1980/06/1080-702
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt (entered at 10:20 a.m.), Kaywood, Bay,
Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
POLICE CHIEF: George P. Tielsch
POLICE CAPTAIN: Jimmie Kennedy
TRAINING OFFICER: Ray Welsh
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Leigler
STADIUM OPERATIONS MANAGER: James Dooley
PERSONNEL SERVICES MANAGER: David Hill
City Manager William Talley first announced the proposed schedule of the City
Council budget hearings and the order in which department presentations would
be made.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Talley opened the budget session with the Police Department
budget, Pages C81-C95 of the 1980-81 Proposed Resource Allocation Plan, Control
Center 51, Capital Improvements, Page D34, and Position Control, Pages El8 and El9.
Police Chief George Tielsch noted that the Department budget for the fiscal
year 1980-81 amounted to $18,180,955 up from the ~Y 1979-80 adopted budget of
$16,167,608. The main level of service increase was in the area of operations.
They conducted a management audit of the Department and identified five positions
currently held by sworn officers which they felt could be replaced by civilians.
He recommended, therefore, that they grant five new positions of ITC's to replace
the five officers currently serving as complaint officers, assisting the Station
Sergeant function, thus freeing up five uniformed officers to constitute a new
beat in the City, Beat No. 26. The beat would be superimposed over existing
beats on the east side of the City, Beats 8, 10 and 22, making those smaller
and giving a higher level of service to citizens living in that area. Beat No.
26 would generally cover the areas between Kraemer and Lakeview.
Another area where they were asking for five additional personnel w~re as follows:
a Staff Sergeant in the Managing Criminal Investigations grant, three property and
supply clerks, and one records clerk, adding approximately 10,000 new hours to the
budget.
Relative to the crime rate, it had been the desire of the Council, even though
the City was in an area where crime rates were increasing all around, to have
either a zero increase, if at all possible, or a reduction in the crime rate.
The last Quarterly Report showed that they experienced a three-tenths percent
decrease in the crime rate this year in Anaheim. He could now report that
although he could not make a comparison with other cities because that data
was not available, by the end of May, the crime rate had decreased further
and they now realized a one percent decrease in that crime rate for the Calendar
Year 1980.
~0-703
City Hall.p. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10~ 1980,· 10:00 A.M.
Two of his CaPtains at the last budget work session, which he was unable to
attend, reported that the Council had expressed concern with the Department's
front counter operation and the Communications Center. At times, complaints
were received where members of the Department staff in those two areas had not
shown proper concern and courtesy to citizens. Their slide presentation would
show how the operation was presently conducted, what it looked like and further
illustrating the areas involved in the Capital Improvement request. Improvements
were planned for the front counter area to provide better service to citizens.
As well, the cadets at the front desk no longer wore uniforms, but civilian
clothes, to avoid citizens expecting too much from those cadets. As a result,
they wanted to provide them with blazers and slacks to give them a junior exec-
utive appearance as people came to the front counter. They had also increased
training in citizen contact and Officer Welsh, working in Communications and
temporarily assigned to the Training Bureau, would explain those aspects in the
presentation.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (10:20 a.m.)
A slide presentation was then made, narrated by Officer Welsh, regarding the
front counter operations, the proposed Capital Improvements, operation of the
Communication Center, cadet orientation training in citizen contact, officer
training program, "use of telephone", as well as other aspects of communication
and front counter operations (see data covering the slide presentation--City
Council presentation, June 10, 1980, Anaheim Police Communciations--front
counter, which was submitted to the Council--on file in the City Clerk's office).
Upon conclusion of the presentation, Councilman Roth expressed his deep and
ongoing concern relative to impressions given at the front counter by cadets
which he considered required more supervision than sworn officers. He wanted
to be certain that someone was monitoring those young people as the public
approached the Police Department front desk.
Chief Tielsch explained that they did not always have a sworn officer in that
area--normally they were civilians, and they had women in a civilian capacity
who had been with the Department for an extended period of time acting as the
initial supervision because of their years of experience.
Councilman Roth then asked if the new Task Force was now in operation.
Chief Tielsch reported that they had placed a sergeant in that program and had
selected the officers who were being phased into the force, which should be
operational in another month, consisting of ten officers and two sergeants. He
further explained that at one time during the past fiscal year,'the Department
had operated understrength by 22 sworn officers due to the very difficult problem
of recruiting. As of tomorrow, they would be eight officers understrength.
The Mayor asked Chief Tielsch to expand as to why it had taken so long to es-
tablish the Task Force.
Chief Tielsch answered that he did not know why. There was a difficult job in
recruiting and the rejection rate was extremely high of those who appiied.
80-704
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10~ 1980, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor then asked the Chief to elaborate on the recruitment procedure; the
Chief explained that basically they asked Personnel to recruit, and it was that
Department's responsibility to handle the initial recruitment accordingly. He
then explained the procedure followed, concluding that recruitment was a "terrible"
problem shared by all of his colleagues in other police departments as well, and
they were finding the same to be true throughout the State. He could give no
reason for the difficulty.
The Mayor asked if (1) the Council directed him to hire another five officers,
should they expect a six-month, nine-month or one-year lapse before they were
operational, and (2) if five officers left the Department today, how long a
period of time would be involved to replace those officers. He also asked
what the Council could do or provide in way of assistance to short-cut the
process. If there was nothing, then perhaps they should institute some long-
range planning.
Captain Norbert Mang stated that today they had no eligibility list and that was
one of the problems. If they already had an eligibility list, that would immed-
iately cut two to three months off the time and if they were hiring trained
officers from other departments, another five or six months would be eliminated.
The time could range from a minimum of two months to one year depending on what
cycle they were in, in the recruitment process at the time they were allowed to
hire.
Mr. Garry McRae, Human Resources Director, stated that current planning was
addressing itself to that very issue. He believed that the current recruitment
efforts should keep the Police Department at or near strength until January 1
from the current eligibility list. It was anticipated in January of next year,
opening new recruitment for police officers which would permit them to utilize
the provisional appointee techniques for the academy. If so, then the academy
four months and the recruiting four months would be taking place simultaneously,
thus reducing the overall time greatly. It took four months from the time a
person was on board to finish the academy and approximately seven months for
the process to be completed from the time of releasing the brochure. The main
time~onsumers were the announcement, of about a month at the beginning, and the
couple of months required at the end of that for the background investigation,
which the Police Department was required to do. If they went to an ongoing
police officer recruitment program in Anaheim, they would probably have to dedi-
cate in excess of one person full time on their employment staff just for such
activity. That would be a dramatic change, considering they only had two people
doing that for the entire City at present.
Further discussion and questioning of Chief Tielsch followed by the Mayor and
Councilman Bay, at the conclusion of which, Chief Tielsch reiterated the very
difficult recruitment problem with which they were faced and if they had an
answer to that problem they would be inundated by people all over the United
States because it was the same all over.
Mayor Seymour expressed his discomfort over the fact that in their attempt to
respond to the public for a higher level of police protection, it took one
year before they received that service. There was something wrong with that
process, and they had to find a solution to the problem.
80-705
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
Chief Tielsch stated that part of the problem revolved around the fact that,
although they could inundate Mr. McRae with requests, he had other department
heads with needs, and he (Tielsch) could not keep going back to him. Although
the Police Department was a high priority, the process, once it started was
very lengthy. Mr. McRae mentioned an ongoing recruitment process so that a
person could come in and start the process at any time, as well as the fact that
it would take a full-time position to handle ongoing testing for the Police
Department. He (Tielsch) recommended that be done and they might have to devote
additional resources for its implementation. If they did so, he felt that within
a relatively short period of time, they might be able to start picking up and
getting up to speed.
Mayor Seymour stated that he thought the Council would be interested in a specific
plan to achieve that.
Mayor Seymour then continued that a subject which he believed really concerned
the Council was that of neighborhood crime. Questions he had dealt with commun-
ications as well as manpower--i.e., response time which he knew varied depending
on the priority of the call. He was interested in those respons.e times where
they were receiving so many complaints and what could be done to improve that
situation. Also he asked if the Council were to authorize another five additional
officers, what would that get them ~n relationship to what he considered to be
the most frustrating problem they faced in police protection--neighborhood crime,
the crime itself, patrol, preventive activity, response time, the whole area. He
wanted to know what more they could do than they were already doing.
Chief Tielsch explained that five officers represented one car around the clock
or one new beat. Unfortunately, there was no formula that would lend itself to
telling how to approach the crime rate problem. It was difficult to give an
answer saying if they were given so many resources, they could give something
specific that would happen to that crime rate. They could, however, talk in
terms of response time as suggested by the Mayor, and Captain Kennedy had
worked hard on that aspect as one of his goals and objectives. He did feel
that "X" number of additional people could affect the response time.
The Mayor also asked if there was some way for the Police Department to communi-
cate to a citizen, for example, whose home had been burglarized when be was on
vacation, that his call was a low priority call, and they would be on the scene
in approximately 45 minutes to one hour, so they were not sitting and waiting for
the Police to come.
Chief Tielsch explained that their investigations revealed it was not the fact
that the Police did not arrive immediately, but rather the citizen's perception
of when they were going to be arriving, and they were doing what the Mayor
suggested.
Captain Jimmie Mennedy then reported on the proposed plan yet to be submitted to
the Chief and Council for approval dealing with a mail and/or telephone recording
system as well as the benefits to be accrued from such a system.
80-706
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
Chief Tielsch and Captain Kennedy then answered questions posed by the Council
relative to emergency call response times, what was being done to encourage
business property owners to provide security themselves, supplementing what the
Police Department could do, and if the Police Department was adequately prepared
to handle the influx of people as a result of the Rams season starting in August.
Mayor Seymour posed one last question to Chief Tielsch. He asked if, in his
opinion, the allocation of more funds toward increased personnel in his Department
would be of great value or of minimum value in getting a handle on neighborhood
crime.
Chief Tielsch answered that it would depend on the amount of dollars they were
talking about. They were happy with adding a beat which he believed would enhance
the service and cut down on response time in particular areas where they had some
problems. If the Mayor was talking about getting a really good handle, the
amount of dollars they would have to put into additional resources would be
considerable. Just to put five additional officers on the street around the
clock, with all the supporting equipment, would cost approximately $900,000 a
year.
City Manager Talley clarified that the cost was roughly a couple of hundred
thousand dollars per beat. The Chief indicated $900,000 for five beats and
not five people.
Chief Tielsch stated it would take five officers per beat with their day-off
schedule to man a car. That would be minimal to have five additional beats.
However, he did not want to make a representation to the Council where one
year from now if there were a couple of areas of increased crime, the Council
would indicate that they thought they made a contract that would not happen.
He could not professionally tell them that he could insure that would occur
without significant numbers of additional individuals. As far as a guarantee
that they could emerge as some type of island in the middle of Orange County
when the crime rate was going up around them and bring it below that, it would
be unrealistic unless they expended a great deal of money. He did not think
they could do it for less than five additional beats on top of the one they were
asking for as well. They were talking about 25 additional officers, which was
a relatively small increase or approximately a 12% increase in their total
Departmental sworn strength.
The Mayor asked if he were able to get that, could he then assure the Council
they would have a handle on neighborhood crime.
The Chief answered that he felt they could do a much better job than they were
doing if they developed that many additional people and put them into what they
called neighborhood crime to the exclusion of some other things. That could
have a significant impact on such crime.
Councilman Bay stated they were then talking about $900,000; Chief Tielsch
stated that was minimum with men and equipment, on an annual basis.
Mr. Talley clarified that was an "off the top of the head" figure. They used
$40,000 per person as an average in the Department and thus 25 times 40 equalled
$1 million.
80-707
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay wanted to know, considering the City's population and its transient
population, had any comparisons been made against similar cities, comparing how
many officers Anaheim had On the street against that of similar cities, their
types of problems, and how they handled those, to tell whether Anaheim was in
the ball park for t'he amount of police officers it had. He wanted to see some
comparative data between Anaheim and cities of equal size with tourist influx,
how much did they spend a year for their police force, how many officers they
had, how did their crime rates compare, so that the Council could have something
to gauge whether or not they were not paying enough attention regarding the
police force they ought to have, or if they had it and were they doing the best
they could w~thin the economic flexibility of what they had to deal with in the
budget.
Chief Tielsch explained that their Planning and Research unit had been doing a
great deal of work on comparisons. A staff member then submitted to him data
on the ratio of sworn officers per 1000 population which revealed the following:
the 1978 National average for all cities was 2.1 officers per 1000, and in the
100 to 250,000 population, which would include Anaheim, the average was 1.9.
The 1978 average for the basic geographical area was 1.5, and the 1978 National
average for cities over 250,000 was 2.8. Anaheim was at 210,000 with a transient
population and the City's average was 1.4 for the static population. Thus it
would appear they were lower than other cities.
Councilman Bay then surmised with the influx of tourists, if Anaheim was 1.4 and
the National average was 1.9 at 200,000, Anaheim was low; Chief Tielsch stated
it was lower than the National average.
Councilman Bay stated that he then felt the Council should perhaps seriously
consider looking at $900,000 to $i million for five additional beats.
The Mayor then asked for a quick update as to how they were faring on the war
on prostitution.
The Chief stated he felt they were doing very well; he then asked staff how many
places had been closed down since they started on the various massage parlors.
From the audience, a staff member stated that today there was a total of eight
and they started with 17.
Relative to street prostitution, the Chief explained they had a recurrence in
a couple of areas, but they kept attacking it as it surfaced, and he felt they
were doing a good job in the City.
Mayor Seymour stated on behalf of the Council, they all felt he was doing an
outstanding job and they were proud of the quality of service that he delivered
through his Department. With the concern expressed today relative to neighborhood
crime, they would be better served to receive from the Chief prior to the final
approval of the budget, a program with a price tag on it so that the Council
could be assured they had a real handle on crime. He was not saying they were
going to get there, but at ].east they would be armed with the information as
to what was necessary if they wanted to make a dent in it. They wanted to make
it "hot" for crime in Anaheim.
80-7O8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
STADIUM, CONVENTION CENTER~ GOLF COURSES - FAMILY FORESOME: City Manager Talley
referred to the subject budget, Pages C191 through C216, Control Center 72, 73
and 74, Capital Improvements, Page D29 through D32, and Position Control Page E37,
38 and 39.
Mr. Tom Liegler, Convention Center General Manager, gave a brief overview of the
Family Foursome facilities in a prepared statement. He noted that while they were
increasing their expenditure budgets, in each case, they were also increasing
their revenue projections at an accelerated rate. He stated that the City Manager's
budget message well defined their various programs, levels of service, standards
of housekeeping and maintenance, sales efforts and capital outlays to enhance
their present operations. Their operating expenditure budget, totalling $16,405,455,
consisted of almost one-half or 49.8% charged to the Stadium, 38.6% to the
Convention Center, and 11.6% to the Golf Courses. Another breakdown of the
same total--66.1% in operating costs for the entire Department, 33.1% in labor
charges, and only 0.8% in capital outlay. A substantial percentage of operating
costs and labor charges were reimbursed by tenant users. They were a substantial
revenue producing Department and proud of the projected $16.8 million income for
the Department not including the $6 million in Transient Occupancy tax which
passed through the accounting fund into the General Fund. He expected income,
therefore, would exceed expected expenses which was not the case in most cities
choosing to enter into stadium, convention center or golf course businesses.
Councilman Roth questioned Mr. Leigler relative to parking at the Stadium with
the advent of the Rams opening season. He ~asked for a status report on nego-
tiations with neighbors around the Stadium regarding parking and specifically
with Mr. Dave Hook.
Mr. Leigler explained it was in their interest to work with neighbors throughout
the entire Stadium area and letters would be sent to them shortly. In addition,
they had purchased some additional land from the State and that, along with the
Wagner-Michelle (W-M) property, needed to be surfaced. They were perhaps going
to ask the Council for some funding downstream to finish those areas.
Mr. Jim Dooley, Stadium Operation Manager, reported that at present they had
approximately 14,000 lined parking stalls. They hoped, for the Rams season, to
enter into an agreement with Mr. Hook, who offered a proposal of $1,500 for each
event to park employees in a dirt lot which would be available. That lot. how-
ever, would require some improvements. They had also
corresponded with Pacific Theaters to provide 2,000 parking spaces when neces-
sary for certain events. He also considered it important to get some pavement
on the W-M property and some other areas. The cost of asphalt paving was ap-
proximately $350 per space and 7.9 acres were involved in the State property
and 6.8 in the W-M property and the yield was 135 stalls per acre. They could
utilize the W-M property primarily for bus parking, as well as their existing
bus parking lot, thus accommodating approximately 400 to 450 buses.
Councilman Roth emphasized that his concern was relative to the fact that they
needed the additional parking to meet the challenge when the Rams season opened.
He felt their approach was correct in trying to attempt to gain that parking
through the surrounding neighbors; Mr. Dooley stated within their parking lot
and that of Pacific Theaters, they would be able to not only meet the 15,000
parking space commitment to the Rams, but also provide 16,000 parking spaces
,nder the control of the City.
80-709
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Liegler then clarified paving costs were not in the budget submitted to the
Council; Councilman Roth suggested that perhaps some type of oil or something
could be used for parking on the State and W-M property. Mr. Dooley explained
they had oiled it twice, bnt after a couple of times, it would get very dusty.
Councilman Roth asked their future plans to meet the parking requirements.
Mr.t Liegler stated they were in a quandary because that portion of the parking
lot was in the agreement with Cabot, Cabot & Forbes and the Rams. The question
was, should they go ahead and temporarily blacktop with the possibility that
later it might be torn out and improved? They should complete their agreement
to finish the pavement and accept it totally. They had to grade it for parking
some type of vehicles on it.
Councilman Roth then questioned the status of the tentative dates for rock
concerts, specifically July 6 and July 27; Mr. Leigler explained that they were
unable to provide the two dates because of the responsibility of the contractor
in the new facilities, and they had to wait until the City actually took possession
of the entire facility. Thus, while they were able to book them, they were not
able to contract for them.
Mr. Talley then explained that the Council shonld recognize that there were
800,000 man hours and $16 million in the budget under discussion. In the over-
all program, they were not able to accommodate all of the needs in the first
year, one being the acquisition of the State property. At present they had
in escrow $200,000, plus interest, and they were hoping not to have to make the
final payment on that property in the 1980-81 fiscal year. If they did, they
were going to have to find the money because the funds were not in the budget.
They also had contract change orders on the Stadium in the amount of approximately
$3 million which they managed to fund. As a result of that, some of the areas
they would like to complete were financially not achievable, and they were going
to have to limp by this year and go on a multi-year program, as they did on the
original Stadium. If they did not get some of the planned levels of attendance
with the Angels or the Rams, then the Family Foresome would have to adjust
their budget to reflect the actual program.
Mayor Seymour asked relative to the ongoing Stadium Capital Improvement Program
what some of those finished items might be and the cost of each in a priority
ranking. He took the figures provided by Mr. Dooley on the 7.9 State acres and
6.8 W-M property totalling 14.7 acres at 135 spaces per acre or 1984 stalls at
$350 a stall or approximately $700,000.
Mr. Leigler stated that it would be substantially more because they must include
drainage, lighting, etc. The figure the Mayor arrived at was for surfacing only.
The Wagner-Michelle, the W-M property represented a $300,000 cost; Mr. Talley
interjected and confirmed that relative to the State property, they had already
escrowed $200,000, plus interest, and that would require approximately another
$250,000.
