1979/05/0179-463
~City ~all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma 1 1979 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
VACANCY:
PRESENT:
~he City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY LIBRARIAN: William Griffith
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Lt. Dale Wilcox
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
INVOCATION:
Invocation.
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
Reverend Warren Pittman, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and approved by the City Council:
"Medical Assistants Week" - May 14-20, 1979
"Cultural Arts Month" - May 1979
Mrs. Marilyn Ellis accepted the Medical Assistants Week proclamation.
Mrs. Vivian Englebrecht, President of the Women's Division of the Chamber of
Commerce, accepted the Cultural Arts Month proclamation.
114: SISTER CITY PROGRAM: The Mayor first announced that they were privileged
to have a portion of the delegation from Anaheim's Sister City, Mito, Japan, at
the meeting today.
Mrs. Betty Lillis, Co-chairman of the Sister City Program and the Anaheim Carousel
of Music, then introduced several of the principals in the Mito delegation, Mrs.
Tashiko Nakisawa, Mr. Nakisawa, Mr. Takiushi and their interpreter, Mr Tony
Boyse. ·
119: RESOLUTION OF C£NGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was adopted
by the City Council and presented jointly by the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood
to Suzanne M. DeLesk in appreciation for her work on the Youth Commission during
her tenure on that commission.
119: PRESENTATION: Orange County Supervisor Ralph Clark read and presented a
resolution to Thornton E. Piersall, Executive Director of Public Works, joining
the Orange County Civil Engineers and the Chicago-based American Public Works
79-464
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Association in honoring the successes and achievements of Mr. Piersall, an
outstanding engineer and individual, who was selected as one of the Nation's
top ten Public Works leaders of the year by the American Public Works Association.
167: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND LOARA STREET: Mayor
Seymour referred to report dated April 19, 1979 from the City Engineer
recommending denial of the request by the Orangewood Homeowners Association
for stop signs on Orangewood Avenue at Loara Street. He asked the Traffic
Engineer if he wished to elaborate on the recommendation.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he did not have anything to add to
the detailed report (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mr. Francis Hammett, 1548 West Orangewood, stated he had been a resident on that
street since 1947 when it was a two-lane road. The street also ended and then
started again at nine different places; however, it was now a long through
street and as each new section was joined, the speed of traffic and noise
increased, and it was dangerous. Since there were two schools in the community,
the residents wanted reconsideration given to the request for the installation
of stop signs in order to slow the traffic down.
Discussion followed between Council and staff, for purposes of clarification,
relative to the number of stop signs being requested at the conclusion of which,
Supervisor Clark stated that the dual intersection already had a two-way stop
located at Loara and Orangewood. The requested signs would stop Orangewood
traffic primarily for the crosswalk, moreso than for the cross traffic on
Loara and thus it would be a four-way stop. The designated crosswalk which
had been there for years was subject to a great deal of speeding, terrorizing
children trying to cross the street. It was fortunate that there had not been
other than accidents at the corner and no children had been hit. There was a
school on either side of the street with constant traffic in between. It was
the only place between Euclid and Ninth Street for people to cross Orangewood,
and it was a total residential area. The street had been widened to a four-lane
arterial, and it had lost its designation of a residential area.
It had even been suggested that an activated signal be installed for pedestrian
traffic with a cost to the City of approximately $75,000. He did not believe
it qualified for such an expenditure, but a simple boulevard stop would suffice.
The main purpose of the request was to stop traffic for the people living in
the area, and it was the only type of protection he could think of within reason
and that would not cost much money. If problems arose as indicated by the
Traffic Engineer, then those could be corrected. He respectfully requested
that the Council honor the request of his fellow Orangewood homeowners and
others in the area. There was 100% cooperation from the people in the area
who asked that he appear before the Council and support them in their request.
Mr. Robert Loman, 1602 West Orangewood, stated he was in favor of the stop signs.
He had dedicated a good portion of his property for the widening of Orangewood
Avenue but he was not willing to dedicate his life to the traffic going by.
Councilman Overholt noted in the report that the request was treated as a four-
way stop sign, but there was two-way protection at present. He wanted to know
how that affected the Traffic Engineer's statistics.
79-465
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1,~. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Singer explained that a three-/or four-way stop had the same criteria. A
four-way warrant applied to a full-stop intersection.
Councilman Overholt stated, as he understood, it was a request for two more
stop signs to protect the crosswalk already on Orangewood, since traffic was
already stopped on Loara; Mr. Singer stated that Councilman Overholt's under-
standing was correct.
The Mayor stated he appreciated Mr. Singer's recommendation and factually he was
certain the recommendation to deny the request was appropriate as a staff recom-
mendation. However, the Council's responsibility was to go beyond the technical
aspects of the decision and look more to the safety and protection of that cross-
walk.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the request of the Orangewood Home-
owners Association for the installation of stop signs on Orangewood Avenue at
Loara Street. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that normally she would act
according to what they had done traditionally. She had travelled the area to see
the widening of Orangewood Avenue and her feeling was that when people discovered
they could travel between Brookhurst and Euclid without stopping, the amount
of traffic would increase tremendously, and it could be a bad situation if
traffic was not slowed down at least halfway. She thus favored the request to
approve the stop signs.
Councilman Overholt felt that the report was a good one, but he had reservations
because now Orangewood Avenue was a four-lane thoroughfare. He thus shared
the views expressed by the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood that it was a new
situation and the people crossing Orangewood Avenue deserved the protection.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
119: PRESENTATION - GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNCIL ON DEAFNESS (GLAD): Mr. Brent
Nowak, Project Director of a newly established branch office of GLAD, through
the voice of an interpreter, explained that they had opened an office in Santa Ana
in January, the purpose of which was to provide all types of services to meet
the needs and rights of the hard-of-hearing in Orange County. They had five
outreach offices - one in the Valley, San Gabriel, Los Angeles, South Central
Los Angeles, and Orange County. Ail services provided were at no charge to the
client. He then elaborated upon the services that were available through his
offices, his main purpose was to let the Council know of the services to the deaf
and hard-of-hearing in Orange County with the hope that they would spread the
word to the appropriate people and agencies. They were looking forward to
developing a relationship with Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour welcomed GLAD to Orange County.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was adopted by
the City Council to be presented to Daniel Domico for him many contributions to
the Italian/Americans of the community and Orange County and upon the 21st
anniversary of Anaheim Lodge No. 206 founded in 1958 by the principal organizer,
Mr. Domico, and the dedication of the new hall at Anaheim Lodge No. 2076.
79-466
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of ail ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. One
vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,562,816.61 in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. '
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution Nos. 79R-238 through 79R-242, both inclusive as recommended by the
City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
175: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL A21D
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: CONSTRUCTION OF 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINES, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-668-6328-73520-36400 (A.S. Shulman Electric Company,
$224,884) '
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT THE
INTERSECTION OF CERRITOS AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4130. (Steiny and Company, $51,766)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
ACACIA STREET, ANNA DRIVE AND LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 01-795-6325-5110. (Steiny and Company, $28,000)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
LA PALMA AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-
6325-5120. (Steiny and Company, $46,364)
79-467
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AGATE STREET AND BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5100.
(Steiny and Company, $35,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-238 through 79R-242, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
123: E. RAY NOXSEL--OFFICE SPACE FOR CETA SERVICES DIVISION: Councilman Overholt
offered Resolution No. 79R-243 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated
May 1, 1979 from the Human Resources Dirctor, Garry McRae approving an amendment
of a lease agreement with E. Ray Noxsel to extend the term of the agreement to
May 31, 1980 and to increase the rental costs from $1,000 per month to $1,200
per month. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-243: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND E. RAY NEXSEL DBA NOXSEL'S INVESTMENT COMPANY FOR THE LEASE
OF OFFICE SPACE FOR THE CETA SERVICES DIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-243 duly passed and adopted.
174: NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM AND ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER
COMMISSION: CounCilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-244 for adoption as
recommended in memorandum dated May 1, 1979 from the Human Resources Director
approving a non-financial agreement with the North Orange County ROP Program and
the Orange County Manpower Commission outlining the duties and responsibilities
of each party, pertaining to the CETA Training Program. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-244: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION, AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL
OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
79-468
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-244 duly passed and adopted.
123: PLACENTIA LIBRARY DISTRICT LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM SERVICES:
Council-
woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-245 for adoption as recommended in mem-
orandum dated April 20, 1979 from the City Librarian William Griffith, approving
an agreement with the Placentia Library District to provide library circulation
system services to the District. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-245: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AHAIEM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLACENTIA LIBRARY
DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-245 duly passed and adopted.
