1979/05/0879-498
City.. Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- Flay 8,. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
VACANCY:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest
POLICE CHIEF: George Tielsch
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Howard Brody
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Officer Miser
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of an Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously ---
adopted by the Council and read by Mayor Seymour for Dr. Leo J. Friis, upon the
completion of his most recent book, The Historic Buildings. of Pioneer Anaheim,
and for his many contributions to the community. The resolution was to be
presented to Dr. Friis at a later date.
119: PRESENTATION: Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz, Chairman of the Library Board,
presented to the Council, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk copies of
Mr. Friis' book, The Historic Buildings of Pioneer Anaheim. She explained that
the Friends of the Public Library underwrote all the costs of publication and
that all research was done in the Mother Colony History Room whose curator was
Opal Kissinger.
Mayor Seymour stated that the long awaited publication was such a fine one and
steeped in the City's heritage, it was an appropriate token to present to visit-
ing dignitaries. He, therefore, asked the Council to consider directing staff
to prepare a budget so that they could obtain a quantity of the books for such
presentations and that could be considered in their budget hearings.
Mrs. Schultz stated that the cost per book was $7.50 and $12.50 in a protective
case. Purchase would be tax deductible because the Friends of Library were a
non profit organization.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, staff was
directed to prepare a budget for the potential purchase of a quantity of Mr.
Friis' book to be presented to dignitaries. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratualtions was unan-
imously adopted by the Council on the occasion of the retirement of Avon B.
Carlson and in appreciation for his contributions to the educational system in
Anaheim, to be presented to Mr. Carlson at a later date.
79-499
City Hall~ A~.,,aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamtions were issued by Mayor Seymour
and approved by the City Council:
"National Hospital Week" - May 6-12, 1979
"Respect for Law Week" - May 14-20, 1979
"Anaheim Senior Citizen Week" - May 21-27, 1979
"Orange County Mayors Day" - May 17, 1979
"Hire a Veteran Week in Anaheim" - May 6-12, 1979
Dr. David Proctor and Helen Lowe accepted the National Hospital Week proclamation;
Mr. Darwin Stockwell accepted the Respect for Law Week proclamation and Edith
Lytle accepted the Hire a Veteran Week in Anaheim proclamation. The remaining
proclamations were to be presented at a later date.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. One
vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,004,896.88, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 10,585 LBS. ACSR WIRE - BID NO. 3524: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of General
Electric Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,540.99
including tax as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated
May 1, 1979. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
161: REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA - PHASE I: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, award of contract on Redevelopment Project
Alpha Phase I was continued to May 22, 1979 as requested. One vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
106: PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER THE FY 1979/80 PROPOSED RESOURCE ALLOCA-
TION PLAN: City Manager William Talley first asked if the Council wished to set
any work sessions with staff on any part of the Resource Allocation Plan prior
to the hearing.
Mayor Seymour suggested that the City Manager pool the Council one week before
May 22, 1979 to determine if the Council wished to set a work session before
the public hearing.
79-500
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May. 8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, May 22,
1979, at 3:00 P.M., was the date and time set for a public hearing to consider
the fiscal year 1979/80 proposed Resource Allocation Plan. One vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
169: COMPARISON OF SODIUM VAPOR AND MERCURY VAPOR LUMINAIRES: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Electrical Engineering
Division Report on Comparison of the subject luminaires, recommending that new
installations and replacements of luminaires be with high pressure sodium (HPS)
luminaires was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated April 20, 1979, from
the Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
153: CREATION OF NEW CLASSIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEMENT PROGRAM:
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-257 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated May 2, 1979 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae
establishing rates of compensation for unrepresented classifications and
creating new classifications for CETA, effective April 27, 1979. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-257: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-659 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS AND CREATING NEW CLASSIFICATIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-257 duly passed and adopted.
174: FUNDING PROPOSAL - LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION (LEAA):
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-258 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated May 3, 1979 from Police Chief George Tielsch authorizing the
City Manager to submit a funding proposal to LEAA for a "Managing Criminal
Investigations" grant in the amount of $78,750. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-258: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING SUBMISSION OF A FUNDING PROPOSAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LA~
ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION FOR MANAGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS (MCI)
FIELD TEST, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
IN CONNECTION WITH SAID FUNDING PROPOSAL.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-258 duly passed and adopted.
79-501
City H.all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION~ AMEA REPRESENTED AND ZONING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-259 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated May 2, 1979 from the Human Resources Director, establishing
rates of compensation for classes represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees
Association, General City Employee Unit, and establishing a new rate of compen-
sation for Zoning Enforcement Specialist. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-259: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-601, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-124 AND AMEND-
ING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES
REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOY-
EES UNIT, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR AN EXISTING JOB CLASS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-259 duly passed and adopted.
123: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 79R-260 for adoption, as recom~ended in memorandum dated May 1,
1979 from the Community Development Department, approving a contract with the
National Council for Urban Economic Development in the amount of $14,250 to
provide technical advice relating to economic development policies and programs.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-260: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE 'TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
URBAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-260 duly passed and adopted.
139: MORTGAGE SECURED MUNICIPAL BONDS: City Manager Talley briefed the Council
on memorandum dated May 8, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Develop-
ment, Norm Priest, recommending opposition to the passage of HR3712 (Ullman) re-
garding the removal of the tax exempt status of Mortgage Secured Municipal Bonds.
Hearings on the matter were scheduled to begin May 14, 1979 and if Council
wished to take a position, it would be necessary to do so today.
79-502
City Hall..~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May. 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, further elaborated
upon the report submitted and stated while it was his belief some control was
in order, the proposed bill was not the way to proceed, since it would take the
use of the subject bonds out of existence which he felt was a very valuable
housing tool. It had not yet been used in Anaheim, but he expected they would
be utilizing it. Opposing the passage of HR3712 would open the path for alterna-
tive measures which were now being considered.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-261 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated May 8, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Develop-
ment. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-261: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OPPOSING HR 3712~
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth wanted to know the stand taken by the
mortgage bankers relative to the bill.
Mr. Priest explained there was no unanimity among the mortgage banking groups
regarding the bill and some were presenting an alternative bill to the proposed
legislation.
Councilman Roth was of the opinion that they were hearing only one side, and he
would like to know from the mortgage industry why free enterprise was opposed
to the tax exempt status of the bonds. He would support the present resolution,
but would appreciate receiving data on the position of the mortgage bankers.
Mr. Priest explained he would have presented a great deal more data if he had
the bill along with alternative ways to control the subject funding. The bill
simply asked to eliminate the tax exemption, and they felt it was too drastic a
step. He reiterated, control was in order, and he would bring forth all infor-
mation they had on such measures of control that had been proposed.
Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding that some members of the California
Mortgage Bankers Association (CMBA), as well as the Mortgage Bankers Association
(MBA), were opposed to continuing tax exempt status of Mortgaged Secured Municipal
Bonds because the concept in a number of cities across the country had been
prostituted by using mortgage backed bonds to fund those individuals and properties
which did not have a need for funding. The concept, properly used, provided local
control, rather than federal, over the destiny of revitalization neighborhood pro-
grams in neighborhoods that were red-lined by some institutions who refused to
make loans in those neighborhoods. There was now an overreaction on behalf of
Ullman in an attempt to answer some of the concerns raised by the misuse of the
program. He endorsed the proposed resolution and maintained when the concept
would be applied in Anaheim, that the Council, am well as the citizenry,
would insure that the concept be used properly to help approve areas of the City
in which mortgage funds were not available.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
79-503
Cit~Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 8~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-261 duly passed and adopted.
114: APPOINTMENT TO THE COUNCIL: Mayor Seymour recalled that three weeks prior
upon the resignation of Councilman Kott, he asked the Council to consider an
early replacement for that seat since there were a number of issues of great
importance to be decided, specifically the budget. The Council received input
from various interested groups and associations within the City, and the Members
also did their own evaluation of an appropriate replacement. It had not been
easy for him and as he stated, he viewed his personal responsibility in filling
of the vacancy as that of identifying a citizen in which he might have confidence,
but equally important, a person whom the Council would find acceptable. He
did his evaluation with those two criteria in mind and was prepared today to
make a nomination and to encourage any other Council Member to do likewise if
they saw fit.
