980, wherein the original agreement was approved (Resolution No. 80R-211).
He felt there was a dangerous precedent in solving some kind of glare problem
for one particular resident. He did not understand why other residents did not
have the same problem.
Mayor Seymour explained that he spent approximately one hour with Mr. Ruth and
one of his assistants at the Golledge home after dark to observe the problem
firsthand. The glaring lights from the park not only intruded into the
family room but also their bedroom. He went on to explain the problem, unique
to the Golledge home because of its location as had been done at the meeting
of May 13, 1980 (see minutes that date). There was no doubt in his mind that
the City through the development of that park had placed an unreasonable burden
on a citizen. The amendment would provide the additional trees needed to further
mitigate the glare, but as soon as sufficient growth took place with the three
trees already planted, the two additional 24-inch box trees would be removed and
replanted elsewhere.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that the proposal was a very intelligent solution to
the problem. It was a unique situation and she did not think it was precedent
setting in any way.
Mayor Seymour expressed his deep appreciation in the fact that a department head
had taken the time to visit with a resident to resolve a problem they thought
had already been solved.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, an amend-
ment to the agreement dated May 13, 1980, with Timothy M. and Donna J. Golledge,
to provide for two additional trees to fully eliminate the glare problem from
the Peralta Canyon Park ballfield lighting, was authorized as recommended in
memorandum dated September 9, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager. Councilman
Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilman Roth stated that he noted a remarkable change in
the monitoring of the park lights since the matter was discussed at the May 13,
1980 meeting when he expressed his concern relative to the conservation of
energy in seeing that the lights were turned off when no one was utilizing
the park. He commended Mr. Ruth for correcting the situation.
150/174: GRANT PROPOSAL - FIFTH YEAR SB 174 FUNDING ALLOCATION TO DEVELOP
EUCALYPTUS PARK/SANTA ANA CANYON SITE II: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Reso-
lution No. 80R-411 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 9,
80-1165
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 19807 1:30 P.M.
1980 from the Deputy City Manager, approving the application for grant funds
under the Roberti-Z'Berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program for develop-
ment of the Eucalyptus Park/Santa Ana Canyon Site II in an amount no to exceed
$52,164, and authorizing the City Manager to submit same. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-411: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN-
SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM, EUCALYPTUS PARK/SANTA ANA CANYON SITE NO. II.
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-411 duly passed and adopted.
163: SUPPORTING THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH RESOLUTION REGARDING THE USE OF SCHOOl.
PROPERTIES: Councilman Bay moved to support the City of Redondo Beach resolution
to the League of California Cities Conference in October, seeking clarification
of the historical intent of the Education Code regarding the use of school
properties. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he assumed they were supporting
the proposal. He would certainly support the intent and vote for it, but some
of the specifics in the resolution concerned him.
Councilman Bay stated as he understood, the resolution was merely seeking clari-
fication.
Councilman Overholt stated except for the fact that they were making some strong
statements in the resolution that, "each School District is now arbitrarily
exercising its own judgment as to the public right to use school facilities and
ignoring various provisions of the Education Code." He considered that to be
a pretty strong indictment of the school districts, and he was not acquainted
with that kind of behavior on the part of the School Districts in the City.
Mr. Ruth stated that had not happened in Anaheim but it had in various areas
throughout the State. The hope was that they would sit down and have some
clarification of the intent of the Education Code and work out something that
was more equitable and a more systematic approach to levying those fees in the
future. Everybody agreed they should recover some of those costs, but not all
of them. There had been a great deal of inconsistency throughout the State.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
148: AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN: Indicating
the City's intent to implement prior to December 31, 1982, various air pol-
lution control measures in conformance with the South Coast Air Quality
Management Plan.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-412 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated September 9, 1980 from Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City
Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-1166
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-412: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
INDICATING ITS INTENT TO IMPLEMENT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 31, 1982, HEREIN DEFINED
"REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES" FROM THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would be able to
add to the plan that Anaheim was requesting the Amtrak Station and the use of
natural gas vehicles in the City's fleet.
Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, answered that those items could
be included, but basically they were restricted to the tactic in the plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there was a tactic in that plan to have other
than gasoline powered vehicles; Mr. Armstrong stated that he was not certain
but would find out.
Mayor Seymour asked Councilman Roth since he served on the South Coast Air Quality
Management Board if there was anything in what they were about to vote on that
would cause an increased cost to their constituents.
Councilman Roth answered "no". He also stated that relative to the six measures
contained in the September 9, 1980 report, they should not need the Board to prod
the City on those items. They were strictly general in nature and things they
should be doing. He again elaborated upon the motor vehicle inspection issue
as he had at previous meetings and the effects of non-conformance with that
Federal mandate.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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-412 duly passed and adopted.
155: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN IN SANTA ANA CANYON
ROAD: Report dated September 9, 1980 from the Public Utilities General Manager
recommending that a negative declaration be granted for the installation of a
water transmission main and two pressure reducing stations on the north side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road between Via Cortez and Anaheim Hills Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse impact because all
facilities will be underground and within the existing public right of way and
is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilman Roth stated that due to the fact that in the Canyon
they were just starting to fill the gigantic holes made to accommodate the Diemer
Intertie Project, he was concerned as to what they were going to be tearing up
next in that area. The situation had caused great inconvenience for the last
80-1!67
City Hall~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
1½ years at Imperial, Anaheim Hills Road and Santa Aha Canyon Road and Via
Cortez both for the merchants and the residents of the area.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, explained that the subject project
would involve installing a water main approximately 400 feet east of Via Cortez
to Anaheim Hills Road involving work only in the intersection near Anaheim Hills
and Santa Ana Canyon Road. It would not go into the Via Cortez intersection, and
they would be out of the travel lanes in that area.
124: EXECUTION OF PRODUCTION RELEASE FOR FILMING OF COMMON MAN AND SURVIVAL:
Councilwoman Kaywood first wanted to know if anyone had viewed the production;
indication from staff was that no one had seen the film.
Councilman Roth moved to authorize the Mayor to execute a production release
for the filming of Common Man and Survival (Speak Up America) at the Anaheim
Convention Center, as recommended in memorandum dated September 5, 1980 from
the City Attorney's office. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if the
production release constituted an endorsement of the film or its content by the
City.
City Attorney Hopkins answered "no", but that it was merely a release to utilize
the background of the Convention Center.
Mr. Brian Scott, 15660 Tustin Village Way, Tustin, one of the three people
involved in the production of the film then explained that the scene depicting
the Convention Center was a crowd scene which the management granted permission
to film. It had nothing to do with Anaheim or the Convention Center as such.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/124: CONTEMPORARY SECURITY COMPANY SERVICES AT ANAHEIM STADIUM FOR RAMS
FOOTBALL EVENTS: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on the proposed agree-
ment between the City and Peace Power, Inc., dba Contemporary Security Company
to provide security personnel at Anaheim Stadium Rams Events, effective September 21,
1980. After doing so, he stated that a Lisa Ann Hill from Bonafide Security
was present to speak, as well as acting Chief of Police Jim Kennedy and newly
appointed Anaheim Stadium Operations Manager Neal Beeson, as well as a repre-
sentative from Contemporary. He felt that the proposed agreement would pro-
vide the City with maximum flexibility and assured that the City would continue
to meet its contractual obligations for one of its major tenants.