123: RAMPART STREET WATER MAIN: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-246
for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated April 25, 1979 from the General
Manager of Public Utilities Gordon Hoyt approving an agreement with Anaheim-
Garden Grove-Orange Fire Training Facility Authority, to reimburse said authority
for installing certain footage of water main as part of the secondary distri-
bution system in the area of Rampart Street and Orangewood Avenue, in accor-
dance with Rule 15A5 of the Water Utility Rates Rules and Regulations. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM - GARDEN GROVE -
ORANGE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY AUTHORITY, A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, TO REIMBURSE
SAID AUTHORITY FOR INSTALLING CERTAIN FOOTAGE OF WATER MAIN AS PART OF THE SEC-
ONDARY DISTRICUTION SYSTEM IN THE AREA OF RAMPART STREET AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overhoit, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-246 duly passed and adopted.
79-469
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
173: SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SOUTH OF
PACIFICO STREET: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-247 for adoption
as recommended in memorandum dated April 24, 1979 from the City Engineer William
Devitt, approving an agreement with the Southern Pacific Transportation Company,
granting the City the right to recontruct, maintain and operate a manhole on
the property of said company, located south of Pacifico Street, near South
Anaheim Boulevard. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-247: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AHAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, GRANTING TO THE CITY THE RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN
AND OPERATE A MANHOLE ON THE PROPERTY OF SAID COMPANY AT OR NEAR SOUTH ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD, OPPOSITE ENGINEER'S STATION 1285+30, MILE POST 512.71.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-247 duly passed and adopted.
161/174: MULTIPURPOSE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER - ACQUISITION OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL SITE:
Mayor Seymour first gave the historical background leading up to the proposed
acquisition of the Washington School site for a Multipurpose Neighborhood Center
(see memorandum dated April 24, 1979 from the Community Development Department
and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department). The establishment of
a Center was a long time promise of the City Council to provide such a Center in
the downtown area. If approved, it would be the first step towards purchase of
the site and the renovation into a complete Multipurpose Neighborhood Center.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overhoit, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
Community Development Department was directed to take the necessary steps to acquire
the Washington School Facility from the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for the
purpose of a Multipurpose Neighborhood Center in the amount not to exceed $530,000
and to authorize the use of an amount not to exceed $14,OOO in Community Development
Block Grant contingency funds for this purpose. Councilman Roth abstained.
One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
103: MOHLER DRIVE NO. 7 ANNEXATION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-248
for adoption as recommended in memorandum received April 25, 1979 from the Plan-
ning Department, requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to commence
proceedings on the proposed Mohler Drive No. 7 Annexation, 1.4 acres located
on the south side of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Mohler Drive Refer to
Resolution Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS MOHLER DRIVE NO. 7 ANNEXATION.
79-470
City Hal. ix Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1,. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-248 duly passed and adopted.
123: WILBUR SMITH AND ASSOCIATES--STUDY OF THE LIBRARY/POLICE PARKING LOT:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-249 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated April 20, 1979 from the City Librarian, approving an amend-
ment to an agreement with Wilbur Smith and Associates, extending the term thereof
to April 30, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-249: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH WILBUR
SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC., CONCERNING TECHNICAL SERVICES RELATING TO PARKING
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC LIBRARY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT OT THE AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-249 duly passed and adopted.
123: PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT--CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA: Councilwoman
Kaywood questioned whether there should be a greater breakdown than merely
$1,500 for professional entertainment, which was the last item on the April 19,
1979 expense account submitted by the People for Community Development Com-
mittee (PFCD) relative to the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta.
Mayor Seymour stated that he could speak to that since both he and Councilman
Roth had attended the Fiesta. He had no doubt from what he observed that there
was easily $1,500 worth of expenditures for antartatnment and that was the
amount on which the Council indicated their support for activities or costs
incurred, other than religious.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-250 for adoption, approving an
agreement with the People for Community Development Committee in connection
with the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
79-471
City Hall., Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, K~ywood, Roth and Seymour
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-250 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (2:40 P.M.)
108: BINGO GAMES - ORDINANCE NO. 4001: The Mayor first asked for a show of
hands as to how many were present relative to the subject. There was a large
number in the Chamber audience interested in the Bingo matter, as well as those
who wished to speak on that issue.
City Attorney William P. Hopkins briefed the Council on his report dated April 25,
1979 relative to the creation of a Bingo Operators Association (on file in the
City Clerk's office). He also briefed the Council on the proposed ordinance
which was based upon the County of Orange Bingo Ordinance limiting the conduction
of Bingo games to two days during any seven-day period, as well as other provisions
upon which he elaborated. He also noted that the City Manager's office had
additional recommendations.
Assistant City Manager William T. Hop~cins stated in February s.taff presented to the
Council three basic recommendations, one of which was already covered by the
County Ordinance, but staff recommended a limit of one day a week instead of
two. The other two not contained in the County Ordinance were (1) that the
license fee be required to be issued semi-annually, rather than annually, at $50
each time and, (2) any license fee having gross receipts in excess of $100,000 a
year be required to have an independent audit made of their operations. At
the time the issue was brought before the Council, most of the violations were
those reported as a result of the City's internal audit report. Up to March 1~
1979, no arrests had been made, but since that time, arrests had been made based
both upon Penal Code sections of the State Law and the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Lt. Dale Wilcox reported that a number of arrests had been made since the last
hearing in March and a total of 64 violations were filed. Some arrests had
been made by warrant but they had not been through the court system with
those arrests at this time.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins pointed out that the preponderance of the violations
occurred in those operations that were five days a week, and there were none in
terms of one day a week operations.
The Mayor then invited the public to speak on the matter.
79-472
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.~.
Mr. Larry C. Anderson, attorney, 16168 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, stated
that approximately 60 days ago, the Council asked his assistance on behalf of
the potential association members of Bingo in the City. They were asked to put
together an association which would comply with voluntary self-restrictions
enforcing Bingo. At that time, the City Attorney did not mention the fact that
he considered any attempts along those lines to be specious and the first he
knew the City Attorney had taken that position was through an article in the
Bulletin that morning. Councilman Overholt had asked specifically that he (Anderson)
assist on behalf of the profession in the formation of by-laws and goals for
the association. Mayor Seymour indicated at that time that he also desired
that they do something about self-enforcement. It came as a shock to him that
his efforts were completely useless and without effect, consuming 60 days and
8 meetings with various members of the group.
Mr. Anderson continued that when talking about Bingo in Anaheim, they were
talking about the large games and not the small. The City Manager indicated
that the changes proposed were necessary in order to control Bingo in the City,
and it was surprising to him that with the powers given the City Manager, why
he did not use those powers to shut games down. He cited several sections of
the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) which to his knowledge had never been used
except for Section 7.34.080 providing for revocation of a Bingo license, sub--
sequent to a hearing. The only case he knew of was that involving his client,
Colonial Manor, over a year ago. Further, although charges had been brought,
there had been no convictions that led to the suspension of a license. He then
elaborated further on that aspect.
Mr. Anderson stated he spoke for Colonial Manor and approximately a year ago the
Mayor suggested a solution was to bring the people under one roof. Subsequently
his client did sublease the two tenants and there had been no violations even
alleged involving either one of those two subtenants. There had been one vio-
lation alleged during that period of time involving Colonial Manor wherein there
was no identification tag on a Bingo manager and full identification was lacking
on some of the people selling tickets. That had since been corrected. However,
the matter was proceeding to hearing and there was an offer of settlement of a
$50 fine, which was hardly significant.
Mr. Anderson noted there had been suggestions changing the ordinance to include
an audit if income was over $100,000 a year. They never had objections to that
auditing system and would comply and suggested that it be enforced. He then
explained that there were two types of organizations operating Bingo and a
third should be mentioned. Under Section 326.5 of the Penal Code, Bingo could
be on a charge basis, but previous to the passage of that Section it was un-
lawful to conduct a lottery. Bingo was a type of lottery by the drawing of
a series of numbers resulting in a winner. Those games not requiring payment,
on which there was an attorney general's opinion, did not fall within 326.5.
He understood that one group about to come before the Council was not charging
for tickets. If not, they would fall within Section 319 of the Penal Code, and
there would be no need for a license pursuant to 326.5. There were also two
other type groups falling within the purchased tickets type Bingo designated
as "D" numbers. A Revenue and Taxation Code stating that an organization was
exempt from paying certain types of taxe~ provided that group unlimited overhead.
79-473
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
All other groups had an overhead limit of $500 a month which led to the question
of percentages going to charity and the amount of money they could anticipate
in return on Bingo. One-third of the money taken in went back out that same
night. Of the remaining two-thirds, one-half went to overhead for the facilities
and the remaining 50% of the net proceeds to direct services - charitable work.