Mr. Liegler stated the next would be the State property that they purchased and
even on a temporary basis, other than oiling it, the cost would be approximately
$1 million. They had to totally investigate that because they did not know
how soon it would be available under the plan with Cabot, Cabot and Forbes.
80-710
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
Another project would be combination restrooms, first aid and security on the
field level in the new section of the Stadium not included in the original design
criteria, i.e., restrooms--both men and women, first aid and security all together
in one unit on the field level which would cost in the area of $60,000 to $80,000.
Another priority would be a television security system on the Club or Box Suite
Level. Some close scrutiny of that level would be needed, not during games, but
at other times.
The next priority was the "Nations Longest Lounge" with appropriate banquet rooms
in the new facility estimated at $250,000. He considered it to be a key item
because it represented an ongoing income source not just for games, but also
because there was a great need for banquet rooms in Anaheim.
Mr. Leigler then explained for the Mayor that the budget document did include
a projection for the rock concerts including the two that had been cancelled,
and they were going to have to find alternative forms to bring in that income.
In the past, rock concerts netted approximately $100,000 per concert and two
dates had been lost.
The Mayor then stated that a matter of utmost importance in priority to him and
to the Council was the commitment they had made, promised and stalled on, the
Convention Center relative to overflow parking. He was aware that some other
large conventions were coming to the City, and he did not want to see the Council
or the public put through what they had been put through when the computer
convention was in town. They had to exercise a good neighbor policy.
Mr. Leigler reported that they had answered all the letters and they met with
the people in the neighborhood regularly. He wanted very much to move ahead
quickly and do something about the land they already owned just across the
street from the. Convention Center which was to become part of the Betterment II
Program permanent parking lot by utilizing it for parking now. If they were
at least able to grade it, oil it and put a curb break in it, they could park
1600 cars on that land. In addition to a considerable amount of revenue that
would be generated, their major concern was getting the automobiles off the
street and although they wo~ld not necessarily guarantee that it would do so,
it would help. They were working with the'City Attorney's office to bring the
matter to the Council's attention soon on an emergency basis because they felt
that they did have an emergency. They needed something now, tomorrow, as quickly
as possible, to relieve the parking congestion. They were using the Disneyland
parking lot, White Front's lot and at times, the Stadium. In the morning, prior
to the budget meeting, Mr. Stotereau and he met with the Traffic Engineer, Police
Department and the Garden Grove Police Department, as well as numerous other
staff members, to formulate an answer to the parking situation. He felt that the
answer would be forthcoming to the Council in the document from the Traffic
Engineer.
The Mayor asked if it was a permit parking system; Mr. Leigler answered, of all
those in the meeting that morning for the reasons that would be stated, permit
parking was not a recommendation.
After a brief discussion between the Mayor and City Manager regarding the parking
issue, the Mayor stated that they had to find a way to utilize that area for
parking 1600 cars immediately if it could be done in a cost effective manner.
80-711
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10~ 1980~ 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney Hopkins reported that although he did not attend the morning
meeting, the matter was discussed yesterday. The conclusion was that they
could consider maintenance and repair to be involved on the subject property.
He also understood there were weeds that had to be abated and the land smoothed
over. If there was going to be a permanent parking structure built, under the
Charter, it would require that the job then be put out to bid. In this case,
however, they were talking only about maintenance and repair.
The Mayor then directed that it be done and asked if it would pay for itself;
Mr. Liegler answered that it would not only pay for itself, but also would show
a substantial profit for the period between now and September even though tem-
porary.
Councilman Roth noted that although it was a good idea, hotline messages indicated
that the Convention Center parking lot was partially empty, but patrons were still
parking in front of the residents' homes. He originally opposed permit parking,
but now he saw no alternative to it because people were still going to try to
save the $2 parking fee.
Mayor Seymour stated if it was appropriate to utilize the land for parking 1600
cars in accordance with the procedure outlined by the City Attorney, what direction
was necessary to have that accomplished immediately.
City Manager~Talley answered if the money were appropriated from the Council
Contingency Fund and the City Attorney assured him there were no legal problems,
they could proceed on the job, the estimated cost of which was $30,000. They
would, however, have to get someone to do the job because they were totally committed
in the City.
Mr. Liegler confirmed that Mr. Piersall's crew was committed and they had received
one bid from the person who did all their motocross work and indicated he would
be able to do it for approximately $30,000.
Cooncilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (12:01 P.M.)
City Manager Talley stated they were eventually going to need the parking and
as long as the Council was going to a weed abatement project and they directed
him to do it, he had the authority to do so. Otherwise, the Council had to
demonstrate the situation was an emergency in order to circumvent the bidding
procedure as required in the Charter.
The Council indicated that it was a weed abatement and maintenance program.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that weed abatement and other aspects of smoothing
the land over and making it safe were considered maintenance and repair and thus
excluded from the bidding requirements. If they blacktopped the property, they
would have to consider it an emergency, whicb would require a special resolution
of the Cot~ncil.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to appropriate $30,000 from the Council Contingency
Fund to initiate a weed abatement and maintenance project on City-owned land across
the street from the Convention Center which would allow for the parking of an
additional 1600 vehicles. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman
Roth was temPorarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
80-712
CitM Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor then asked for further input relative to the restrooms, first aid
and security on the first level of the Stadium.
Councilman Ruth ~ntered the Council Chamber. (12:05 P.M.)
Mr. Liegler confirmed that they did not have any restrooms on the level which
was equal to the field level of the present stadium where everybody entered from
the parking lot. It was his opinion that they needed restrooms in that location,
however, they could not get them constructed by opening day of the football season.
City Manager Talley explained that one thing they had been specifically requested
not to do was engage in any further change orders. They were trying to get done
by August 1 and after that, they could go back and do whatever else was necessary.
Somehow that item was overlooked in all the checklists.
Mayor Seymour asked that there be more future discussion on the issue.
Councilman Overholt then referred to a golf course matter and stated it was his
understanding there was a recommendation coming through the Golf Course Advisory
Commission that an architect be retained to see if there could be some redesign
to further improve the situation at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course.
Mr. Leigler explained that the Golf Course Advisory Commission had requested the
Council to proceed and hire the architect and the recommendation would be forth-
coming shortly. The Advisory Commission had taken action over a year ago and
submitted it to the Council on two occasions.
City Manager Talley stated that the funds were budgeted in next year's budget,
and Mr. Liegler could be directed to solicit proposals and bring back a rec-
ommendation. It could be approved on June 24th, to be effective July 1, and
no time would be lost at all.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (PERSONNEL): City Manager Talley announced that the
subject budget was contained on Pages C41 through C5! of the Resource Allocation
Plan, Control Centers 35 and 80, Capital Improvement Program, Page D28, and Position
Control, Page El2.
Mr. Garry McRae, Human Resources Director, explained that they acquired Program
148, the Youth Programs for the CETA Program budget at $191,437 for FY80-81, and
the Human Resources Department staff was increased by nine positions including
six counselors, one counseling supervisor, one ITC and one payroll clerk. Benefit
Manpower staffing was up one position by an ITC in their Benefit work unit. The
position had been filled formerly by CETA and had been vacant for several months.
Since the first half of the year, it had been filled by an employee on loan from
the Police Department, using work hours from the Human Resources Department. The
position being created and the work hours for that position Was committed to be
reduced by approximately one-half in 1982 when the Benefit System, part of the
Payroll/Personnel System was online. They were looking for the position for
approximately the next two years and then the work hours would be available for
other activities or would be eliminated in 1982.
Any discussion of the Human Resources Department budget had to recognize the
dramatic impact of labor negotiations on their budget this year. They Would
80-7[
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
be negotiating this summer with four employee organizations on five labor
agreements and they anticipated that during the first six months of this
budget year, that their resources in employee relations would be absolutely
committed, and it would probably take two or three months of hard work.
Council should also be aware of the employment programs discussed earlier relative
to the Poli~e Department. There were operating departments at present who may be
requesting an improvement in the level of service for their employment work unit.
He then gave a historical perspective relative to that issue.
Mr. McRae then referred to their Capital Improvement Project for completion of
Phase I of the Personnel/Payroll System. He gave a historical overview of the
initiation and implementation of that system. The 1980-81 proposed budget for
Capital Improvement Project 924 (Page D28), Phase I, was $65,176 of which only
$21,000 was directly relatable to the cost that were expressed in the $181,000
he mentioned earlier. The budgeting tech~ique th~ year. with which he
agreed, would include those non-Data Processing work hours as part of the CIP
which was unique in Data Processing projects.
Councilman Bay then asked how Mr. McRae was going to get them more police officers;
Mr. McRae referred to Dave Hill, Personnel Services Manager, who had done some
research on the matter, since it was broached earlier in the session.
Mr. Dave Hill reported that the problem was not short-term, but long-term. The
traditional labor market for police officers was shrinking and would continue
to do so. The young people traditionally recruiting into that occupation were
a smaller group. In order to enhance police recruiting, it was his recommendation
that there be two major thrusts: (1) They could increase their processing where
seven or eight simultaneous processes could be in progress, thus being able to
accommodate people when they came to the City indicating their interest in
employment; and (2) Both the Human Resources Department and Police Department
had to make a marketing on being an Anaheim Police Officer. They were beginning
to find that people were out at the community and State colleges and places where
there were potential employees marketing for the Los Angeles Police Department
and Highway Patrol. In order to compete, Anaheim also bad to get into more of
a marketing program. At the present time, there were nine police officer
vacancies and there were 48 individuals who had completed all the Human
Resources testing and who were now at the Police Department for background
investigation. At this point, the Police Department had decided to perform
background investigations on only 26 of the 48. They had a high dropout rate
of one-third to 50% failing medical exams, and one-third to 50% failing
psychological evaluations. In order to meet the Chief's objective of over-
hiring to expend all of their budget resources, it would be his (Hill's) recom-
mendation to increase their processing and initially begin with a monthly
process so that anyone walking in could get into the next police officer process.
There would then be six or more processes going on simultaneously. Additionally
resources required would be one employment representative to deal with the
applicants and clerical support. In terms of notification of the applicant and
maintaining records and files, approximately a one-half-time position would be
necessary if they used the mails and up to a full-time position if they elected.
to speed the process by using telephone notification. He cautioned that they
would also have to consider adding resources in the Police Department in order
80-714
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 10:00 A.M.
to insure when the process was finished in the Human Resources Department and
the candidate proceeded to background investigation, that the entire process
was streamlined and not just Human Resources.
Mayor Seymour then questioned Mr. McRae relative to Personnel/Payroll System;
Mr. McRae, after elaborating on the matter, deferred to Mr. Jim Curtis, Systems
and Programming Manager, who had specifically been working with the process
along with Dave Hill.
Mayor Seymour first stated if the committee who determined they should go with
the Wang System, as explained by Mr. McRae, because it was the best, wbat did they
find wrong with other public agencies' payroll systems?
Mr. Jim Curtis stated that they looked at Los Angeles and that system was far too
large and complex. There were very few other government agencies that really had
adequate payroll systems. They were all very old and archaic systems. The only
other public agency they were able to contact that had an adequate system was
Oakland and theirs was the Wang Payroll System. That was one of the reasons why
they decided that possibly Wang was the best choice. The County of Orange payroll
system was written for the Univac Computer, and they were still running on the old
RCA equipment.
Mayor Seymour asked the pros and cons of taking the payroll system itself and
pushing it out to the private sector.
Mr. Curtis answered that it could be done, but would limit the information that
would be available to Finance and Personnel as it related to people working for
the City. It would only produce checks and a register and that was all.
The Mayor stated he had a great deal of concern with the type of things they were
building at a cost of $100 per employee. That was where they were headed, and he
wondered what they were going to get, how important was the information, was there
a way to get it, and did they really need that information. His concerns were
growing and since they had only looked at Los Angeles and talked to some people
in Oakland, he wondered if they had exhausted all alternatives before making
such a commitment.
Mr. Curtis explained that one of the advantages of the Wang System, was it would
have a report generator program which allowed people in Finance and Personnel
to quickly code their own requests for reports, submit them and get the reports
back very shortly, eliminating the need to contact Data Processing for those
reports.
The Mmyor asked Assistant City Manager Hopkins what kind of system were they
utilizing in Sunnyvale.
Assistant City Manager William Hopkins stated it was an online system (an IMS System)
uniquely structured in very modern language entirely different from the type of
computer language used in Anaheim. Anaheim had a hardware and language problem
and the option they had chosen was the best. They had many reports that had to ~
come out of the system generated for many purposes. The Event Personnel/Payroll
System and the Personnel/Payroll System were being blended together, giving one
80-715
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10p 1980, 10:00 A.M.
package for both payroll systems. He then explained technicalities of the
system, as well as the amenities to be derived. They were dealing with several
factors, one being the absolute necessity of bringing up a new payroll system,
since they were just marking time with the present system.
Councilman Roth asked about bidding the system out to private industry; Assistant
City Manager Hopkins explained the difficulties involved, concluding that one system
would be primarily geared to generating paychecks, while the other would provide
a spread of information for all programs.
A discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. McRae relative to 'cost
for the system, at the conclusion of which, Mr. McRae confirmed that 1979-80
costs were $240,000. That was the amount of the system at present and last
year it was $65,000 (Page D28) and $57,000 in another. He also confirmed for
the Mayor that $362,000 was tied up in the Personnel/Payroll System at present.
Mayor Seymour stated that represented over $150 per employee, and he could not
be part of that; Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Mayor his alternative.
Mayor Seymour stated they should go back and take another look at the situation,
something that should have been done at the initial committee level since they
only looked at Los Angeles and talked to Oakland. There were other public
agencies in the State who had found a way to get by.
Mr. Curtis clarified those were the only two agencies that had a system comparable
to Anaheim. They also talked to San Diego briefly but their system was also
very large and complex. The other agencies all had small computers and had
smaller payrolls.
Councilman Overholt stated that apparently the commitment to the system was made
some time ~o, and they were about re~dy to complete it.
Mr. Curtis confirmed his understanding and explained that they would be bringing
up the Payroll/Personnel System the first of October, and the Stadium and Family
Foresome payroll approximately December 1.
CQuncilman Overholt stated what he was hearing was that an investment of $191,000
had already been made and being requested was another $65,000 to complete the
payroll system and an additional $55,000 to complete the system. They were
approaching the point of completion and now were having second thoughts.
Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay noted that they were not having
second thoughts; Mayor Seymour stated he was not having second thoughts--he
had expressed concern about the whole function of Data Processing from day one,
and it was now leading to the situation before them.
Councilman.Overholt stated they were at the end of a project, and he would have
a real concern in stopping the completion of the project at this point wherein
the City had already ~nvested a substantial sum of capital. He felt there was
a philosophical difference--the Mayor was thinking in terms of a payroll system,
whereas Data Processing and management were thinking in terms of a system which
was going to give cost effective information to other aspects of City operations
other than payroll. The majority of the Council approved the system initially and
they had gone this far. It seemed imprudent to stop it at this point, just short
of completion.
80-716
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10~. 1980, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were to go to a straight payroll system and
then attempt to obtain the other information, what would the cost be between
one and the other.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that was difficult to answer because to
generate the type of data they needed, they would almost have to have another
system to do that which he explained. It was not only a thorough system, but
also a personnel system. It was very complex, but he felt the end results
would be helpful to management staff and the Council as well.
Councilman Bay asked if it would end in the reduction of personnel; Mr. Hopkins
stated the standard was that they not add any personnel. Councilman Bay noted
that was the bottom line on any mechanized system. If it did not result in
tangible savings somewhere down the line, money would be wasted. He would look
forward to mechanized systems as used in the City to either reduce any increase
in personnel, or result in actual tangible reductions in personnel and money.
Mr. Hopkins agreed that was a valid position.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 25 minutes. (12:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:20 P.M.))
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
· Adjourned: 1:20 P.M.
80-717
_C_i_t~ H__a_l__l_..,___A~?j_!ez'_i_!n_,_..!~.~li[9_r_n_i_a_~ _-___C_O_I~NCI L MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P .M.
The City Council of the (]ity of Anaheim met in regular session.
P RESENT:
AB SENT:
PRESENT:
COUNC1L MP24BERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
CO!}NCI l, MEMBERS: None
CIYY bb\NAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: W~lliam P. Hopkins
Ct'f5~ CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
RISK HANAGER: ,Jack l,ove
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone
COMMIJNI%)f DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest
CITY LIBRARIAN: William J. Griffith
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George H. Edwards
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
I{OI!S'ING biANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attemtance to the Council meeting.
._I__NV__O~_A_'I:'_I_p_N_½__ Dr. Wayne t~aust, First Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG. SALUTE: Coum:::ilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the
_!_I_9_!._....!jg'j['~Rj?_I_)?_L_.'~'.i?_N._f'.-..~_~_I_S_~S__/~A}~5~Ma t980: Mr~. Eran Mauck introduced to the
Cotlncil H.i.~s Diane Nether, Miss Anaheim of 1980.
Mayor Seymour welcomed and congratulated Miss Mather on behalf of the Council
and presented her with. a replica of the Big "A", roses, and a briefcase with
the Cf ty Seal.
]19: :" : The fei ' proc]amatious were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by Lite City Council_:
"Amateu~ Radio Week in Anaheim" - -June 23-29, 1980
"tkmor America Days in Anaheim" - June 14 through July 4, 1980
Fir. [Fed Kraemer accepted the Anmteur Radio Week proclamation.
l_?_:____Ib:lj~jf(~'!~_g__Ij_)?l_!.. A resolution of an of:Ticial invitation was unanimous.ly
adopted by the City C~unci. 1 inviting the youthful bands of the world to par-
ticipate in the first "International Music Olympics" to be held in the Spring
of 198i itl Anahe~m. Dr. .'Jack Brow7~ accepted the resolution of behalf of the
"Committee of 76" created to promote the "International Music Olympics" and
then iutroduced C.~ppy Brown of the Anaheim Union High School District, who presented
Mayor Seiqnour with a gold "medal" as the first member of the 76-member committee.
1t9: RESOLUTION OF CONGRA'HJLATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was
unanimoulsy adopted bv the City Council and presented to Mrs. Josie Montoya
for her many hours of unselfish dedication for the rights of Hispanics through-
out Orange CountM and her countless hours of volunteer work in VISTA and on
her selection for this National recognition.
80-718
[ifcrnia - COUNCII~ MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: CounciJwomaa Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of March !!, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman
Bay seconded ~he motio~q~ MOTION CARRIE]).
WAIVER OF REJH)ING -- ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading in fut] of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the ~Jt]c thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by ~311 Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is mc, de by ~ L.oun~,.i[ Hember for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order, <'.ouncilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAl, DI!PL~[,.!DS A(7;:'.,!_NST ~I{E C1%~ in the amount of $6,429,035.09, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budgc't, were approved.
].77: COMMUNII! DEVELOPMENT STATE AFTERCARE PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman
Overholt~ seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor was authorized to sign
a letter endorsing the Housing Authoritv's application for 30 units of "existing"
Section 8 Housi~tg .A,~;sistance under the Community Development State Aftercare
Program, as recommended Jn memorandum d~ted June 30, 1980 from the Executive
Director of Communit5' Development, Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AEDC - AHENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE BUDGETARY FLEXIBILITY: Council-
man Bay offered ResoJt~tion No. 80R-253 for adoption, as reco~nmended in memorandum
dated May 30,- 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, autho-
rizing art amendment t.', an agreement with the Anaheim Economic Development Corpor-
ation (AEDC), dated ~lacch 27, 1979, to provide budgetary flexibility with their
allocation and zo clearly define activities and duties of the Corporation. Refer
to Resolut:fon Book.