Ms. Lisa Ann Hill, Bonafide Security Services, stated that they had been in
business in the City for 12 years. They were now contracted to handle security
at the Anaheim Utilities Yard. She had two questions: (1) Why was it necessary
to go outside of Anaheim and Orange County to contract to do Anaheim's work when
there were qualified companies available to handle the particular job involved
and (2) why was the service not open for bids from other companies?
City Manager Talley stated on the first question, when the City was faced with
the prospect of needing a large amount of people in a hurry, they turned to the
organization with whom they had the most experience. They had used Contemporary
80-1168
City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
on a number of occasions for large crowd events at the Stadium and were eminently
familiar with their work and with their management people. When needed on a
short term, that need was for people whose specific expertise was in large crowd
management. They thus turned to the one they felt were leaders in the industry
with whom they had a great deal of experience, that being Contemporary. They
had serviced rock concerts in the past and worked extremely well with the Police
Department and Stadium management personnel.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to Ms. Hill, stated that he could appreciate the fact
her company was now working with the City under contract in providing security
at the Utilities Yard. He encouraged her, as would any member of the Council,
to submit what she would feel to be their special qualifications in handling
what was a somewhat different type of'crowd control for consideration some time
in the future. As the City Manager said, they were caught short, they had a
problem and a decision to make, and they made the best one at that time and
that was the explanation as to why there was no public bidding or no time to
go out and solicit proposals for a number of firms. On the other hand, he
was certain they would not be doing business with that company forever and
some time in the future it wnuld be appropriate to review and inquire if there
should be a change. He again encouraged her on behalf of her company to sub-
mit what she would think would be their qualifications for handling the type
of activities that were conducted both at the Convention Center and the Stadium.
Mr. Talley then clarified for Ms. Hill that the present agreement would expire
at the end of January 1981. He suggested that she submit a proposal some time
in the near future and he would have staff evaluate it, so that when the need
arose, staff would have had discussions with Bonafide prior to that time.
Councilman Overholt stated, to amplify the comment regarding the term, the agree-
ment was also cancellable by either body on 30 days' notice and thus, it seemed
that Bonafide or any other company should submit their information immediately.
Councilman Roth explained that the Council was put in a position on a Thursday
with the prospect of having 69,000 people at a Saturday game with only 40 police
officers available. They therefore had to take action rapidly to insure the
health and safety of citizens.
Ms. Hill then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that at the moment, they had
200 employees, but they could staff up to fill a larger need.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve an agreement between the City and
Contemporary Security Company regarding crowd control services at Anaheim
Stadium for Los Angeles Rams events, effective September 21, 1980, as recommended
in memorandum dated September 15, 1980 from the City Manager. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding
that the security would be under the direction of the management of the City.
He asked for clarification.
City Manager Talley stated that was correct. The City would determine the
number and also the mix of the people providing security services. That was
how it had been done by Captain Kennedy and Neal Beeson. They would advise
how many green sheet officers were needed and assuming that those quantities
80-1169
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
were met, then the balance preselected would come from Contemporary. If for some
reason there were not quite as many people on sign up for the green sheet, then
it might be necessary for the City management to modify that composition. They
did have that right or prerogative or responsibility.
Councilman Overholt assumed that both Captain Kennedy and Mr. Beeson were sat-
isfied with the agreement; from the audience, Captain Kennedy acknowledged
that they were.
Mayor Seymour asked Captain Kennedy, in the event of a need to direct either
the security Company forces or in the event of a request for assistance on
behalf of Mr. Beeson or Stadium employees, he wanted to know who was in charge.
Were the City's police officers in charge and would they be directing the
private security company personnel or vice versa? Who would respond and who
was responsible.
Mr. Talley first answered it was his view that they were all working directly
or indirectly more or less for Mr. Liegler who was providing a service to a
tenant. The cost borne and the need for service was caused by the tenant so
ultimately they were all employees of the Rams.
Captain James Kennedy stated it was his understanding after their meeting yester-
day, that Stadium personnel would be assisting them in assigning functions to
either the Police agency or Contemporary security Company. They had discussed
that and had their duties already outlined. They would be responsible as a
Police agency for certain areas and problems and Contemporary Security would
have their responsibilities. Should either agency require assistance, the
other would be there to assist. Their headquarters office would be in the
Security Office at the Stadium, and Contemporary would have a man in that office
with communications, and they would be working very closely together.
After a further discussion bewteen the Mayor and Captain Kennedy for purposes of
clarification, a vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR MANAGING UNDERWRITER AND CO-MANAGING UNDERWRITERS
FOR THE 1980 SERIES ELECTRIC REVENUE BOND ISSUE: Public Utilities General Manager
Gordon Hoyt briefed the Council on his report dated September 16, 1980 recommending
that the Council appoint the following firms as Senior Managing Underwriter and
Co-managing Underwriters for the Electric Revenue Bond Issue of 1980: Senior
Manager, Salomon Bros.; Co-managers, Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Merrill Lynch White
Weld Capital Markets Group, and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette.
He explained that they received many proposals, and he, Mr. Ferrone, the Finance
Director, Darrell Ament, Utilities Management Services Manager, and their
Financial Advisor James Lowrey and Bob McDonnell, individually reviewed the
proposals. They met last night and had surprising agreement on the firms
that were selected. They basically selected the managing underwriter on the
basis that their financial advisor believed that the services of Dr. Martin
Lebowitz, General Partner of Salomon Brothers, in giving credibility to the call
feature they were proposing to use, was essential to the success of the issue.
Salomon had gone into depth on that, as had Goldman & Sachs and Donaldson,
Lufkin & Jenrette. Ail seemed to respond enthusiastically about the opportunity
for success for the call feature. They were all leading underwriters in the
Country, probably strong in terms of equity capital and excess net capital
repeated and it terms of bonds sold in California and public power bonds.
80-1170
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
They looked at the relative positions of the organizations to see that they were
well capitalized and what they could bring to the marketing of the bonds. They
felt it important that an institutional firm be their Senior Manager since the
great bulk of the bonds would be sold to institutions. They also felt they
would be able to convince the institutional buyers that Anaheim was a very good
credit and these were high quality bonds which they should buy and for good
reason even though they were original discount bonds with an under par call
feature. Goldman, Sachs and Merrill Lynch were probably the largest institu-
tional bankers in the Country in terms of bonds sold, with the Merrill Lynch
White Weld Capital Markets Group being the largest underwriter in terms of
account executives that were available to market the bonds. He felt they had
selected a very strong group, and the bonds could be and would be negotiated in
the very best interests of Anaheim to get the lowest interest rate available at
the time of marketing those bonds.