That figure was much higher than one would anticipate on a donation basis. He
cited as an example giving a donation to the Red Cross where approximately 15 to
25% goes to direct services because of their administrative overhead costs,
whereas their costs of operation were lower. He used that as an example to
show that figures were being misused and clarified that he always spoke for
his particular client, Colonial Manor.
Mr. Anderson continued that it was important to understand that each of the
members had a license individually, whereas attempts had been made to lump them
all together. If the City used the ability it had right now to take licenses
away from the "bad guys", they would have no problem with the alleged five-day
operators because there would not be any five-day illegal operators. As well,
no one had ever established any gang-related influence relative to Bingo.
There were a number of provisions suggested before the Council today, one of
those being a restriction as to the number of days a week involving operation
in Anaheim and any other City. A like ordinance was passed by the Board of
Supervisors, but that did not necessarily make it logical° It was their alle-
gation that the five to seven groups that were operating five days a week were
going to be corrected by procedures already available to the City. He referred
to his letter of April 18, 1979 submitted to the Council, City Attorney, City
Manager, City Clerk and others, asking Zor a meeting so that they might get some
input. He did talk to the City Manager who was vague about what he was going to
do. He suggested that the City Council might refer them back to staff for
further consultation. He would have liked the opportunity to review the ordin-
ance with staff. At present, the License Division required that a license be
filed naming a Bingo manager and an alternate. There was no provision under the
AMC for alternate Bingo managers, but the License Division decided to interpret
that in their own way. That was one of the small problems. The senior citizens
of Anaheim, not to be associated with the National Senior Citizens because it
was not the same group, were coming before the Council on another problem relative
to a lack of insight into the difference between Sections 319 and 326.5.
In concluding, Mr. Anderson conceded that the Council had a diffcult problem. He
felt they had dealt fairly with at least Colonial Manor at the hearing on July 25,
1978 (see minutes that date). He urged the Council to do something, since they
had the ability to shut operations down and take care of the problem without ever
having to step into the matter.
Councilman Roth stated that he presumed Mr. Anderson's basic objection to the
proposed ordinance was the two-day limitation, and he also asked if there was
any other city in Orange County that allowed Bingo to play five days a week besides
Anaheim.
79-474
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Anderson first confirmed that their main objection was to the two-day
limitation and secondly he stated he did not know if there were any other
cities where Bingo was played five days a week.
Councilman Overholt questioned Mr. Anderson on the distribution of gross receipts
which added up to more than 100%.
Mr. Anderson explained that one-third of the gross money taken in at the door
in ticket sales went back out the door as prizes. The remaining two-thirds
were split into two groups 50-50. Their experience had been that 33% was the
net on the gross income. One half of what was left at the end of the night on
an average basis went for charitable purposes.
Councilman Overholt then stated that one-third went to players, one-third to
overhead and one-third to charity; Mr. Anderson stated that was correct.
Mr. Anderson than explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that relative to his fees,
he'was on a retainer basis at present, whereas that was not the case at the outset.
His fee varied between $1000 and sometimes as high as $5000 a month depending on
the type of work done in any one month, but on no occasion had it exceeded that
top figure. His fees did not come out of the overhead. Under Section 326.5,
Bingo proceeds must be held until the overhead cleared, prizes paid, and then
the net proceeds devoted to charitable purposes. His fees came from the Colonial
Manor General Fund.
Mayor Seymour posed two questions - first he wanted clarification that Mr. Andersot
main concern for his client was relative to the proposed ordinance amendment
reducing Bingo from five days to two days.
Mr. Anderson confirmed that the reduction in the number of days was of primary
concern. He continued that there were always going to be problems when operating
a volunteer organization. He maintained that the suggestion to ban all paid
employees would be appropriate because he had to advise his client on numerous
occasions relative to the controversy of comingling of funds because it would
be impossible to do that effectively.
Mayor Seymour then referred to Mr. Anderson's remark that if the ordinance
presently on the books were enforced, they would not be present today. Regarding
that aspect, he was well aware and it was brought out at the last meeting that
the City, without increasing taxation of one form or another, was not in a posititon
to hire officers to work exclusively on Bingo operations. In that regard, it
was suggested that a volunteer association be approved and in reading over their
approach in the by-laws, he saw nothing that stated if they were go with that
approach, how the taxpayers of the community would not have to bear the cost of
additional policing and auditing as a result of trying to enforce the ordinance
as it presently existed.
Mr. Anderson stated, in any type of policing situation, he did not think there
was any way that they would not bear some of the burden and responsibility as
a governmental entity and pass that burden on to all citizens. He then explained
for Councilman Roth that although the reduction down to two days would not cause
Colonial Manor to close down, it would mean an approximate loss of well over 75%
79-475
.~it¥ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - b~y 1, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
of their programs, which he explained in greater detail. They would still attempt
to survive even if it meant cutting back, and it would mean they would have to
pursue every possible alternative to funding and the type of funding that might
lead to subsequent conflicts. Obviously there was a potential for opening a
Bingo operation without licensing and raffles or whatever processes were
necessary. It would mean a loss of services and unfortunately they were lumped
in with some groups that were alleged not to be offering services to the community.
Trudy (no last name given), Widows' Anonymous, 423 North Anaheim Boulevard, stated
she was very concerned about the situation because they operated two days a
week, one day at Colonial Manor and another at a small facility on Euclid Street
with a capacity of 50, which they re~'ently opened on February 17 with Saturday
afternoon games. They had a budget of $2,000 a month expenses to meet. If the
Council considered the recommendation of not allowing them to have a landlord,
they would be buried. They needed a landlord, whether Mr. Rose or whoever.
If it was not for Colonial Manor, they could not survive. They had problems
and they needed help. She confirmed for Councilman Roth their home office was
in Anaheim established a year ago November when they signed the original lease.
Mayor Seymour asked if at the location with a capacity of 50 if she was running
that game at a loss.
Trudy answered "yes" because it was the only thing that paid their rent for a year
and now that they were at Colonial Manor on Saturday, they had an opportunity to
catch up on some of their bills. The small game covered the rent where they held
their meetings.
Dr. Harry Volkowitz, 670 Pamela Lane~ Pomona, agreed with the statements made by
Mr. Anderson that the laws were already established and should be used and those
that were guilty, put out of the Bingo operation. The City Manager and Police
Department indicated anticipated enforcement expenses of $57,000 a year, and it
added to their expenses when they had to use a helicopter, a motorcycle patrolman,
two police cars and officers to arrest he and his wife on assumed misdemeanor
charges. The police arrested his wife, who was 58 years old and who had never
been arrested, and subjected her to a very extensive search. The public was
entitled to know that on any charge on which they could be arrested in Anaheim,
they could be subjected to such a humiliating search. They tried to operate a
good clean Bingo game which was an entertainment people enjoyed. Since the police
started in March or April to bring about arrests on assumed charges, they did
not have to worry about operating five days a week because their first three
days of operations during April, they had to go back into the bank in order to
pay for the prizes. They had gone from 300 to 400 people at a sitting to 177
or 217 because patrons were afraid of being arrested or harassed by the police.
They wanted some consideration and were willing to operate three days a week
~nstead of five since they were losing two or three days a week now. They
wanted to be able to make the payments they had committed themselves to on a
$195,000 piece of property in Riverside. Although he personally had a residence
in Anaheim, as a church, they could not afford rent in Orange County.
In answer to a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilmen
Roth and Overholt, Dr. Volkowitz relayed the following: he gave a Pomona address,
670 Pamela Lane, where they held services. He also maintained a residence in
Anaheim at 300 West Katella, a mobile home park, Space No. 4. No games were
79-476
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
held at that address, but at 3168 West Lincoln, Center For Universal Self-
Awareness, which was the name of their Bingo operation. Regardless of what
the newspaper may have stated, they had a tax exemption from the IRS issued
to the Universal Life Church, and they were a congregation of Universal Life
Church in Modesto. In order to form a church, it was necessary to have three
members, a president, a secretary and a treasurer, which was permissible by the
Constitution of the United States. They were given tax exempt status as long
as they would abide by certain of the IRS rules and were a congregation of
that church. They were not a separate church but a congregation of the Univer-
sal Life Church and it was not required to have a certain number of members.
They conducted church services and lectures not only at his home, but also at
3168 West Lincoln.
Prior to their arrests, their gross a month from Bingo activities was approximately
$4,000 to $5,000 a week. He was not talking about gross, but was going by what he
retained. Staff interjected and stated that the operation was making approximately
$100,000 a month gross. Dr. Volkowitz stated he did not know what the gross had
been since he was arrested and would have to look at the figures.
Ms. Joyce Nethery, 6796 East Kentucky, stated that she was present to speak on
behalf of John Morrell, and stated she was the Finance Director with Project
TLC Feedback Foundation of Orange County which had 21 centers in the County.