RESOLUTION NO. $0R.-253: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl, OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TFRMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM
ECONOMI6 DEVEI.OPHENT CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND
CIIY CLERK 'FO EXECI!TE SAIl)AGREEMENT.
Roll Call. Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Overholt, Kavwood, Bay, Roth and Se)qnour
None
N o n e
The NaS, or decl~:~d !{( ;ol~tion No. 80R-253 dul.y pass.ed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - STREET SWEEPING SIGNS - BID NO. 3654: On motion
by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low bid of Pacific
Precision Products was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of
$13, 439~ 47, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memo-
randum dated June 3, 1980. HOTION CARRIED.
123/150: SUMMER PILOT PROGRAM - PARK RANGER PATROI,S ON SCHOOL AND PARK FACILITIES:
On motion by Ceunc:i lmau Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, agreements were
authorized with the Anaheim Union High School District, Anaheim Elementary School
District, Nagnolia Elementary School District and the Placentia Unified School
District for participation in the summer pilot program that provides Park Ranger
patrols on school ~v.d park facilities, and $6,337 and 1245 hours were appropriated
80-719
_Ci_t_y~ Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
to Program 271 for i:he purposes of the program, as reconmaended 2n memorandum
dated Jtme 3, 1980 t!rom Deputy City Manager James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth co~mnended staff for the fine program recommended; the Mayor
also thanked Mr; Ruth and Jack Kudron, Recreation Superintendent, on devising
the program. I-Ie also stated that they appreciated the cooperation of the school
district and school board as well.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT .tNSIALLA~IO AND REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET
LIGHTING LUMINAIRES--CENTILAL Gl'Fl NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA I: Account No.
-~--~76~7'~J~8--2-~-~-~8~-7~'~-~2~0~- --F~i]- G--~-~-~ E~-W~d~ E~-C~'i. cal "~Tin tendent, firs t
answered questions posed by Councilman Roth for purposes of clarification. In
concluding their discussion, Couuci]man Roth stated that he hoped there would
be bert-er e:~'.p~rience wi~h the replaceme~ts than the experience he had seen with
the st~'~et lights iu Anaheim Hills.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-254, awarding a contract, as
recommended 'in memorandum dated June 10, 1980, froln the City Engineer. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R--25A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI2T OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
'RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR 25tE FURNISHIN(; OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SLRVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND Al, l, IITII,ITIES AND TRANSPOR'FATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERF'Oi~IINC ALL I4ORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND (')MPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: INSTALLATION AND REPLACD4ENT OF INCANDESCEI{T STREET
LIGHT1NG Lt~MINAIRES - IN CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA I, IN THE CITY
O? ANAIiFTIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-676-6328-11080-37300. (Smith Electt-ic Supply, $104,700)
Rol_l Ca ll Vote
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC I L bIFMBERS:
COUNCIL blEMBERS:
COUNCIL MENBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-254 duly passed and adopted.
175/155; 1NTERMOUNTAIN I'OWER PROJECT - CERTIFICATION OF EIR AND APPROVAL OF
POWER SALES CONTRACT: Cotlncilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-255 and
80R-256 for adopt[on, as recommended in memorandum dated June 5~ 1980 from the
t'ubl.ic Utili. tJes Ge,.eral Manager, Gordon Hoyt, certifying that the Environmental
Impact Statement p.repared by IPP is in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and authorizi, nga Power Sales Contract with the Intermountain
Power Agency to purchase e]ectrlc capacity and energy. Refer to Resolution
Book. .
RESOLUTION NO. 80R--255: A RESOLUTION OF 'DiE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERT,[FYING THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAl, 1MPACT REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAI~ QUA'LITY ACT.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R--256: A RESOLUTION OF 'DIE CITh' COUNCIL OF' THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A POWER SALES CONTRACT BETWEEN INTERMOUNTAIN
POWER AGENC, Y AND Till,; CiTY AND AUTHORIZING TIlE bPXYOR AND CIIT CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT,
80-720
City Hallo___Anahe~m California - COUNCIL MINUTES June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vot'e was taken, the Mayor stated, in offering the above resolutions,
the final questior) on the IPP was answered at last Tuesday's (June 3, 19801
election with a 3--1 vote of the people favoring the City's participation in
IPP~ On belmlf of the Couucil, he thanked Mr. Hoyt for his tenacity and per-
severence, as.well as for the work, hours and labor comitted to the project by
the Public Uti]it:ica Board. lie had done a superb job and all the words he
cou].d offer would uot begirt to say what the Anaheim voters said in their vote--
the citizens wer~~ beCk,nd h:im~ [te knew that Mr~ Hoyt, the Public U~i]ities
Board and the C, Jty (ouncii would not: do anyth:~ng that: would betray the trust
that had been pJa~ed in them~
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll C,~ll Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ~ " '
COUNCfL NEHBERS:
Overho]t, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
N >Il e
The Hayor dec]aF'cd ;~t:soJ~,l:ion No. 8OR-255 and 8OR-256 duJy passed and adopted.
123: CONTRACT LOSS 'INFORbIATION SYSTEM - SELF-Afl)MINISTERED WORKERS' COMPENSATION
?.ROGP~_:~._{_'.._ On mot:ion by Cot..mcilman 8ay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agree-
ment was author/zed with Ron Fleming, dba Sanford Systems, at an initial design
and set up charge o~ %6,700 ([nitia~ input expense) and $7,200 annually, to pro-
vide the City with ~ (lonLrac:t Loss Information System incidental to its self-
administered Worker's Compensation Program, as recommended in memorandum dated
June 4, 1980 f~om the Ri. sk Ma~.qager~ Jack Love. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CI']NTP, EX 1i S{S'I'EM FOR ANAHEIM STADILrM: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Council. man Seymour, a business service application was authorized
with Paci. fic TeJcphom:, for a Centrex II System for Anaheim Stadium at a one-
time installation c[mrge of $9,986, and authorizing ,John H. Roche, Jr., to
ex'ect~te said apt~,iii,:~tion, as recommended in memorandum received June 10, 1980
from Mr. Roche. HOTION CARRIED.
121/175: AC~2UiSITION OF SOUI~tERN CALIFORNIA EDISON DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (CON-
D_E?_!N_A_T_I~!N____N?_:__I__!_)_:__ Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-257 for adaP-
tion, as recommended in memorandum dated June 5, 1980 from the Public Utilities
Board, determining the public' interest and necessity for acquiring certain real
and p{ersona] p)~Fqot~r',.4.' ~nd authorizing condemnation proceedings to acquire Southern
California Edison Comp~ny distribution facilities (Condemnation No. 111. Refer
to Res?jution
RESOLUTION_: ........... NO._:SOR---257:_~ ........... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERNINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING CERTAIN
REAL AN]) PERSONAL PROPER~ AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION ~UHEREOF.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIl, MEHBERS:
COUNCIl, MENBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Se>qnour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-257 duly passed and adopted.
80-721
Hall, Anaheim, Califounia - CO[JNCIL MINU'I.'f'JS -.June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
123/175: SAN ONOFRE ELECTRIC REVENUE BOND ISSUE OF 1980: On motion by CounciIman
Overholt, seconded by Couucil.man Rot-h, an agreement was authorized with Price
Waterhouse and Co. :in an amount not to exceed $8,000, to perform the certatin
work in connection wJt-h the proposed San Onofre Electric Revenue Bond Issue of
1980, as recommended in memorandum dated June 5, 1980 from the Public Utilities
Board, MOTION CARRIED.
10'5: SENIOR CITIZEN CO}fM]SSION RESIiGNAT!ON - HERB ECGETT: On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilwomau Kaywood, the resignation of Herb Eggett from
the Senior Citizen (iotmnissicm~ a.~ given in letter dated May 23, 1980, was accepted.
MOTION CARRIED.
City Clerk Linda Rober-ts announced that the first: available meeting for making
an appointment to the subject Commission to fill the above wicancy was June 24,
1980.
The Mayor asked that it be placed on the Co~mcii agenda that date and that the
Council also be preparec~ to renew, reappoint or make new appointments to all
City boards and commi~;sio~s op Jm~e 24, [980 for the terms expiring June 30.
!_0_J:_ A__p_P_O__I_N_'?~[_"i_N_~J"._':_r?___j![HE_..~]pjL_i:'. _(~?.I'_!_~.~.!!2__AD__V_[._S.O__RjL_~(_)M>!_I SS_~f.__ON.:_ Counc i lwoman Kaywood
nominated Dr, Ralph t~idde]! r~:-~ appoir~tee to the Col f Course Advisory Commission,
Councilman Seymour r'~omin.:~ ted Bil il Swisher.
Counci]man Bay mowed to closo nomiuat;ions for appointees to the Golf Course
Advisory Commission. Courm :i !mar, Rott~ seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A roll call vote was then taken on the two nomi~mes in the order of their
nomination, the fJrst be(~?, Dr. Ralph Ridde]]:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIl_, MEblBERS: F,t~. t h
Dr. Ridde]l thereupon was appoil~ted to the Golf Course Advisory Commission.
Before concluding, the Mayor ~';tated the reason he nominated Bill Swisher was
due to the fact that he represented tile Men~s Cl.ub at the Anaheim Hills Golf
Course and had been involved in the community for some time. Although he felt
personaliy that Dr. Riddell was more qual:[fied than Mr. Swisher, he wanted to
place his (Swisher~s) name in nomination and on the record so that on the next
vacancy, the Co~ncJJ could consider Mr. Swisher. He (Seymour) was fearful of
an imbalance on t:he Commission due to its makeup of representation from the
Dad Miller Coif !2ourse, as opposed to the Anaheim Hi]is Course.
Councilman Roth stated the ~?eason he voted against the foregoing motion was
due to the fact that in tile past the precedent had been to ask for nominees
from the Cormnission and Mr. Swisher~s name had been offered. He would have
hoped that Jf Dr. Riddell w~s -[nt~rested in a position on the Commission, he
would have submit:ted his ~lam. e t:~ tile Commfssion ff~st-,
Mayor Seymour stated he hoped they never set- ~ precedent in which they were bound
to accept any recommendation from any Commission. Otherwise, the elected body
would forego its right to appoint a]] boards and commissions.
80-722
~City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June ]0, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Ka~vwood stated that she had talked to Bob Messe, Chairman of
the Golf Course Advisory Commission. He did receive a letter from Dr. Riddel]
relative to his interest in serving on the Commission and was perfectly amen-
able to his appointment.
105: RESIGNATION FOR YOUTH COMMISSION - CHRISTINE MURPH/': Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to accept with regret the resignation of Christine Murphy from the Youth
Co~rm~ission in her ]etter dated May 31, 1980, with a letter of thanks to be sent
for her serv'ice. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that they also be prepared to fill that vacancy on
'June 24, and that it be posted and advertised accordingly.
After a brief discussion relative to filling the vacancy, it was decided that
in order to be assured of a sufficient number of nominees, that vacancy not be
acted upon until mid-July.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CLkRPORATION BOARD OF
DIRECTORS: Councilman Bay referred to letter dated May 23, 1980 from John
Flocken, President, MCP Foods, recommending that the current appointees for
~he two seats under consideration be reappointed to the Board. He thereupon
nominated Mr. Thomas Schuler of Rockwell International and Mr. Fred Bercher of
Delco Remv to the AEDC. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the nominations.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, nominations
to the AEDC were closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Schuler and Mr. Bercher were thereupon unanimously reappointed to serve on
AEDC i-or the term ending June 30, 1983.
105: CODE OF CONDUCT - APPOINTEES TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Councilman Overholt
referred to letter dated June 4, 1980 received from Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North
Ranchito, which he asked be read into the record since he could not be present
at the meeting ~oday. tie (Overbolt) then read the letter in full (on file 'in
the City Clerk's office) which was addressed to the City Council with copies to
the City Manager and the City Clerk. The essence of the letter was contained
in the second to last paragraph as follows: "In consideration of the above I
recommend that: the Anaheim City Council establish a policy governing the public
behavior of the Council's appointed comm±ssioners, board members, and committee
members and that such policy incorporate a set of guidelines or a code of conduct
which prohibits the kinds of activities by city commissioners, board members,
and committee members elicited above."
The Mayor stated that relative to the suggestion, he hoped that the Council
would respond so that it would not require Mr. Dexter to make a second appear-
ance. His personal opinion was that a policy relative to how their appointees
on boards and commissions conducted themselves would only hamper the process
that he believed needed to be as flexible and as open as possible in exercising
the. ir legal right as elected officials to have members serve at the pleasure of
the Council, and at: the w~ll of the Cou~cil, be removed. That process should
remain pure, not complicated or hindered by some standards that the Council
and the pubt£c would find themselves arguing over as to whether or not there
had been a violation. He felt that the Council's actions in the past exercised
what they, as a majority, felt relative to the continuation of any appointee
8o-7-23
~ity Hall, Anaheim, C~lifornia - COUNCIl, MINUTES - 3une lap 1980, 1:'30 P.M.
on any board or commission, tte did not think it was necessary to have a written
po]icy to affect rhat~ Thus, he felt tl~e reconunendation to be snperfluous which
only made more comply, x, the exercise of judgment aud decision-making by the
Counc i ].
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she fel. t there was a great deal in what he (Dexter)
stated and there was a lot more to say to it. If the Council acted when they
should, however, ther,:~ was no need for it but the perception from the public
could be d:iffer'ent than that of the Council.
Councilman Bay stat~d he was opposed to what might be called a code of ethics as
.~uggested. tle agreed with the Mayor to the extent that anyone on a board or
commission should have a free rein to express their views both before and after
the decision of that board, because the Council bad the power anytime the majority
~,as displeased to .remove them easily. There had been a tendency of the Council
to move slowly on read,ovals from boards ;~nd cormnissions mainly with the idea of
giving a free rein to the thoughts of the people from ~..~hom they were seeking
advice.. He personally did not favor setting up a rule as suggested by Mr. Dexter,
because £t would h~]mstring the free thought and expression that they wanted to
i~ear o
Councilman Rot!~ stat'c,d perhaps he did not understand what Mr. Dexter was trying
I;o d~ and [f he want~:~d to adpear be~ore the Council to amplify his position,
i~..~ si,o*Jld feel fr'oe ~o do so.
Co,,~nci]man Overholt s:tnted they should thank Mr. Dexter for bringing his rec-
on~u:ertd;]ti, on to them. He agreed with the blayor and he personally welcomed
dJ~ont ,on those b~avds and commissions because witl-out that, they would only
be a ~'[:bbe~ stamp ;~dvisot-y board. What he objected to, however, was destructive
di. sser:t, but he did not think that rules and regulations could be drawn to cover
~'..~ questio,. When a member engafi.~d in destructive dissent and was disloyal to
the body ,who appointed them, he felt it incumbent upon the Council to remove
tbem~
170: TENTATIVE TtLACT NOS. 9601, 9794 AND 9745 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Request by
Mikio Miyamoto, Bo~]ev;~rd Development, For an extension of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 9601, 974-/~ and 9745, to permit 30 RS-HS-22,000(SC) lots on property located
at the nOL'theast co,'nor of Canyon R~m Road and Fairmont Boulevard.
On motiort 1oy Cot~ncJlman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the request for
extensions of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 9601, 9744 and 9745 were granted, to
expire July~_, '~ 1981, as recommended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED.
.C_O_N~ENj[.J}ALE____N~I_)._A_~.._lj]j][i.S_;_ On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the follow:lng a(:tions were autht~rxzed Jn accordance with the reports and
recommendations furn-ished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
]. ].18: CLAIlIS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the [,it) ~ Cla~m~; Adm~n'~strator or p~yment allowed:
a. Claim submitted by Mr. Olivia Jauregui for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a -cesulI: of s~dewalk condition in front of 619 West Broadway, causing
a fall, on or about bIav [2, 1980.
80-724
Citz Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
b. Bettie }lodge for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result
of claimant being struck by golf ball at Anaheim Hills Golf Course, on or about
March 23, .1980~
c. Ella Marie Silvey for damages purportedly sustained as a result of .loss of
personal property at the Anaheim Police Department, on or about May 10, 19.80.
d. Claim submitted by Aetna Casualty & Surety (Nancy Kilborn, Insured) for
vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of malfunctioning traffic
signal on Euclid at the eastbound off-ramp of the 91 Freeway, on or about
Msrch 11, 1980~
e. Larry Crandal], Managing Partner of Longfellow's Restaurants, Inc., for
dsmages purportedly sustained as a result of loss of power due to a.ccident
on Kate]la Avenue, west of subject rest.-~urant, located at 710 East Katella Avenue,
on or about Ma5, 2, ]980.
f. Claim submitted by David E. Kessinger for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of ];~.~ng charged for parking at- the Convention Center on order by a
Police Officer, on o~~ about May 22, 1980.
g. Claim submit:ted by Ruben Canales Hercado, Jr., for personal injury and
vehicular property damages purportedly sust~ined as a result of accident in-
volving City employee and vehicle, at the intersection of Illinois and Santa
Aha St~'eeta~ on or about March 27, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by Manuel Lopez Orozco for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of automobile accident at the intersection of Miller and
Miraloma wher~e a street light operated deficiently, on or about February 12, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by Facific Tastee Freez, Inc., for damages purportedly
s~stained as a result of water service ~hut-off to Tastee of Anaheim Center,
.800 West; ~nco]n Avenue, on or about May 16, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by Rov~ Pacific Corporation ~for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of heavy equipment traveling across parking lot of Anaheim Hills
Professional Center, 6200 Canyon Rim Road, on or about March 6, 1980.
k. Claim submitted by Deanna K. Short for minor, Tamara Lynn Short, for personal
injury ¢!amages purportedly sustained as s result of claimant being struck by
a city-owned vehicle, at or near the intersection of Gilbert Street and Ball
Road, on or about Marc:h 14, 1980.
1. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California (L. A. Bailey,
Insured) for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident within
the City of Santa Aha, California involving a Taylor School Bus, on or about
February 27. 1980~
The following claim was allowed:
m. Claim submitted by Richard D. Webb for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident caused by City vebicl, e on private access road to
reservoir, north of Avenida de Santiago, on or about January 3t, 1980.
80-725
City Hall, Anaheim, Cali.ioruia - COUNCIl MINUTE~; ,June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence, was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Resolutio~ No~ SCCS0-I. Senior Citizen Commission, establishing the
time and place of r<~gular meetings as the second Monday of each month, 7:00 p.ra,,
in the Anaheim Seni,~r Citizens Center, 222 East Lincoln Avenue.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--M~nutes of May ]4, 1980.
3. [08: APPLICATIONS: The fo]lowing applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Per~.~it: for a public dance to be held June 15, 1980, 5:00 p.m.
to 1:00 a.m., at tile Anaheim Convention Center. (Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant)
b. Amusement l)evJce~ P~rmit: Video Games N' Stuff, 3442 West Lincoln Avenue,
for various amusement: devices. (David R. Avina, app]_icant)
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how ma~y such businesses were going to be enQugh.
She had received m~.~ny complaints from a number of parents objecting to the
proliferation of those businesses as hangouts for youth, and there was some
concern that they could get into the drug paraphernalia area. Once established,
it was difficult to cio anything.