They had accelerated their schedule somewhat to accommodate the wishes of the
Council and they were looking at a sale date of Thursday, October 9, 1980, which
would be an execution of a contract between the City and the Managing Under-
writers necessitating a special Council meeting at a time to be determined.
He suggested perhaps an adjournment of the Council meeting of October 7, 1980
to Thursday, October 9, 1980.
Discussion then followed between Council and Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Bob McDonald,
Executive Vice President of James J. Lowrey and Company, revolving around the
proposed date of sale. Councilman Roth was not expected to be in town on
October 9 and Councilman Overholt on October 10. The concern was expressed
that a full Council should be available when the sale was ready to be executed.
At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor suggested that the situation remain
flexible but that they should plan on Thursday morning, October 9, 1980. Mr.
Hoyt should keep in touch with him and other members of the Council as to his
progress on negotiations and he was certain that both Councilmen Roth and
Overholt, if they had to, would make some adjustments, but if not necessary, they
would be informed accordingly.
Mr. Hoyt also stated that there was another item although somewhat unusual.
Since he and the City Manager and the Financial Director would all be in New
York with the leading agencies next Tuesday, he asked Mr. Bill Kraemer,
O'Melveney and Meyers, to come to the Council meeting with a request for autho-
rization to mail the Official Statement. They could approve it in substantial
principle as it existed, and they could then mail it out on Friday.
Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. McDonald if his firm had any connection whatsoever,
financially or otherwise, with any of the managing underwriters or co-managers.
Mr. James Lowrey explained as a retired General Partner of the firm of Salomon
Brothers, when he terminated his employment, it was provided he would be paid
his capital in installments over ten years. Salomon Brothers, of which he wa
a debenture holder but did not share in the profits, had a significant amount
of money on which they paid him interest which would not be redeemed until 1988.
As far as financial interest in the firm with respect to its profitability or
the business of the firm, he had absolutely no interest whatsoever.
80-1171
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney if there was any potential conflict in
that.
City Attorney Hopkins stated if there was no tie-in with profit, he did not
see any problem; Mr. Lowrey confirmed that he had no tie-in with profit.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
following firms were appointed as Senior Managing Underwriter and Co-managing
Underwriters for the Electric Revenue Bond Issue of 1980: Senior Manager,
Salomon Brothers; Co-managers, Goldman, Sachs & Company; Merrill Lynch White
Weld Capital Markets Group, and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:10 P.M.)
175: AMENDMENT TO POWER SALES CONTRACT (CALIFORNIA POWER SALES CONTRACT) WITH
INTERMOUNTAIN POWER AGENCY: Councilman Overholt moved to (1) authorize an
amendment dated August 1, 1980 to the California Power Sales Contract with the
Intermountain Power Agency, to clarify that each of the six California power
purchasers is entitled to appoint one representative to the Coordinating
Committee; (2) authorize the first amendment to the Power Sales Contract with
the Intermountain Power Agency, to permit equal representation on the Coor-
dinating Committee for Utah and California participants, as recommended in
memorandum dated September 5, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Council-
man Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/124: ORDINANCE NO. 4162 - HOTEL LEASE AND COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY SERIES
D REVENUE BOND ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4162 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4162: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(A) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE DATED FOR
CONVENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY
CENTER AUTHORITY, (B) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE DATED FOR
CONVENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY
CENTER AUTHORITY, AND (C) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND
DELIVER SAID FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE AND SAID FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE.
108: APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT DEVICE PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, application for Amusement Device Permit sub-
mitted by St. Anthony de Padua Church to permit a cocktail type pinball machine
during their Fiesta to be held September 19 through September 21, 1980 at the
Church grounds on Solomon Drive, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
106/150/161: APPROPRIATION OF REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER: (Continued for the meetings of August 26 and September 2,
1980) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, Redevelopment
funds were appropriated for the Senior Citizens' Center entrance modifications
project, as discussed in memorandum dated September 2, 1980 from the City Attorney's
office and as recommended in memorandum dated August 20, 1980 from the Assistant
Finance Director. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1172
City Hal_l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
103: PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY - "FAIR SHARE" OF PROPERTY
TAX REVENUE: Discussion relating to a property tax exchange agreement with the
County for property annexed to the City between January 2, 1978 and July 24, 1979
(continued from the meetings of April 8 and 29, May 27, July 8 and August 12, 1980).
City Manager Talley reported that he was advised that County and City represen-
tatives were meeting today and thus, he recommended the matter be continued for
an additional four weeks. Agreements as drafted would be presented to the
League of California Cities, Orange County Division and subsequently forwarded
to the various City Councils, which he hoped would happen within the next 60
days.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration
of the subject matter was continued four weeks. MOTION CARRIED.
105: REQUEST BY THE LIBRARY BOARD FOR A JOINT MEETING WITH THE COUNCIL: Council-
man Overholt explained for the Mayor that the meeting had been broached and dis-
cussed at the previous meeting (see minutes September 9, 1980) wherein two
different thoughts relative to days and time were expressed.
Mayor Seymour asked for the Council's recommendations; Councilman Roth again
stated his preference that such meetings be held on the same day as Council
meetings if they were not going to take three or four hours, thereby eliminating
the need to meet on another day. Both the Mayor and Councilman Bay concurred.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the Council try to hold such meetings on a
Tuesday morning, dependent upon the agenda involved, with a starting time of per-
haps 10:30 a.m. If the agenda looked as though it would take one or one and
one-half hours to complete, they could set the time accordingly. He also moved
that the requested meeting be set for Tuesday, September 23, 1980 at 10:00 a.m.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they also had a
night meeting scheduled for that day over and above the afternoon session and
that was asking too much. The agenda submitted by the Library Board did not
look critical. She was concerned that the late meeting would extend well into
the night hours.
Further Council discussion followed relative to the possibility of postponing
the joint meeting for two weeks, as well as the problems involved in meetings
continuing through lunch and dinner hours with no opportunity for a break.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay seconded the foregoing motion
that the joint meeting with the Library Board be set for 10:00 a.mo Tuesday,
September 23, in the Council Chambers.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt moved to amend the motion to set
the meeting time for 10:30 a.m. As Liaison to the Library Board, he could not
see that the agenda submitted would take more than an hour. Also as Liaison,
relative to Councilwoman Kaywood's suggestion that perhaps they could wait two
weeks, he stated that the Board was anxious to share their thoughts with the
Council on the items listed and were requesting the opportunity to meet with
the body they advised.
80-1173
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The amendment was acceptable to both Councilmen Roth and Bay.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. MOTION CARRIED.
139/175: PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION - REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF IN-DEPTH ECONOMIC
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1980 (HR 6121): Continued
from September 9, 1980 to allow discussion by a full Council and input from
Staff and Telephone Company.
Councilman Roth stated that he was glad that the Council did not take an action
last Tuesday on the subject after reading the correspondence provided to them
by Mr. Joe Wright, Telephone Company representative. Mr. Wright submitted a
letter from Congressman VanDeerlin to Governor Brown dated September 2, 1980
discussing and rebutting five specific objections to HR 6121 as raised by Mr.