He continued that he wanted to nominate an individual who served his community
well and who was still presently doing so as a member of the Redevelopment
Commission where he had done an outstanding Job in providing leadership to that
Commission. His nominee was Mr. Ben Bay. He then asked if there were any other
nominations. Hearing none, Councilman Seymour moved that nominations for the
appointment to the Council to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Council-
man Kott be closed. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Ben Bay thereupon became the appointee to the Council, filling the unexpired
term left by the resignation of Councilman William Kott, term expiring April 8,
1980, with oath of office to be administered May 15, 1979.
105/156: POLICE/COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE: City Clerk Linda Roberts announ-
ced that a letter had been received requesting that the item be heard this even-
ing and a revised recommendation had been submitted from the Community Services
Board (CSB) dated May 8, 1979.
The Mayor asked how many in the Chamber audience wished to be heard on the matter;
approximately five wished to be heard. The Mayor then stated they would receive
the Community Services Board report from Chairman Jan Billings and they would
then hear from those who supported the recommendation, following which they
would hear from those opposed.
Mrs. Jan Billings, Chairman of the CSB, stated that the Council would note some
changes have been made on their second report dated May 8, 1979. The revised
report was a result of a subcommittee meeting and a special meeting of the
CSB held to discusss that report on Thursday, May 3, 1979. At both meetings,
additional input was received by concerned individuals in the community and
the second report was a reflection of that input. They felt that the CSB had
fulfilled its duty, and she then thanked all members of the subcomittee and
79-504
C.ity~ Hall~ Anaheim, Califormia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~.1979, 1:30 P.M.
the Board. It was a sincere effort on their part to present a report that
reflected everyone's view which was nearly an impossible task.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the full CSB was at the special meeting and thus
that would have included the subcommittee; Mrs. Billings answered "yes".
Councilman Roth asked if she obtained a vote of the committee on the new proposal.
Mrs. Billings stated there was a vote item by item and on the whole package; it
was a majority vote. There were some members opposed to the second report, but
she did not know the exact vote, whereas on the first report, it was unanimously
approved.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak in support of the CSB recommenda-
tions contained in the report dated May 8, 1979; there being no response, he
then asked to hear from those in opposition to the recommendations.
Mr. Alan Hughes, President of the Chamber of Commerce, reported that the Board
of Directors of the Chamber supported the original recommendations of the CSB
in their report on the formation of a Police/Community Relations Committee.
However, the CSB had now submitted a modified structure of a Police/Community
Relations Committee which represented, in the Chamber's opinion, a drastic change
from the original report, and therefore, the Chamber could not support the modifie~
structure. If the Council did not feel it could approve the original concept
contained in the first report, then the Chamber suggested that the Police Chief
be given an opportunity to restructure and utilize the existing Police/Community
Relations Committee to perform the necessary functions in that area.
Mr. Steve Solomon, attorney for the Anaheim Police Association (APA), stated they
were not in favor of the revised plan. The terms of a Review Board for the Police
Department of Anaheim were somewhat depressing indicating that the Chief of Police
and City Manager be non-voting participants. They felt, (1) that Anaheim had a
fine Police Department, and (2) there was a strong majority of the voting pop-
ulation in favor of the City Council in terms of its review posture. Those
same voting citizens were in favor of the City Manager, the adminstrative head
of the department who, by the Charter, was charged with the basic overview of
the department. The City had a new Chief of Police who was still on probation
and the men and women of the department backed the Chief. He was charged by
the Charter with a review of the Police Department and its men and women. They
had a Grand Jury in the County and also a fine City Attorney and each was charged
with a review process of the Police Department. They also had dedicated men
and women sworn by the Constitution of California and the Federal Constitution
to uphold the law of the land. They felt that with the present review process,
additional expenditure of funds to create another bureaucracy to review their
process was improper. They supported the people who were elected and those
appointed to do the job. Any review process at this time, other than the
elected officials and those appointed would be a duplication of governmental
functions. Those citizens who complained about Police tactics were generally
those who were arrested and convicted. It was possible there was a bad cop, but
if there was one, the Chief, the City Manager and the Council would do their
jobs in that regard, as well as the District Attorney. He reiterated, any more
79-505
City Hall~ An. aheim~ California , COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
duplication would be a waste of funds and not in the best interest of the Council
as elected officials, and those people who upheld the law, and therefore they
were opposed to the concept recommended.
Mr. Larry Baldwin, member of the present Police/Community Relations Committee,
stated he served on the Committee charged with the revision of the by-laws with
respect to the situation at hand. Their committee at the last meeting also
unanimously approved the earlier report of the CSB, and they had not met yet
this month to discuss the current modified version. As he read it, he did not
think that they would approve it for several reasons. He believed that the
issue was Police/Community Relations and not Police Policy. It was a situation
where they wanted to foster cooperation and not create adverse areas through
a system of power. He maintained it would be well for the Council to allow the
committee to be formed and then to ascertain if it would be something that
would need the Council's approval, rather than the current situation. The present
report seemed to be trying to write the by-laws in advance.
Mr. Fernando Galaviz, stated it was important to note that the major difference
between the original proposal and the proposal now before the Council was basically
a point of clarification. In the original proposal, the Council was asked to
approve the concept and the only thing the Community Services Board did, by
over 75% of the membership, was to clarify the fact that the City Council was
going to approve the concept and the makeup of the Board, that the CSB and
the Council would be jointly setting up the committee. It was interesting to him
why there was so much opposition by some of the establishment people to letting
the public develop a relationship with the committee and with the Council. If
the Chamber had a different view than what was articulated, he wanted to know
what they felt was the big difference between the first and second proposal.
The second proposal was designed to protect the Police Department. In the
original proposal, if citizens disagreed with the Committee, they could approach
the Council directly with no majority approval. In the present proposal, no
member of the community could approach the Council unless it was by a majority
vote and referred to the Council in writing. Otherwise, they were going to
have those who were dissatisfied with the system who would attend open Council
meetings and badger the Police Department and the administration. It was not
fair to put the Police Department in that kind of setting. He reiterated he
wanted to know why there was so much concern about having a genuine citizen
input.
Councilman Roth explained that the policy of the City was that any citizen could
petition their government. They had the right to approach the Council by
requesting through the City Clerk to be placed on the agenda. The Council
did not refuse anybody. There were many avenues upon which a citizen could
petition government, by going directly to the Chief of Police or his repre-
sentative, or the City Manager or the City Council. The Mayor's Hotline was
also available to anyone who wished to utilize it to express themselves and
many calls were received covering a wide range of concerns. He felt strongly
they had a very viable democratic process working in the City, whereby any
citizen could go to the Council to discuss any circummtance or problem.
79-506
City H~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, .1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Galaviz stated as a citizen concerned for the general co~unity, he would
rather see a process where emotional issues could be filtered through a system
which would act as a buffer to the Council. Speaking as a friend of the People
for Community Development, they would rather eliminate the Committee and have a
situation where they could approach the Council all the time to express their
views. However, for the benefit of the entire community and the Chamber of
Commerce, he felt that under the circumstances, it would be worthwhile to have
a committee that would act as a buffer.
Councilman Roth suggested that anybody in Mr. Galaviz's group or any group in
Anaheim or an individual could go to the CSB and ask to give a presentation, as
it was now structured.
Mr. Galaviz stated the problem revolved around the fact that there were certain
well-meaning individuals who felt it was not in their best interest to work with
the Community Services Board. He (Galaviz) felt they should work with the CSB.