The Mayor questioned the City Attorney if they were to draw a line and not allow
any further est'ablistm~ents, how that would elTfect the types of games involved as
they were now distributed throughout tht~ City. For example, they were in the
lobby of the Disneyland Hotet.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered that he would recommend that the Chief of
Police be given the discretion to either approve or deny such applications and
not institute an <~rdinance that would be a blanket prohibition.
The Mayor stated that he understood Councilwoman Kaywood's concerns and they
should more appropriately be expressed to the Chief. He recalled they had
requested some type of report on the situation.
Councilman Bay stated that they did receive a map showing the location of those
businesses throughout the City, and there were approximately seven or eight
spread across the City. He did not know if they ever received information on
whether or not they were a police problem.
City Manager Talley stated at that time, the Police Department indicated it would
take about 30 days and they were presently working on that report. Whatever it
might say, the City At:torney was saying the Chief then would have the administra-
tive ability to terminate or withhold approval.
The City Attorney clarified that tile Chief could recommend against approval.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they did approve a permit and the owners sold the
business, would the new operators have to acquire a new permit as well or merely
take over the business; Mr. }topkins answered that they would have to acquire a
new permi~.
80-726
City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth contended that the Police Department would be derelict in their
duties if they we~"e not telling the Council right now that there was a problem.
The laws were already in place and if a problem d.id occur, the Police Department
would abate the problem accordingly.
c. Dinner-Dacf. ng P!ace Permit: Adriatic Inn, 735 North Anaheim Boulevard, for
dancing on Friday a~d Saturday nights, 8:00 p.m to 2:00 a.m. (Ivan Marovic.
applicant)
d. Amusement and E.~ttertainment Premises - Pool Rooms: Adriatic Inn, 735 North
Anaheim Boulevard~ for one pool table. (Ivan Marovic, applicant)
e. Public Dance ?e~mit: Anaheim Soccer Club, for a dance to be held June 28,
1980, 6:00 p.m. to It00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Felipe Jesus
Guerena)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 80R-258
through 80R-260, bot-h inclusive, for ad,~ption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
140: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-258: A RESOLIJT[ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AN[) DETEtLMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONS~IRUCTION AN[) COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CANYON HILLS
LIBRARY, tN q]IE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-904-6325 AND 24-904-6325; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IbfPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECII~ICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR TItE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (B~ds to be opened July 10, 1980, at 2:00 p.m.)
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-259: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITf COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL FROCEEDINGS liN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1807
AND DECLARING RESOLIITION NO. 78R-270 NULL AND VOID.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R.-260: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITf OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON (A) CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT(S). 179--19A, !0-foot wide easement located approximately 150 feet north-
east of Howell Street and approxhnately 200 feet north of Katella; public hearing
set for July 1. 1980, 3:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEI~IBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCII. MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos 80R-258 through 80R-260, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopt:ed.
80-727
Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.bl.
CITY PLANNING CObDIISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held May 19, ]980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
inf orma tion.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-36 AND VARIANCE NO. 3149: Submitted by Melvin D.
and Alma Rutln Hilgenfeld, for a change ]n zone from RM-1200 to CL, to expand an
existing mortuary on property located at' 315 and 319 South Claudina Street, with
certain (;ode waivers.
The City Planning Commiss~on~ pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-80 and 81, granted
ReclassJficatJo~ No~ 79-.80-36 and Variance No. 3149, and granted a negative
declaration sN~tus.
2. VARIANCE NO, 3~=: Suh~itted by Chester Peterso..~ and Beverly Ann Compton,
to permit two wall signs on Cf.. zoned property located at 5677, East La Palma
Avenue (Mercury c ~-~,~ and Loan), with a Code waiver of maximum number of wall
signs.
The request was wJthdr,"~wn by the pet[tionero
3. VARIANCE NO. 314{;: Submitted by Sav-on Realty, Inc., to construct a fence
on ML zoned pruperty located at 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard, with a Code
waiver of 'maximum fence height.
The City Pl.~:nning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-86, granted Variance
No. '~t/~8, a~.~d t'.i~tified thc Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
4. CONDi. TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2078: Submitted by Norman A. and Lorna Robson,
to permit an a,~-omobfle repair shop on bfL zoned property located at 1773 West
Lincoln Avenue.
The City Plan~[ng (h~mmission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-82, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2078, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PEIibIIT NO. 2079: Submitted by Benner Sheet Metal, Inc., to
lrg-t-a]~--a-i/0]~-'~,~3~'~-~-i~t--~ra----g-~-'-yiird---6'n RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2860
and 2872 Miraloma Ave~n~e, with a Code waiver of required enclosure of outdoor
uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-83, granted in
part, Condimiona] Ils,~ Permit No. 2079, ~nd granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE FE]LMI'F NO. 2080: Submitted by Robert O. Guyot and Paul
Kouri, et al, to permit ti~e on-sale of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant
on CL zoned property located at 3462 East Orangethorpe Avenue, with a 'Code
waiver .of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City PI. arming Commission, granted C~,nditional Use Permit No. 2080, and
· ratified the P!auning Director's categorical exemption determination.
Coun~"ilwoman Kavwood stated that staff report noted that the original shopping
center had to stipulate that there would be shops on].y and nothing requiring a
great deal of parkJng~ specifically no restaurants. Now they were approving
restaurants ~
80-728
City ttall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Annika Sonta]ahtJ, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that the reason was
that the waiver of parking was three spaces less than the 178 required and the
Planning Commission considered that to be of minor consequence. The restaurant
was a sandwich s}~op ~nd not a typical sit down dinner type restaurant although
there was on-sale beer and wine. She confi~wned for Councilwoman Kaywood that
the Planning Comm-is~4ion did not feel it was going to create any problem.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2081' Submitted by NBJ Associates, to retain an
existing exterm:inating service on ML zoned property located at 1140 North Cosby
Way.
The (]it5, Plann£ng C~'.mmission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-85, granted Con-
ditional Use Perm:it b&). 2081, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77--78---56 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Robert Pack,
requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-56, proposed RS-7200
zoned property located at 1000 North Lomita Street.
The Planning (:~nmi:~:;.ion appcoved an extension of time to Reclassification No.
77-78-56, t:o expire April 24~ 1981.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1623 -- I~TENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Woodrow J.
McClure, reqnest:ing an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1623, to
permit a recreat:ion~l veh.icle storage yard on FFL zoned property located on the
southwesterly side oi- Howell Street, northwesterly of the centerline of Katella
Avenue.
The Planning (]cm;m~.,~sJon approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. ~1623, to expire I'!av 24, 1982.
No action was taken o~ the foregoing items; therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commissi~m bocame final.
ORDINANCE NO. 4139: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4139 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO~ 41 9'
/ . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM M !NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-23, RM-2400)
Roll Call
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC 1 L MI!;MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4139 duly passed and adopted.
_O_RDIN_A_N~_E_"_~_O.:_._4J_/!_0_.'_ Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4140 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 41,~0: AN ORDINANCE Ol:' THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1.8 OF
THE ANAHEIM NIIN[C[PAL CODE REI,ATING TO ZONING. (64-65-14(2), CG)
80-729
COUNCIL MINUTES - June lOt 1980, 1:30 P.M.
1i4: COMMENTS ON DEFEAT OF RECAI,L: Councilman Overho]t stated that relative to
t~.~e Recall~ be said it ~t] ]~s~ week (see mintues ~]une 3~ 1980). He was pleased
· .hat the vote on re~'~]l e,~ded su,:cessfully on his behalf, tie especially expres-
. ~d his appreciation to the group of citizens against the recall headed by Co-
-chairman Mayor Seymour and ,]oan~ St:ant(~n, together w:ith Herbv Leo and Kurt }taunfelner,
~',"easurer~ as well a~; the Voices of the Electorate group. The fight against: the
r:~,:all e[fert was someth~n.g that he fei t Counc. i]woman Kaywood an.d he could not
hg:~e waged alone ~it:hout- the comm~mi ty coming forward. He believed that the
~.:~::all attempt in Anahein~ and the o~e San C]emente were the first to be defended
sv,~cessfu]!y -i~ ?~('e~i~ hlstovy~ ;-md he was very glad to be present today in his
C(umci] seat.
C~:~unc. ilwoman Kaywood.~ too? e:{pre~:~sed hey thanks to those same people. There was
no way that they cou],~ b~ve gone through the recall without the workers and sup-
~}~t they received, people who were confident all the way through the campaign.
!.~ was unforturm~.' tL,t they had to go through a gruelling two-year period. How-
ever the two-to-.-~o~e v~t'e (~ people in dc, feat of the effort was ~ good repudiation
of a very small but m>i~.:y grovp who initiated the campaign. She personally looked
forward ~:o an e~:'d ~[: positive achievements in the new decade as they moved into
the new Civic C(.~nt:ev ~-~ad ].eft tim m~pleasantness beh.ind. She thanked anybody
who had any part :fn *he eutlr'e eld:crOon process and who worked tirelessly with-
out any complaint:s,
j_lfl_j_: _?_l!?_(_)~jjIj'__O?l__~Jf~]i.!?.![!_~_!!f._.~.~.~{~.~~ C,~un,' i lwoman Kaywood repor ted that a t the
recent meet:i, ng of th(~ .lo:iht F:[re Training Authority she was elected President
by acclamation.
She also at t:eudo(t ;~ r~ce~- q,~.:~'t~rly meet:Lng of the Subregiona] Planning Council
in Santa Aha where. ~!ve t~,chni, cal committee reports were presented. The Supervisors
wece looh'ing to ~, lobbyist in Washington and asked whether there could be some
joint use of the C~),.~*~(.~vtOm~s Man in Washington. She indicated at that time
that she won!d check into whether that program was already extended to the extent
of t~e-iv a[)il.[~ ie~.:. ~-;he :~sked for a report on whether they could add to that
program. Sl~e que~tio~ed if the group needed to hire someone else, she was
wondering how effe(:t~ve they would be by adding another layer instead of smoothing
the layer that was already there.
City Manager Talley asked for clarification if Councilwoman Kaywood was asking
for a report: ou the ~:~bregional t~lanning Council's ability to contact or work
with the Man
.Council_woman Kaywood answered "yes" i.n order to ascertain whether they felt they
wanted the Consortium to extend to cover all of the County cities and the County
as well.
Mr. Talley stated they were. considering one city at present, the City of Orange,
only.on the condit:io~ that they become a full paying partner. He wanted to know
if that was im.p]icit -~n her request. It was $20,000 an agency at present, and he
wanted to know if Counci[wom~n Kaywood also wanted them to look at the situation
from tint aspect.
Councilwoman Kaf4ood answered "yes" ,~nd t'o report if there was more money involved.
In that way she could bring back a rea]fsi:it nnswer to the question posed.
80-730
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:00 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL klSE PERMIT NO. 2009 AND NEGATIVE DEC-
LARATION: Application by Tom J. and Yolanda M. Talbot~ to amend conditions
of approval to retain a furniture sales facility on ML zoned property located
at 6]8 East Bali Road (continued from M~y 27, 1980).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant ~-o Resolution No. PC79-191, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the ~'equirement ~o prepare an environmental
impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
menta] impact due to this project and further denied Conditional Use Permit No.
2009. The City Council on October 16, 1979 under Resolution .No. 79R-599 granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2009.
Request for a reheari, ng by the applicant was granted on May 6, 1980, the reason
being to eliminate conditions 7, 8 and 0 of Resolution No. 79R-599, Public
hearing was scheduled blay 27, 1980 and <'ontinued to this date.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Poole, attorney for the applicant, was his personal
attorney. However, he had no financial interest in the subject project nor
with the owners and tenants, and be wanted to be advised by the City Attorney
of any potential conflict.
City Attorney Hopkins stated as previously indicated, since the Mayor had no
financial interest involved, he did not feel there was any conflict.
The Mayor then asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Willard Poo]e, attorney for the applicant, explained that Condition Use
Permit No. 2009 was authorized on or about October 16, 1979 (see minutes that
date). Two of the conditions of the conditional use permit limited the type
of advertising that could take place and the third granted the CUP for a
maximum period of two years wher~ a certain percentage of sales had to be
wholesale and the same with the third year. Mr. Poole stated that did not
work because the wholesale operation was not successful and they had tried to
lea'se the bui]d:~ng, but had thus far been unsuccessful. Because of that, they
were requesting that the Council get them out of a difficult position and allow
them to stay at their- location and to operate a retail business. The parking
and building were adequate for their needs and they were not too far from other
retail activiti~es in t~he area, such as Ganahl Lumber. They did not feel that the
operation in any way would he detrimental to traffic or anything else. It was
a financial burden on his client if he was not going to be able to conduct his
furniture operation. They requested to be able to advertise in accordance with
the si. gn~ng ordinance of the City and that the wholesale requirement be deleted
from the CUP, along with the two-year lJmitat.ion.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in October of 1979 when the Council did grant
the CUP for two years, it was strictly emphasized that there be no window signs.
She had never gone by the establishment without seeing the windows painted. The
80-731
_City Hall~. Ang__h_eim~__ (_i~_]__ifornia - COUNCIL MINIITES - June 10, 1980, 1: 30 P.M.
"quitting business" aL~d "we quit" signs had been evident for months. If the
applicant could not abide by the conditions of that particular area~ she ques-
tioned why they should be given even more favorable consideration.
The Mayor explained that Councilwoman Kaywood's complaint revolved around the
signing on the windows to which she was opposed, which signs were in violation
of tha City's signing ordinances.
Mr~ Poole statec~ his only ~fnswer was that he was sorry it happened, and he would
advise his clients not to engage in such signing.
Councilwoman Kaywoo~t emphasized that they had been doing it continually and when
they initially came in with their permit, they stated it was wholesale business,
but they had never abided by the conditions of the ML zone.
Councilman Roth askec~ if he (Poole) would stipulate to the removal of the extra
signing in the window~; Mi:. Poole answered "yes".
There being no fnr'tl~{~r pe¢:sons who wished to speak either irt favor or in opposi-
tion, the Mayor ~losed the p~b].ic hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood t'ecall~-~d that in O('tober, Mr. Knisely, who was appearing
for the Talbot's at i}~at time, szipulat(,d that there would be no banners, signs
in the winctows, etc~ Her objection was that everytime she went by the business,
the signs were in ev:h!ence in an area wl~ere such signing did not belong. Instead
of abiding by the rules of the area, they stuck out like a sore thumb, deteriorating
the whole neighborhoc~d, ~;he did not think they could compare Talbot Furniture
with Ganahl Lumber.
Mayor Seymour statecl there were particular circumstances surrounding the signing.
With the Council's last action on the matter*, they gave them two years to move
out and within that period, they were going to have to have 75% wholesale and 25%
retail sales. They b,'~,l been forcing the enterprise out of business and thus they
resorted to advertis'ing indicating they were leaving and that it was under
the instruction of the property owners that such advertising was taking place.
Therefore, ~f the Council allowed the e]imination of the restrictions, he
would assume that the business should be able to conduct itself completely
in accordance with the sign ordinances of the City, consistent with, for
example, Ganahl Lumb~;r and Glidden Paints.
Council discussion followed, wherein Councilman Bay asked for clarification from
staff as to the spec:if2c conditions being appealed.
Miss Santalahti answer-ed that the applicant was asking that Condition Nos. 7,
8 and 9 of Resolution No. 79R-599, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2009
be de]_eted. She added their relative to the discussion on the Signing Code, it
permitted that in all industrial and commercia], zones, that twice a year for two
two-week periods, there could be a special event at which time the business would
be permitted to have flags and banners for that total one month period. Window
signs were also allowed, bt~t were limited.
The Mayor stated with the stipulation made by the applicant's attorney and with
further edifi~at~on ol~ the Sign Ordinance by staff, there was no need to eliminate
Condition Nos. 7 or 8. If the CUP did not ref<~.r to that, then he would assume the
80-732
_City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ordinances must apply. He did not want to permit the applicant to have unlimited
use of flags, banners and window signs, but he wanted them to conform to the Sign
Ordinance. Consistent with that, he asked how they would then treat Condition
Nos. 7 and 8.
Miss Santalahr5 explained if 7 and 8 were removed, the Code would allow the flags
and banners ~,~rirlg special errants a~-~d a certain percentage of window s~gning as
well. They cot~Id have paper signs ~t~s~de on the window as ~ong as they d:~d not
exceed a 'certa2n ~ercentage of coverage whi~'h sine believed to be either ten or
twenty percent~
Mayor Seymonr asked for clarification tt~at if the Council. approved, the appr:~priate
action would be te eliminate 7, 8 and 9 and then the applicable sign ordinan~-'e.:~
wo~ld apply to the property.
Miss Santalahti co,.~£irmed that the Mayor's understanding was correct and further
clarified that the Industrial signage wo~ld apply.
Councilman Bay stated that technically under the stipulations in the CUP, th-'
applicant would have no right to have b~nners or window signs for any reason
ot!~er than by having the CUP amended. Therefore, all_ of the window signing,
'oaaners and flags during tile period of t:he CUP were illegal. The question
was interested in, when issuing a CUP stating clearly that there be no flags..,
banners and window signs, in order for that business to do se, they would have
to come back to the Council to get permission amending those st~ipulations within
the CUP. If the City issued an ongoing out-of-business license for 90 days in
violation of tile CUP, then City staff was wrong in so doing becz~use the CUP was
in effect. Thus, he was questioning whether there was a "hole" in the procedure.
The Mayor answered if they had a sign ordinance on tile books controlling and
dictating the size, shape and how often signs may be used with industrial prop-
erties, why was it necessary to discuss in greater detail other conditions
to a CUP. If the ordi~lance itself was too generot~s and liberal, perhaps the
Council should be asking the Planning Comm~ission to take a look at its Industrial
Signing Ordinance.
Councilman Bay stated that he did not agree. When dealing with a CUP and the
combination of commer~:ial operations going ~nto industrial zoning, it was almost
necessary to contrail the extenI: of signing within the CUP.
Council discussion, debate and questioning followed relative to the particular
issue, as well as commercial encroachment into industrial areas, at the conclusion
of which, Councilman Roth noted that the survey recently taken in the Ind,stria].
area regarding cormnercial and commercial/recreational uses in that area (see
minutes .l~ne 3~ 1980--discussion under Conditional Use Permit No. 2039) revealed
little opposition 1.o such uses in Industrial areas. It seemed the only one
objecting to such a mix was Council. As well, no one was present in opposition
and no opposing letters had been received° He maintained it was government over-
kill and further there were places alon~,. Ball Road where a mix of industrial and
commercial was appropriate and this was one. The applicant shoul, d be given the
opportunity to survive under the free e~terprise system.
80-733
City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overbolt stated one of the primary concerns originally was relative
to allowing the encroachment of retail sales in an industrial area and ,othing
had been said about that issue today. Thus, he believed there was no objection
to removing that particular condition. He was happy with the Sign Ordinance
for the ML zone and Mr~ Poole stated his client, in accordance with his direction,
would comply with the o~dinauce~ He believed what the Council had in mind was
to impose further restrictions on that particular owner and that was the reason
they stipulated no flags or w~ndow signs. He believed it was unfair to place
restrictions on one oper~t~ou and not the other which was a retail operation.
The real problem was ~elative to enforcement and that was the bottom line in
granting a CUP. If they approved the request and the applicant did not comply,
they could then rew~ke the CUP. If there was non-compliance, he would be the
first to ask for re~ocation of the use.
Mr. Poole stated he wo~]d :xpect the Council to do so.