John E. Bryson, President of the Public Utilities Commission, in his letter dated
August 27, 1980 to the Congressman. Councilman Roth thus recommended that no
action be taken on the Public Utilities Commission request.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would have to echo Councilman Roth's view and
was glad that he asked Mr. Wright to provide further information. It was an
eye opener.
Councilman Bay stated as far as he knew, the Public Utilities Commission was
merely asking for an in-depth economic evaluation. He was questioning if they
were saying they did not need such an evaluation.
Councilman Roth felt that in light of Congressman VanDeerlin's letter to Governor
Brown, he found it impossible to accept the Commission's statements. He could
not believe that they would solicit help from City Councils or any other elected
officials when their statements were so much in doubt.
No further action was taken on the request.
106/123/162: WE TIP REQUEST FOR FUNDS: Continued from the meeting of September
9, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the allocation of $4,000 to
support We Tip as requested in the letter of August 28, 1980, asking for two
cents per person in Anaheim. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Councilman Roth asked if they had ever supported We Tip in the past with any
tax money; the Mayor answered "yes".
City Clerk Linda Roberts reported that the City had contributed $1,000 to We
Tip by agreement approximately three to four years ago.
Councilman Bay stated that he could not support the motion for $4,000 after
reading the report from Acting Chief of Police, Jim Kennedy, dated September 16,
1980 even after it indicated that the Department did receive some help from the
organization's activities. In evaluating that action, he could only find about
eight tangible tips that resulted in any real action over a one-year period.
Therefore, he would offer an amendment to the motion decreasing the amount
allocated to $1,000.
80-1174
C.%tH Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt indicated their acceptance of
the amendment to $1,000.
Councilman Roth asked to hear from Lt. Wilcox on the matter; Lt. Wilcox stated
that he had nothing to add other than the fact that it was very difficult to
place a dollar value on the activity. They had contributed some information
but the breakdown they had was for the last year. Now, that information was
going directly to the Orange County District Attorney's office for the Orange
County Narcotic Index and then forwarded to each agency. However, the informa-
tion did give a verification of other information that they had and gave them
something else to work on. There was nothing they could do with some of that
information but it was a cooperation.
The City Attorney explained that on previous occasions they had prepared an
agreement with We Tip to provide certain literature and he recommended that
the present situation be handled in the same manner--that it be done by
agreement with We Tip for the funds to be given.
Councilman Bay noted that We Tip was broadening their program into the area of
arson. He asked if the arson tips would come straight through to the Police
Department; Lt. Wilcox confirmed that those tips would come directly to the
Police Department. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that to his
knowledge there was no other organization that provided information.
Mayor Seymour stated that next year the City send a letter to We Tip to tell
them that Anaheim considered its budget expenditures by June 30th of each year
and that they should submit any requests for funding before that time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that $1,000 be allocated from
the Council Contingency Fund for We Tip, with an appropriate agreement to be
drawn indicating that the organization would be providing certain services for
the funding. MOTION CAi{RIED.
174: EMERGENCY SERVICES PLAN: Mr. Coalson Morris to address the Council re
Blue Ribbon Committee on Emergency Preparedness and Civil Defense, requested
by Councilman Bay at the meeting of September 9, 1980.
Mr. Coalson Morris, Chairman of the Orange County Committee on Emergency Prepar-
edness and Civil Defense, stated the Committee was put together with an idea that
the program would be at no expense to the County or any other agency in the
County. He wanted first to make that point clear. He would be happy to answer
any questions.
Councilman Bay stated that he made the original request for information and his
intention was that the staff brief the Council and update them on the Emergency
Preparedness Program. He appreciated Mr. Morris being present to bring them up
to date on what the Blue Ribbon Committee did, which information was contained
in a letter to Supervisor Philip Anthony dated June 26, 1980. He questioned Mr.
Morris relative to Item 6), Page 2 of the letter stating, "State law mandates
that all cities, schools and special districts have an emergency preparedness
plan".
80-1175
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Morris answered that was given to them by the County Counsel and they would
have to refer to Counsel on that. His understanding was that all agencies were
required under State law to have an emergency program.
Further discussion and questioning followed between Mr. Morris and Members of
the Council for purposes of clarification on the plan, at the conclusion of
which, Mr. Morris stated what they were saying in essence was to become informed,
keep updated on the plan, and try to dovetail the City's plan with the County's
plan, so that they could all work together.
Councilman Roth noted that the City's Emergency Services Coordinator, Frank
Madden, was present and asked if he had any comment to make.
Mr. Frank Madden stated that the City was probably unique in that it did have
continuing Liaison with the County and other cities within the County that had
such programs. They did not try to re-invent the wheel and if he developed a
plan that was good for another City, that City would adopt that plan and he would
also do so concurrently. Relative to Item 6 as previously mentioned, the State
did not mandate that a City had a plan. The State of California Emergency Plan
must be in existence within the City, but it did not mandate that the City have
its own plan, but Anaheim did have such a plan.
Mayor Seymour asked if he knew any reason why Anaheim would be unwilling to sign
the "Unified Orange County-City's Disaster Program".
Mr. Madden answered that in reviewing the old agreement, his predecessor had
indicated he was opposed to it, one reason being the fee, but secondly, every-
thing in the agreement was already being done by Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour stated it seemed only logical to him if what Mr. Morris stated
was true, i.e., by signing the agreement it in no way possible could hinder
the City's plan, there was no problem.
Mr. Madden stated he would want to check one thing out with the State before
signing the agreement to see if it would impact the City's personnel admini-
strative program because they were approved for P&A funding as a City.
Mayor Seymour stated it seemed to him, although there may be more to it, Anaheim
had its plan, the County had its plan, they had an agreement to work cooperatively
with them--if it was that simple, he would think it would be in the City's best
interest to do it. If more than that, perhaps there was a good reason not to do
it.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Manager to obtain a copy of
the subject agreement, have it reviewed and prepare a report as to why Anaheim
should or should not sign it. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mr. Madden stated he would like to take it upon himself
to check with the State about the P&A impact.
Councilman Bay commented that he also read there was going to be decentralization
of a news release in the event of a County-wide disaster and he also might take a
closer look at that.
80-1176
City Hal~, Ana.~e~m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Madden explained if there was an emergency encompassing a great area, that
would be a good idea, however the way Anaheim's basic plan was written, all
information released to the media was to be prepared by the Public Information
Officer and released with the approval of the City Manager acting as Director
of Emergency Services.
Councilman Bay stated those were some of the things that he was interested in,
pro or con, on whether they would be centralized to County control--just how
much control, where it would be centralized and what effect it would have on
the City.
Mr. Madden stated if the new proposed agreement took any control away from the
City, he would recommend against it.
Mayor Seymour stated that they had to find a way to coordinate with their neigh-
bors in the community in case of a disaster because disasters did not confine
themselves to City limits. The spirit was to try to find a cooperative effort.
If he (Madden) found it was not in the City's best interest to enter into the
agreement, then he was going to look to him and his recommendation as to how
they would enter into some spirit of agreement relative to a major disaster.
