Loading...
1958/08/292892 City Hall: Anaheim~ California~ August 26:1958 - 7:00 P.M. .RESOLUTION NO. 4729: Councilman Coons offered Resolution No. 4729 and moved for its passage and adoption. Refer to Resolution Book, page A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM .ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. ~Ruswin Investment Co., Inc,) On roll call the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILM~N: ABSENT: COUNCILM~N: Pearson, Borden, Fry, Schutte and Coons. None. None. The Mayor declared the foregoing Resolution duly passed and adopted. REFERENDU~ PETITION - ORDINANCE NO, 1261: Communication from Ronald Burton, dated August 26, 1958, requesting that in the event the City Clerk finds said Petition to be insufficient, that they be notified before any official action is taken by the City Council, was submitted, read, and referred to the City Attorney. ~TATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND: Report of dividend in the amount of $10,012.92 or 26.5% of the premium paid for policy year ending November 29, 1957. qANCHLLATION OF CHHCKS: Request of City Treasurer for authority to cancel outstanding Check Number 707 in the amount of $10.84 and Check Number 4689 in the amount of $30.00 and credit the General Account was authorized by the City Council on motion by Councilman Coons, seconded by Councilman $chutte. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Schutte moved to adjourn to Friday, August 29, 1958, 4:00 P.M. Councilman Coons seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED. k11:55 P.M. SIGNED: .~c..~_~ ~~,., ~~) City Clerk City Hall: Anaheim: California, August 29, 1958 - 4:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Pearson, Borden, Fry, Schutte and Coons. COUNCILMEN: None. CITY ADMINISTRATIV~ OFFICER: Keith A. Murdoch. CITY ATTORNEY: Preston Turner. The Mayor called the meeting to order. Mr. Preston Turner explained that the absence of the City Clerk was due to necessary final checking in the office of the County Clerk, relative to the Referendum Petition filed August 21, 1958. ?URCHASE OF PROPERTY: Discussion was held relative to the proposed purchase of property on the south side of Orange Avenue, east of Dale Avenue, for a fife station site and Mr. Murdoch reported on terms and conditions of the escrow. The City Council indicated their approval of said purchase. INVITATION: L. A. Dodgers have invited the City of Anaheim to participate in the City Employees Day, Saturday, September 27, 1958. Said invitation was referred to the Administrative Officer, who in turn, advised that it would be forwarded to 2893 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California~ August 29.:. 1958 - 4:00 P,M. the City Employees' Association. RESOLUTION NO, 4730: Councilman Coons offered Resolution No. 4730 and moved for its passage and adoption. Refer to Resolution Book, page A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4619, ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A BASIC COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE WAGE AND SALARY SCHEDULES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FRINGE BENEFITS, PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS, HOLIDAYS AND VACATIONS AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3940 AN? AMENDMENTS THE_RZTO." (Administrative Aide~ Senior Electric Testman~ Senior Stockman~ Automotive Serviceman) On roll call the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pearson, Borden, Fry, Schutte and Coons. None. None. The Mayor declared the foregoin9 Resolution duly passed and adopted. CITIZENS COMMITTEE: List of suggested members to the Citizens Committee received as of this date, was presented by Mr. Murdoch and copies thereof distributed to each Councilman~ Councilman Schutte moved that this meeting recess to 4:45 P.M. Councilman Fry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ..R=ECE SS. ~FTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Pearson, Borden, Fry, Schutte and Coons. COUNCILMEN: None. CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: Keith A. Murdoch. CITY ATTORNEY: Preston Turner. REFERENDUM PETITION - ORDINANCE NO. 1261: The following Certificate was submitted and read in full by the City Clerk: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, DENE M. WILLIAMS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that there was received in my office, August 21, 1958, a Referendum Petition comprised of pages numbered 1 to 121, inclusive, protesting the enactment of City of Anaheim Ordinance No. 1261, adopted July 22, 1958, entitled, and "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THEREIN REGULATING THE USE OF LAND, HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS AND YARD SPACES; ADOPTING A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID ZONES; DEFINING THE TERMS USED THEREIN; PROVIDING FOR ADJUSTMENT, AMENDMENT AND ENFORCEMENT; PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND REPEALING ALL SECTIONS OR PARTS OF SECTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH."~ I FURTHER CERTIFY that I have compared the signatures on said Referendum Petition with the original affidavits of registration on file in the office of L. B. Wallace, County Clerk of the County of Orange, the officer in charge of t~ records of registration of voters of the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim; and 2894 City Hall, Anaheim~ California~ Auqust 29~ 1958 - 4:00 P.M. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I find from such examination that 2588 signatUres appear on such petition; that 208 of the persons whose signatures appear upon said petition are not registered voters within the City of Anaheim; that the remaining 2380 signatures on said petition are the signatures of persons who I find to be registered voters in the City of Anaheim; that 17 of said voters have signed said petition twice; that the actual number of registered voters who have signed said petition is 2363; and I FURTHER CERTIFY that on the date that said petition was received by me, as City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, that the total number of registered voters in the City of Anaheim was 27,286; and I FURT~R CERTIFY that the number of signatures of registered voters on said petition is insufficient to meet the requirements of Chapter 3, Article 2~ Sections 1770 to 1777~ both inclusive, of the Election Code of the State of California. DATED this 29th day of August, 1958. (SEAL) /s/ Dene M. Williams DENE M. WILLIAMS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim The City Clerk explained that every effort was made to liberally construe the law regarding the signatures on the petition