The problem with the old Police Committee was the fact that it was set up by the
Police Chief and if the Chief did not approve of what the Committee was sug-
gesting, that was the end of the matter, and the people lost faith in it. He
agreed and supported the fact that the CSB should be the filtering agent for the
Council on the kinds of issues with which they were confronted.
Councilman Roth stated there was a tendency for government to create new boards
and commissions to solve problems and subsequently the pipeline became so bottled
up that it would take longer to communicate with their elected representatives.
Mr. Galaviz stated that the mechanism was already established with the CSB which
could be strengthened by eliminating members who were not showing up for meetings
and for the Council to appoint active members.
Mr. Galaviz then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was on the CSB, he
served on the subcommittee, he was supportive of the People for Community Devel-
opment and from time to time attended their meetings. Relative to the matter
of speaking for that group (PFCD), he wanted to clarify something from the last
meeting. He gave as an example if there were 20 members on a board and he, the
Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Talley were four individual members of that
board, when discussing issues they would know the general view of the board.
However, they could not as individuals say they were speaking on behalf of that
board,
In answer to a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Galaviz relayed
the following: when he attended meetings or saw the PFCD, he brought to them
the activities that were taking place at the CSB. Communication was, therefore,
going back and forth, but he did not want to indicate that he was given total
community input. He told them there was a final hearing coming up, and when it
was held, it was such a fast hearing, that since he was 35 minutes late, by the
time he arrived, the hearing was over and he did not get a chance to vote.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated at the meeting two weeks prior, Mr. Galaviz stated
he did vote, and it was a unanimous vote.
79-507
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Galaviz countered that what Councilwoman Kaywood heard was that during the
subcommittee deliberations, he suggested that the City Manager be brought in
as a linkage factor. He did not have the report prior to the meeting, only the
drafts and not the final. He never saw the final copy of the report submitted
at the last meeting and today he did not have the final draft that the Council
had before them. They discussed it last Thursday night and agreed, but he did
not see the final product. There was community input at that meeting, but not
at the one where he arrived late. The person who could articulate better about
that particular meeting, as far as community input, would be Amin David, although
Mr. David was not on the board.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know why Mr. Galaviz could not speak for what he
did.
Mr. Galaviz reiterated when the first revision was approved, the meeting went
so fast by the time he arrived, being 35 minutes late, the meeting was over. When
he did arrive there was a major dispute on the floor because the community felt
they did not have an opportunity to give input at that point. He then met with
Mr. Ruth privately and with the Chairman, and asked that they not have a situation
where the City, City Council and City Manager would be embarrassed by not having
those people have a hearing. He suggested that they not change the original
motion, but give the people an opportunity to speak, and they could attach their
views to the motion which he would not object to. At that point, he was told
"no" that they would not give that opportunity, and that was a part of the record.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the material that was given to the Council two
weeks prior was by a unanimous vote and now Mr. Galaviz stated he was not even
there.
Mr. Galaviz answered that was correct. He then asked the Chamber their objections.
Mr. Hughes respectfully submitted that the Council keep to the original format
of for and against and felt that they had departed drastically from that format
as outlined by the Mayor. He was under the impression that Mr. Galaviz was
for the recommendation.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not' hear Mr. Galaviz say that; Councilman
Overholt asked Mr. Galaviz to state his position as a citizen.
Mr. Galaviz stated at this point, he supported the Community Services Board
recommendation as outlined and submitted by the Chairman. In response to
Councilman Roth, as an alternative, he also felt they did not have to create
another bureaucracy because they had mechanism already established, since the
CSB was serving the same activity.
Councilman Overholt asked if his position was in support of the recommendation
submitted in the memorandum dated May 8, 1979 and also asked if Mr. Galaviz had
seen that report.
79-508
City Ha.,1.,,1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Galaviz answered that he had not seen the report.
Councilman Overholt wanted to know his (Galaviz) position after having read the
report.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone else who was in support of the recommendation
since he was in error and Mr. Galaviz was in fact supportive.
No one else indicated they were in support of the recommendation.
Mrs. Dean Olsen, 909 Echo Place, then read from a prepared statement. "I wish
to urge the Council to turn down the request for a Police/Community Relations
Committee. As a proponent of less government, I feel that another politically
appointed committee which would increase the size of the bureaucracy is not in
the best interest of those who supported Proposition 13. I feel it will become
nothing more than a police review board. Any concerns or complaints about our
City government and/or services should be addressed to you, our elected officials,
who are answerable to the voters. I have great confidence in our new Police
Chief who I feel will continue to work very hard with his men and women to assure
us that good community relations must and will prevail. Let's allow him to do
his job. In the Spirit of 13, I urge you to deny this request for yet another
committee. Instead, let us work through and with the agencies we have at hand."
Mr. Art Hasselbrink, 2762 East Vermont, stated he had seen what was happening in
Anaheim occur in Los Angeles in 1955 through 1957 when he was on the Los Angeles
Police Department's Fire and Police Protective Leauge. In 1955, the ACLU tried
to get into the Los Angeles Police Department, a police review board. They were
actively engaged in doing that throughout the country at that time. They fought
and defeated the attempt in 1958. In 1957, Philadelphia adopted a police review
board and abolished it in 1959 because the officers were quitting the department
and they lost 4,000 men in two years as a result of the police review board.
In concluding, Mr. Hasselbrink emphasized that if the present recommendation
were adopted, they would eventually tend to go toward a police review board and
that was the objective of certain people and organizations in the City. The
ACLU had targeted Anaheim for a police review board, the same as they were again
doing in Los Angeles. He had lunch with two Deputy Chiefs in Los Angeles re-
cently and they both agreed that Anaheim was targeted. He therefore admonished
the Council to investigate every facet before making a decision. The new Police
Chief had an outstanding record in Seattle and Garden Grove and he was No. 1
on the list for Police Chief in Los Angeles and it was only because he was not
on the Los Angeles Police Department that he was not made Chief. Presently,
they were already being told to fire the Chief as requested by certain groups
in the community and he had not yet served his probation. He again urged the
Council to study all aspects before making a decision.
Mrs. Pat Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated that unfortunately the City's police
officers already had one hand tied due to the courts, and thus, they did not have
adequate police protection because of those problems. She questioned why they
should then tie the other hand halfway. It was not fair to the officers and
the citizens since the police were there to protect them. Many laws had to be
written because of certain people who broke those laws. The police should have
a certain amount of freedom.
79-509
.Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979,, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Amin David, 538 East Central Park Avenue, stated he was presently representing
Los Amigos de Anaheim and himself in particular, and he would direct his questions
to the broad manner of citizen participation. He wanted to know what was so
wrong in having citizen participation in the Police Department since that type
of participation was a part of other departments such as the Planning Commission,
Library Board, etc. He also wanted to know what mechanism there was available
right now that allowed citizen participation in the policy-setting matters of
the Police Department.
Although Mr. Solomon spoke about the District Attorney and the Grand Jury, he
wanted to know about the recommendations that were made relative to ongoing
psychological testing for officers and for entry level, as well as proper iden-
tification for police officers and vehicles. He asked why not enrich the scope
of the CSB to embody Police/Community Relations matters since it was a fine
group appointed by the Council to report to them. They had gone to a Police/
Community Relations Committee and it proved they were not doing the right job.
There was an incident in 1975 and another in 1978 where they failed. He again
asked what was so wrong with citizen participation in the Police Department.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. David said that the Planning Commission,
Library Board, Redevelopment Commission, etc. set policy, but that was not true.
They made recommendations to the Council and the only policy-making body in the
City was the City Council, elected by the people.
Mr. David stated those boards and commissions shared in the setting of recommenda-
tions to the Council with the Department Head, and he did not see where it was
being done now in the Police Department.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained when Mr. Galaviz spoke at the previous Council
meeting, the Mayor asked him if he was representing the People For Community
Development and Mr. Galaviz stated that he was. Twenty minutes later he said
that he was not, and that they did not want any person speaking for them and
nobody represented them except Amin David and they gave gim a script, which
script was written by a committee. She wanted to know, since every time they
talked to someone the answer changed, who should they be talking to.