He did not question that the City had a good plan, but what communication lines
there would be and how would the City's Plan, and the carrying out of that plan,
impact Anaheim's neighbors and vice versa.
Mr. Madden stated that most of the Cities that had approved emergency plans were
all organized the same way. In addition, every city in the County of Orange was
signatory to the State's Master Mutual Aid Program. He reiterated he would
like to see the agreement first before making any recommendations.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she could see some possibility in an
emergency occurring where it would be necessary to act fast and if they had
to clear with the County first, it would cause a slow down. Thus it was
certainly necessary to see the agreement first.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MDTION CARRIED.
148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 82ND ANNUAL CONFERENCE - REQUEST FOR CITY'S
VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE: October 19-22, 1980 in Los Angeles. Mayor
Seymour noted that typically the Mayor was the voting delegate and the Mayor
Pro Tem, the Alternate, and unless there was some specific objection to that,
that they carry on that tradition. He intended to be present at the Conference
on the day resolutions were going to be voted on. All Council Members, except
Councilman Bay, indicated that they planned to attend the conference.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Mayor and Mayor
Pro Tem were appointed the Voting Delegate and Alternate, respectively. MOTION
CARRIED.
105: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF CITY
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, first read a pre-
pared four-page statement entitled, "Comments to Anaheim City Council Regarding
its Meeting of September 16, 1980 by Louis Dexter, Citizen of Anaheim," (on
file in the City Clerk's office, which gave in great detail the purpose for
80-1177
City Hall~ Aqa.heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
addressing the Council, and the background leading up to his recommendations,
I through V on page 4 of the document. Also see minutes dated June 10, 1980
on the subject of Code of Conduct pertaining to Appointees to Boards and
Commissions wherein Mr. Dexter asked Councilman Overholt to read a letter
regarding its adoption of guidelines or a Code of Ethics governing the poli-
tical behavior of its appointees on Council established commissions, boards
and committees.)
In concluding, Mr. Dexter e~phasized he was addressing areas where he felt Council
was responsible and as a citizen of Anaheim, he would like to see the Council
take a more active part in its oversight responsibility of the agencies, committees,
boards and commissions which they created. As far as he was concerned, they
had done nothing in that regard. They could either act on the recommendations
he proposed or their own, but he urged them to do something.
Councilman Roth pointed out that even amongst Council there was diversification
of opinions on issues for instance, on items that were going on the November
ballot. As he understood Mr. Dexter, for example, if the Public Utilities
Board (PUB) voted 5 to 2 for the Intermountain Power Project, as soon as the
vote was over, the two members opposing should then be in concert with the
other five. He wanted to know if that was correct.
Mr. Dexter answered that it was partly right. If he voted in opposition, he
would not expect the others to change over to make it unanimous. Those members
would have had the opportunity to present their case to the body of which they
were a member. Subsequently, the idea that they were role playing as a member
of the commission and then if they did not like what it was doing, they would
have a citizen's right to speak out, he did not think that had support, both in
public administration theory and legally it was tenuous.
Councilman Roth, looking for further clarification, asked relative to the rights
of the individual to dissent, he was saying they should not have that right after
a vote was taken by the Council to go with the majority.
Mr. Dexter answered as a citizen, he would say "yes", but not as a member that
had contributed to City government.
Councilman Roth then pointed out that every member of a board or commission
served at the pleasure of the Council and they had the power to remove a member
with the vote of three or more Council Members. Rather than the cumbersome
rules and regulations he (Dexter) was suggesting, it was necessary to realize
that on any given Tuesday, a majority of the Council could remove that person
from their appointed position.
Mr. Dexter, after elaborating further on the matter, stated that the Council
was solely responsible for the policy making of the City. He was certain they
could come up with some guidelines that would let people know once they par-
ticipated in the process which they agreed to be a part of, if they could not
support the majority rule, that they at least should not undermine it.
Councilman Bay then referred to Mr. Dexter's two-page letter of August 25, 1980
(on file in the City Clerk's office) and gave his opinions relative to the opin-
ions expressed by Mr. Dexter in that letter. Among other comments, he specifically
80-1178
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
noted that some of the conclusions contained in the letter did not give enough
weight to the fact that the minority must be heard. As he went through some
of the suggestions, he considered them to be a gag rule on commissioners to
some extent. He personally did not want "yes" men on commissions or in
administrative management of the City, but wanted both sides of every question
explored. He would defend any member's right to disagree, whether he agreed
or not. He reiterated that when he (Dexter) indicated it was imperative to
establish a policy covering the public and political behavior of appointees,
it smacked of gag rule. As far as being able to discipline members or repudiate
their activities, as Councilman Roth stated, that could be done on any Tuesday
by a vote of three Council Members. He also did not agree that because they
had taken no action in the subject regard, that an implicit policy had been
established by Council allowing such behavior as outlined by appointed commission,
board or committee members.
Mr. Dexter reiterated his perception was that in joining any organization, a
person gave up something. The members of the committee were selected by the
Council should have some kind of loyalty and commitment. Once a disagreement
was resolved within a committee, board or commission and they decided something,
people that were part of that process should not be allowed to go out and under-
mine that decision such as in the examples cited in his presentation. He also
reemphasized that it was important that the Council take a more active over-
sight responsibility in that regard.
Councilman Overholt stated that he read Mr. Dexter's letter of June 10, 1980
to the Council when he (Dexter) could not be present. He felt that the Mayor
expressed his (Overholt) views at that meeting in response to the letter (see
minutes that date). Where there were appointive commissions and boards, any
time three members of the five-member Council felt that the activity of members
of those groups were destructive or inconsistent in their responsibilities as
members, recognizing their rights as private citizens to disagree, on any given
Tuesday, a majority of the Council could remove that member. A set of guide-
lines were also suggested and the Mayor responded that the relationship should
be a flexible one. Relative to setting up an ad hoc committee to evaluate the
overall effectiveness of Council appointed groups, he maintained that committee
was the Council, having the right to take action to terminate or reorganize
that commission or board and in so doing they would be responsive to the
citizen. He also was not certain there should be an appeal system as suggested.
Regarding a directory of the membership of each commission, board and committee
with all pertinent information, he thought that such a list was available.
City Clerk Roberts stated on file in her office was a list of all such boards
and commissions containing addresses and telephone numbers. Further, although
that information was contained in the in-house telephone directory, it was not
distributed to the public.
Mayor Seymour, noting that considerable time had been spent on the matter and
by Mr. Dexter as well in presenting his viewpoint, stated that at this time
it was apparent that a majority of the Council had responded generally a neg-
ative viewpoint. In all fairness however, the Council had not had an oppor-
tunity to review the presentation made by Mr. Dexter, including the five
80-1179
City ~1,. ~nah~m, qalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
recommendations, but he had received an initial feeling from the Council. He
felt that they would all best be served if the Council were provided additional
time to study the recommendations and if they then chose to take any further
action, they could do so. On behalf of the Council, he thanked Mr. Dexter for
continuing to be a very concerned citizen and to be quick and willing to stand
up and speak his piece. It was one of the things that made the City so great--
that any citizen could come express his viewpoint. On the other hand, he felt
at this point that they had had a fair and open discussion.