in favor of the voter. Specific examples were related. It was further reported that a second search of the records was made before determining the number of those not registered. All signatures were counted except those of persons found to be not registered or duplicated. Mr. Preston Turner, City Attorney, quoted sections of the Election Code relating %o both referendum and initiative petitions and explained that it was now in order for the City Council to make %heir findings, based upon the City Clerk's Certificate, and further advised, that if the petition is found to be sufficient, the City Council was required to either reconsider the Ordinance and repeal it, or submit it to the voters either at a regular municipal election or a special election to be called for that purpose, but if the petition is found to be insufficient~ no action was required by the City Council other than a finding of that fact. Mr. Burton addressed the Council~ stating that in his opinion, there was nothing prohibiting the City Council from repealing the Ordinance~ if they so desired. The City Attorney advised the Council that if they wished to consider the question of the repeal of the Ordinance on their own initiative and not pursuant to a referendum petition, that it would be necessary to comply with the statutory and code provisions for the amendment or repeal of zoning ordinances. That this would require submission of the proposed repeal to the City Planning Commission for hearing and their recommendations and report. Mr. Burton felt that the Council should either repeal the Ordinance or set it for an election and stated that charter cities of this size determine the number of voters by the last city election and requested that the City Council do the same~ as their petition would be sufficient if the 10% was figured as of the April election~ which figure is readily available to the tax payers. Mr. Burton was of the opinion that the registered voter figure of 27,286 was not a correct figure as it includes both those who have moved away and those who have died. Mr. Turner advised that he had made a thorough research of this point and found that the Courts have held that the Clerk~ in making the Certificate and ascertaining the sufficiency of the petition, is confined to the registration records in the County Clerk's office and cannot go beyond that record and make an individual investigation. Mr. Turner then referred to the Sections of the Code relatin9 to the examination of the registration records, the date of the filing of the petition~ and also the State Constitution relative to these matters. In answer to Councilman Borden's inquiry whether the calling of a special election would be in violation of the law, inasmuch as the law is silent on the 2895 City Hall, Anaheim, California, August 29, 1958 - 4:00 P. M. date, Mr. Turner explained, in his opinion, the City Council had no authority to call a referendum election except when a ~tition has been presented that meets the requirements of the Code. Mr. Burton requested that the City Council select the April election as the basis in determining the sufficiency of the petition. Councilman Coons asked if these people still had a course of action under the initiative proceedings~ Mr. Turner replied that they would, as every Ordinance adopted by the City Council is subject to an initiative procedure. Mr. Burton was of the opinion that the initiative procedure did not apply to zoning ordinances. With reference to the day on which the 10% should be based, Mr. Turner advised that, in his opinion and in view of no definite date established by the statutes, that the only date that could be used is the date on which the petition is filed. He advised the Council that inasmuch as the Election Code did not specify any election to be used as a basis of determining the percentage of registered voters, that there was no way to determine what election date should be selected, if one were so used, and that in view of the failure of the law to provide for the use of the last election, or any election, as the basis for determining the total number of registered voters in the City, that in his opinion, the date upon which the petition was received or filed was the one that should be used in the determination of that question. He explained that the provisions of charter cities applied only to those cities and had no force nor effect outside of the city limits of the city having such a charter, and that the reasons the provisions in charters of charter cities differed from the State law was that such charters were adopted by the voters of the city as the governing law in such city on such matters, and that each city was at liberty to draft its charter in any manner it saw fit, and that they were frequently patterned after the State constitutional provisions relating to initiative and referendum concernin9 State statutes. Mr. Turner further stated that the constitutional provisions relating to initiative and referendum concerning city ordinances made no provisions for the use of an election date for the purpose of determining the total number of voters in the City, but had authorized the State Legislature to provide the procedure for initiative and referendum proceedings, and that in enacting such procedure, the State Legislature had not provided for the use of any election date for the purpose of determining the total number of voters in the City. A gentlemen representing the Broadway-Hale addressed the City Council, requesting that the City vote on the matter, and stated that they would abide by the City's decision; that they were going to establish one of the finest projects of this kind in California and would, without pressure from the people or the City, make every effort to uphold the property values and maintain safety for their children and people using the street. Councilman Pearson moved, on the advice of the City Attorney and the Certificate of the City Clerk, that it be the finding of the City Council that the Referendum Petition received by the City Clerk on August 21, 1958, relatin9 to Ordinance No. 1261, does not have sufficient signatures of registered voters within the City of Anaheim at the time of the receipt of said petition, to constitute 10% of the total number of voters residing within the City of Anaheim at the time that said petition was received, and is, therefore, insufficient to require a reconsideration of said Ordinance by the City Council, or the calling of a referendum election. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. Councilman Schutte moved to adjourn to September 2, 1958, 7:00 P.M. Councilman Coons seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED. ' City Clerk