There were three senior citizens' nutrition centers in Anaheim, the main
centers were at the Salvation Army building (Anaheim No. 2) and the other at ~
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, Orange and Magnolia (Anaheim No. 1). As the
Council was aware, they had to have a drastic cut back in meals for seniors.
They received a donation from Mr. Morrell, National Association of Senior Citizens
(NASC) of $11,000 to reinstate the meals that were cut back in Anaheim. Their
Board of Directors had voted to authorize a TLC Center at the NASC location
on Brookhurst where Mr. Morrell had held Bingo games and that Center would be
the same as the other centers. They would staff it and Mr. Morrell would pay
for all the meals, staff and services. They discussed the situation with the
California Department of Aging and there was a desperate need to serve more
seniors in Anaheim. Mr. Morrell's was the best offer they had and they were
deeply indebted for having the meals reinstated. They were anxious to open
the new center because of the seniors they had on their waiting list. She
then confirmed for Councilman Roth that $10,000 was given to them by Mr. Morrell
about a month ago and just recently another $1,000. The $10,000 was to cover
the meals they over-served in Orange County over last year's budget which
ended March 30. The additional $1,000 would assist with the new counseling
program and transportation for seniors who needed one-on-one counseling and
to reinstate the meals in Anaheim previously cut back. There was also another
donation of approximately $200 directly from seniors who had won Bingo prizes
in order to help with the meals at the seniors' center. The $11,000 was received
in the last 30 days.
Mr. Frank Black, 19121 Amethyst, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino, Executive
Director of Hope House Corporation, stated cutting back on Bingo would not
entirely affect Hope House because they operated three days a week and he did
not have a problem with that. His concern was the same as Widow's Anonymous
relative to the landlord aspect. The cost of entering negotiation for a lease
79-477
C.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1.~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
of a building profitable enough to generate revenue could be staggering.
Another of his concerns and the reason for his appearing before the Council
was to vindicate Hope House in regard to comments made about the corporation
in a recent newspaper article. Hope House was the only adult drug abuse
program accredited by Probation in Orange County and, contrary to the article
indicating that they had a revolving phone number which transferred to the
residential treatment program, an investigation would have shown that they
had an ongoing phone number directly from 423 North Anaheim Boulevard. It
was also not entirely true that Hope House was denied a license in-Los Angeles
County. They quit pursuing a license in Los Angeles when they were offered a
lease in Anaheim. Their doors were open 24 hours a day, and he had ten staff
people and an active Board of Directors. They never went into the Bingo
business with the intent of chiseling anybody or stealing, although the possi-
bilities were there. Their books were open, doors were open and yet no one
had come through although he was certain they had been watched by the Police
Department. Bingo had given their program a source of revenue so that they
did not have to beg or go to the Board of Supervisors to ask for anything.
He was a little concerned that he saw it coming to a close. Kids would still
be running the streets and there would still be drugs, addicts, etc. He
believed that Hope House had taken serious steps in changing that situation.
Mr. Frank Rose, 322 Mohler Avenue, President of the Board of Directors of
Colonial Manor Halfway Houses, stated that the last time he appeared before
the Council, he did not feel there was any wrongdoing and questioned why
anybody would jeopardize the large revenue generated by Bingo. To cheat the
players was to run off customers. He noted that the odds in Bingo were 6,000
to 1 against the player. Considering those numbers, he felt that any five
day a week operation in Anaheim would be within 5% of Colonial Manor's gross.
He felt there was wrongdoing in Bingo, but cutting the days would not cure it.
If all he had to do was make payments on the Elks Lodge building, he could go
to two days a week. He was not merely interested in making mortgage payments,
but interested in helping people. He then elaborated upon the services provided
by Colonial Manor Halfway Houses. He did not like his organization being lumped
with other people accused of wrongdoing. If they had done wrong, it was not
his problem. If Bingo was going to be cut to one or two days, the City was
going to lose what little control it had, because then they were going to run
donation Bingo and there was an Attorney General's opinion on that. He stated
that Bingo had never been illegal in California. There was a possibility of
a class action suit, but he would not sue no matter what the City might do.
Mr. Rose continued he wanted to know how they were going to control Bingo on
a donation basis where there was no need co be licensed. They had 600 to 700
in Santa Ana running on a donation basis~ In that case, it was possible to pay
workers because they were exempt from Section 326.5 of the Penal Code. There
was no accoUntability for the monies with accountability only to the Attorney
General and not local government and ~hat was what would happen in the County.
If Bingo was going to be corrupt on five days a week, the same would be true
for one day a week. Stealing would occur in the small organizations and not
in the large operations. People who had complaints would have to sign
79-478
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
complaints. If they were going to cut it down, he suggested cancelling it out
100% because then the people who had legitimate organizations could survive
on their membership playing Bingo. He concluded by reiterating that Bingo
remain at five days a week or that it be isolated altogether.
Councilman Overholt then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Rose relative to
donation Bingo.
Mr. Rose explained donation Bingo was one where only members of an organization
could be allowed in. Those members would then contribute, rather than pay for
their Bingo cards. However, if the member demanded a card free, he could get
that card and thus if Bingo was operated in that manner, there would be no
control over it. Regarding the difference between a membership game and
donation Bingo, membership was used in order to control the people coming in.
It would be necessary to be a member of the organization before being able to
enter the building, but once there, it was predicated on donation. Instead of
selling $10 worth of Bingo cards, patrons would be asked to donate, and 99% would
donate $10. If they did not donate, they would still get a card because if
they were not given a card, they would be in violation of the lottery acts. Some
charged for that membership, but the cards could be given out without charge and
if so, they were still entitled to play Bingo, and they were not legally req~,ired
to donate to the Bingo operation.
Mr. Rose also explained that they had members in their organization now, and they
had been giving membership cards away for approximately the last month. Before
that, they were selling the cards for $1 each, approximatley 4000 of them. Prior
to that time, they had 22,000 members and it was a lifetime membership. He
then explained for Councilman Overholt their motivation for giving memberships
away.
Mr. John Morrell, 471 South Brookhurst, President of the Anaheim Chapter of the
National Association for Senior Citizens, stated in their Chapter, they had
donated to the City's day care center for the handicapped which was cut back
by Proposition 13. They also donated some of their proceeds from Bingo for
the Anaheim Senior Citizens group on Chartres and also to the TLC Feedback
Foundation as explained. They were also undertaking to fund the Anaheim
Senior Citizens Health Fair, an in-house project of an extended care center, the
Eden Rock Convalescent Group, and arts and crafts activities program and also
in-house, Stop Gap a theater arts group appearing in their Bingo Club. They
would be a full-fledged center for project TLC serving between 100 and 300 meals,
transportation, lunch and counseling to elderly people. He noted that the
Feedback Foundation approached them for help. He also explained that Proposition
13 had not yet had the impact on the elderly that would be experienced in the
future. They needed Bingo as their fund raising mechanism, and he questioned
whether they could operate on two days a week as being recommended.
Mr. Don Lafon, 456 Bent, Laguna Beach, stated he represented Stop Gap, the Senior
Theater Outreach Program for generational and aging problems. He then explained
the work of their orgainization which dealt with such things as using theater as
a tool in working with people who were stroke victims or had brain damage from othE
79-479
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
catastrophic diseases, socialization programs and special therapists to bring
speech back and the problems created by the breakup of the nuclear family in the
United States. They were presently operating under a CETA grant which would be
running out.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were approached by the National Association
for Senior Citizens or vice versa.
Mr. Lafon stated that they researched the program. He was working with one
colleague at present and thus they could only reach five different Centers in
Orange County. They chose the Anaheim Center because they thought it was out-
standing and should have their services. NASC was not funding them as of the
moment, but it had given money to the Center in which they were working. He
emphasized they were not receiving money directly in the Center in which they
were working, and it would not be possible to continue without that Center's
funding.
Mr. Frank Cannes, Lincoln Center Mobilehome Park, 9080 Bloomfield, Space 231,
stated he was an alcoholic and a drug addict and Bingo had saved him. He went
to a program for assistance in San Diego that was funded by Bingo. Basically,
Bingo games were run by recovery homes. If Bingo was taken out of Anaheim or
Orange County, the programs offered by those homes would have to go other places
and consequently they would be putting alcoholics and addicts in the streets.
Mrs. Eileen Anthony, 1345 Adele, first took issue with the statements made by Mr.
Anderson when speaking about the Red Cross and salaries. She pointed out that
in Orange County Red Cross had 28 employe~s and over 850 volunteers and she did
not feel it was necessary to elaborate upon the volunteer services provided by
the Red Cross. She then referred to the TLC program and asked if it was federally
funded and, if so, why did the program need Bingo money? In fact, half the
programs mentioned were federally funded.