Before concluding, Mr. Dexter asked if, in his opinion, in the two events he
cited involving the Public Utilities Board members that was considered unaccep-
table behavior.
The Mayor answered, since the majority of the Council took no action to remove
the Board member, without setting any precedent, they had accepted the situation
although perhaps they did not like it. If they felt otherwise, the board member(s)
would have been removed from office the next Tuesday.
129: PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS CIRCULATED TO BAN PUBLIC SALE OF FIREWORKS~
FIREWORKS STANDS AND UNAUTHORIZED USE OF FIREWORKS IN THE CITY: Request by
Mrs. Dawn Johnson to present the subject petitions to the Council, was sub-
mitted.
Mrs. Dawn Johnson, 616 North Olive, Apt. C, stated that she represented 2,000
concerned citizens in her signed petitions for banning fireworks. She then
read a poem which expressed her true feelings relative to fireworks. The poem
emphasized the destructive aspects of fireworks and urged the banning of all
public sales and firework stands throughout the land. She then submitted to
the Council a copy of an article from the magazine "Baby Talk" which was pre-
sented to her by one of the people who signed the petition. She was certain
the Council was aware of the statistics of ail of the casualties that took
place the past Fourth of July relating to fireworks. In going door to door in
greeting the public and also in public places, the feeling was very strong and
it made a great impact on her. Her opinion on the matter, besides the sentiment
expressed in her poem, was that there be enforcement--strong penalties, so strong
not only relative to fireworks, but also with every crime, so that no one would
lift a finger to do anything wrong. She was certain the casualties involved
were detrimental to everyone with regard to home and business property. She
was certain, considering the statistics of the damage that was done with fire-
works the past Fourth of July, that would outweigh the lack of police protec-
tion. She felt if they could have utilized unmarked squad cars during that
period, it would have been helpful. She had fireworks over her home every
night in June.
Mrs. Johnson then concluded by relaying an unfortunate incident that occurred
to one of the people who signed the petition in setting off safe and sane
fireworks. She also confirmed for Councilman Roth that she did not oppose
the fireworks displays at Disneyland and the Stadium. They were of short
duration and were beautiful. She expressed to her people that the petition
did not include the Disneyland and Stadium fireworks displays.
80-1180
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth, speaking to the City Attorney, stated that Mrs. Johnson was
advocating the ban of unauthorized fireworks. He believed they already had
such a law on the books regarding illegal fireworks which were found to be
causing most fires.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated there was such an ordinance and read the
provisions of that ordinance contained in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
penalty for which was a misdemeanor penalty of a $500 fine or six months in
jail for violation.
Councilman Overholt then asked to share with Mrs. Johnson the concern they all
had. After the last Fourth of July, a report was prepared as to the damage
that had been afflicted on persons and property as a result of fireworks. When
that report was presented, he asked the City Attorney if he would provide a
report to him as to what, if anything, could be done. The report submitted
indicated it was the illegal fireworks that were creating the problem, partic-
ularly bottle rockets. The upshot of the report was that greater enforcement
with respect to illegal fireworks would alleviate the problem. He shared that
with the Mayor and turned the report over to the City Manager to have the Police
Department come up with recommendations as to how they might better enforce the
existing ordinance to protect life and property from the impact of illegal
fireworks. The thrust was illegal fireworks because those involved the greatest
damage. Safe and sane fireworks did present a danger, but the real impact
involved the illegals. He assumed that in the near future, they were going
to get some response from the Police Department as to how they might better
enforce the existing ordinance banning illegal fireworks.
Mr. Talley stated it was his impression that the report had been prepared, but
he would check on the status of that report.
Councilman Overholt continued that beyond that, he felt in talking about safe
and sane fireworks that nothing was safe and sane, but he did not know how
accidents could be prevented if people did not use those fireworks as they
were intended to be used. He wanted Mrs. Johnson to know that they were
concerned. The City Attorney and the Fire Department had prepared a report
and they were awaiting a report from the Police Department as to how to avoid
the large property damage from illegal fireworks as reported. He was not
certain there was a 100% solution, but they should at least be able to improve
the situation.
Councilwoman Kaywood first thanked Mrs. Johnson for her efforts in going door
to door to obtain signatures. She then wanted to know if there were any sta-
tistics on what happened in cities where safe and sane fireworks were banned
and whether there was as much of a problem with the illegal ones.
Deputy Fire Marshal Garth Menges first referred to the Fire Department Fireworks
Incident Damages Report (July 10, 1980) which he believed had been submitted to
the Council. He explained that the Fire Department did not endorse the petition
Mrs. Johnson circulated, but they were supportive of it because of the tremendous
loss involved each year by fireworks which last year totaled $425,475. Anaheim
was the leading City in the County with such losses. In County territory, there
were 19 fires caused by safe and sane fireworks and throughout the entire County
there were 63 such fires. Anaheim had 26 fires from undetermined fireworks sources,
80-1181
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
51 from illegal fireworks and one from safe and sane. They also confiscated
approximately 1,500 pounds of illegal fireworks from Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
He also reported, in answer to Councilman Roth, that several cities in Orange
County had outlawed safe and sane fireworks. Although they did not have a
list of those cities, he was aware that La Habra, Seal Beach and Newport Beach
had done so.
Councilman Roth noted in the attachment to the Fire Department report giving
Orange County fireworks statistics, that La Habra had two fires involving safe
and sane fireworks and Newport Beach had four, cities that had outlawed such
fireworks, but that Anaheim had no such reported fires. He asked Mr. Menges,
in all the years he had been in the fire business, if he found that if the City
outlawed safe and sane fireworks, it was a deterrent to the invitation into the
City of illegal fireworks.
Mr. Menges stated he did not believe it was a deterrent, but felt that they had
to beef up their enforcement on the illegals because that was the source of the
problem. There were so many they did not know where to begin, and they did not
have the manpower to accomplish such enforcement.
Councilman Overholt noted the statistics on the first page of the Fire Depart-
ment report showing 51 cases of illegal fireworks and 26 cases of undetermined
fireworks. He contended if someone were to make a case that safe and sane
fireworks were causing property damage or injury in Anaheim, they would have
a "tough row to hoe." The enforcement efforts against illegal fireworks was
the challenge.
Mr. Menges agreed and stated that he felt that every fire department in California
would like to see something done with fireworks.
Councilwoman Kaywopd wondered if the safe and sane fireworks were outlawed and
somebody heard fireworks being set off in their neighborhood, they would then
know that they were outlawed and report the incident. If there were no fire-
works allowed in Anaheim, then anyone would know to call either the Fire Depart-
ment or the Police since there would be no question as to legality.
Mr. Menges felt that could be done but again it involved a Police effort.