Councilman Seymour ofl!ered liesolut:ion No. 80R-261 for adoption, eliminating
Condition Nos. 7~ 8 and 9 o1~' Resoh~tion No. 79R-599 relati~:g to Conditional
Use Per~Jt No. 2,'~t)9, w[tl~ thc, stipulation that the applicant will conform to
the City's Industrial Zonc~ ~{ign O~dinance. Refer to Resoluti_~n Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-26[: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMEN])MENT OF CONDITIONS IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 2009 AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-599 ACCORDINGLY.
Before a vote was take-.n, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that' conformance was exactly
the opposite of what was happening. The applicant had never complied before and almost
two years had elapsed. There was another point that was brought up--misstatements
on their_ original b,~sJness .].]cense, whether it was a means of them getting into
the wrong zone for a cheaper rate, which was fine, except it was in competitien
with everyone else who had established their businesses the right way, in the
proper zone, did th~m'~s h~mestly and paid their o~ way without violating all
of the Codes. Sh~-~ felt the subject business was a problem to the area
and to the City.
Further discussion a~d debate followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood,
at the conclusion ~?f which, Mr. Poo].e again stipulated that the sign ordinance
would be complied wit. h.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had heard that before, and it did not work. Her
concern was prevention.
A vote was then taket~ on the foregoing resolution.
Rol. 1 Cai] Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIi~ MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overhott, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resoh,~ion No. 80R-261 duly passed and adopted.
80- 734
~City__H__a_l__l,__A_na_[.)~e_iit!~ CalSfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-14A: In accordance with application
filed by Chapman and Tustin Associates, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of existing road and public utility and slope easement
located at the east side of TuStin Avenue from 500 to 615 feet, plus or minus,
south of the Riverside Freeway, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-224, duly pub-
lisbed in the Anaheim Builetin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City h~gineer dated April 25, 1980 and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were subn~itted, recommending approval of said abandonment.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falIs within the definition of
Section 3.01, (]lass 5, of the Clty of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-262 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 79-14A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-262: A RESOLUTION 01:~' THE CITY COUNCIL OF TttE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET(S) SHOULD BE ABANDONED AN]) ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS PRECE1)ENT TO SAID ABANDONMENT. (TUSTIN AVENUE)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEblBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEblBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-2~)2 duly passed and adopted.
169: PUBLIC HI'fARING - RAISED PAVEMENT blARKERS ON SYCAMORE STREET AT WEST STREET:
To consider the question of raised pavement markers recently installed at Sycamore
Street at West Street.
The Mayor first asked how many people were present to express themselves on the
issue. There were seven, two indicated they were in support, and four indicated
they were in opposition to the rumble strip pavement markers.
The blayor asked to hear first from those interested in retaining the markers.
Mr. Wally Courtney, 425 North West Street, first submitted copies of a letter
from other residents were not able to be at the meeting, living at 425 North
West Street, exactly where Sycamore ran into West Street. He explained that
during the ]sst 12 years slince they had tived there, there had been at least
10 occasions where cars had ended up on their front lawn or driveway and the
same with neighbors on both sides of their home. Most recently, the neighbor
80-735
City ffall, Anaheim~ California .- COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
to their ].eft had experienced an incident where a car continued down Sycamore,
did not stop at West Street, and drove right into the driveway, smashed both
ears in the drivew~iy and smashed the garage door. Luckily, no one was in the
parked car's or garage at the time. That was the most major of the acc;idents
over which they became even more concerned. Since then, someone had driven into
his car which was t~arked at the curb. Within 60 days of that, someone else's
car parked in that ~/c~cat. ion was struck by another car which ran through the
stop s~gn and. ~hen i~tto the next door ~eighboc's yard and driveway, hitting another
car. Several t:,-e~-~ on the properties had to be replaced as well as signs re-
sultir~g [~; 5 ]at'~ic Financial responsi_biiJty which had to be borne by the. City
because of I:l~e trees., signs, etc. involved. There were many problems at that
intersection. At l[u-it time, he made a suggestion that they talk to the City
Traffic. Engineer ~, work out a situation that wonld alleviate the problem and
he suggested tt',~ la.[sed pavement markers which were subsequently installed.
Unfortunately, t'h;.~e were some neighbors present today comp]~ining that the
markers were respensible for keeping them awake at night when vehicles passed
over them. He s,lggested that all traffic would keep them awake. If they were
used to ti~e t~ ~ffi,~ ~lo~ise, they should be able to get ~ sed to the rumble strips.
They weuld li~:~e ~<~ }~:,ve a preventive me.tsure at that intersection and they wanted
to have tl~e p~t.~ement: markers remain ~n place. A blinking light which was much
more costly wa~; ~entioned, but on several occasions, the main cause for the
accidet~t was th,it thc driver was either drunk or had fallen asleep and thus,
would not see the blinking light. There had been no accidents since the in-
stallation of the st;r'ip.
Councilman Roth re) ted 17ire of the peopl~~ on the letter just submitted to the
CouncJ. 1 (,lune 5, 1980) all lived at the sa~ne address; Mr. Courtney clarified
that they were a!l o~e family, but two family names were involved (his mother,
stepfather, hjms;e!i and his brother and sister).
Councillna~ R~:,th then ~'~sked if he (Courtney) could hear the noise about which
the neighbors were complaining undoubtedly during the quiet time of approximately
11:00 p.m. to 8:()0 a.m.
Mr. Courtney answered that he could not hear the noise at his house, but he did
stand by the rumbl~ strip markers and had heard the noise as vehicles drove over
the markers, wh'ich lie described. His r~quest was that they remain there for reasons
of safety.
Counc':ilman O,.,,.~rholt asked if he considered the possibility of some kind of barrier
in front of: his h,nus~.~, l-le also noted that there were many cars parked in the
driveway of i:.ix~se homes on .West Street most of the time and the street at the
curb ia front of l-he homes was also full, cansing difficulty i.n the traffic
flow at that
Mr. C~urtney :~tated tl~¢~t there was a te]~-~phone pole located in front and also a
yellow sign w~th re£lectors. There were a lot of cars parked in the driveway,
but he now pa~ked ~m the other side of tim street, tie a]so confirmed for
Council.man ()~,~,rholt ~t-~t he had suggeste,.i the rumble strips and that he had
seen the markers used before, specifically where the Newport Freeway turned'
into Newport- Bo~,levard.
80-736
C__ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt commented that using the markers to wake people up on the
freeway was different than using them in residential neighborhoods. The
questior~ was whether" rumble strips were an appropriate use ~n a residential
neighborhood and that was the problem. He was concerned for the neighbors
safety, bnt also for the noise problem and the question was how to resolve both.
That might be by placing a barrier in front of the three affected houses.
Mrs. Joan Baron, 425 North West Street, stated she taught for the North Orange
County ROP at P!acentia High School and right behind City Hall in Placentia,
they used the "bumps" in the residential area right by the school. They worked
satisfactorily and there had been no accidents since the markers were installed.
Although they did not hear the noise, on the other hand, the neighbors on Sycamore
had not been the victims of any of t:he accidents that occurred. Cars had been
pushed through the garage and lawns torn up. There were two accidents with
her car and both times they had been pa~ked .in her driveway. She believed the
question was noise vs,, accidents and pe~'haps someone's life.
'Fha Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. Howard Roberts, a ten-year resident of 1025 West Sycamore, (corner of Sycamore
an~ West Street) s~ated he had never kn,~um anyone to be injured or hurt since
i~e had lived there. With the rumble st~'ip pavement markers right outside his
house, he could not get any sleep and the smaller the vehicle, the more noise.
The strips would never; stop a car if so~eone was drunk; nothing would stop them.
He had not heard of that many accidents on the corner. The markers caused more
disruption to the neighborhood than the good they accomp]ished.
Councilman Roth then read from a report the number of reported accidents that had
taken place since 1977~ which totalled I0.
Mr. John Bartels, 1011 West Sycamore, east of Mr. Roberts, stated that the rumble
strips were 45 feet- fr'om his bedroom window and the noise caused by them was
very annoying both day and night, but it was extremely bad at night. He was
surprised that Mr. Courtney had suggested to the Traffic Engineer that the
strips be installed and tbey were subsequently installed. He was now suggesting
that they be taken out, :if il: was that simple. He conceded there was a serious
problem at the corner and the neighbors on West Street lived in a bad spot. He
reported that the neighbor directly to the north of Mr. Courtney experienced
an accident at approximately 2:30 a.m. one morning which resulted in garage damage
which he was per:sonal]y aware, since he was a small building contractor, and he had
repaired the garage.
In concluding, Sr. Bartels, as an aside, reported that when travelling from the
south going north on West Street, a driver could not see the stop sign at the
intersection at We.~t and Sycamore until almost getting to it, and that situation
should be co ·
r r e.;c ted.
The Mayo~- asked M~~. Bartels if he had any suggestions relative to correcting the
problem with which they were faced; Mr. B,nrtel. s answered that perhaps large ~'ed
reflectors should ~e installed on West Street facing Sycamore, since the accidents
occurred at: night-. Now, there wer'e only sma]] amber reflectors.
80-737
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Helen Johnson, a 12-year resident of 1014 West Sycamore Street, stated it
was miserable trying to sleep at night and now, during the warmer weather hawing
to leave windows open, Jt was very noi.~y. She suggested that there should be
some barricade at the "T" ~ntersection to protect the affected homes. By the
same token, they needed some rest. She had not witnessed any accidents outside
of fender benders. She did relay an incident that occurred on her property
where a pine tree had to be removed, owing to the fact that vehicles accelerated
from the stop sign because there was a long strip of road on Sycamore. Thus,
the West Street residents were not the only people being affected at that inter-
section. She did notice the parking situation on the street had improved lately.
She suggested for the benefit of the residents on Sycamore that the rumble strip
pavement markers be removed, and for the residents on West Street, some kind of
metal barricade be installed staggered in some way to offer protection.
Mrs. Baron then stated that she could appreciate the noise factor and knew what
the Sycamore residents were going through. However, Mr. Roberts stated that
he knew of no accidents and yet they had 1.3 accidents--several had not been
reported. Their cars were being ruined and the overall cost of the damage
involved was tremendous.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth stated he was sensitive to noise pollution particularly when trying
to get some rest and he had similar previous personal experience himself. He was
also sensitive to the neighbors on West Street and asked if J.t were possible to
explore the possibility of installing a heavy timber-type barrier with red
reflectors on West Street at the terminus of Sycamo:~e.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that the corrugated iron barrier on
wood posts was designed for sharp angle approaches. This being a 90-degree
approach, it would not hold too well, but they could install such barriers to see
what would happen. Approaching at a high rate of speed, there was a danger of
splitting the barrier and creating a missile condition, but it would keep
vehicles from traveling into residences. Their idea of rumble strips was
to awaken a driver to warn of the approacing intersection and not designed to
stop a vehicle.
Councilman Bay questioned the use of modified speed bumps. He wanted to know
if there was a way to vibrate a car differently than the markers being used, but
without the noise.
Mr. Singer answered that the whole idea of rumble strips was that at the same
time they also did not impose an obstruction in the roads. A bump would no
longer be a gentle rexninder but more of an impact. Although there had been
no accidents since the markers were installed, it was too soon to gather any
meaningful data because it was necessary to allow six months to a year before
there could be a proper evaluation. He also confirmed for Councilman Overholt
that as far as he knew, they had not used rumble strips any place else in the
City in residential areas. There was only one other such "T" intersection of
the many in the City experiencing the same type of problem which was located
at Convention Way and West Street. He did not know of a barrier that would
give total protection because it would have to give with the impact of the
vehicle so as not to cause a fatality.
80-738
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked both Mr. Courtney and Mrs. Baron their feeling about a barrier
being constructed.
Mr~ Courtney answered that they were not too amenable to having a barrier in the
front of their house; Mrs. Baron stated that a large barrier would be unsightly
for the other neighbors as well.
The Mayor asked staff if there was a way they could devise a barrier that was
not as unsightly as the one on Camino Manzano.
City Engineer William Devitt stated they could try to devise such a barrier perhaps
composed of heavy wooden posts installed four feet back from the curb with re-
flectors on it.
Mayor Seymour stated the decision was a most difficult one. He was going to vote
to protect life and property everytime although he was extremely sensitive to
the residents' loss of sleep. He would be of a mind to remove the rumble strip
markers and go ~o some type of attractive barrier as long as it would be cost
effective, in the area of $4,000 as suggested by the City Engineer or $5,000
or $6,000. He felt it would be a good investment of taxpayers funds in this
case.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer
to submit to the Co~ncil in two weeks their recommendation as to an attractive
barrier to assist those affected on West Street and subsequently, rumble strip
pavement markers to be removed from Sycamore Street after installation of an
appropriate barrier. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106/174: PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: To consider the
proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1980-81.
The Mayor opened the public hearing on Federal General Revenue Sharing for input
from the public.
Mrs. Louise White, West Orange County Hotline, first introduced their treasurer,
David Reaper. She then thanked the Council for their past support to the Hotline
and their continuing interest. They were now in their seventh year serving in
an excess of 25 cities in Orange County and outlying areas. Theirs was a 24-
hour, seven days a week crisis intervention service by telephone. They were
anticipating a 25% cut in their Revenue Sharing funding during the next year.
The service in the past provided for a full-time office manager, one half-time
clerk-typist and benefits. Those would be affected by the cuts, the clerk-
typist especially.
In May of 1980, they received 76 calls from Anaheim and during October of 1979
through May, 1980, they averaged 70 calls a month from Anaheim or an average of
5.5% of the total calls which had been running in excess of 1300 calls per
month. In December 1979 they attained 24-hour service with a 761 prefix
giving a toll-free calling number for the residents of Anaheim. They also
had 213 lines and f~rther there was a recording on the 761 answer 24 hours a
day with call-forward provisions going directly to a home between midnight and
8:00 a.m. Along with the fine cooperation of Steve Swaim, the City's Community
Services Manager, and Linda Garcia, Staff Member, they were able to organize
a group of volunteers for Good Neighbor Line training.
80-739
~ity Hal.~__Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mrs~ White respectfu]]y requested from Anaheim an amount of $1200
for the fiscal year 1980-81 to be used primarily in the area of additional money
for salaries and to maintain their five telephones, including one office telephone.
She clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that Anaheim contributed $600 last year.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber.
assumed chairmanship of the meeting.
(4:30 P.M.) Mayor Pro Tem Overholt
Mrs. Shirley Cohen, Project TLC, explained that they had two nutrition programs
for seniors in Anaheim. The City had always been extremely supportive and
generous to the senior programs and she was present today to thank the Council
and hoped that their generosity would continue.
She then relayed some of the ~eds seniors expressed recently which she asked
the Council to consider in fu~. a plans. There needed to be more low cost
housing for seniors in Anabeim, and the need was critical. Transportation was
not adequate, Dial--a-Ride trarlsfers were difficui~t to handle and waits too long,
bus stops needed to be closer and benches provided for seniors to use. Also,
they would like special transportation for recreation use. Relative to in-home
service, there was not enough money to pay for as much in-home services that
were needed in order to keep seniors independent and in their own homes to avoid
institutional izat~on ~
Emergency housing was needed ~ince, many times, seniors had to vacate their pre-
mises, but had no place to go. They received calls all the time from people
sleeping in their cars, parks, etc., and a woman just recently asked to be booked
so that she co~ld have a place to sleep. She was not from Anaheim.
k~en the Senior Center was finally relocated in the Washington School, .they
would probably ask for funding for S~nday meals. Sunday was a very lonely day
for older peopi~~ and they wanted to institute a pilot program and provid~ some
Sunday meals for Anaheim residents~
Mrs. Cohen concluded that Anaheim was doing great thiags for seniors especially
with the start of the new Senior Citizen Commission. She reiterated the City
was generally very supportive of senior programs.
Councilman Roth encouraged Mrs. Cohen to discuss the needs just articulated with
the Senior C~iizen Commission whose chairman was present in the audience today.
The Council expected input to come to t~em from the Commission, along with rec-
ommendations; Mrs. Cohen state ~ they wo~l~ ~e glad to work with the Commission.
Ms. Joyce Nethery, F~nance Director of Project TLC and a resident of Anaheim,
stated that last year they requested that the Council pay two additional hours
to each of their site managers, Nick Warner, Site No. 1 (St. Paul's) and Cathleen
Benson, Site No. 2 (Salvation Army). Under their Federal grant, they only had
enough funds to pay the managers for six hours a day, but to run the site with
over 100 meals a day, it was an eight-hour job and the managers deserved to be
paid the two additional ho~rs. They were also asking that funds for utilities
be included. Thus, their request this year was the same as last. She assumed
that when Site No. 2 moved to the Washington School., the City was planning to
pay those t~tilities.
80-740
_City._Hal.~j__A!Lah?ikn_~__(_i{~_lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ju.n,~ 10, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
She then reported that their meal level for seniors, at least for September, was
expected to remain the same. Originally they were going to face some drastic
cutbacks but they ~edid their budget and Mrs. Cohen and she went to Sacramento
last week and believed they talked the State into going a different route for
Orange County and the meals for seniors, so that there would be no cutback. The
State indicated the cost was approximately $6,000 last year, but she figured it
was approximately $8500, not including fringe benefits. She confirmed they were
talking about two hours a day at $5.35 an hour for the two managers, plus all
utilities~ tota]'~ing .99,000 for a ]2-month period. The utilties at Anaheim Site
No. ! were $58 a mont:h and at Site No. 2, $194 a month.
Ms. Nethery then answered questions posed by the Council in which she explained
the following: The city contributed approximately $6,000 to the TLC Program
last year. The payment for the two additional hours started approximately mid-
year last year. At Anaheim Site No. 1, the church ].ocation, TLC had to pay a
portion of the u,~i]it'~es and at Site No. 2, the Salvation Army, they paid $2 an
hour which was the most expensive utility cost they had paid.
Councilman Ruth noted however that the $2 an hour cost also represented building
use ~hjch included a brand new kitchen ~sed five clays a week with a bi~ dining
room, parking lot and other amenities. He felt it was an excellent bargain;
Ms. Nethery agreed.
Councilman Ruth empha~ized that the Council had gone on record repeatedly as
being~a great supporter of the TLC Program, considered to be one of the best
ever programs seen anywhere.
Ms. Nethery pointed out that they were only 50% Federally funded. The reason
they were so good was due to the fact that the cities became involved, and it was
their progrom too~ She explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that she did not bring
a specific breakdow~ of their budget, but she would be glad to submit one.
Mayor Pro Tern Overholt asked that she submit data to the Council this week.
Councilman Ruth asked staff if they had included in the budget an allocation
for TLC.
Mr. Steve Swaim answered "no". He explained that the City funded TLC this fiscal
year in the amount of approximately $6,500, that they had nothing budgeted in their
budget, and they were not going to do so. He confirmed however, that upon receipt
of a formal request from Ms. Nethery, it would be forwarded to the Council. ~
Mr. Swaim then explaimed for Councilman Bay that the estimated mov~ into Washington
School Site was October 1 and that the maintenance of the facility, including water
gas and power~ was included in their budget plans.
Councilman Bay asked that that fact be ~ncluded in Ms. Nethery's budget b~e~k-
down.
Mayor Se)~our enter~:~d the Council Chamber-. (4:40 P.M.)
The Mayor stated that he heard the comments made by Counciiman Ruth relative to
TLC. He seconded those comments and he wanted to keep that "super" program going.