Mayor Seymour stated he recently spoke with the person TLC county-wide who
explained that funds were tight because CETA positions had been used to fund
many of the volunteer positions and thus she was pressing the City for some
funding. Thus, TLC was not totally federally funded.
Councilman Roth stated that the kitchen facilities at the Salvation Army were
utilized frae by Anaheim's No. 2 (TLC).
Councilwoman Kaywood reported that when she was at the 3rd anniversary of Anaheim
Club No. 1 (St. Paul's), one of the people stated that with Proposition 13, they
were doing better because more people who had received their cuts in property
tax were being generous.
Mayor Seymour then asked Lt. Wilcox or the City Attorney to speak to the issue
of donation Bingo.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the Bingo they were dealing with was originally
considered to be a lottery and there were three elements to the lottery, a prize,
distribution by chance, and consideration. The provision of Penal Code Section
326.5 exempted Bingo from the lottery provisions of the Code. If there was a
79-480
qi.ty Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
prize, distribution by chance and consideration, it was Bingo and subject to
326.5. If one of those elements was removed, then it was not Bingo, and they
were not talking about something falling under the provision of 326.5.
Lt. Wilcox stated they found when Bingo was played prior to the initiation of
326.5, the three elements were present, and thus there were violations of the
law and action was taken accordingly. One of the elements must be removed and
if not, it became an enforcement problem. In talking about membership, it was
necessary to be a member in order to gain entrance to the building and that was
part of the consideration, and thus that consideration was not removed. If they
removed the chance, then there was no Bingo because Bingo was a game of chance.
If the prizes were removed, no one would want to play. The one element had not
been removed in the past.
Mayor Seymour stated he was looking for some assurance if the Council were to
amend the ordinance as proposed, what assurance could be given they would not be
opening up other problems.
Lt. Wilcox stated he did not believe he could give that assurance and that there
was a violation of law in what had been reported relative to donation Bingo.
If all three elements were present, there was a violation of the lottery law
and that would become an enforcement problem.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the main point was consideration and each
case would have to be judged on its own merits. If they found consideration
was being paid, prizes, and a game of chance, there was a violation of the law.
If they were not charging anyone anything to walk in and play Bingo, there was
not a violation of the law.
Mayor Seymour asked if that scheme were used in Anaheim, would Lt. Wilcox, as
well as the City Attorney, be recommending that they take it to court.
Mr. Hopkins stated that Lt. Wilcox would be requested to take enforcement
action and a court case would be engaged in. A decision by the court would
be necessary and the recommendation would be to prosecute.
Councilman Overholt stated that Lt. Wilcox talked in terms of membership in
and of itself being consideration under the lottery act. Therefore, he wanted
to know if someone became a member without paying a membership fee, could that
alone be determined consideration under the lottery act.
Lt. Wilcox answered "yes" and he did not believe that money had anything to do
with it. If there was consideration, it did not say monetary consideration.
Councilman Overholt continued that as Mr. Rose stated, if they had given 4000
memberships away in the last 30 days, those members in his opinion (Wilcox)
constituted consideration under the lottery act.
Lt. Wilcox answered he believed that would be true, as well as any memberships
that might have been sold prior to that.
79-481
City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hopkins stated it would be a matter for a court to decide. He had read
the Attorney General's opinion and did not recall that specific terminology
being used. What he did recall was that if there was no consideration, then
it was not Bingo. Donation was a term that they would have to submit to the
court as to whether or not consideration was involved. If there was a donation
and anyone could walk in and play with or without a donation, he would say
there was no consideration, but if it was merely a subterfuge, then it was his
opinion the court would hold it was a lottery.
Mr. Anderson stated he believed the City Attorney was referencing the Attorney
General's opinion on July 19, 1978 from Santa Clara County as to what elements
were necessary to fall within the lottery provisions of Section 319 of the Penal
Code. It had been correctly stated by the City Attorney that it required a
prize, an element of chance and consideration. In that particular case, it
applied itself to payment and it did not directly make reference to consideration.
The assumptions about consideration being membership with that membership being
a prerequisite to taking part in the Bingo, was an assumption for the purpose
of the question. Assuming that would be mandatory, he felt it would lean toward
a consideration and probably would violate Section 319.
Mayor Seymour stated then that Mr. Anderson's feeling was the way Colonial Manor
distributed some 4000 memberships in the last month, if the City Council were
to reduce the number of days to two days, they could probably go to a "donation"
Bingo operation.
Mr. Anderson stated that was not what he said. They would not be doing that and
would not be going through the hearing process if they could not work within
the system.
The Mayor emphasized he was trying to get Mr. Anderson's feeling as to the
validity of the Attorney General's opinion.
Mr. Anderson stated if he was talking about consideration and if membership was
sufficient consideration to make it fall under Section 319, the only other example
he could give was relative to the games offered in grocery stores and the element
of consideration could be argued at length.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he believed Mr. Anderson was referring to an opinion,
C.R.77-1 dated April 8, 1977, which involved a request by the District Attorney of
Santa Clara County. He thereupon read one section of the lengthy opinion as
follows: "Your inquiry about so called donation or free Bingo suggests a possible
attempt to disguise the element of consideration. Simply stated, consideration
is established if some of the players have to pay in order to have a chance at
the prize. It is not necessary that all pay for the chance to win. Payment by
some is enough. If however there is a general and indiscriminate distribution
of Bingo cards, free to any and all who asked for one, and if those receiving
the cards are then permitted to participate and claim the prizes they win, then
the element of consideration is missing and the game is legal."
Mayor Seymour concluded that the Council had received complete input on Bingo
over a long period and had tried to be as fair as possible with the operation
of Bingo in Anaheim. Problems had arisen and he, for one, felt the Council had
79-482
City Ha~.~ .Anaheim, ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1~79~ 1:30 P.M.
a responsibility to those citizens who chose not to play Bingo or to the
degree it was available in the City. He felt compelled personally that the
ordinance had to be tightened up which was a very difficult thing to do because
services provided by Colonial Manor, as well as the services provided by those
organizations who gave testimony today, were of social value. However, not
everybody was running a straight game and thus government had to set standards
to try to protect the public against those few who would ruin a good thing.
He was, therefore, satisfied with the ordinance as recommended by the City
Attorney, except for the number of days. He wanted the number of days changed
from two to a maximum of three, if the Council should see fit to agree. If
three days did not work, then they would possibly have to reduce the number
of days to zero. The ordinance would eliminate those operators that were
not utilizing Bingo for charitable purposes. He reiterated he had some
concern that two days was too restrictive, and he would opt for three.
ORDINANCE NO. 4001: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4001 for first
reading, allowing Bingo to be played three days a week.
ORDINANCE NO. 4001: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 7.34.165,
7.34.180, 7.34.200, 7.34.210 AND 7.34.240, AND ADDING SECTION 7.34.280, TO
CHAPTER 7.34 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES.
Councilman Roth indicated his support. He was confident that when the people
realized the fact that, as stated in the City Manager's report, the estimated ---
gross for Bingo in Anaheim was a $7.5 million dollar operation, that some restraJ
was necessary.
Councilman Roth also noted the semi-annual fee provision in the proposed ordinance.
He was concerned relative to that aspect because it would affect activities at
mobile home parks where they had a gross of less than $100 a month. He suggested
that a limitation or minimum be included in order to exempt mobile home parks
from paying double fees.
City Attorney Hopkins stated there was a previous recommendation that a semi-
annual fee of $50 be required. Penal Code Section 326.5K provides fees would
not exceed $50 and it did not specify annual or semi-annual. The proposed
ordinance did not have a provision for a waiver of the fee, but if the Council
decided, it could be provided on the basis of a waiver.
Councilman Roth emphasized he was not asking for a waiver, but perhaps a
provision that when the gross was less than $1,500 a year, that only one
license fee be charged.
Mr. Hopkins explained that the Penal Code Section provided for a maximum fee
of $50. They could say that the fee would not exceed $50 and it could be an
annual fee and not a semi-annual fee.
Councilman Roth was agreeable to that stipulation.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they would not be double feeing anybody and
was concerned that the taxpayers would be burdened with the cost of enforcement.
79-483
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
At the request of the Mayor, Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that the
amount of fees collected for Bingo amounted to $1,050 which represented 21
licensed organizations.
Mayor Seymour then stated that they were talking about something totally im-
material whether $50 annually or semi-annually and that the taxpayers were not
involved at all. He was sensitive to Councilman Roth's concern and the other
groups about which he was speaking and therefore accepted the change to one
annual fee of $50.
City Attorney Hopkins noted it would be questionable to charge more.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not going to support the first reading as
offered by the Mayor for the reason that to reduce Bingo to three days rather
than two days was not "biting the bullet" on the question of Bingo in Anaheim.