Mr. David did not see the issue and suggested that Councilwoman Kaywood talk
to Mr. Galaviz.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. David, stated he wanted it perfectly clear
as to Mr. David's recommendation. He believed that Mr. David was not favorably
disposed to the modified report of the CSB; Mr. David answered that was correct.
Councilman Overholt then presumed it would be his (David's) recommendation that
the entire matter of police/community relations be turned over to the CSB, and
if so, what their charge would be.
Mr. David stated that was correct and they should involve themselves in better
police/community relations to study past problems and recommend, in consonance
with the Chief, actions to be taken to the Council relative to how to strengthen
police/community relations and the like. He wanted to see a direct charge from
the Council to the CSB embodying that authority. The way to alter the charge of
79-_510
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
the CSB would be to amend the ordinance that established it to embody the goals
and objectives that were originally embodied when the Police/Community Relations
Board was originally established.
Councilman Overholt stated that, in other words, Mr. David would expand the
goals and objectives to specifically make the CSB a police/community relations
board or serve that function; Mr. David answered "yes". Councilman Overholt
also noted that they would be appointed by the Council.
Mr. Galaviz clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that when he appeared the last
time, he informed the Council that the day before the meeting he received three
or four phone calls from the people who were most active with the issues, who
could not attend because of the fact that it was a day hearing. He also ex-
plained at that time that he was trying to develop a moderate bridge and that
he was given a consensus of their views. They were trying to tell the Council
that there were a lot of people in the community who had been misled in the
past by one or two people playing the role of leaders and they did not do a
good Job of getting community input. When there was an issue such as the
Anaheim Hills Golf Course, the Planning Commission, the City Manager and the
Council were brought together in a special hearing where it was announced and
professional presentations made. They were looking for the same kind of courtesy.
Further discussion and debate followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr.
Galaviz, at the conclusion of which Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Galaviz if
he had now read the CSB report of May 8, if it reflected t~e actions of the
CSB as he remembered them, and if he was for or against those recommendations.
Mr. Galaviz answered "yes" on both counts and relative to the latter, as a
member of the CSB, he was for the recommendations, but as a private citizen
who did not want to see a lot of bureaucracy, he felt the mechanics were now
present through the Community Services Board.
Councilman Overholt asked for confirmation that he then agreed with Mr. David.
Mr. Calaviz answered "yes", as an individual.
Councilman Roth asked the Police Chief if he had any comments particularly on
the revised recommendation from the CSB.
Police Chief George Tielsch stated when he arrived four months prior, it was
an accomplished fact that the CSB was looking into the matter. If he had been
in the City before that, he would have recommended against it. He was not
certain that they were the appropriate vehicle for the type of investigation
under discussion, but it was out of his hands. In the spirit of trying to
cooperate with the CSB and the subcommittee that Mr. West headed, he met with
Mr. West on several occasions and tried to come up with something he thought
would be palatable and in the best interest of the City. That was the first
recommendation that was made to the Council two weeks ago, and it was his under-
standing it was a unanimous decision of the CSB. It was reviewed by him and
the City Manager, and they agreed it was an appropriate mechanism for handling
police/community relations in the City.
79-511
City Hall; Anaheim~ Ca~i. fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Two weeks ago, the Council asked the CSB to take the recommendation back and
to do more work on it. His interpretation was that the Council wanted the CSB
and his office to prepare lists of organizations that they would submit to the
Council and the Council would choose organizations from those lists and then
ask those organizations if they would participate in police/community relations
by assigning one or more members to serve on that committee. He assumed that
would stop any suggestion that the Police Chief was trying to set up his own
committee. He did not know who would be serving on that committee, but he would
welcome anybody chosen by those organizations. Subsequently, he was incredulous
Friday afternoon when he was approached again by Mr. West with the revision,
since nobody had seen fit to talk with him about it until it was an accomplished
fact. He was unhappy about it and expressed his displeasure to Mr. West and
then later had a telephone conversation with the Chairman, Jan Billings, and
indicated his displeasure to her with what had happened. It seemed to him they
were losing credibility with his office because what they had done one week,
they had undone a week later. He understood after what was minimal citizen
input at the May 3rd meeting of fewer than a dozen people, it was this so-called
citizen input that changed the recommendation. He reiterated he was not happy
with the revision and also indicated his displeasure to the Council. He did
not think it was in the best interest of the City and the Police Department. Mr.
Hasselbrink had a good point when he stated this was one step they seemed to be
chipping away at a time towards some control over the Police Department which he
did not envision. He envisioned setting up a committee for citizen input, police/
community relations, not police/community confrontation.
He then explained for Councilman Roth that he supported the original proposal
two weeks ago and he supported it tonight in that it was an appropriate mechanism
for setting up a committee that would give input into the Chief's office. He
was looking for broad based community input that could express the concerns of
the various segments of the community to the Police Department and hopefully
they could work together to solve the problems. He did not view it as a committee,
board or commission that would have some type of confrontation and would be
running to the Council with minority or majority reports seeking to change a
great deal of policy.
Councilman Overholt asked if there were any other unfinished items the report
was sent back for.
The Chief answered "no" and all he did was to ask people from Administrative
Services to select lists of organizations they felt would be appropriate to
participate in the committee. They were the ones who made it up and he did not.
His assumption was that the CSB was going to do the same and there would be no
handpicked individual members.
Councilman Overholt asked under the structure as he conceived it, was it the
Chief's thought he would chair the committee or that the committee would select
its own chairman and be responsible to the Chief.
Chief Tielsch stated the present committee had been in existence for four years.
They set their own by-laws and the chairman was a private citizen and that was
the way he would consider it continuing. He did not want to chair or make it
look as though he was manipulating the committee. He did feel that there should
79-512
City Ha.ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
be voting members of the Police Department on the committee and the CSB's latest
recommendation did not allow even a voting member of the Police Department and
that was another objection. They would only ask that there be one voting member
from the Department without regard to the size of the committee, but that other
Department people would be present for staff input.
Mayor Seymour asked what the Chief would see wrong, if anything, with a concept in
which he (Tielsch) constituted a Police/Community Relations Committee under his
own guise and leadership separate from the Council, the City Manager's office
or any bureaucratic or political direction. Further since they had an appointed
CSB charged by the Council to be concerned with community problems of whatever
variety, that the board might work with him as well as the Police/Community
Relations Committee to help solve what at least some in the community perceived
to be a problem.
The Chief stated he was delighted with the concept but unfortunately what he
had seen lately in their relations with the CSB, he would hope they would not
have the confusion they had over the past two weeks. He did not think they
would be doing the Council a service if they did not work in a better fashion
than recently. He was embarrassed because certain arms of government did not
seem to be interfacing too well in the City.
Mayor Seymour stated in defense of the CSB, their labors and deliberations,
through the subcommittee process, was their best effort, although he could
not attest to whatever occurred at their last meeting on May 3; Chief Tielsch
also agreed that they did a good job, but he was disappointed that the process
had broken down.
Mayor Seymour continued however that he was not satisfied, and suspected that
each of his colleagues on the Council as well as citizens of the community,
were also not satisfied with the most recent recommendations of the CSB. It
was necessary now to make a decision and move on to address the problem in a
very positive vein before a sensitive situation deteriorated until it was
citizen against citizen. There was a strong sense of law and order in the
community and that would best be expressed by the Council in support of strong
law and order. However, they must be sensitive to the real issue which would
not go away merely by saying that it no longer existed. If the community
were to adopt such a posture, then the next time an incident occurred, they
would not be as fortunate as this time. He believed that the Chief was very
sincere in his willingness to try to work with the Mexican-American community
and to improve relations. At the same time, he saw the CSB as having the
charge as an appointed body of the Council to be concerned about all community
problems. Therefore, it was appropriate that they monitor or evaluate progress
as it was being made with the Chief and his self-appointed Police/Community
Relations Committee and for the CSB to then make recommendations as they saw
fit in monitoring the situation with the Mexican-American community.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a motion to (1) accept and file the report
of the Community Services Board dated May 8, 1979, and (2) to instruct the CSB
to continue to be responsible for that particular community problem on behalf
79-513
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
of the Council and to act as a buffer, while at the same time permitting the
Police Chief the freedom and flexibility to, on his own, create his own Police/
Community Relations Committee as he saw fit and to work in liaison with the
CSB, and, in turn, the CSB working with the Council to solve a long-standing
problem. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was not certain how
large a role the CSB would play in the matter, whether it would become politicized,
or whether they would have the time to devote to this issue, since it was formed
for many other things as well.