80-741
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Helen Haines, Retired Senior Volunteer Program of North Orange County (RSVP), stated
she was present to request a small increase in their budget this year. They had
been operating in Anaheim since 1973 with a slight increase each year, but they
had operated on the same budget for the last two years and were asking for a
$1,200 increase this year. Their program involved 168 volunteers at any given
time in Anaheim, serving ~'~pprox~mately 32 to 35 agencies and stations in the
City. The biggest expense was an increase in the request for mileage from
volunteers. They wel~e required to reimburse them to some extent for their mile-
age if so requested. They were requesting a total of $5,337 with the $1,200
increase. They had officially submitted their request to Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department° Mr. Ruth commented from the audience that they
would coordinate that budget.
Mr. Elmer Holthos, 192 North Cambridge, Orange, stated they addressed a letter
to the Mayor and Co,.~ncil on .l,.~ne l regarding the Christian Temporary Housing
Facility (on file in the City Clerk's oi~fice). They wanted the City to consider
that their program was so~nethlng of ben<.fit to Anaheim so that the City might
help support it either from norma! budget sources or Revenue Sharing. Their
organization served Orange County with ~o discrimination as to where individuals
came from. As the letter indicated, approximately 20% of their units came from
Anaheim. Some people had no place to stay and had no income. They were asking
for perhaps $10,000 out of a $110,000 b~dget.
The M~vor asked the organization's other sources of funding.
Mr. Holthus explained that they had a n~mber of other sources. They were al_so
engaged in a capital, fund and remodeling campaign where they had received sizable
donations from [.he ]rvine Fox, halation and the Ahmanson Foundation and later on from
the Southern California Bt~ilding Fund and numerous other organizations and operating
funds. Last year, for the first year, they received Revenue Sharing funds. They
were members of United Way and had just received unanimous endorsement by that
committee on their program and on the building program as well. They depended
to a large extent on contributions from individuals, organizations and churches.
The Mayor asked if they had received a pledge of Ceneral Revenue Sharing funds
from the City of Orange~
Mr. Holthus answered that they were going to discuss that with the City next
week. They were ask[ng that they st~pp]y $23,000 to build the kitchen and dining
room that were still needed to be i~sta]led in their present facility. They were
assisting more persons from Anaheim thsn from Orange.
The Mayor stated they wo~Jd be interested to hear if Orange was going to pledge
some of their Reven,e Sharing funds or some other of their funds to the activity.
The're being no further per,_,on,_= ~s who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing on General Federal Revenue Sharing.
MOTION: Cout~cilman Seymour moved to continue the public hearing on the 1980-81
General Revenue Sharfng Budget to .June 24, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion, blOTION CARRIED.
80-742
Cit~i Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIl. MINUTES - June lO, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay requested that they be supplied with information on other sources
of income from the organizations who just spoke, including their total budgets;
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that TLC be included as well.
106/161/174/177: PUBLIC HEARING - BUDGET: To consider the proposed 1980-81
Resource. Allocation Plan (RAP).
pepartment of Finance: City Manager William Talley opened the budget session
with the Department of Finance budget, Pages C52 through C67 of the proposed
1980-81 Resource AIlocation Plan (on file in the City Clerk's office) Control
Centers 37, 38, 39 and 41, Position Control, Pages El3 through El6.
Mr. George Fer~one, !)irector of Finance, gave a brief overview of the departmental
budget, noting specifically the following: The level of service offered this year
was the same as last with two notable exceptions, one being the transition in the
Treasurer's office where the collection effort was no longer being done by the
Treasury Division, as agreed to by the Council and the Audit Committee. The
second exception was in the Purchasing !)ivision where the equipment rental for
a major piece of copy equipment f~mm~rly in the City Clerk's budget was now in
the Purchasing Department budget located in the b~sement of the new Civic Center.
This involved one staff addition to the Finance Department or a 2% increase in
work hours. The addition was given to them by the Public Works Department who
gave up a clerk so that Finance could have one to handle the xeroxin~g and mail
requests. City-wide there was no increase in staff.
Increases in the departmental, budget were in four different areas, the largest
being (1) the incre~sed chart charges as a result of b~DS leaving the City July 1
and the increased data charges now accrui, ng to the Finance Department, now a 50%
user of data services, as opposed to a 33% user; (2) transfer of dollars from
the Treasurer's budget to the PD&A budget and his department with no net effect
on the City-wide budget, except to raise their budget and lower the Treasurer's
budget; (3) Duplicating and printing charges or 12% of the increase as a result
of picking up the one person from Public Works, but with no City-wide effect;
and (4) the balance of the increase, or 10%, was attributed to general cost-
of-living increases.
Mr. Ferrone concluded by stating that they continued to be pledged to excellence
in financial reporting and that was their ultimate goal in terms of financial
accountability. They expected to maintain that high level of service and those
commitments to the Council in the fntur~.
Mr. Ferrone then clarified for the Mayor that of his total b~dget increase of 37%,
the amount of data processing charges represented 51% of that increase.
Mayor Seymour asked if the Council were faced with a decision of finding dollars
somewhere in order to affect their priorities, what would Mr. Ferrone recommend
relative to affecting a 10% decrease in his proposed budget.
Mr. Ferrone answered that he would have a very difficult time cutting 10%. There
were areas such as professional, development that. he would hope to convince the
Council not to cut because he felt their professional level of competency was
substantially above anything they bad before, because of such programs. There
were. some travel dollars that could be taken out or professional associations,
bu't be did not think they could cut anywhere near 10% without hampering the
quality of financial services they were providing. He felt it would be impos-
sible without impacting the financial reporting process substant-ially.
80-743
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor questioned if they were to ask not in those areas, but rather in data
processing, what would his comment be, since they were now carrying one-half the
burden.
Mr. Ferro~e answered that he was anxious to work with the new Data Processing
Director to look at some areas, but it would depend on how the Department was
organized and how they resolved problems. One of the things not mentioned
earlier relative to the payroll system was the tremendous amount of effort
expended in the maintenance of the existing payroll system and what it would
take in the future. There Were some efficiencies that would be gained with the
new system once up and running and those should translate into hard dollars
in the future. The budget was cut 10 people this year in Data Processing and
the only reason the budget was up was due to the fact that the General Fund
was formerly the beneficiary of the contract witL MDS.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how much was lost by losing the MDS contract; Mr.
Ferrone answered approximately one-quarter of a million dollars.
City Treasurer: City Manager Talley noted the City Treasurer's budget was cn
Pages C38, 39 and 40, Position Control Page Ell. He explained that it Was the
budget for Mr. Glenn Stewart, plus a very modest amount of clerical assistance.
The entire budget other than that had been reduced from $260,000 to approximately
$88,000. They could have Mr. Stewart available, or the Council could accept
that budget inasmuch it was a single position budget.
The Council had no questions on the City Treasurer's budget.
At this time, the Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency reconvened for a
joint meeting with the Council. (5:10 P.M.)
Community Development: Mr.~Talley noted that the Community Development Department's
budget was on Pages C103 through C109 (Community Development, Neighborhood
Preservation and Economic Development) and Pages C299 through C311 (Redevelop-
ment, Redevelopment Administration, Planning, Engineering and Design, Real
Estate Acquisition and Disposition, Property Management, Relocation, Project
Improvements, Marketing and Development, Redevelopment Contract Obligations,
Housing Assistance) Position Control Pages E21 and E22.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, referred first to
Page C299 of the budget, Control Center 59, Redevelopment, and gave an'overview
and update of the development and Neighborhood Preservation Program. He antic-
ipated in the coming year that they would complete the Phase I improvements
now under way in the downtown area and also of great significance, they antic-
ipated completing the design, bidding and construction of the downtown storm
drain.. A substantial portion of the proceeds from the bond issue would be
used for that purpose. They also expected to begin construction on part of
Phase II of the public improvements, the portion easterly df Anaheim Boulevard,
as well as construction on a number of private developments. One of the key
tbings was they had been building improvements in the westerly portion of the
project to get far enough ahead, so that the private developers could nowcome
in and build comfortably with the assurance that the transportation facil.ity was
there to serve them.
80-744
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Equally important was the beginning of the Neighborhood Preservation Program
which they considered the second phase of downtown Project Alpha. The redirection
in 1976 indicated the importance of neighborhood preservation and it was their
expectation during the coming year that they would be working extensively in
developing a relationship with neighborhoods and neighborhood groups and Council
at a pace those neighborhoods could readily absorb. They anticipated funds from
CHFA, as well as use tax increment funds. They would be working not only with
Redevelopment, but also other Community Development activities. Their anticipation,
since downtown Project Alpha was a part of the central target area for Block Grant
and there was an overlapping, was that they would be using both regularly. They
were also looking into the possibility of mortgaged back financing. That partic-
ular financing did not flow directly into the Agency revenues, nor was it expended
directly by the Agency, but utilized by lenders in supporting private rehabili-
tation activities. It would require a feasibility study and they would be
talking to the Agency and Council at considerable length before going forward.
Staff was down two positions for the coming year. They had retained their
staffing level since 1976 when they began their expanding activity and expected
to hold to it. They would now be going into a one-to-one relationship this
year in the Neighborhood Preservation Program which was a substantially new and
different role for them.
Mr. Priest then clarified questions posed by the Council relative to the time
frame for e~ther start up and/or completion of projects under way in the down-
town area, i.e., the Willdan Building; transition road, Olive to Lincoln and
full grade separation; Harbor Boulevard--Broadway to Cypress, etc. He also
explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that SB1972 would, in fact, exempt Redevelop-
ment from the effects of Proposition 4 and that in their budget (Page C299), they
sought to show the most conservative picture. He also clarified for Councilman
Overholt that they did have an ongoing program to keep people informed of the
progress of their program.
Housing Authority--~age C309, Control Center 60: Mr. Priest gave a brief over-
view of the Housing Authority budget and program, pointing out that they applied
for units whenever they became available and each time they were awarded units,
they must come back w~th an amended budget. The budget for the forthcoming year
of $6,142,034 would appear to be a substantial increase over last year's budget
due to a number of factors which he explained.
He then reported they had substantial interest from developers in developing
additional housing in Anaheim, but their problem now and in the past was in
finding sites. One additional staff member had previously been authorized
whose particular specialty and function was to work with developers, staff,
etc., wherever he could in order to foster housing production.
Staff involvement would include the annual inspection of units, recertification
and renegotiation of leases. At regular intervals, each of the tenants must be
interviewed and recertified as to income and ability to pay which was a sizable
process. One of the key things they had to represent to those people living
in the housing unit was not only a compassionate hand, but also at the same
time represent e~uity in terms of rents and operations to the landlord. They
had a very sensitive staff, and he commended them as being one of the best.
80-745
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, then explained for Councilman Roth that their
backlog of applications in the elderly category totalled approximately 300 and
also 100 to 200 families. They had ~nquiry cards in the thousands in both
categories, and there were 12,000 households needing assistance in Anaheim.
They had never closed out applications since she had been with the Agency. They
decided to always keep them open and they would consider them based upon prefer-
ences and priority.
C~.mm. unity Development Administration and Neighborhood Preservation--Page C103,
Control Center 61: Neighborhood Preservation was a City program, the initial
seed money coming through Housing and CDBG activities with a proposed budget
slightly over $2 million. The thrust of the program was rehabilitation under-
layed with a housing contract and thus placed under the Neighborhood Preser-
vation Program although it would produce housing units. They basically had
10 programs (see Page C105) and expected through those programs to rehabilitate
in excess of 390 units and acquire 15 parcels for in-fill housing. Additionally
they expected to provide housing counseling to 600 resident~ Mr..Priest reiterated they
would also be working in Project Alpha with their Neighborhood Preservation staff.
Because of similarities of functions, it did not seem prudent to acquire Redevelop-
ment staff to perform Neighborhood Preservation activities. Thus, they were
going be working side by side with Redevelopment staff in the coming year.
Staffing would add four positions primarily due to the ~ncreased level of activity
in the rehabilitation program. He then reported extensively on the progress of
the Neighborhood Preservation Program and what they had accomplished. He empha-
sized that the program was a personalized one, on a one-to-one basis with each
owner, and not process-oriented.
Mr. Priest pointed out that citizen participation was a key function of the
Community Block Grant Administation and if there was any single activity which
had grown more rapidly in the past year and expected to grow even more so in
the coming year, it was the increase in citizen participation in that program.
Mayor Seymour referred to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
and stated that Mr. Priest's whole area of responsibility in his opinion, next
to providing public input in getting the community to involve itself in the pro-
cess, the second greatest priority was adequate audits to insure that someone was
not "ripping off" one or more of those programs. That could be the greatest single
threat to the work of the Department, bringing the programs to a screeching halt.
In that regard, he asked Mr. Priest to describe for the Authority, Agency and
Council what type of audit procedure was being followed in order to insure that
would not occur.
Mr. Priest then explained the present procedures followed to preclude the area
of concern expressed by the Mayor, as well as reviewing the Redevelopment and
Housing audits that took place.
At the conclusion of Mr. Priest's explanation, the Mayor stated anything Mr.
Priest should need to insure that the process was kept pure, they would stand
ready to provide.
Economic Development--Pase C107, Control Center 62: Mr. Priest stated that Mr
Richard Darbo, Executive Director, AEDC, was present to answer any questions
relative to the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) budget.
80-746
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked that due to the fact the City paid a substantial amount
of the cost, he requested periodic progress reports showing what the Corporation
had accomplished s~nce their inception, and their plans in order to. keep the
Council informed.
Mr. Priest stated that the AEDC did provide quarterly reports to him which he
would be happy to share with the Council. He then gave a brief overview of the
activities and in concluding stated that he would be bappy to provide the Council
with the past reports of the Corporatio. as well.
Libr..ary Department: City Manager Talle/ referred to the Library budget found on
Page C68 through C80, Capital Improvement Projects, D25 and D26, and Position
Control, Page E17.
Mr. William Griffith, City Librarian, stated that the requested operating budget
totalling $2,885,283 was up $289,174 over the current year. The increase was
largely due to the new branch library accounting for approximately $60,000 or
21%. Personnel costs were up 5% and about 16% of $46,000 was under contract
services to other libraries which was money that would subsequently be recovered.
$1,15%,296 had been allocated in the Cal)ital Improvements Project budget for
the Canyou Hills Library, (the major it~m in the budget) scheduled to be opened
in the late spring of 1981.
The total number of positions in the budget remained the same this year as last,
with 72 full-time employees with staffing for the Canyon Hills Library encom-
passed in that figure of five full-time positions. In effect, they were achiev-
ing a reduction of five positions and offsetting that with the positions for the
new library. Part-time hours had been increased by about 1500 hours.
They were also asking this year for a book budget Of $346,000, compared with $296,00
for the current year, an increase of 17% largely because of the branch library.
Finally, $9,700 had been requested for ~ security system for the existing libraries
which they felt would be an important insurance against the possibility of vandal-
ism.
Councilman Overholt stated Mr. Griffith was to be complimented in providing for
the staffing of the new library without an increase in staff.
Mr. Griffith explained it was largely ascribed to their automation project, and
they were able to absorb the positions thanks to their automated circulation
system. It was a lean budget, but adequately funded the programs and projects
they had in mind.
The budget hearing was thereupon concluded with a budget work shop session
scheduled for June 13, 1980 at 10:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Kaywood moved to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency
and Housing Authority. Agency Member Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (6:07 P.M.)
124: PARKING PROBL~24 - CONVENTION CENTER AREA: City Manager Talley briefed
the Council. on report dated June 3, 1980 from the City Engineer regarding the
parking congestion within residential areas west of the Convention Center rec-
ommending that the City Council, in cooperation with the City of Garden Grove,
80-747
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
adopt a parking permit system of Eleanor Drive and Ricky Avenue following a pub-
lic hearing. The alternate included No. 1--Permit Parking, No. 2--Closure of
Eleanor Drive, No. 3--Time Limit Parking Restrictions, No. 4--Temporary Closure
of Eleanor Drive and Ricky Avenue and, No. 5--Restricted Parking. He then rec-
ommended, if Alternate No. 1 were adopted, that the Convention Center be
assigned the responsibility because they were most intimately aware of when
the occasions causing the problem would'occur. The closure of Eleanor Drive
had been previously discussed, and the majority felt that would be a less than
satisfactory solution, and would also cause Fire Department Safety'service prob-
lems. His conclusion from listening to a number of staff meetings on the issue
was that a permit parking procedure, such as implemented at the Forum and Hollywood
Park, be utilized. However, their recommendation was that the Council'take no
action.
Councilwoman Kaywood then questioned Traffic Engineer Paul Singer relative to
the implementation of permit parking.
Mr. Singer answered that they would like to defer any discussion about the specific
methodology of either signing or distribution of stickers or permits. In general
terms, they envisioned two types of permits--one type would be bumper stickers and
some type of card for visitors that ~ot~ld be placed on the windshield or dash-
board. In order to work out the mechanics, it would require further study.
The Mayor asked if they took Alternative No. 1, Permit Parking, how long the
study would take.
Mr. Singer a~swered that they would start processing ~n ordinance immediately
and during that process, they would work out the details.
Mr. Tom Lieg|er, Convention Center General Manager, stated that permit parking
around the Forum usually involved nights or Saturday or Sunday events. At the
Convention Center it was ongoing both day and night and thus, a different set
of circumstances was involved. They recognized that there was a major problem,
but believed it would be alleviated somewhat when the Betterment II program was
completed. His major concern was that at a previous public hearing, the majority
of the residents did not want permit parking. There were so many individual
complications involved, he felt it was going to be a large administrative problem
and not a good PR answer. He emphasized there was no simple answer. On an on-
going basis, everything had been going well except for the recent computer con-
vention, and he wondered if any hasty change would bring about further problems.
However, he would be pleased to administer whatever the Council wished.
The Mayor asked if he could name the upcoming conventions where they expected
parking problems to occur.
Mr. Leigler reported that the International Kiwanis Convention starting June 21
was the largest, followed by the Full Gospel Business Men's Convention. He
also mentioned several other events which did not pose major problems, but he
emphasized that no matter what event was being held, there would be p~ople wanting
to park in the residential areas for various reasons, primarily to save the $2
parking fee. He noted, however, that there were also a number of employees
working at the various motels and restaurants in the area along Katella who
parked in those residential areas.
80-748
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June l0t 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked Jf they did something about Eleanor Drive and Ricky Avenue
and solved the problem there, would it move somewhere else.
Mr. Singer answered that from their discussions with the City of Garden Grove, it
appeared they had no problem on Ricky, but whatever Anaheim did on Eleanor and
Morgan, the problem was going to transfer to Carden Grove.
Councilman Overholt asked how many residents were involved in th~ area impacted;
Mr. Singer answered that there were approximately 100 homes involved. Council-
man Overholt then commented further that it would be beneficial if some of those
residents could be involved in the planning solution .to the problem, short of a
public hearing~ They would then become part of the solution rather than attacking
the City.
Mr. Singer noted that the Planning Department had a computer address method for
communicating with the residents; the Mayor stated that the Department expert
in obtaining community input was the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department. He advised them to contact that Department for their expertise in
such matters.
Mr. Singer stated that they had numerous meetings with the residents and the crux
of the problem lay in the fact that they had never been able to get even a partial
consensus on any recommendations.
The Mayor s~ggested that was because th~.~y had not hurt badly enough.
Councilman Roth stated at one time he w~s against the permit parking process, but
was not support£ve yet and he did not want to force it on anybody. He relayed the
success he had with a questionnaire he sent out during his campaign to retain
his Council seat. ~Ie suggested that they communicate with the neighborhood by
letter which he felt would result in a clear-cut response as to whether permit
parking was a good idea or a bad one.