Councilman Bay maintained that the issue was enforcement. They had enforcement
issues ail over the City on many things and the Council was on record on beefing
up the Police Department budget this year. What they should look at was the
enforcement side. One thing they could be thinking about in looking not only
at property costs but also cost to City services during the Independence Day
holiday for weeks prior to and weeks after, was the possibility of hiring
private sector security to beef up and supplement the Police and Fire Department
enforcement during that period as they had done in hiring the private sector
to help with security at the Stadium. That way they might find some tangible
way to at least counter some of the dollar and injury losses that were apparent
from illegal fireworks.
80-1182
City Hal%, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September i6, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Menges stated one of the biggest problems with regard to enforcement was the
fact that, as Councilman Overholt had explained, as to having the opportunity to
buy fireworks out of state, it was the solid citizens who did not really realize
the hazards of the fact that they were breaking the law. Thus it became a
matter of confiscating those fireworks or citing for possession.
Councilman Bay noted that they had asked for help in Neighorhood Watch Programs
for burglaries and attempted within economic means to beef up the Police Depart-
ment to assist on those problems. They could certainly look at the possibility
of beefing up enforcement relative to fireworks with the private sector, as well
as the Neighborhood Watch Program. He felt with the help of citizens and per-
haps some new ideas as to how it could be done, they could help to some degree.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that perhaps in the Anaheim Hills area more
education needed to be given. She noted that the Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment had put on displays in parks for people who were unable to see the
Tommy Walker display at the Stadium on July 4th, and they were beautiful.
Councilman Roth then cited examples of devastating fires in other areas occurring
from all different sources. He maintained that it took good citizens and good
thinking on behalf of all citizens no matter what the source of fires might
be.
Assistant Fire Chief Martel Thompson stated he had additional statistics following
on those of Mrs. Johnson's which perhaps were more realistic from a State stand-
point. Safe and sane fireworks yielded $23 million in proceeds for sale of those
fireworks the past Fourth of July in the State of California and the conservative
estimate was that there were ten times that amount for the illegal in the State
alone. They were presented with a dollar loss earlier but they had not put to-
gether a dollar cost to negate perhaps ten times that amount for the City. There
were 61 fireworks stands in the City this year and although they did not know
the profit margin, they knew it was substantial. They were not certain how
they could compute profit earned by charity groups against the actual real loss
to the citizenry. He agreed with Mr. Menges and that he would support banning
fireworks entirely. He then gave an example which exemplified the tremendous
problem relative to enforcement of the situation. Their contention from a
Fire Department standpiont was that if no fireworks were allowed, enforcement
would be much easier because any fireworks would then be illegal, thus reducing
enforcement. Some of the citizens, as an aid to the Police and Fire Departments,
might be a very real way of handling the situation. He also did not think they
could hire enough police officers to handle the week of the Fourth of July.
City Manager Talley then confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the requested
report from the Police Department would be forthcoming shortly.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman
Roth, 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:
80-1183
City Hal%,. An.aheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
a. Claim submitted by Doug Thorne for damages purportedly sustained as a result
of street sweeper encounter with model airplane, on or about August 26, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Farmer Insurance Group (Victor Ornis, Insured) for damages
purportedly sustained as a result of power surge caused by transformer failure,
at 1250 N. Ralston, on or about July 2, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Gregory G. Pierce for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of claimant stepping into hole in street near 318 Leatrice
Lane, on or about July 14, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Ralph L. and June K. Fourman for damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of negligent maintenance of slope adjacent to 4940 Santa
Ana Canyon Road, causing severe damage to residential property at that address,
on or about February, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by William and Dawn Moore for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of parkway tree roots which clogged main sewer line, on or about
April 26, 1980 and May 10, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Shirley Godlewski for vehicular damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of large tree limb falling on car parked in front of 1140
Leisure Court, on or about September 7, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by Lydia Davies and Farmers Insurance Group for vehicular
damages purportedly sustained as a result of malfunctioning traffic signals at
the intersection of Kraemer and Mira Loma, on or about July 17, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by Kelly Breitenstein for damage to vehicle purportedly
sustained as a result of "ticket" being placed on windshield of car at 702 N.
Gilbert Street, on or about August 20, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by Charles E. Suggett, President, Chasco, Inc., for vehicular
damages purportedly sustained as a result of parking attendant direction to a
Stadium parking area where no space was available, on or about August 11, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by John Sherlock Anderson for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of false arrest, on or about June 16, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of August 27, 1980.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of August 28 and September 4 (un-
approved), 1980.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for August 1980.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Police a Public Dance Permit was approved for Empresa Frias, for
a dance to be held September 27, 1980, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim
Convention Center. (Cruz Munos Frias, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
80-1184
Cit~ H.a!l,. Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-413
through 80R-421, 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-413: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Stadium Pro-
perties, a Ltd. Partnership; Vanderson Construction, Inc.; Kayco, Inc.; R. G.
Garland Corp.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-414: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DWYER DRIVE
STORM WATER PUMP STATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-
E0310; 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 AUTHOR-
IZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened October 16, 1980, 2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-415: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EUCALYPTUS
PARK DEVELOPMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-803-7103; 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 16, 1980, 2:00 P.M.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-416: 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: CLEMENTINE SEWER AND WATER
IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 11-790-6325-0150; 51-606-
6329-25850-34340; 51-606-6329--26280-34320. (Nick Didovic Construction Company)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-417: 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: PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
SAFETY LIGHTING ON LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND OLIVE STREET, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 42-848-6325. (Steiny and Company, Incorporated)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-418: 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: PERALTA HILLS STREET IMPROVE-
MENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3340. (R. J. Noble Company)
80-1185
City ~a~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
101: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-419: 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: THE DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION
OF THE ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANAHEIM STADIUM EXPAN-
SION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Stewart-Warner Corporation)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-420: 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: LINCOLN AVENUE STREET IMPROVE-
MENT - HARBOR BOULEVARD TO CITRON STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
12-793-6325-3330. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-421: 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: CONSTRUCTION OF 69 KV TRANS-
MISSION LINES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-668-6328-73520-36400.
(A. S. Schulman Electric Company)
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-413 through 80R-421, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held August 25, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-4 AND VARIANCE NO. 3163 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO.
11176): Submitted by Michael Halle, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000
to RM-3000, to construct a l-lot, 10-unit condominium subdivision on property
located on the south side of Savanna Street, west of Knott Street, with certain
Code waivers.
· he City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-134 and 135, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-4 and Variance No. 3163, in part, and granted a
negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-6: Submitted by Leoncio T. Laurel, et al, for a
change in zone from RS-IO, O00 to CL, to construct an office building on property
located at 1575-1595 West Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-139, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-6, and granted a negative declaration status.
80-1186
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3169: Submitted by Abbey Services Corporation, to establish
a two-lot subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2303 South
Manchester Avenue, with various Code waivers.