He did not know what experience other Council Members had, but he had received
many telephone calls from residents of Anaheim, many of whom had played and
some who had not, who did not like Anaheim becoming the Bingo capital of Orange
County. The only reason that was true was due to the fact that Anaheim allowed
more days to play Bingo than any place in Orange County according to his infor-
mation, and he felt that Mr. Anderson could probably confirm that. Two days
was ample to support the fund-raising activities and worthwhile charities, and
by so doing, it would discourage "tail wagging the dog" operations in the City
where Bingo was the first objective and charity the second. He was happy with
the ordinance as proposed with the exception of the reduction to three days.
He was not concerned about so-called donation Bingo. From information he had
received, there had been efforts made by some of the Bingo operators to head
in that direction, but he did not believe it posed a threat of enforcement.
He could not support the ordinance on a three-day basis.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Overholt. Decreasing to three days
would only be prolonging the agony and undoubtedly they would be back in a couple
of months to cut back to two days. She had been upset with the title Anaheim
earned as Bingo capital, not only of Orange County, but also of Southern California,
because of the number of days Bingo was allowed. Bingo passed in California,
but she could not imagine anyone had envisioned what was going to take place in
Anaheim. Unless Bingo was limited to two days, they would not be solving the
problem.
Councilman Overholt stated his understanding of the measure on which the voters
voted positively was that municipalities could authorize Bingo within their
jurisdiction. It was not that the voters said that Anaheim had to have Bingo;
Anaheim chose to allow Bingo in the City five days a week some-time ago. Regret-
tably, he was not a party to that decision and thus did not take the blame and
the responsibility. Whatever Anaheim chose to do, it had the right to do. His
feeling was that a two-day a week ordinance provided for Bingo as an additional
fund raising tool for legitimate charitable organizations, and he believed that
is what the voters voted on - not a new big industry that would seek out charitable
activities to justify their existence. He believed in many respects that was
what was happening in Anaheim.
79-484
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour pointed out that close to 70% of the Anaheim voters will was to
offer a concept of playing Bingo that, as proven, needed to be tightened up.
He did not think laying the blame off on what Anaheim had done before was
appropriate when that high a percentage of Councilman Overholt's constituents,
and his own, voted for Bingo.
Councilman Overholt stated they did not vote for Bingo five days a week; that
was his point.
Mayor Seymour stated he was not offering Bingo five days a week. He did not
know what the difference would be between three days and two days, but his
instincts told him it might be the difference between shutting down some very
positive non-taxpayer charitable social services and again putting them on the
back of the taxpayers, although he had no facts to support that. He did not
know how enforcement of Bingo was going to be that different with two days or
three days.
Councilman Roth stated he agreed with the Mayor and that it should be noted Anaheim
intended to continue to monitor Bingo on the three-day-a-week basis. If there
were violations, he would be the next to want to abolish Bingo in Anaheim. The
additional provisions of the ordinance relative to double use of the buildings,
as well as others, represented a radical change. He was confident that when the
large Bingo operators realized the Council meant business and if they did not ~
clean up their act, the three days would be reduced to zero.
Councilman Overholt stated he could change his vote with that kind of commitment.
He wanted the legitimate organizations to be able to continue to use Bingo as
a fund raiser, but as far as attracting what he considered to be illegitimate organ-
izations to the City, it should be prohibited. He would be willing to indicate
his support for three days with the understanding that they would be continuing
an ongoing monitoring of the Bingo operation in the City, and if there was what
appeared to be a continuation of violations, then they should end the matter,
and they had every right to do that. Many citizens would be pleased with
such a decision. There was a number of citizens who were afraid to come to
today's meeting because they did not want to be identified as opposing Bingo.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had two problems - they asked that the Orange
County ordinance be copied which stipulated two days and, relative to the fact
that people wanted Bingo, she believed they were referring to church-type and
senior citizen-type groups involving one dollar or two dollars which was truly
entertainment. Those in mobile home parks and church groups would be punished
unnecessarily if Bingo was eliminated.
Councilman Overholt noted one thing that concerned him was that he thought he
beard Mr. Anderson say that government might bear the burden to police Bingo
and that cost would be passed on to the citizens.
Mr. Anderson answered that the question posed was whether or not there was any
way to pass that cost directly to the operators and he stated that government
would have to pay the burden the same as for any other organization.
79-485
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that his feeling was that when Bingo became so big
and important in Anaheim that the City's taxpayers had to bear a substantial
burden to police that operation, that was another factor he was going to con-
sider if they moved to close Bingo down altogether. He did not think they
should have to bear that burden, and he believed that the operators should
determine a way to bear that burden.
Mayor Seymor emphasized the fact that in six months the Bingo operators had not
provided ways to clean up the Bingo operation. Since they did not give an
answer, the City's answer was to reduce Bingo to three days a week. Subsequently
if they did not clean up their act, it would be zero days.
Mr. Floyd McLellan, 2403 Greenbrier, stated that if any of the organizations run-
ning a five-day operation were running a square deal, they were also being
penalized. He asked why they did not do away with people who were not fair and
square.
Mayor Seymour explained for Mr. McLellar, what had occurred over the past six
months, resulting in no change on the part of the Bingo operators.
Councilman Seymour than stated as he understood, the majority of the Council was
supportive of the first reading of the ordinance, as offered, permitting Bingo
three days a week and levying a $50 annual fee.
Councilman Overholt suggested that they ask the City Manager and City Attorney
to make a recommendation as to what they might do to provide adequate enforcement
of the ordinance because his feeling was that the enforcement mechanism now was
not totally adequate to police the operation.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:20 P.M.)
180: SELECTION OF CONTRACT BROKER FOR ~\RKETING THE CITY'S INSURANCE NEEDS:
Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding the subject matter was going to be
carried over until the Council had an opportunity to read the City Attorney's
investigative report relative to insurance. If there was no objection, he
recommended that it be carried over until later in the meeting.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Seymour asked if the recommendation from the Risk
Manager had changed from that contained in his memorandum dated April 11, 1979;
Mr. Love answered that it had not.
Councilman Roth then asked both Alexander & Alexander (A&A) and Marsh & McLennan
(M&M) to give a brief statement on their ~roposals.
Mr. Bob Wilkins, Alexander & Alexander stated during the course of the process,
they presented a written and oral. presentation to the Selection Committee as
the Council was aware. It was their understanding that the primary responsibility
for the Broker selected would be to market all the insurance, but primarily'
79-486
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1.~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
the liability insurance, the major part of the City's insurance budget. They
felt the selection was made because of their expertise that both they and their
friendly competitors might have in that area.
Mr. Gary Jones, Marsh & McLennan, stated they felt that the Committee selected
them because of the marketing approach they presented, and he believed the
success of the City's program would be in the marketing approach.
Councilman Roth stated it was interesting that A&A did not respond to statements
relative to Granite State.
Mr. Wilkins explained that they had developed an exclusive arrangement with
what was actually the American International Group (AIG) of which Granite State
was a company, highly rated financially as well as from a policyholders service
standpoint. When they approached Mr. Love with their comments on the matter,
he (Love) stated they could also put the City in somewhat of an uncompetitive
situation because it would have to go to the Granite State singularly and other
carriers might not be as anxious to quote on that insurance because of the
relationship with AIG. They then met on the subject and decided the only way
to tell if the program was going to be as competitive as they thought was to
go head to head with their competition, M&M. They felt Anaheim could not go
wrong with an arrangement such as that.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that M&M be appointed the City's official Broker
of Record for a minimum of two years according to the terms set forth in their
letter dated April 10, 1979. However, for purposes of competition, on the first
$4.5 million, allow A&A to market that portion through Granite State only.
Before any action was taken, Mr. Wilkins asked if Councilman Roth could amend
his wording to allow them to use the American International Group, the owner
of Granite State. Granite State would reinsure a portion of the liability
program with other members of the same group of carriers.
The amendment was agreeable to Councilman Roth.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
She then asked Mr. Love if he considered the motion to be in the best interest of
the City.
Mr. Jack Love answered "yes", since he had discussed it with both parties and
that was the understanding. He had no problem with it.
Mr. Wilkins stated there was one other item he wanted to approach. Given that
M&M was made Broker now, if A&A were able to come through with a better proposal
on the liability only as of September 1, 1979, would the City Council elect to
have A&A appointed Broker on all insurance?
Councilman Roth stated at that time, staff would have to submit a recommendation,
and he did not think that decision could be made presently.
79-487
City Hall~ Anahe. i.m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with the amendments as articulated.