Mr. Singer stated they would be happy to do that.
Councilwoman K~ywood s~ated that since time was short and without getting a lot
of personnel, inw,]ved, she recommended a combination of Alternate No. 1 and No. 5.
She felt that with signing "No Parking At Any Time--Tow Away" at the entrances
to Eleanor Drive and Ricky Avenue (No. 5) most people were not going to fee] it
was worth the risk.
Lt. Martin Mitchell, Traffic Bureau, stated that it did not make any difference
during the compact-er convention and even many parking tickets were wadded up and
thrown away in the g~tter.
Mayor Seymour stated they had two problems--one short-term, the Kiwanis and Full
Gospel Business Men's Convention, and the other long-term, finding a consensus
of residents in the area relative to a solution. They should not run out and
put signs up. At th~s point, it was no longer a question--they had to make
a positive statem~nt that they were going to do something. They had to provide
relief relative to the two forthcoming large conventions, because the problem
had gone on too long.
80-749
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor thereupon reco~nended the fo]lowing: Short-Term Plan--For the Kiwanis
Convention starting 0une 21 and Fu]] Gospel Business Men's Convention, June 30,
staff directed to do whatever necessary to provide relief to the surrounding
area, i.e., use Police Reserves or private security;, an emergency ordinance, ~f
necessary; utilization of signing; barricades with guard to control incoming
vehicles to those residential areas; patrol streets, issue tickets to violators.
Long-Term Plan--Letter survey to be conducted of residents in the affected~
neighborhoods, asking their input on alternatives to solve the parking problem
on a permanent basis.
Further Council discussion, debate and questioning followed on the issue at
the conclusion of which, the Mayor stated ~t was up to staff to figure out
specifically what ~eeded to be done. ~e wanted action even if it meant asking
to see a driver's license to ascertain if the driver of the vehicle was a resi-
dent of the area in which they were attempting to park.
Lt. Mitchell stated the solution be was thinking of at present for the next two
conventions was perhaps to control the entrance to Eleanor Drive. 'The Convention
Center could install barricades and have one man posted at the entrance and he
could have the situation monitored to be certain that person was safe.
Councilman Bay asked the Mayor if he was suggesting that in June they could
use the temporary barricade and in the meantime move on Councilman Roth's
suggestion to get some feedback from the neighborhood.
The Mayor answered "yes", along with a ~ommitment so that the residents would
know that the Council had mandated a program and to ask which one they liked
best.
Mr. Singer stated at the same time, they could se~d an information letter to
all of the residents until they came to a final solution, stating they were
going to be using temporary barricades.
Councilman Bay asked if an emergency ordinance was necessary in order to install
temporary barricades; City Attorney Hopkins answered "no". The Vehicle Code
provided that the Po]ice Chief could barricade certain areas in an emergency
situation.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that residents were going to object to being stopped'by
the barricade. In the meetings they had held with the residents, on one occasion
two people showed up, and on another, seven people showed up and they could not reach
an agreement.
The Mayor again suggested that they talk to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department relative to obtaining community input; Councilwoman Kasa~ood
stated that she did not want to bypass Mr. Leigler because she felt he was an
expert in the field.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (6:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:40 P.M.)
8o-~o
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2072: Application by
Kartar and Harbans K. Singh, to permit a residential care facility on RS-5000
zoned property located at 1737 Holbrook Street with a waiver of maximum lot
coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-74, declared the
subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report since the project would have no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact and is therefore exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2072.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public
hearing scheduled for and continued from May 27, 1980 at the request of the applicant
to this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Mayor Seymour then outlined the procedure of the public hearing for the many
people who were in the Chamber audience relative to the matter. He then asked
to hear from the applicant or the applicant's agent.
Mr. Louis Bennett, attorney for the petitioners, 1695 Crescent 'Avenue, Suite 282,
first stated he had prepared a s~mma~y wh£ch he thereupon submitted to the
Council. (see, "Appeal From The Decision In Resolution No. PC80-74 Of The Anaheim
City Planning Co~nmission Denying Petition For CUP No. 2072" made a part of the
record). Before brief, ing the Council on the summary, Mr. Bennett pointed out
that the petitioners were withdrawing their request for the physical expansion
of the dwelling and amending their petition to seek an increase in the number
of tenants from six to eight tenants instead of 'six to ten tenants. Thus, there
would be no crowding whatsoever. He maintained that the primary concern should
be the density of the population and not the number, as opposed to one house.
Mr. Bennett then briefed the Council on the summary presented (Page 1 through 8).
He emphasized that the opposition was strictly a misunderstanding of the nature
of the facility on the part of the neighbors and the Planning Commission. It
was a place where the residents lived together as a family unit sharing all the
responsib~liti, es in the household. If there was any inclination of a dangerous
propensity for any reason whatsoever, individuals would not be accepted into
the home. The i~etitioners were not in the business to make money. They were
making enough to cover expenses and to make a living, and they turned a lot of
money back into the facility. The residents did not have to be under constant
supervision, but could be left alone for almost a whole day at a time. What they
needed was counseling, guidance, reassurance, and someone to turn to.
In closing, Mr. Bennett also emphasized the alternatives available to the Singhs
if the Conditional. Use Permit was denied (see Page 8--Alternatives--of the reference
summary). He suggested and encouraged the Council to consider and weigh very
carefully all the aspects of the situation. There was a need function in the
community and such a facility needed to be in the community so that the tenants
could make a readjustment to normal life. If it was necessary that the immediate
neighbors bear' some sacrifices, he felt it could bear making that sacrifice.
80-75t
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked where the other two homes that Mr. Singh owned were
located.
Mr. Bennett stated that Mr. Singh had a private residence on Tym~pani around the
corner. It was not a residential care facility but a private resideuce.
The Mayor asked if it was within 300 feet of the subject property; Mr. Bennett
answered, "no". It was down the street and around the corner and the other home
owned by Mr~ Singh was located at 6432 Cymbal, not in the City of Anaheim, but in
an unincorporated area and he believed there were six residents in the home.
From the audience, someone clarified that there were five residents there at
present and the home was licensed for six.
Mr. Bennett then clarified for the Mayor that on behalf of the Singhs, he was
amending the request for the increase in tenants from ten to eight with the
proviso there would be no physical_ change made in the structure.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in support of Conditional Use Permit No.
2072.
The following people spoke in favor of ~ranting the requested CUP for the below
listed reasons which highlighted their testimony:
Mrs. Edith Breast, 13~t West !~ern Drive, Fullerton, stated she had a sister-
in-law who had been with Mr. and Mrs. S[ngh since they first opened their home.
Since she had been in the l~ome, she had been very much benefited, while at th&
same time having a lovely home to be in. Mr. and Mrs. Singh should have a
chance' to take ~are of as many people a~ they had the strenglh or desire to handle.
Theirs was a family ~esidence and not an institution and the people they cared
for presented no threat to society. The Singhs were perfo~.ning a community
service and not a business~
In'answer to Co~ci] q~estioning, Mrs. l{reast relayed the following: Her sister-
in-law, who was i.n the Chamber audience~ along with other residents of the home,
was paying $375 a month to stay at the facility. Neighbors were frightened because
they did not understand the situation. She had seen a big improvement in her
sister-in-law upou which she elaborated.
Mr. Garry Miller, Stat~_~ P~es~dent of th~~ California Association of Residential
Care Homes, San Diego, stated his organization represented over 800 or 900 homes
throughout the State. He concurred with all the preceding testimoney on the areas
of misunderstandings of the neighborhood. Many things could be resolved in going
over to talk to the Singhs and people like them and in seeing their home. He
commended the Singhs for such a beautiful home and satisfying the needs of the
residents. In 1973, the Community Care Act was passed and the whole thrust of
the State had been toward normalization and deinstitutionalizing of people. He
found it hard to believe that the expansion, of two more residents was going to
change the integrity of those 300 to 500 homes in the subject community. They
had a tremendous screening process for those placed in such homes and were
totally accepted by ~he community agencies. There had been no problems in the
last three and one-half years and as had been pointed out. He did not think
the neighbors even knew they existed until they asked for an expansion to serve
only two more people. He urged the Council to allow two more people to enjoy
the City of Anaheim and to achieve normalization.
80-75.2
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth commented that it would have been wise to evaluate the needs of
the citizens of the community as well. An attempt should have been made to try
to bring the neighborhood together so that the agency could explain ,their
objectives.
Mr. Miller stated he felt the Singhs had done that, utilized the good neighbor
policy, as well as having proven themselves. Their integrity was unquestionable.
Mr. Jess Hardy, 1847 Tsm~pani (directly across the street from one of the Singhs
residences). Relative. to the Singhs' character, he had known them for a little
over a year and had been invited to their home and found them to be very com-
petent and nice people to know. They were business-oriented and Mr. Singh's
past experience was ~[:~ the service and thus he had lived a regimented life.
From his experience in discussing mattet-s with him, he knew that he would be
a very sincere man and take the duties and responsibilities of caring for those
emotionally upset, disturbed people to heart. He then referred to a flyer that
had been circulated in the neighborhood-- (see flyer entitled, "Did You Know? .... "
made a part of the record) and was asto~nded at some of the points brought up
about the emotionally disturbed adults. They had numerous problems in the
neighborhood in ~he nine years he had lived there and to his knowledge., none
of the residents with the Singh family now had been a part of the problem.
He then gave an overview of some of the problems that had occurred in the
neighborhood for some time. However, he did not attribute any of the problems
to the tenants of th~ Singhs' residence.
Miss Janice Wolfe, 18~0 T~anpani, stated she was a member of the Student Government
at Fullerton College. When she went to the Singhs, she was on Thorasine, a heavy
duty drug. She then explained some of the problems she had and stated at that
point she was out of rea]~[ty. Today sh~~ was a very well established female, she
worked two jobs and was a peer counselor within the last year on contract with
the California School District. She was a member of the CMA (California Medical
Association) News and her major of study was biochemistry, physics and computer
science. She asked how anybody could do that being drugged out or so mentally
ill that they would do very strange things. She was not accepted in the many
clubs to which her parents belonged in the Newport Beach area and was not ad-
mitted to those clubs. Thro~gh Mr. and Mrs. Singh, she was a person today and
could hold her head ~1~, she had self esteem and took pride in her clothes and
dress and that was a great accomplishment for her.
In answer to a ]i~e of que£tioning posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Wolfe
relayed the following: She was living with the Singhs now in their independent
home on 1840 T~npani. There were three other residents there, all over 21, two
males and one other female. The resident manager was Kartar Singh, but there
was no need for a resident manager because they were independent. However,
the Singhs stayed at the residence on various nights to make certain they had
every thing.
On December 9, 1977, she first moved in with the Singhs on Cymbal Street. She
never lived at the Holbrook residence, but had visited there on many occasions.
Mos~ of the time she lived at 6432 Cymbal. She moved from Cymbal Street to
Tympani Street in Msy of 1979 and the Singhs moved in with them to be there
throughout their first manuevers. She noted that they had moved into Cymbal
80-75 3
City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Street with six people and then to Tympani Street w~th four people. She also
clarified for Councilman Overholt that the Singhs did not reside at the Tympani
home, but they were there at certain t~mes during the flay.
Mr. Gordon Brushwyler, 6402 Cymbal, stated he was a homeowner in the area and
not a personal friend of Mr. Singh and. therefore, did not have a particular
bias. He could only attest to the situation of that home which was well kept.
There had been no dif~icolties in tbe ~ime that they had been there, and they
had no fear .of their children or children in the area playing in the street
and had more fears ~e]ative to the "normal" people in the community. He did
not feel that some of the accusations made, particularly in the flyer previously
mentioned, were well founded. They had four children, daughters .15 and 13, and
two sons~ 10 and 8 and they had no problem with the activity at the Singh property.
He was not aware of the activity at the Singh property on Holbrook prior to the
request for an expansion of tenants. His home was three doors away from the
Cymbal residence where there were five tenants, and not the Holbrook residence.
The~ Cymbal property had been used for tenants for several years. He became aware
that the Cymbal property was being used for tenants approximately one or two years
ago.
Mr. Andrew Bailey, Adult Continuing Care Coordinator for the Human Services
Agency. His job was to monitor board a~d care facilities for the mentally
disabled licensed by the County Department of Social Services. There were
approximately ]2 board and care facilities in Anaheim that serviced mentally
disabled clients. ~ental disability wa~ a continuum. They had .people who were
acutely ill who needed to be confined and secured and people who were at a
stage where they could live independently with some follow up supervision. The
middle of the continuum was the board and care facility. W~thout s~ch a facility,
they would have no alternative b~t to be in State facilities for the acute mentally
ill. By 'limiting these type of facilities in the community, they were limiting
the opportunities for people to live independently and put a great burden on the
State facilities~ Then, the acutely ill would be out in the community and those
were the type of people who needed the type of care the community was not able
to provide. He emphasized that they needed board and care facilities and the
alternatives of not letting them develop were not compatible to the needs of
the community.
Councilman Roth stated that he did not think the people were saying that they
did not want any such facilities, but were objecting to the expansion of six
residents to ten and now eight.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Bailey indicated there were 12 such homes in
Anaheim. He asked how many of the same type homes there were in the County.
Mr. Bailey answered that the homes he monitored were the homes they licensed
of six residents or fewer. There were approximately 60 of these homes in the
County.
Mayor Seymour asked if he had any information or idea how many ~residential care
units there were, assuming that Tympani was a residential care unit, of six or
less in the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Bailey stated that they did not have figures on room and board facilities
because they did not consider them as residential care facilities.
80-754
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Nick Joiner, Chief Deputy Public Guardian for the County of Orange, appointed
by the Superior Court as Guardian or Conservator for approximately 800 citizens
of Orange County~ ]'hey bad placed and were responsible to the Superior Court
for the care of people in the Singh residence. Although they did not have any-
one at that residence at the present time, they were .looking forward to being
able to make such placements in the future. He could personally vouch for the
high standards of ca~-e that the Singhs gave, their high expe~ctations, and the
improvement in the condition of the residents at the facility. In addition
to the County monitoring service provided by Mr. Bailey and the licensing by the
County and State, whenever the Orange County Public Guardian had a conservatee
or ward of the court placed in a board and care home or any facility, they were
mandated by the Court to provide regular visits to those homes and also to
report to the Court periodically as to the progress of the resident. This is
what they had done and why they could continue to place people with the Singhs.
In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and the Mayor, Mr. Joiner
reported the following: Somewhere between five and ten people had been placed
with the Singhs over the period of a year. Some stayed two or three months and
subsequently might require additional nt~rsing home care or be returned to a
hospital. W]~enever someone was under their conservatorship, they were always
available at night and weekends, not just during the day, to provide emergency
care in the event of any need by the Singhs or by the resident manager. The
Tympani residence was more like a boarding house and although it was possible
that a person'living in the Tympani residence could be a ward of the court, it
was unlikely that would be the case.
Mrs. Carol Lawrence, Human Services Agency, stated one of the questions raised
by the neighbors, one closely adjacent to the Cymbal home and one located near
the Tympani home, had to do with the quality of the neighborhood and of the
adolescent population. It was not all that easy to control what a neighbor's
child was doing. There was a great deal of monitoring in the homes where
their clients resided and what the neighbors had found out from the last hearing
to this was, if they saw something that they did not like or were concerned about,
they knew who to call and they had been doing so. That was not possible with a
neighbor. She then explained the monitoring procedures used with regard to
established residential care facilities. At this point in time for just the
Holbrook home without the CUP, there were three different agencies who were
closely working with the Singhs to insure the quality of care rendered to their
clients was adequate, if not delivered at as high a quality as possible. They were
asking the City to enter in with those agencies which, in effect, would mean that the
City of Anaheim by allowing two more tenants in that home under a CUP, they would
have the additional opportunity to maintain some controls over what was going
into the Holbrook home.
Councilman Overholt asked what .efforts, if any, did Mrs. Lawrence's particular
unit make to educate the neighborhood on what the Singhs were intending to do.
Mrs. Lawrence answered that they sent out a flyer to let them know that they
could appreciate their concern as neighbors, etc. Apparently, however, not all
the neighbors received the flyer (indicated from a reaction of the audience).
She confirmed for Councilman Overholt that her office had just contacted the
80-75 5
~ity. Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
neighbors prior to tonight's meeting. A brief discussion then followed between
Councilman Bay and Mrs. Lawrence as a result of Councilman Bay's concern over
the lack of publicity over the program or direct mail from the agency to those
neighborhoods where a residential care facility was going to be established.
If the people in the neighborhood did not participate, he presumed they ran into
resistance whe~ever they went into an area, and he could not understand a program
being planned on that basis.
Mrs. Lawrence conceded they should do more community education, but maintained
there would still be some degree of anxiety experienced by the neighbors.
Mr. Dean Werelius, Human Services Agency, License Director, stated they had
a total of 161 homes in Orange County, 61 of which were for the mentally ill.
They hsd a vacancy factor in their homes for the aged of about 50%, but in the
homes for the mentally disordered, the vacancy factor was about 5%. They were
hurting for such homes since many operators were dropping out of that program
because they could not make it on six guests. The total income for a six-guest
home was $2,130 month income from the Btate unless there was a private place-
ment which was quite rare. The Singhs had private placements because they had
provided rare quality care. They also had the ability to increase because they
bad the rooms and space. The licensing standards were the same for up to 15
gues ts.
Mayor Seymour asked of the 161 homes of the same matched type, how many were in
Anaheim.
Mr. Werelius answered of the 161, there were 14 for the aged and 6 for the mentally
ill in Anaheim, which figures were an estimate.
After further Council questioning of Mr. Werelius, the Mayor asked to hear from
those in opposition to CUP No. 2072.
The following people spoke in opposition to the granting of CUP No. 2072 for the
below listed reasons which highlighted their testimony:
Mr. Robert Post, 1728 North Holbrook, first presented the Council with a petition
containing 83 signatures of the adults in the immediate area opposing CUP No. 2072
and urging the Council to deny the commercial venture, as did the Planning Commission
(made a part of the record). Mr. Post thereupon read the petition outlining the
basis of the residents' opposition.
Mr. Post then stated that three and a hail years ago according to the testimony
tonight a care facility was established across the street from his house. No
one including the operators of the residential care facility, the County or
City contacted any of the neighbors or discussed anything about the establish-
ment of the home. He did not think that the program was well organized. He
then referred to the letter sent by the County of Orange Human Services Agency
(received at the C~ty June 9, 1980--made a part of the record) to the residents
of the area signed by Dolores E. Churchill, Deputy Director, Human Services
Agency/Social Services. He questioned the propriety of the letter since a
County agency on County letterhead was lobbying for an income-making business
venture. He also disagreed with several things that had been stated in the
80-756
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
letter. In particular relative to traffic, the claim was made that none of
the residents at that home owned vehicles. That may be true today, but it may
not be true tomorrow. There had been people and there were other guests from
the two other facilities who did own automobiles who constantly visited the
Holbrook area.
Mr. Post then read a prepared statement (three pages--made a part of the record)
in which he gave his overview of the situation surrounding the facility at 1737
North Holbrook and listed his major points of concern and opposition. He also
clarified for 'Councilman Roth that he was still in opposition even though the
requested expansion was reduced from 10 to eight residents.