Mayor Seymour answered that the CSB's charge in this matter was no different
from their original charge. It was organized to look at community problems and
to make recommendations only to the Council for a potential solution. He did
not see them in the past having any power to make decisions, and he did not see
them as having any power to do so in the future. He would hope that the CSB
would have the time to look at those problems that were of the greatest signi-
ficance to the community. If the Board were politicized, it would be the fault
of the Council because they appointed them. He did not think that the CSB or
any other board or commission in the past had been politicized.
City Manager Talley stated in the spirit of the motion, he felt he could also
speak in complete support of letting the Chief form his committee as he saw fit.
Considering what the Chief expressed today, he was certain that he would request
the CSB to assign a liaison member to the Committee and as far as he was concerned,
that could be the vehicle by which the CSB would be keeping abreast of how well
the community was functioning and if there was an appropriate time for them to
review anything, that would be the mechanism by which they could do so.
Councilman Overholt added his personal commendation to the CSB and particularly
to Mr. West. Sometimes things did not turn out as one would hope, but it did
not detract from the amount of effort and thought that had gone into developing
a report.
He continued the reason he was penetrating in his questioning of Messrs. David
and Galaviz was that he believed what had come of the exercise, was a total
airing of the concerns of the entire community regardless of the segment, and
out of it would begin a renewed dedication in trying to solve existing problems.
He would guess that Messrs. David and Galaviz were not entirely unhappy with
the outcome of the Council's proposed action, nor the CSB. They were trying
to do what was best for the entire community.
Mayor Seymour stated before calling for the question and the motion, Mr. David
raised some questions to which he did not receive answers and he was prepared
to answer those as soon as they voted on the motion.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour continued that relative to Mr. David's query as to what was wrong
with citizen participation, he found nothing wrong with it at all and the more
citizens had to say, the better government would be. On the other hand, he was
79-514
CitM Hali~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma.y 8, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
sensitive to the fact that an additional commission or committee not be appointed
when one was already in place to do the job and that was true in this case.
Relative to receiving input, that mechanism again was the CSB.
The Mayor stated that Mr. David mentioned two items that came out of the Grand
Jury--identification and psychological testing. Regarding identification, he
knew the Chief already said that as he replaced vehicles, larger identification
numbers would be placed on those vehicles. He (Seymour) for one would be even
more aggressive than that and would be willing, as long as the cost was not
exorbitant, to place whatever size numbers new vehicles would carry on all
vehicles. Relative to psychological testing, they were currently under study
and about to begin psychological testing of new recruits. Mr. David's question
went a step further by addressing ongoing psychological testing. He (Seymour)
had not come to any conclusion as to the value of such testing. He would be
looking at the positive results of psychological testing as it pertained to new
recruits to see how it worked out and then to determine if further consideration
need be given psychological testing on an ongoing basis because of the stress
factor involved. He would confront that at some later time.
Councilwoman Kaywood concluded that if they were going to continually rehash
the past, that was all they would be doing repeatedly. If they sincerely
wanted to improve relations as of right now they had to take the first step
and work in cooperation with one another so that there would be no confronta-
tions and to work in a manner fostering positive input, and positive better
relations that would come from such input.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:32 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:42 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923: Application by
Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher, to permit the sale of home furnishings on ML
zoned property located at 1040 Kraemer Place.
City Clerk Linda Roberts reported that a request had been received from the
applicant's attorney for a one-week continuance relative to the subject ap-
plication.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, public hearing
on Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 was continued to May 15, 1979. One vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT: Notice
of Order to Show Cause why a Massage Establishment Permit issued to Werner John
Scheer for the Tiki Massage, 909 South Euclid, should not be terminated for
failure to comply with conditions imposed by the City of Anaheim Municipal
Code Chapter 4.29.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the matter would be a quasi-judicial
hearing concerning the subject permit and Mr. Howard Brody, Deputy City Attorney,
would represent the City, and Mr. Scheer was present, represented by his attorney.
79-515
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The rules would be formal although not as formal as a courtroom hearing but
in accordance with due process requirements. Only witnesses called by the
parties would be permitted to testify and would be sworn in by the City Clerk.
Cross-examination would be permitted by the attorneys for the parties.
Officer John Miser of the Anaheim Police Department was sworn in and testified
under questioning by Deputy City Attorney Howard Brody that he was a Police
Officer of the City of Anaheim assigned to the Narcotics and Organized Crime
Unit; that as part of his duties was an inspection assignment of the massage
premises in Anaheim to make sure that the business license and'~asseuse permits
were in order and the condition of the premises in order in accordance with
the ordinance; that as part of his inspection he had an opportunity to inspect
the Tiki Sauna and Massage Parlor and in so doing, found that there were vio-
lations of Chapter 4.29 of the Massage Parlor Ordinance, wherein there was a
violation of the licensing Ordinance, addresses were incorrect on two permits,
one of those being a business license for Mr. Scheer, and the third was a
lack of displaying a permit properly involving a masseuse permit issued by
the City to Antoina Fontaine. There was also a failure to report a change of
address, as well as the addition of a new employee as required pursuant to
Chapters 4.29 of the AMC.
Officer Miser further testified that Werner John Scheer was represented to be
the sole owner of the massage establishment determined in an interview conducted
by him and Detective Murrow with Mr. Scheer on April 5, 1979. The purpose was
to issue a citation to him for those offenses respectively and to inquire of him
regarding the business receipts that they secured for the company. He confirmed
for Attorney Brody that prior to that interview, there was an application sub-
mitted by Mr. Scheer for a massage parlor establishment in which he indicated he
was the sole owner.
Attorney Brody then submitted two documents, showed them to Officer Miser and
asked if he could identify them.
Officer Miser stated one of the documents was an application for the business
license for the massage business and the other was an application for a masseuse
permit; Mr. Brody submitted them to the Council as Exhibit "A" and explained
that it indicated on page one, as Officer Miser testified, that Werner John
Scheer was the sole owner of the Tiki Sauna and Massage Parlor with the signed
applicant's signature, Werner John Scheer, at the bottom.
Under further questioning by Attorney Brody, Officer Miser testified that he
had the occasion to learn that Werner John Scheer was not the sole owner of the
Tiki Sauna and Massage Parlor. Mr. Scheer told him he had a silent partner
and he had an opportunity to confirm that through other corraborative evidence
of Mr. Scheer's admission that he had a silent partner. They contacted Miss
Dot Nguyen, the woman who Mr. Scheer stated was the silent partner in the
business. They asked her to come in for an interview and the following day,
received a call from a Mr. Wyland indicating he was an attorney-at-law rep-
resenting Miss Nguyen.
79-516
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MaN 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Glatzhofer, attorney representing Mr. Scheer, 2020 West Lincoln objected
to the hearsay testimony since it was conversation that Officer Miser heard
from someone else; the objection was sustained.
Mr. Brody had no further questions.
On cross-examination by Attorney Glatzhofer, Officer Miser testified that he
made his inspection of the Tiki Massage at approximately five or six in the
evening; that he was not familiar with the hourly schedule of employees and
did not think it important to find out if employees were working and whether
or not their license was on display in the establishment. He did determine
that one of the employees did not have her license hanging on the wall. How-
ever, he did determine that she was working because initially, Detective Murrow,
a female, went in to ask whether or not she as a female could obtain a massage.