Variance No. 3169 was withdrawn by the applicant.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3166: Submitted by Anaheim Business Center, to permit a free-
standing sign on CL zoned property located at the northwest corner of Cerritos
Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, mouth of Midway Drive, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-139, granted
Variance No. 3166, in part, and the Planning Director's categorical exemption
was ratified.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2043: Submitted by Abbey Services Corporation,
to delete Condition No. 1 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 79-235 per-
taining to street improvements on Lewis Street; RS-A-43,000 zoned property
located at 2303 South Manchester Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2043 was withdrawn by the applicant.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2094: Submitted by Michael R. and Linda A.
Linford, to permit an exterminating service on ML zoned property located at
1874 Santa Cruz Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-140, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2094, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2101: Submitted by William R. and Barbara Whitla,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 1513 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-141, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2101, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2105: Submitted by John W. and Donna A. Stuart,
to permit office uses in a residential structure on CG zoned property located
at 925 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-143, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2105, and granted a negative declaration status
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-5 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim
Hills Inc., requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-5,
proposed RS-HS-iO,000 (SC) zoned property located on the south side of Willowick
Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time' to Reclassification
No. 78-79-5, to expire August 28, 1981.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-16 AND VARIANCE NO. 3053 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Submitted by William C. Taormina, requesting an extension of time to Reclassifi-
cation No. 78-79-16 and Variance No. 3053, to construct a 24-unit apartment com-
plex on proposed RM-1200 zoned property located at 526 and 528~ West Vermont
Avenue.
80-1187
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-16 and Variance No. 3053, to expire October 9, 1981.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-16 AND VARIANCE NO. 3053 - REVISED PLANS: Sub-
mitted by William C. Taormina, requesting approval of revised plans for Reclas-
sification No. 78-79-16 and Variance No. 3053, to construct a 24-unit apartment
complex on proposed RM-1200 zoned property located at 526 and 528~ West Vermont
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans for Reclassification
No. 78-79-16 and Variance No. 3053.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1166 AND 1645 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted
by Michael L. Valen, The Town Tour Fun Bus Co., requesting extensions of time
to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645, tO permit an expansion of bus
storage and repair facilities on RS-A-43,000 and CG zoned property located at
340 Katella Way and 1825 Mountain View Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645 to expire August 16, 1981.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1558 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Ray
Siegele, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1558,
to permit the metal reclamation and outdoor storage of rags and metal on
M1 zoned property located at the southeast corner of Santa Ama and Atchison
Streets.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1558, to expire August 18, 1983.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1720 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Warren S.
Liu, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1720, to
establish a 38-unit recreational vehicle park in conjunction with a motel on
CL zoned property located at 2740 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1720, to expire August i, 1981.
15. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1883 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by David S.
Collins, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1883, to
permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on ML zoned property
located at 1514 West Broadway.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1883, to expire August 28, 1982.
No action was taken on the foregoing items; therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-3 AND VARIANCE NO. 3161 (READVERTISED) (TENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 11178): Submitted by Ebrahim Talebi, et al, for a change in zone
from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to construct a l-lot, 30-unit condominium sub-
division on property located at 715 South Webster Avenue, with various Code
waivers.
80-1188
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-132 and 133,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-3 and Variance No. 3161 (Readvertised)
(Tentative Tract No. 11178), and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Bay removed the subject item from the Planning Commission Consent
Calendar and requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on said
applications.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-5 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2102, (TENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 11211): Submitted by Cheryl Jo Matlock, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a 1-lot, 60-unit affordable condominium pro-
ject on property located at 649 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-136 and 137,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2102,
(Tentative Tract No. 11211), and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject item from the Planning Commission
Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on
said applications.
142/171: ORDINANCE NO. 4159: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4159 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
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. ($0.042 per $100 assessed valuation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4159 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4161: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4161 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
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)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4161 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4163: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4163 for first
reading.
80-1189
City Hali~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4163: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-40, RM-3000)
168: DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING STREET ADDRESSES IN ANAHEIM: Councilwoman Kaywood
stated that a matter brought to her attention and a problem she had also
experienced was the difficulty in locating a house in the City. Street
addresses in Anaheim and other cities were hard to find and it was possible
to go for blocks and not see numbers on the curbs or houses themselves. She
knew that paramedic units had problems because of the situation. Mickey
Campbell, President of the Women's Division of the Chamber of Commerce, was
looking for clearly marked addresses as a project. She felt that whatever
could be done in that regard could be a life-saving matter. If emergency
vehicles were unable to locate addresses, it would take much longer for them
to respond. She had the same problem for a long time in the commercial-recreation
area as well, with no numbers apparent on the establishments in those areas.
She felt that was something they could do easily and make life safer for every-
one.
148: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTEE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY CITIZENS DIRECTION FIND
ING COMMISSION: Councilman Roth reported that Bruce Matthias, Aide to Congress-
man Bill Dannemeyer, visited his business office the other day and asked if he
would convey to the Council his interest in obtaining a recommendation of the
Council for appointment to the 4th Supervisorial District, Orange County Citizens
Direction Finding Commission. He brought with him the agenda of the September
4th meeting of the Orange County League of Cities and since he did not attend
the meeting, he was not aware as to whether or not the position had been filled;
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it had not been filled.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney if there was any kind of conflict
of interest inasmuch as Mr. Matthias was Congressman Dannemeyer's aide.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he did not believe merely being an aide to a
Congressman would have any conflicting aspects unless he had some financial
arrangement, which he doubted.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if Councilman Roth wanted to make the motion, she
would second it and subsequently that recommendation would then go to the
Orange County Division of the League of Cities.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Bruce
Matthias was recommended for appointment to the 4th Supervisorial District,
Orange County Citizens Direction Finding Commission which recommendation would
be submitted to the Orange County Division of the League of Cities. MOTION
CARRIED.
119: SUPPORT FOR ANAHEIM'S FIRST ANNUAL BICYCLE RODEO: Mayor Seymour reported
that Mr. Frank Feldhaus, Chairman, Bicycle Rodeo Sub-Committee, Anaheim Police/
Community Relations Committee, approached him during the break and asked if the
Council would consider adopting a resolution in support of the subject Rodeo
to be held October 14, 1980 at the Anaheim Plaza Shopping Center. To expedite
matters, he would ask the Council to support a motion that a resolution of
support be prepared and signed by the Council for Anaheim's First Annual Bicycle
Rodeo for presentation to Mr. Feldhaus. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1190
Cit~ Ha!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 16~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
114: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT: Mayor Seymour reported that morning he
and Councilman Overholt attended a Liaison committee meeting with the City
Manager, City Finance Director, Price Waterhouse and Assistant City Manager
relative to some findings by Price Waterhouse regarding management and also
operation of the Data Processing Department as to the financial aspects of the
City, including the Treasurer's Office. No formal action was taken, but the
Council would be receiving a report on the meeting. Some discussion also took
place on potential improvements in the City Treasurer's office, as well as some
potential decisions in the future that would be made to insure that they had
some type of internal auditing process on productivity in relation to the City's
management by objectives program.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:31 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:24 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Tuesday, September 23, 1980,
at 10:30 A.M. for a joint meeting with the Library Board. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:25 P.M.
LI~~D. R~Y CLERK