Mayor Seymour then questioned Mr. Post relative to his testimony that some of
the tenants had been hanging out at the shopping center and loitering at stores.
He asked if he had witnessed that and if so, to elaborate.
Mr. Post explained that he personally had not witnessed anything other than the
loitering at the school area. His daughter reported that activity to him and
he observed it once.
The Mayor stated he was interested in knowing if he or his daughter or a neighbor
reported to him (Post) conduct other than that which he described--a tenant of
the residential care facility following groups of students home from school after
classes concluded.
Mr. Post answered "yes", he observed what he called "hanging out" or loitering
in the area of the shopping center. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood
that the gentleman who was loitering was not bothering anyone in any way that he
observed.
Mr. Pat Marky, owner-occupant, 1721Holbrook, stated that he believed all the
neighbors were aware the home was some kind of facility for at least two to
three years, but did not know exactly what it was, if it was licensed and how
it came about. He did not come before the Council to debate the benefits or
lack of benefits regarding the home's mental health program. His main concern
was changing the residential area into a business area. If one variance was
granted, what would stop the next home wanting ten residents or establishing
day care centers. At what point would they draw the line. He emphasized
that they had to take a stand on the first request for change, and the time was
ROW.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a guarantee that there would only be
eight residents and no more, would he then object; Mr. Marky answered that he
did not believe a guarantee could be made.
Councilman Roth explained the request for a CUP was not changing the zoning to
commercial.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (9:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council.Members
being present. (9:22 P.M.)
80-757
C_ity Hall, Anah___eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Maria Magdalen0, 1732 North Holbrook (across the street from the Singh facility),
stated that she was the mother of three small children, i0, 8 and 2. In ~rch
1980, Mr. Singh approached her and her husband regarding the request for a CUP
to add four more emotionally disturbed adults to his facility. They mentioned
to him their disapproval of the adult man constantly staring into and passing
their yard. Mr. Singh stated they should not worry because he was under medi-
cation and did not even know what he was looking at. They then mentioned to
Mr. SiL~gh that they felt that was even worse. Mrs. ~Singh later visited her to
expand on and apologize for the man's lack of awareness and he was also made to
apologize which embarassed both of them. She also relayed another incident
involving one of the other residents where .she felt the situation was handled
improperly by Mrs. Singh.
In concluding, Mrs. Magdaleno stated that if the Singhs were given approval to
add more residents, she felt that a degree of their children's freedom to feel
safe outside their yard, either themselves or with the neighbor's children,
would be lost. Their children did not understand the situation across the
street, nor did they feel they were old enough as yet to have it explained to
them.
Mro Robert Penco, 4726 East Tanglewood, asked what guarantee did they have
that the residents of the facility were not going to harm their children. He
was concerned if his child did something to one of them in front of his home,
that.action might trigger behavior that would harm his children. He wanted to
know if the mental health people could guarantee that the residents of the
facility were not going to harm his child in a~y way, shape or form.
Mrs. Victoria Lopez, 1790 Holbrook, first stated that she did not think anyone
could deny the good that had transpired because of the residential care facility;
however, they were missing the whole point. Instead of coming in "under the
carpet", there should have been public and community knowledge of the situation.
The community was under mental d~ress caused by the infringement on their right
by not being told what was happening. They were dealing with human~rights.
She was a single parent with two children and one of her daughters had been
approached by one of the young men from the Singh facility and asked for a date
and later on, he came again. By increasing the amount of people at the facility,
they were increasing the chances of the incidences of violence. She urged the
Counci~t to look at every aspect--human rights and infringements upon those
rights, human feelings, lack of communication, public knowledge and education.
Mr. Richard Macklimora, 1725 Holbrook, stated he was aware that they had a
"non-normal" household in the neighborhood, but did not feel it was too much of
his business. He relayed an incident where a 20-year old man (resident of the
facility) wanted to play with his ten-year old daughter and il-year old son
which disturbed him. He maintained that lack of communication was a great deal
'of the problem. ~en Mr o Singh had a cocktail party at his house a month prior
to the Planning Commission hearing, he stated one of his managers drove a car
at 1725 Holbrook. He also stated he lived at the Tympani address where the
party was held, but now he did not reside there. He wanted to know where he
did reside. If in none of the three homes, did he have another home, and was
this a big business venture. The situation was very confusing and that also
disturbed him.
80-758
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dick Graham, 18552 Tango Avenue, Anaheim, in the County strip just a block
away from Holbrook, stated that a few months ago he was made aware of a man buying
up homes in the area and moving mentally retarded or disturbed people into those
homes. At the time, it did not bother him all that much, but today he took time
off work to research the public records, compiled for the hearing. In one of
the documents, it was noted that the County Grand Jury indicated there was not
too much anyone in any given residential community could do about anyone who
wanted to take his residence and start a residential care facility, and it was
not considered a business. He questioned when a man was grossing something in
the order of $6,000 a month off of three different homes, all in a stone's throw
of one another, if that was not a business, what was. Mr. Singh was commercializing
the neighborhood, the little three-block area in which they lived. Previous
testimony revealed that there were approximately six homes in Anaheim being
used for the subject purpose. Two were owned by Mr. Singh and a third located
a block away in County territory which could be considered a third in Anaheim.
As well, the residents of the facilities could cause harm to their children and
that had to be considered. He maintained that it was business, and it sounded
like big business.
Mr. Bob Warner, 1736 Holbrook, first submitted a complaint dated May 25, 1980,
signed by Mr. A1 Kelly, Bourbon Street Liquor manager, and Elmer Green, Plantation
Cleaners (made a part of the record), wherein they stated that tenants of both
1737 North Holbrook and 6432 Cymbal were observed loitering, shoplifting and
soliciting themselves of sexual favors for cigarettes and spending money. He
later explained for the Mayor and Councilman Overholt how he had obtained the
document which he and a neighbor prepared, but which was read and signed by Mr.
Kelly and Mr. Green. He also submitted another copy of the floor plan of the
home containing square footage figures which differed from the one submitted by
the petitioner. He had measured two homes with identical square footage and
contended that even w~th the patio facility, the square footage was only 2,089
square feet.
When he was passing the petition, he asked different people different questions.
One man who stated he worked for the City said he was under the understanding that
no care facility of any nature was allowed to administer drugs or narcotics. He
wanted to know if that were true and if they had to be medically licensed to
dispense drugs, as did Mr. and Mrs. Singh.
Mr. Warner then relayed several incidents ~nvolving tenants of the residential
care facility and elaborated on other points. He stated that the 24 hour super-
vision indicated was not true and that the tenants were allowed to roam the streets
unsupervised. In concluding, he stated they were doing a fine job with the people
living at the facility, but once the tenants left the house, he could not see any-
thing good about it.
Mr. Gary Meek, 1750 Holbrook, stated that the idea of a business in the neighborhood
concerned him and, being a parent, he was concerned for his children and also his
wife. He relayed several ~ncidents that had occurred, one where there was a
young man about 19 to 22 pounding on the fence across the street from his home
about 11:00 p.m. His wife alerted him to the fact and when he walked out to
the front yard, the young man started walking down to Orangethorpe and dis-
appeared. About three months ago when the Singhs invited them to their home
80-759
CitM Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
to explain the waiver on the building permit, he (Meek) asked Mr. Singh about
the screening' of people into the program relative to the aspect of violence. Mr.
Singh assured him that when people were screened into his program, they tried to
filter out any violent activity. When he (Meek) asked about the young man he
saw, Mr. Singh said be was under medication and he was being filtered out of
the facility, and it would take about 30 days.' Mr. Meek expressed his concern
over that time period and considered 30 days to be too long.
Mrs. Barbara LeHouil]ier, 41730 East Tanglewood, stated she was the original
homeowner in the area since 1967. She emphasized how residential their area
was and'how they raised their families there and were very pleased to be citizens
of the City. She felt at the moment that they were being deserted.
The Mayor noting that Mrs. LeHouillier was the last person to speak, concluded
testimony of those in opposition. He thereupon gave the petitioner an opportunity
to rebut, limiting such rebuttal to not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Bennett stated he would speak to particular parts: (1) The amount of money
the Singhs were making was somewhere in excess of $2,100 if they kept their house
at full maximum occupancy. Out of that, they were providing night-time and day-
time supervision entailing three eight-hour shifts, food, cleaning of clothes,
and all domestic needs. They were also both employed in that activity. (2) The
number of units located in Anaheim was approximately six of this particular size,
meaning that Anaheim was providing places for approximately 36 people. On a
State-wide average, considering the size and population of Anaheim, he did not
think the City was providing its fair share and the use should certainly be
expanded. Councilman Roth ]lad stated that the citizens were merely objecting
to the increase, but he felt the wording of the petition opposed that contention
in that they were opposed to the very existence of the facility~ The majority
of the testimony given also opposed that. Even when questioned if they were
informed or educated, how would they then feel about the facility, they still
did not want it. (3) He did not understand the confusion about the Tympani
residence. It was a house and not a residential care unit. The Singhs resided
there up until approximately the end of last month. (4) There were comments
made that the Singhs seemed to own a majority of the facilities located in
Anaheim~ Judging from the testimony he heard, letters he had read and people
he had talked to for the past couple of weeks, he would congratulate the Singhs
because they were doing a superb job. If they were capable, they should be
allowed to expand the facility. They needed people who were capable, not those
who were incompetent. (5) Periodic checks on the facility were random and
unannounced.
Councilman Roth interjected and stated that there was a 9:30 p.m. curfew~imposed
by the operators and testimony was given that someone was out of the facility
at 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Bennett stated he may have slipped out; however, he did not hear testimony
that the boy was actually a tenant of the facility?
Councilman Roth pointed out that Mr. Meek subsequently spoke to Mr. Singh who
said it was a boy that they were going to phase out in 30 days.
80-760
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES- June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bennett stated there seemed to be c~ncern about the 30-day phasing out time
period. If a person was in a mild stat,~ of rebelling to the situation, it would
take some time to phase them out. However, if they became unmanageable, they
could be removed instantly, and it did not take 30 days.
(6) Mr. Bennett continued as far as education of the people in the neighborhood,
there had been many efforts on the part of the Social Services Department to
educate people in the neighborhood which had been resisted.
Councilman Overholt asked what other efforts had been made other than the letter
sent by the Department of Social Services about a week ago.
Mr. Bennett stated that he did not know of any other efforts made by the Department,
but the Singhs had put forth efforts themselves which had fallen on deaf ears. He
also pointed o~t that there was legislation being proposed at this time to increase
the limit of the s~bject facilities to 15 residents.
(7) He had never seen anybody that could not find somebody to complain to. If
nothing else, they could call the local Police Department who could at least
refer them to the proper agency or someone who could do so. The young man
about which a complaint was made over his standing around during school hours
worked full-time for Coodwill Industries. If he was hanging out or walking around
the neighbo[hood, it was in the evening or on weekends and not during school hours.
(8) Many speakers stated they knew the place was a facility more than a month
or two weeks ago. If so, because they did not acquire or pursue it further,
it did not show a lot of concern on their part for the neighborhood. The
immediate neighbors even signed the approval for expansion until the whole
matter got snowballed.
One final point relative to the speaker who stated that the property owners felt
deserted by the City because the City was even considering a CUP, he asked what
about desertion of the people who needed the help. They could not be deserted
either and they had to weigh the interest involved as to what they owed to
those citizens as society. If those interests were weighed, they would find it
to be in favor of granting the requested permit.
Mayor Sebqnour noted that Mr. Penco had asked if any guarantee could be provided
that no harm wo~.~ld come to his family, and Mr. Warner questioned under what
authorization were drugs administered if they were being administered.
Mr. Bennett first answered that he did not know the answer to the latter question,
but as far as guaranteeing the safety of Mr. Penco's children, he could not
· guarantee the safety of his own children from people either emotionally disturbed
or normal. He pointed out that most homicides Were committed by friends.
Councilman Bay asked where Mr. Singh lived; Mr. Bennett answered that he did not
know Mr. Singh~s present address.
Mr. Kartar Singh stated that at present he lived at 6032 Cymbal in the County
area about 1000 yards away from Holbrook. They lived there while his son was
staying at Cymbal. On the 22nd of last month, his son moved to an apartment,
necessitating their move to Cymbal because they provided 24-hour supervision
both at Holbrook and Cymbal. He noted that Mr. Post was objecting to the cars
80-7~ 1
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
of the residents. Th&re was one resident at Cymbal who had a car, but he was
no longer there, and there was no resident either at Holbrook or Cymbal who
had a vehicle now. The request for the CUP was only for Holbrook. He did not
go to any of the neighbors until last night apart from the gentleman who he
had invited to his home. He then submitted letters of support from the
neighbors who could not be present (made a part of the record) one from Paul
Lovetere, 6441 Cymbal, across the street from the 6432 home, another from L.
Hutchens, 6421Cs~bal, also across the street, and one from Leland Larsen, 1841
Tympani Street, across the street from Mr. Singh's home. He also read the
letters into the record.
He explained that he had only five residents at Cymbal at present, all young
men in their 20's and he noted that their residents were not idling anywhere.
He further explained that the house at Holbrook was never locked and either
himself, his wife or someone was always there. It was not correct that they
did not supervise the facility--there was 24-hour supervision. He reiterated
they were not supposed to have locked doors and they could not put a lock in
the inside in order to detain the residents. The Fire Marshal required that
they should be able to open the door and go if necessary. Therefore, they
could leave at any time and at times it did happen and it was not possible
for anybody to check those things. Relative to property values, he felt he
should be the most concerned because he owned three homes in the area and kept
the properties in much better shape than most of his neighbors. Before con-
cluding, Mr. Singh relayed background information on one of their residents
and the progress made, emphasizing the benefits of the care being provided.
The Mayor then closed the public hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated they certainly had full input which started approximately
three and a half hours ago. The point had been made and he agreed that, in fact,
they needed to have compassion, understanding and be willing to extend themselves
to the people being cared for, such as Ms. Wolfe who pulled herself up and returned
to normal society. They needed to provide that opportunity and he felt the Council
had in the past and continued to understand the need to provide that compassion,
care, health and understanding. They all had a burden to share and the types of
difficulties they all had as human beings. He totally disagreed with Mr. Bennetts'
definition of what was a fair share. He had computed the data he asked for during
the meeting. Mr. bliller stated there were 800 to 900 facilities throughout the
State. If that were true, and if it was also true relative to the statistics
that Mr. Bailey reported regarding residential care facilities in Anaheim as
well as in the County of Orange, the facts were--Anaheim had 1.3% of all the
residential care facilities in California and Anaheim had 1% of the total
population of the State. If it were also true that there were 60 residential
car~ {acillti~s in the County as Mr. Bailey stated, Anaheim had 12, or 20%, and
the City represented 10% of the population of Orange County. Of twelve residen-
tial care facilities, Anaheim had in excess of that 10%. Actually, Orange
County carried its share of 20% of all the residential care facilities in the
State and Orange County represented approximately 20% of the State's popula-
tion. Relative to what Mr. Werelius indicated, there was a total number of 161
care facilities other than those caring for children in Orange County and he also
stated Anaheim had 20, or 12.4%. Thus, Mr. Bennett's argument relative to fair
share was totally inadequate and did not have much of a base that he could tell.
80-762
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor continued that in looking further at that particular neighborhood
involved, although they could argue whether there were two or three facilities,
assuming it was two, they were asking that neighborhood to bear more than its
fair share. The neighborhood was carrying enough of a load and Anaheim was
carrying its fair share, not that they were closing the door. Perhaps they
should be located in other neighborhoods, but this neighborhood had been under
stress, strain, duress and uncertainty, and he agreed with the people who faulted
the process in the lack of communication regarding the uses taking place in the
neighborhood which were valid, but not shared with the neighbors until there was
a need to come before a public body and ask for additional benefits. He felt
if proper education had taken place, the stress, strain and duress that had
taken place, although there would probably be some, the majority of the people
would understand and would take their fair share of the burden because they were
good citizens. He had to put himself in the shoes of the people who lived in
that neighborhood and from what he had heard, he did not blame them at all for
how they felt. They had done more than their fair share by accepting the two
facilities in that neighborhood. For those reasons, he was going to oppose the
issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 2072.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due' to the approval of the negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the property for Low-Medium Density Residential Land uses commensurate
with the proposal that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is there-
fore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 80R-263 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2972, upholding the decision of the Planning Cormnission
for the reasons they had stated, as well as the foregoing reasons he had articulated.
Refer'to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-263: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING 'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2072.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated as a parent she had an
understanding of the situation. She questioned how children could be taught to be
friendly and also be cautious with strn~ers. As responsible parents, the
residents wanted to protect their children, but it was difficult to do so
without making them paranoid. When an adult wanted to play with children, she
could understand the fears and the needs. There were so many residents involved
who owned their own homes and wanted to protect their investment and environment
and she sympathized with them. She also felt that the situation was handled
badly. While it was true that six residents were able to be approved without a
CUP, she could not watch the entire roomful of people who were so concerned and
say to them that it was okey to take in more people. She did not think it was
appropriate and would support the resolution.
Councilman Bay stated it was apparent that State and Federal action had taken
away Local controls to the extent of six people living in what he considered
by pure zoning laws a commercial operation. He did not think there had been a
80-763
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
question all night as to what was being done but a question of where it was
being done. Since the Federal and State special programs had allowed six
people into a residential neighborhood beyond the control of any local
ordinances, it was apparent they could not do anything about it, but they
could do something about issuing CUP's or setting a precedent to start granting
CUP's within residential areas all over the City. There would no doubt be a
great deal of pressure from the State, the State Supreme Court and the Federal
courts, but they were faced with those pressures all the time. He did not like
the idea of the State mandating social programs into a City and overriding its
local ordinances and rules.. From that standpoint, he was biased, not against
the program, but the way it was being done. He would definitely support the
resolution of denial and would probably support resolutions against them in the
future as they received more and more pressure being imposed upon them from
outside their own jurisdiction.
Councilman Roth stated that everything that had been said by both the Mayor and
Councilman Bay was all that was needed for him to cast his vote.
Councilman Overholt stated that he had not heard anything tonight that would
lead him to believe that the Singhs were doing other than a very good job.
However, he did not agree with Mr. Bennett when he stated because they were
doing a good job, they should be allowed to expand and that was really the
issue. They were operating under existing laws that the State Legislature im-
posed upon the City. The State decided to make it easy for facilities with
six guests who operate in cities. The Human Services Agency was then charged
with the responsibility of carrying out that law and they were interested in
finding more beds or more placements for people who needed that kind of treat-
ment'and thus they were doing their job. The Public Guardian was charged with
the responsibility of placing his wards and he also wanted to find more places
to place his people. He was talking about the system to which Mr. Singh referred.
The City Council, as its first allegiance, had to consider the citizens of the
City. That was where the agencies of government clashed. Philosophically, they
agreed with the County, the State and the Public Guardian, but he reiterated,
their first allegiance was with the citizens of the community. As the Mayor
stated, and it was obvious from the statistics, Anaheim was doing its fair
share. If not, he would have some difficult decisions to make. He also felt
that communication was the answer. He was going to support the resolution.
The Mayor also asked that the record show that his resolution of denial affirming
the.findings of the Planning Commission also took into account that the request
was amended from ten residents to eight and there would be no physical expansion
of the home.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-263 duly passed and adopted.
80-76f+
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 10, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Friday, June 13, 1980,
at 10:00 a.m., for a budget work session, with the public hearing on the budget
to be continued to June 24, 1980, at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 10:50 P.M.