If she could, it would be in violation of the City Ordinance because the
establishment was not equipped to handle males and females at the same time.
In Detective Murrow's conversation with Ms. Fontaine, there was no indication
she was not on duty. He did inspect the areas where a license would be displayed
and did find some displayed, but not Ms. Fontaine's. When he asked her about
her license, she stated she kept it in her locker because she was afraid it would
be stolen. She went to her locker, retrieved it and showed it to him.
Attorney Glatzhofer further questioned whether Officer Miser had interviewed
somebody else at the establishment that had not appeared on the record as being
an employee of the establishment.
Officer Miser replied that he had, and her name was Faith Toland. He did not
initially come in contact with her at the Tiki Massage, but spoke to her a
few days prior. He then made contact with her at the Tiki Massage where he
saw her working on approximately the 29th of March. That was not the date
of the formal inspection of the Massage Parlor, but he was performing a
covert inspection on the 29th. Referring again to Ms. Fontaine, Officer
Miser explained that it was approximately April 3, 1979 when he saw her
license displayed at the Tiki Massage Parlor.
Referring once again to Miss Toland, Mr. Glatzhofer asked what led Officer Miser
to believe she was working.
Officer Miser answered that she gave him a massage and clarified that he then
made a determination that she was registered at the Massage Parlor by checking
with the City License Collector.
In concluding testimony, Officer Miser testified that Mr. Scheer had an address
other than the address indicated on the record, that he asked Mr. Scheer if he
had moved and his new address. He was informed that he had been at the new address
for two months. In order to contact Mr. Scheer, it was necessary to go through
an employee on duty at the Massage establishment and request his current home
phone number. Since it was not listed in the phone book, there was no referral ~
on his old phone number and he (Miser) was not aware of his other employment
activity. The phone number was supplied to him and he was eventually successful
79-517
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
in contacting Mr. Scheer through his business with the help of his employee
who passed the message on and Mr. Scheer, in turn, called him.
Officer Miser also testified that Mr. Scheer told him he had a partner and also
that person had 50% interest in the business, a $5000 investment. He attempted
to make contact with the other person but was intervened by the attorney.
Mr. Glatzhofer and Mr. Brody had no further questions.
Mr. Glatzhofer stated he had a copy of a notice of the hearing setting forth
certain dates of alleged violations and in hearing Officer Miser's testimony,
there were some discrepancies in the Notice. He asked that the alleged viola-
tions be stricken. Mr. Brody asked for clarification that he (Glatzhofer) was
saying he had not received proper notice to A, B, and C of the April 20, 1979
letter.
Mr. Glatzhofer replied that there had been no testimony about alleged violations
that took place. As an example, No. 2 in the Notice stated, "for the conduct
having taken place on March 29, 1979." According to Officer Miser's testimony,
if such conduct did take place, it was on a different date. The point being
since they had gone to the extent of a pre-hearing revoking a man's livelihood
and business, the City Attorney's office had to be precise in such matters. He
believed it to be significant that there was a difference of a week.
Mr. Brody stated the point was that on or about March 29, 1979 a certain event
happened and that Mr. Glatzhofer was familiar with the subject matter of those
particular incidents regardless of whether it was March 29 or a few days there-
after. The issue he raised was one of credibility and Mr. Brody was certain
that could be addressed in Mr. Glatzhofer's final argument.
Mr. Werner John Scheer, 917 South Trident, Anaheim, was sworn in and testified
under questioning by Attorney Glatzhofer that he was the owner of the Tiki
Sauna and Massage Parlor and that he changed his address on March 1, 1979 when
he moved from Costa Mesa to Anaheim, but that he did not notify anybody of the
move. He did change his telephone number, but he still had the same telephone
number where people could reach him through his business. He had two businesses
and could be reached by the phone number at the Massage Parlor.
Mr. Scheer confirmed the following upon questioning by Mr. Glatzhofer: that he
did have rules for employees to abide by in operating the Massage Parlor includ-
ing the posting of employees' permits in a conspicuous place; that he had not
seen the girls working without displaying their permits; that one of the rules
included every girl employed was ordered by him to report the fact of their
employment to City officers within five days; that an employee by the name of
Toland was discharged after he became aware through a representative of the
Police Department that she did not report to the City that she was employed by
him.
Mr. Glatzhofer then asked if at the time the application filed by Mr. Scheer on
March 24, 1978 and marked as one of the Exhibits, did he have a partner in the
business.
79-518
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Scheer answered "no". He did tell the officer he had a partner, but it was
not at that time.
Mr. Glatzhofer continued his line of questioning indicating that sometime later
Mr. Scheer told the officer he had a partner; Mr. Brody interjected and asked
that the last question be answered, that being, did Mr. Scheer have a partner,
and if he informed the officer that it was sometime after he filled out the
application.
Mr. Scheer confirmed it was after filling out the application.
In concluding testimony, Mr. Scheer confirmed that he and the officer did not
go into detail over what was meant by a partner. However, he meant he had
appointed Miss Nguyen as manager and gave her one-half interest in the business;
Mr. Glatzhofer asked if he meant by one-half interest, that she did not actually
own one-half interest, but she shared in the receipts because she did some of
the managerial duties of the establishment.
Mr. Scheer stated that was correct.
Mr. Glatzhofer had no further questions.
Mr. Brody than asked Mr. Scheer relative to the partnerhip situation, was he
correct in saying he (Scheer) never explained to Officer Miser that the partner,
Dot Nguyen was a bonafide one-half share partner in the business.
Mr. Scheer stated he said she had one-half interest, he gave her one-half
interest, but he never told the officer she was a partner. She was a manager
and was given one-half of the business, and she was paid accordingly.
Mr. Brody asked if she was given one-half of the receipts of the business; Mr.
Scheer said she was given one-half of the profits.
Mr. Brody asked Mr. Scheer if he told the officer she was a partner; Mr. Scheer
answered "yes". He then asked if Mr. Scheer told him she was a silent partner,
and he again answered "yes".
Mr. Scheer then explained that she was taken into the business after he opened
the establishment and he needed a manager. That was in the middle of June 1978.
He did not notify the Anaheim Police Department that the ownership had changed
because he felt she was not a bonafide partner and he was the full partner. It
was merely a verbal agreement between both of them.
Mr. Brody asked Mr. Scheer if he knew Frank Wyland, attorney for Dot Nguyen,
and if he knew of an agreement that was drawn up between his attorney and himself
and the attorney for Dot Nguyen.
Mr. Scheer answered first that he did not know Mr. Wyland and that he did not
know if there was an agreement.
79-519
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Brody then asked further if he signed such an agreement; Mr. Scheer answered
"yes" and confirmed Mr. Brody's question that it was not an oral agreement.
Mr. Scheer further testified that he did not follow up with his employees to
see that they adhered to the procedures required by the City in becoming
massage technicians; that he did check to see if permits were posted in a con-
spicuous place; and that during work Antoina Fontaine posted her permit on the
wall.
Both Mr. Brody and Mr. Glatzhofer had no further questions.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Scheer confirmed that he moved from
Costa Mesa to Anaheim on March 1 and that he did change his home phone number.
Mayor Seymour stated at one point in the testimony, Mr. Scheer indicated that
Dot Nguyen was more of a manager than she was a partner and further he had some
type of oral agreement with her, yet a few moments later, he indicated he signed
a written agreement. He asked Mr. Scheer if he could explain that to the Council.
Mr. Scheer answered that he could not.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the difference between a partner and a manager.
Mr. Scheer answered that he did not feel there was any difference.
Mr. Glatzhofer then asked Mr. Scheer if he and the lady they were discussing
ever talked about forming a formal partnership where they would have partner-
ship bank accounts, earning statements or if he ever turned in a partnership
or statement.
Mr. Scheer answered "no". He also explained that after expenses, Miss Nguyen
received one-half of the money on a monthly basis. He also confirmed for the
Mayor that Miss Nguyen gave him the $5,000, the amount indicated by Officer
Miser, for being manager and part-owner.