One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
173: PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPA~Y - REQUEST TO EXTEND JITNEY SERVICE: On motion
by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request of Plaza
Transportation Company to extend the Anaheim Plaza Jitney Service for a period
of five years was approved, to May 2, 1984, as requested in letter dated April 17,
1979 from Plaza Transportatio~ Company. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
10--8: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF BINGO LICENSE - SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER OF ANAHEIM:
City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his report dated March 15, 1979
relative to the subject request, explaining that the Anaheim Municipal Code
did not provide for a waiver and unless the ordinance was amended, it was not
possible to grant such a waiver. As well~ the Zoning Division determined that
no Conditional Use Permit was ne, essary~ Action would merely be a motion of
the Council authorizing use of tL~ facility at the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club
at 222 East Chartres.
Estella Nichols, 1621 West Katella, President, Anaheim Senior Citizens Club,
proposed the following: first that the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club recommended
that action be taken on the cucrent Bingo situation. Secondly, the Club requested
that the City Council make amendments to the rules and regulations guiding Bingo
games in Anaheim that would be of benefit to and permit senior citizens to play
Bingo for recreational purposes. She reported that the City of Los Angeles
Senior Citizens were exempt from paying a license fee if the following rules
were obeyed: (1) prizes must be in the form of goods and not worth more than
$5; (2) Bingo can be played only three days a week; (3) Bingo must be played
in a public recreation facility ~d open to the public; (4) Bingo cards can
not number more than six per ses~ ~on and no person can pay more than $1.25 per
session for the cards. Any money made from the Bingo session is used for
refreshments. Clubs do not have to file reporting forms such as other Bingo
games when the stipulations are followed.
Mrs. Nichols stated in Los Angeles those amendments had made a clear difference
between regular Bingo operations and recreational Bingo for senior citizens. She
emphasized the same must be done in Anaheim. The Anaheim Senior Citizens Club
wanted to play Bingo two days a week and would easily follow the above stipulations.
Bingo games at Anaheim Senior Citizens had never made money and the purpose of
the activity had always been recreation and socialization. Two hundred senior
citizens wanted Bingo, and she urged the Council's help.
Mrs. Nichols explained for Counc~!woman Kaywood that prizes consisted of food
such as coffee, tea, sugar, etc. and she could not imagine anyone who was not
a member of the Club going in to play under those circumstances.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it would be a problem to them if the fee could
not be waived; Mrs. Nichols answered "no", and they would be happy to pay the
fee.
79-488
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted they would have to pay it as a fee because it was
a State requirement.
Mayor Seymour then asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she was offering a motion to
approve the license, but not approving the waiving of the fee.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that they could not waive the fee and she did not
believe that they need approval for a license.
Mr. Hopkins explained that it would be necessary for the Club to apply for a
regular license and pay a $50 fee.
A Conditional Use Permit was not necessary, and he reiterated only a motion was
required authorizing the use of the facility for Bingo and then it would be
necessary for them to follow through just as any other organization. They had
checked with the Los Angeles City Attorney's office and the special rules were
not entirely in conformance with 326.5 of the Penal Code in his opinion. They
did provide for a waiver of the licenses and provided that the manager or staff
did not have to wear an insignia. Other than that, they were exactly the same
as Anaheim's regulations.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Anaheim Senior
Citizens Club at 222 East Chartres Street was authorized to use that facility for
Bingo requiring obtaining a license and payment of the $50 fee. One vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPEAL OF BINGO LICENSE DENIAL - AMERICAN NATIONAL VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION:
Ms. Kathy Wanamaker, Public Relations, American National Volleyball Association,
(ANVA), 768 Dawson, Long Beach, stated they received a denial of their request
for a Bingo permit under the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to organizations
eligible for City licenses to conduct Bingo games. She was led to believe that
the City did not see the ANVA as a non-profit organization; however, the State
recognized them as non-profit and also the federal tax board.
Mayor Seymour interjected that the problem involved the length of tenancy
of the organization in the City.
Ms. Wanamaker stated she did some research and also talked to Det. Briggs
who indicated the Police Department denied the permit due to their residency
period in Anaheim. In January of 1978, they occupied the premises at 1775
East Lincoln Avenue and they left that office in December of 1978. They then
opened an office at the end of January, at 613 North Euclid, and their business
license was transferred to that address as explained in their letter dated
April 6, 1979.
Mayor Seymour noted that the memorandum dated April 26, 1979 from the City
Manager's office indicated there was no lease until February 22, 1979.
Ms. Wanamaker stated that was when the lease was signed, and they were in
there as of February of this year; the Mayor stated he did not see where
they had answered the requirement of the one-year residency. The report
stated NAVA was at 1775 East Lincoln from January to November 1978 and
then they were nowhere until February 22, 1979. Ms. Wanamaker explained
79-489
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
during that time she was looking for office space, and she thought the time
might apply to the months added on since they had been at the present location
from February to April as of now.
MOTION: Mayor Seymour emphasized that was the problem, and it did not meet the
requirements of the City's ordinance. He could appreciate the work of the
organization, but Ms. Wanamaker had sat through an afternoon of Bingo problems
and now without even having an amended ordinance finalized, the Council was
being asked to grant a waiver. He was reluctant to do that and thereupon
offered a motion to uphold the recommendation and deny the request for a
Bingo permit for the NAVA. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: WATERS CONSULTANTS, CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM AT THE LENAIN FILTRATION PLANT:
Recommendation from the Public Utilities Board that the Council approve the
Letter Agreement with Waters Consultants for the design and inspection of a
cathodic protection system for the Lenain Filtration Plant in an amount not
to exceed $5,500 and authorize the Utilities General Manager to execute said
agreement.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-251 for adoption as recom~nended in
memorandum dated April 9, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-251: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH WATERS CONSULTANTS
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MAI~AGER TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMEBER: One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-25~ duly passed and adopted.
123: ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - 1979 IN LIEU REPLENIShmENT PROGRAM: Rec-
ommendation from the Public Utilities Board that the Council approve the agree-
ments with the Orange County Water District for the delivery of water from the
Metropolitan Water District, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
said agreements.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-252 and 79R-256 for adoption
as recommended in memorandum dated April 20, 1979 from the PUB. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-252: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ~GREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT FOR THE DELIVERY OF WATER FROM METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE
COUNTY FOR USE BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERKTO
EXECUTE SAME.
79-490
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-256: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT FOR THE DELIVERY OF WATER FROM METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FOR USE BY
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-252 and 79R-256, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and f~led:
a. 114: City of Seal Beach, Resolution No. 2866, recommending Legislative
Reform in the Areas of Worker's Compensation and Disability Retirement.
b. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of April 16, 1979.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of April 11, 1979.
d. 105: Library Board - Minutes of March 21, 1979.
e. 105: Library Board - Monthly Report for March 1979.
f. 175: Public Utilities Department, Utilities Field Division, Monthly Report
for March 1979.
g. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division', Monthly Report
for March 1979.
h. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of April 11, 1979.
i. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of March 29, 1979.
j. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission - Minutes of February 7 and March 7, 1979.
k. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of April 10, 1979.
1. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of April 19, 1979.
79-491
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Private Patrol Application submitted by Thomas Reddin Security Services to
provide security guards for office buildings. (Thomas Reddin, applicant)
b. Private Patrol Application submitted by California Home and Industrial Patrol
Service to provide roving patrols and stationary guards. (Mac McCullen, applicant)
c. Entertainment Permit Application submitted by Angus Inn, 940 South Brookhurst
for a piano bar with one entertainer. (Gilbert Bershatsky, applicant)
One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 79R-253
through 79R-255, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-253: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Thelma Weagley
Hill; Robert D. Wiens, et ux.; Peter A. Giovannoni, et al.; Brookhurst Partner-
ship; G.L. Lewis Company, 3)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-254: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TIMKEN ROAD
SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNTY NO. 11-790-6325-0120; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 31, 1979 at 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-255: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 428.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-253 through 79R-255, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held April 9, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
79-492
~ty Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-30: Submitted by Alan R. and Marjorie S. Talt,
and Winston G. and Lois L. Walker, for a chnge in zone from County A-1 to ML
to construct an industrial complex consisting of four buildings on four indi-
vidual lots on property located on the south side of Omega Avenue, 750 feet on
the west side of Sunkist Street, 278 feet on the north side of Winston Road
and approximately 655 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission granted Reclassification No. 78-79-30, pursuant
to Resolution No. PC79-67, and granted negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-38: Submitted by First Congregational Church of
Anaheim, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 to construct a 2-story,
49-unit apartment complex on property located on the north side of Sycamore
Street, west of State College Boulevard.
Mr. Gary Jones, 4081 Odessa Drive, Yorba Linda, representing the applicants
requested to relay information relative to their application.