The Mayor then closed the quasi-Judicial hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Council had the following findings of fact:
(1) that on March 24, 1978 Werner John Scheer stated to the Anaheim Police
Department in his application for a Chapter 4.29 permit that he was the sole
owner of Tiki Sauna and Massage; (2) that Werner John Scheer was not the sole
owner of the Tiki Sauna and Massage; (3) that a Dot Thi Nguyen was a silent
partner in the Tiki Sauna and Massage business from its inception; and (4) that
Werner John Scheer violated provisions of Chapter 4.29 by employing Faith
Toland as a Massage Technician without notifying the License Collector, by
failing to report a change in home address to the License Collector, and by
permitting one Antoina Fontaine to act as a Massage Technician without dis-
playing in a conspicuous place a copy of a MasBage Technician's Permit for
Antoina Fontaine.
79-520
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8., 1979, 1:30 P.M.
In view of the foregoing findings, Councilman Seymour moved that the Chapter
4.29, Massage Establishment Permit issued to Werner John Scheer is hereby
revoked and that the previous motion to strike is denied. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that the motion was to
the question of the status as of March 24, 1978. He did not believe the evidence
sustained the findings that on March 24, 1978 Mr. Scheer had a silent partner;
the Mayor maintained that the hearing brought out that he did have a silent
partner.
Councilman Overholt agreed at some time, but not necessarily on March 24, 1978.
Mr. Brody stated that they had a number of tapes that would bear that out if
the Council would care to listen. There had not been any credible controverted
evidence that would indicate otherwise. As to the specific date involved, there
was evidence this was given as part of $10,000 to begin the business. That
evidence showed it was at the inception of the business as well.
The Mayor maintained he heard testimony that he believed was substantive and
which indicated there was a partner; Councilman Overholt agreed, but not as of
March 24, 1978.
The Mayor continued that at some time there was a silent partner which was in
violation of the Ordinance and not reported to the City.
Councilman Overholt stated if that was the case, then the evidence sustained a
violation but not the findings that on March 24, 1978 there was a silent partner.
Mayor Seymour stated he would then offer an amended motion relative to item (1)
that Werner John Scheer stated to the Anaheim Police Department in his applica-
tion for a Chapter 4.29 Permit that he was the sole owner of the Tiki Sauna and
Massage, with the remainder of the findings as articulated. Councilman Overholt
concurred in that change; Councilman Roth accepted the amendment.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ANAHEIM FOUNDATION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS - EXTENSION OF LEASE AT HORAC~
MANN SCHOOL: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth,
consideration of the request by Bernard L. Smith, President of the Board of
Directors, Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts to extend the term of the
Lease for the Horace Mann School for use as a Cultural Arts Center for another
ten-year period was continued to May 15, 1979, as requested by Mr. Smith
One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. '
178: SUPPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL AND RELATED DELTA
FACILITIES: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-262 for adoption
as requested by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Refer
to Resolution Book. '
79-521
City Hall; Anaheim~ C.alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979; 1:30 ?.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-262: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING THE PERIPHERAL CANAL LEGISLATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-262 duly passed and adopted.
129: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Submitted by Pyro Spec-
taculars on behalf of Marriott Corporation to discharge fireworks on May 15,
1979, 11:45 A.M., at 700 West Convention Way (construction site).
Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject application. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know what kind of fire-
works would be visible during the day. Since no answer was readily available,
she indicated she would vote "no" in any case because she believed the residents
had been disturbed by the construction, and she did not want to add to it.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no".
One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, 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 insurance administrator or payment allowed therefor:
a. Claim submitted by Paul W. Deese for vehicle damages purportedly sustained
as a result of unmarked obstruction in the Stadium parking lot, on or about
March 17, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Rudy Gutknecht for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of actions by City employees on or about February 24, 1979.
c. Claim submitted by Hephatha Lutheran Church for water damages sustained
purportedly as a result of a failure in the City sewer system on or about
February 8, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Fremont P. McDonough for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a fall at the Convention Center on or about January 13,
1979.
e. Claim submitted by Frank Robert Weidler for property damage purportedly
sustained as a result of fluctuation in power supply on or about March 20, 1979.
79-522
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Gary Bonner for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of golf cart striking automobile on or about April 8, 1979.
g. Claim submitted by Willard K. Geertson for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a traffic ticket in connection with a traffic accident in which
he was involved as a driver of a City truck resulting in time lost and expenses
related to Court appearances; date of accident, February 7, 1979.
h. Claim submitted by Axel W. Jensen for personal property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by a Building Division employee on or about
April 16, 1979.
i. Claim submitted by Peggy Lee Jones for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a hole in the street at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue
and Miller Street on or about March 27, 1979.
j. Claim submitted by Frank Roland Lindsay for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of detention by Anaheim Police on or about March 25, 1979 (loss of
apparel).
k. Claim submitted by Jacinta Magana for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police on or about January 2,
1979.
1. Claim submitted by Virginia A. Meister for personal injuries and property
damages purportedly sustained as a result of an unmarked open trench in Euclid
near Crone Avenue in the street on or about March 20, 1979.
m. Claim submitted by Robert Pone for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police Department on or about January 12,
1979.
n. Claim submitted by Robert F. Roberts for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of golf ball from Anaheim Hills Golf Course hitting Mr. Roberts wind-
shield on or about March 25, 1979.
The following claim was allowed as recommended by the City Attorney:
o. Sheuh-Shiang Chen for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions
by a City employee who replaced a water meter on or about March 21, 1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 173: Before the Civil Aeronautics Board, Hughes Air Corporation dba Hughes
Airwest, applying for temporary exemption authority, for amendment of its certi-
ficate of public convenience and necessity and for order to show cause, all in
connection with Orange County-San Francisco Route 76.
b. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission Application No. 58600 and
58601, applications by the Gray Line Tours Company for authority to extend
its services between various points in the Los Angeles Basin and Orange County.
79-523
City H. all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, .1979~ 1:30 P.M.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of April 18, 1979.
d. 105: Anaheim Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of March 28, 1979.
e. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of March 1 and 15 and April 5, 1979.
3. 108: APPLICATION: A Public Dance Permit application submitted by Sociedad
Progresista Mexicana, for a public dance to be held May 13, 1979, from 3:00 P.M.
to 7:00 P.M., at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vemont Avenue (Ruth C. Hernandez,
applicant), was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the CUP.
One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-263
through 79R-266, 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.
115: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-263: 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 IMPRDVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION
OF TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 48-984-6325-71!5; 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 June 7, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-264: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS
AND ALLEYS AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (LINCOLN AVENUE, ET AL.)
(78-28A, public hearing set for May 29, 1979 at 3:00 P.M.)
113: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-265: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, INSTRU-
MENTS, BOOKS AND PAPERS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
103: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-266: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPRDVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED WINSTON-SUNKIST ANNEXATION. (7.63 acres located northwest of
intersection of Winston Avenue and Sunkist Street)
Roll Call Vote':
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-263 through 79R-266, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
79-524
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 197.9, 1:30 P.M.
170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO 10424: Developer, Four Sails Properties, Inc.,
tract is located northerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of Tustin Avenue
containing one RM-1200 proposed zoned lot with six buildings.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she noted the subject involved a condominium conversion
of apartments. She wanted to know if they were brand new and converted before
they were moved into.
Miss Santalahti explained the tract was in an RM-3000 condominium tract and
rather than selling units, they were selling buildings and units would continue
to be rented.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed
subdivision together with the design and improvement was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract
No. 10424 as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated May 1,
1979. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 10627: Developer, Francis Hammatt: tract located
south of Orangewood and east of Loara containing seven proposed RS-7200 zoned
lots.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed
subdivision together with the design and improvement was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract
No. 10627, subject to CC&R being submitted and approved by the City Attorney's
office and City Engineer, and payment of tract fees and posting of bonds prior
to recordation of the final map, as recommended by the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated May 4, 1979. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 4001: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4001 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4001: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 7.34.165,
7.34.180, 7.34.200, 7.34.210 AND 7.34.240, AND ADDING SECTION 7.34.280, TO CHAPTER
7.34 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Councilman Roth would
consider amending the limitation to two days instead of three.
Councilman Roth indicated he would not do so at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated since she was on public record as stating she preferred
two days in order to alleviate the problems they were having relative to Bingo,
that would be her preference. She conceded, however, that three days were better
than five days and she would vote in favor of the ordinance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance.
79-525
City .Hal. l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4001 duly passed and adopted.
166: ORDINANCE NO. 4002 AND 4003: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4002
and 4003 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4002: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .005
TO SECTION 18.05.111 OF CHAPTER 18.05, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (adding a limitation pertaining to maximum number of bill-
boards permitted on each street frontage)
ORDINANCE NO. 4003: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(24), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4002 and 4003, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4004 THROUGH 4007: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4004
through 4007, both inclusive, for first reading.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4004: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 3974, NUNC PRO TUNC RELATING TO DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 4005: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
cHAPTER 14.32 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14.32.145 RELATING
TO TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. except Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays, both sides of Lomita Street, from La Pa/ma Avenue to
Claredge Drive and both sides of Lomita Place, from its easterly terminus to
Lomita Street)
173: ORDINANCE NO. 4006: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 4.72, SECTIONS 4.72.010 AND 4.72.020 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO TAXICABS.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 4007: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE,'14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTIONS 14.32.320 AND 14.32.330 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE AND IMPOUNDING UNLAWFULLY PARKED
VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY.
79-526
City Ha~l~..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
114: SISTER CITY PROGRAM: Councilman Overholt expressed his pleasure relating
to the dinner they shared with representatives from Mito, Japan last Wednesday
evening, May 2, 1979 as part of the Sister Cities Program. He stated he was
very proud of that program.
114: TRAILS COMMITTE BARBECUE: Councilman Overholt reported on his attendance
at the Trails Committee Barbecue in Anaheim Hills on Sunday, May 6, 1979. He
was very impressed with the event, as well as the atmosphere and the enthusiasm
of the people who attended, and the whole lifestyle experienced in that area.
It was a credit to the leaders of the City who saved the future of Anaheim Hills.
Councilwoman Kaywood added there were approximately 95 on horseback at the event
and that it could not accommodate any more than that aB present. They indicated
if the Equestrian Center were to expand this year, they could accommodate up to
120 horses next year. They did want support for the Trail System and
she believed it should not be overlooked as an alternative transportation system.
It was used to go shopping and other things, and it would be used even more so
if the trails were continued. They needed to keep that in mind for the future.
She requested that staff be mindful that when somebody came to the City with
a new tract in that area, that trails be dedicated and improved.
114: ANAHEIM SOIREE AND AUCTION: Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her thanks to
the Mayor and Stan Pawlowski in their role as auctioneers at the 6th Annual
Anaheim Soiree and Auction.
173: POSTING OF GASOLINE PRICES: Councilwoman Kaywood stated in line with the
question brought up two weeks prior to have gas stations post their prices, the
situation had worsened into a crisis and the Governor had taken over by institu-
ting the Odd-Even System and the Flag System in order to know in advance if gas
was available at a station. A resolution or ordinance was drafted, but she did
not know what the Council wanted to do at this time with regard to gas station
posting, etc., or whether to Just go along with the Governor's recommendation.
She could offer a motion that Anaheim did have its own system of flags and
posting of prices for as long as there was need for the procedures to be enforced.
Councilman Roth was of the opinion that two different issues were involved. The
Flag System was determined by the County and defined in the telegram they received.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated the posting of prices, however, had not
been defined, and it would be appropriate to ask the City Attorney to draft
a proposed ordinance requesting price posting, while at the same time asking
what enforcement there was relative to such posting.
Miss Santalahti stated that they contacted the Weights and Measures Division
of Petroleum Sales and she was told they did enforce the price signing. However,
when she asked who did the enforcing, she was informed that both Orange County
and San Diego County had only one enforcement officer covering the entire ter-
ritory.
Mr. Talley then explained for the Mayor that relative to federal enforcement,
the Department of Energy had an inspector who checked prices.
79-527
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Consistent with Councilwoman Kaywood's thrust, Councilman Seymour there-
upon moved to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance that would require
posting of prices at gasoline stations on the three grades of gasoline, premium,
regular and unleaded. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth skated although he was supportive,
he would prefer to see the Odd-Even and Flag System underway before they did
anything else. He was also concerned over the fact that the City's sign ordinance
would have to be modified to permit the total pricing of all grades of gasoline
because the existing signing only had space to post regular and ethyl grades of
gasoline. As well, he wanted to know how they were going to enforce the
proposed ordinance, and it was also necessary to look at resultant enforcement
costs.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern revolved around the fact that existing
signs were not being utilized for posting prices.
Mayor Seymour stated that staff was responsible for making reconx~endations and
to advise the Council how they could solve the matter in order to proceed with
the proper course of action.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
173: SERVICE STATIONS PROPOSED CLOSURE MAY 17 THROUGH 21: Councilwoman Kaywood
expressed her concern over the possibility that service stations would be closing
in protest from May 17 to 21, 1979. She suggested that they send
a letter to President Carter relative to the great deal of unfairness involved
in the situation. Deregulation at the top level for all oil companies would
not help the local service stations who were working on a profit margin. With
less gas to pump, they received less income, yet they had to hire temporary
people. Thus their expenses were rising and they would perhaps be unable to
continue in business.
Councilman Roth stated he had discussed the matter with the Supervisor for Arco
relative to the huge oil company profits and he disputed such statements. He
did not believe they should be getting involved with statements that were not
necessarily accurate.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not want to see gas stations closing for
a week because the pandemonium that would ensue was something she wanted to
prevent.
No action was taken by the Council.
i48: SOUTH COAST AIR qUALITY MANAGEb~NT BOARD (SCAQMB) MEETING: Councilman Roth
reported on the first meeting he attended of the SCAQMB held Friday, May 4, 1979
in West Covina. He explained the makeup of the ten-member board which had a
budget of over $20 million and far-reaching powers. He then explained the
procedures they followed relative to public hearings and a large amount of
technical data that had to be assimilated. The City Manager had assured him
of technical assistance. As well, there was a gentleman from Bechtel, an Air
Quality Engineer, who was going to assist him, as well as Dick McMillan from
Northrup, also in Quality Co~trol.
79-528
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May .8~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth then explained that all meetin§s, with the exception of
one, in the next 12 months were going to be held in West Covina, Riverside, San
Bernardino, etc. He was concerned over the inability to get gas and then
explained the difficulty and problems encountered in filling his automobile tends to
make the trip to the meeting. He was not concerned with the price so much as
the undue burden placed upon him and suggested that he was going to have to
get gasoline from the City or a City vehicle to alleviate the serious problem
with which he was faced.
Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that the Board reimbursed members for
mileage when attending meetings; Councilman Roth was not aware of such reimburse-
ment and stressed that he was willing to pay two dollars a gallon if necessary.
However, it was the inconvenience and time consumed in trying to get gasoline
in order to travel that distance and then to have to refill his automobile
upon return.
Mr. Talley stated they were trying to solve the problem, and that to waste three
hours of time to get gas to go on City business was an unreasonable expenditure
of time, whether or not there was reimbursement.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not believe it to be good policy for the Council
to start obtaining or acquiring City vehicles to go anywhere, although if they
wanted to turn in their expenses for mileage, they should do so. He realized
however it was not the expense involved, but the time. He expressed hope that
the situation would be alleviated by the Odd-Even System. He reiterated his
concern over establishing a policy in which Council Members would begin to
utilize City vehicles and suggested that other alternatives be researched, short
of obtaining City vehicles.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Overholt moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:00 P.M.
S, CI%Y CLERK