Mayor Seymour interjected and explained that the Council had one of two decisions
to make on the Reclassification, accept the recommendations of the Planning
Commission or set the matter for a public hearing. They had received a request
from approximately 12 citizens who wanted a Council Member to set the matter for
a public hearing. If Mr. Jones wanted to plead the benefits of his case, this
was not the place to do so.
Mr. Jones stated he had just been shown a copy of the communication from the
residents and explained everything addressed to in the letter had been discussed
with the Planning Commission, and they still voted to approve the request. Park-
ing requirements were the reason for the continuance in order to generate more
parking which they did by 18 spaces.
The Mayor again reminded Mr. Jones that the proper place to plead his case would
be at a public hearing. He asked if any Council Member wished to set a public
hearing.
Councilman Overholt referred to the letter from the citizens requesting to par-
ticipate in public hearings; Councilman Roth noted the key lay in the fact that
residents did not want to spend $175, but wanted the Council to spend $175 of the
taxpayerst money and set the matter for a public hearing.
Councilman Overholt asked if any of the residents were present; no one was present.
Mayor Seymour again asked if any Council Member wished to set the matter for a
public hearing. If not, they would take no action and the man would be in
business. No Council Member wished to set the matter for a public hearing.
City Clerk Linda Roberts explained that the deadline for filing an appeal was
at 5:00 P.M. today. A gentleman called yesterday and indicated he was going
to be at City Hall at approximately 4:30 P.M. and if the matter had not yet
come before the Council, he would file an appeal. She had checked with her
office and no appeal had been filed.
79-493
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May iF 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
No further action was taken by the Council.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1961: Submitted by Nicolas Kiva Kletzel, et al,
to permit the retail sales of tires and auto parts in an ML zone located at
1347 Blue Gum Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-70, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1961 and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1962: Submitted by Doyle Hill, to permit the
retail sales of sheet music in an ML zone on property located at 1585 West
Broadway Street.
Fhe City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-71, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1962 and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1964: Submitted by Robert and Helen E. Dultz,
to permit a Shiatsu Japanese Therapy Spa on CL zoned property located at 3026
West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-69, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1964 and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1969: Submitted by Nemax Incorporated, to retain
a van conversion facility on ML zoned property located at 1832 East Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-72, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1969, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3082 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10669): Submitted by Richard Hyde
and Roberta Hyde Bottemiller, to construct a 10-lot, 40-unit apartment sub-
division on RM-1200 property and a 3-lot subdivision on CL zoned property located
at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Wilshire Avenue with a waiver of
~inimum lot width.
The City Planning Commission, purs~Jant to Resolution No. PC79-68, granted
Variance No. 3082, and granted a negative, declaration status.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3087: Submitted by Gulf Oil Corporation, to construct a comer-
ctal building on CL zoned property located on the northwest corner of Orange
Avenue and Knott Street with Code waivers of minimum structural setback and
minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-74, granted in
part Variance No. 3087, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
9. VARIANCE NO. 3088: Submitted by Marion C. and Elaine J. Henry, to construct
a commercial center on CL zoned property at 2440 West Ball Road with Code
waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped setback.
79-494
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-73, granted
Variance No. 3088, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-50 - VARIANCE NO. 2998 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.
10437 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Robert J. Chase, Maxwell Starkman
AIA Associates, requesting approval of revised plans to construct a 3-lot, 95-unit
condominium subdivision on proposed RM-4000 zoned property located on the west
side of Magnolia Avenue approximately 325 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans of Reclassification No.
77-78-50, Variance No. 2998 and Tentative Tract No. 10437.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1881 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Ted Faris,
requesting a retroactive extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1881,
to permit an automobile detail shop on CG zoned property located at 816 North
Anaheim Boulevard with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1881, to expire August 28, 1979.
12. VARIANCE NO. 2687 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Dan Pauna, requesting
a retroactive extension of time to Variance No. 2687, to permit expansion of
unlawfully-established apartments and commercial office~ property located at
2135-2139 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2687,
to expire April 28, 1981.
13. LANDLOCKED SURPLUS PARCEL - PROPOSED SALE: Submitted by the County of Orange,
proposing to sell a landlocked surplus parcel, (.85 acre) located on the north-
erly side of the Orange County Flood Control District's Atwood Channel and
southerly of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, and approximately 200
feet east of Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission determined the the proposed sale or lease of the
parcel is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan, but would require a
variance to allow a lot without public street frontage.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Plan-
ning Commission became final.
142/166: ORDINANCE NO. 4002 - LIMITATION OF NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4002 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4002: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION
.005 TO SECTION 18.05.111 OF CHAPTER 18.05, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (limitation pertaining to the maximum number of
billboards permitted on each street frontage)
79-495
City~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 3996 (TO INCLUDE MOBILEHOME PARK SUBDIVISIONS) AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the City Council finds that this activity will have no significant
effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare
an EIR. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3996 for adoption.
Book.
Refer to Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 3996: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTIONS .080
AND .090 TO SECTION 18.27.050 OF CHAPTER 18.27; ADDING SUBSECTIONS .040 AND .050
TO SECTION 18.31.050 OF CHAPTER 18.31; ADDING SUBSECTION .080 AND .090 TO SECTION
18.32.050 OF CHAPTER 18.32; ADDING SUBSECTION .105 TO SECTION 18.34.050 OF
CHAPTER 18.34; ADDING SUBSECTION .125 TO SECTION 18.41.050 OF CHAPTER 18.42;
ADDING SUBSECTION .005 TO SECTION 18.42.050 OF CHAPTER 18.42; ADDING SUBSECTION
.205 TO SECTION 18.44.050 OF CHAPTER 18.44; ADDING SUBSECTION .205 TO SECTION
18.45.050 OF CHAPTER 18.45; ADDING SUBSECTION .195 TO SECTION 18.46.050 OF
CHAPTER 18.46; ADDING SUBSECTION .155 TO SECTION 18.48.050 OF CHAPTER 18.48, ALL
OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3996 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3998 AND 3999: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3998
and 3999, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3998: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(90), CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 3999: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(91), CR)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3998 and 3999, duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4000: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4000 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4000: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-6, CL)
79-496
C__ity Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May it 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4000 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4003: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4003 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4003: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(24), ML)
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED. (5:47 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. One vacancy. (7:22 P.M.)
114: RECENT METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT WATER TRIP: Councilman Overholt reported~
on the recent Metropolitan Water District water trip, the first he had attended as
a guest of the City's representative on the Board, Mr. Keith Murdoch. Concern
over the Peripheral Canal issue was discussed, and he understood a committee was
going to be formed and he and the Mayor were going to be a part of that committee.
The Mayor explained that the committee had been formed, but meetings were held on
Tuesdays. Since it was not possible for him and Councilman Overholt to attend on
Tuesdays, Mr. Larry Sears, Water Division Civil Engineering Associate, had
been asked to attend in their place. Although Mr. Murdoch indicated they
would be changing the meeting day, all meetings had thus far been held on
Tuesday.
114: LEAGUE OF CITIES 4TH ANNUAL JOINT ANGELS GAME AND DINNER: Councilwoman
Kaywood reported on the subject event which was held Thursday, April 26, 1979,
which was a very successful evening, including the National League President
from Savanna, Georgia.
114: DEDICATION OF THE NEW GYM AT SYCAMORE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL: Councilwoman
Kaywood reported that she and Councilman Overholt were present at the dedication
of the new Sycamore Junior High School gymnasium on April 30, 1979 which was
a duplicate of the new gym at Dale Junior High School. They performed the
transferring of plaques and mementos that would remind the School District in
the future years that the City was one-half doner of the project.
148: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEETING: Councilman Roth
reported that he would be attending his first meeting of the District on
Friday, May 4, 1979 in West Covina. Most of their meetings were held in that
city on the first Friday of the month, and they met for seven straight hours.
79-497
City Ha!l,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
114: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING WITH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
COMMISSIONS: Mayor Seymour reported on the Liaison Committee meeting held
that morning with the Chairman and Chairman Pro Tem of both the Community Rede-
velopment and Planning Commissions and appropriate staff. The subject of dis-
cussion was Redevelopment and the purpose was to get a better understanding of
the Redevelopment Commission's role and the Planning Commission's role in the
entire process and how to improve efficiency and effectiveness. He stated
it was a very positive meeting and staff provided good input.
114: LIAISON TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE: Mayor Seymour noted that the resignation
of Councilman Kott left a vacancy of Council liaison to the Audit Committee. He
felt it would be appropriate for Mayor Pro Tem Overholt to fill that vacancy if
he would agree.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Pro
Tem Overholt was appointed Council liaison to the Audit Committee. One vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
106: 1979-80 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: City Manager Talley presented the
proposed 1979-80 Resource Allocation Plan (Budget) to the Council which was
required to be submitted 60 days prior to adoption of the budget.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:38 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK