1979/12/1179-1388
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1...1~ 197.9~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devttt
PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Steve Swaim
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A moment of Silence was observed in lieu of Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan-
imously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Greg Hickmmn, Zoologist
and instructor at the North Orange County Regional Occupation Program's Animal
Care Center, for his outstanding professional training efforts and community
service work at the Animal Care Center.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A resolution of welcome was unanimously adopted by
the City Council and presented to Mr. Bob Joseph on behalf of the California
Dreams basketball team of the Women's Professional Basketball League.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was unanimously adopted by the
City Council and issued by Mayor Seymour:
"Anaheim Stamp Collecting Days" - January 11-13, 1980.
Mr. Alan Freedman, General Manager of the Orco Expo accepted the proclamation.
105: PROPOSED CREATION OF A SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION: (continued from the
meeting of December 4, 1979) Mr. Herb Eggett, spokesman for the seniors of
Orange County and Chairman of their transportation commission, 904 South Bruce
Street first presented a few of the documents which were received and reviewed
on a daily basis by the members of the Senior Citizens County Council. He did
so to emphasize the fact that the amount of paperwork relating to senior citizens'
programs was very heavy and complex. He felt that the formation of a commission
in Anaheim would be the focal point for the information to be reviewed and sub-
sequently presented to the Council so that they could make intelligent recommen-
dations. He did not know where the Council presently obtained information on
seniors and he was disappointed that there were actions taken regarding senior
affairs in Orange County in which the seniors themselves had no part. They
79-1389
~itM Ha!i, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December lip 1979~. 1:30 P.M.
should be included and allowed to give their input. Mr. Eggett then noted the
presence of the recently-elected Chairman of the Buena Park Senior Citizens
Advisory Commission, Mr. Will Armstrong.
Mr. Will Armstrong, 8468 Neptune, Buena Park then relayed the experiences he
had leading up to the formation of a Senior Citizens Commission in Buena Park
which started in April of 1979. He had submitted reco~m~endations to the Buean
Park City Council including much of the information Mr. Eggett talked about.
The Council subsequently created that city's first Senior Citizens Commission
consisting of seven members and approved the use and establishment of a Senior
Center in the City.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Armstrong if he could give an idea of the cost involved
to administer a Senior Citizens Advisory Commission.
Mr. Armstrong answered that they had expended approximately $35 for postage and,
other than that, it was a strictly volunteer effort. He then answered additional
questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt relative to the
structure of the commission in Buena Park and explained that of the seven member
commission, six were seniors and one would be a senior in approximately three
years. Generally speaking, they considered 60 years of age as a starting point
but did recognize people that were 50~
Mr. Eggett stated the definition of senior from a standpoint of financing was
65, but those in need of help ranged from 50 up. He also explained that they
bad lost some of their speakers from last ~eek's meeting. He asked if Estella
Nichols was present.
From the audience, Mrs. Frances Sherman stated that they sent letters to the
Council and thus the Council was aware of their stand on the formation of the
Commission. Mrs. Estella Nichols also indicated her presence and stated that
the Council knew of their position.
Ms. Peggy Weatherspoon, M.S. Gerontology, Orange County Human Services Agency,
11340 South Pembrooke Lane stated that she had a vested interest in the estab-
lishment of a Senior Citizens Commission in Anaheim. She had written a letter
to the Mayor several months ago which was published in the newspaper and which
expressed her views and also relayed statistics relative to Anaheim's seniors.
Anaheim contained the highest concentration of elderly poor in Orange County.
She explained that her job was involved with training, consultation and
education in conmciousnesm raising about the problems of older adults. There
were a lot of good things in Anaheim but they were fragmented. There was no
cohesive service delivery system and a commission could aid in disseminating
information and apprising the Council of the services available. The Board of
Supervisors had an advisory Commission called the Senior Citizens Council.
She felt eventually that all cities in Orange County would have a commission
because without one the seniors would have no voice and if the Council did not
approve such a commission, they were saying the needs of the seniors were insig-
nificant. She clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that she was aware of the
many Anaheim programs for seniors.
Councilman Roth stated the reason he felt it necessary to form a commission was
due to the fact that there were so many senior groups and a commission could
79-1390
City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - Dec~_mher 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
pull all those people together. The various groups were doing a good job and he
believed that Councilwoman Kaywood felt there was already adequate input.
Ms. Weatherspoon stated that the seniors who frequented the senior centers were
typically active and healthy and not necessarily acutely aware of other senior's
problems. They were a different strata within the senior population. She did
not see that a commission would be stepping on another group's toes. She was
also aware of the day care center for seniors but felt that Anaheim fell short.
The center was not funded and they did not receive the Medi-cal appropriation
they expected. The only funded day care center in the State at present was the
one at Saddleback and the cost was prohibitive without proper funding, Medi-cal,
and insurance coverage.
Mr. Eggett stated that the formation of a Commission was no reflection on the
Anaheim club. They were talking about different levels of activity and he
again referred to the vast amount of data sent from the Federal and State
government that needed to be reviewed and disseminated. He believed they de-
served and should have better representation.
Mrs. Edith C. Rudolph, Activity Director, TLC, Satellite 4, stated she was
present as a representative of Satellite 2 and she also had with her six members
of the groups and a petition of 57 others in favor of the formation of the
commission. She explained that they were a very active group, but without
the aid of volunteers, she could not do the Job. As seniors, they wanted to
be represented in all phases of government. Sixty-five percent of the voters
over 60 voted, and there were 42% under 60. They had possibility thinking and
they were going to do their part if they had the opportunity. They had the
energy and the drive to make the commission work.
In concluding, she stated they wanted to thank the Council for proposing such
a commission and, speaking for all the members in her group which encompassed
more than TLC, she reiterated they were going to make themselves powerful and
vocal.
Mr. Eggett stated that he hoped the Council would look upon the formation of
the commission favorably. The cost was negligible and they were not asking for
any money. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was an assumption that by form-
ing a Senior Citizens Commission, that money would appear from somewhere; Mr.
Eggett answered "no".
Councilman Roth felt that they should not be twisting the concept into a funded
type idea. They were not talking about grants and allocations of money and he
did not believe it would cost any more than the Youth Commission.
Councilman Overholt then broached the make-up of the commission. If members
were to be representatives of existing groups, he asked if that would not fore-
close a person interested in being a member from being eligible a case in point
being Ms. Weatherspoon.
Mr. Eggett stated that they might have to abide by the mandates of the Older
American Act although he would not rule out younger people and he felt that
would be a decision the Council would have to make. They would like to have
anyone that would be of assistance.
79-1391
C__i~ty Hall__, A.__n..aheim~_California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December I1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.Mo
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the Council authorize the formation of a
Senior Citizens Advisory Commission consisting of either seven or nine members
and to ask for input from Mr. Eggett and others present today; subsequently
evaluate the input and recommendations received to determine whether the com-
mission would consist of seven or nine members which information would be
submitted in two weeks for final consideration.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Seymour explained when the subject was first
proposed to nhe Council, he asked the Community Services Board (CSB) to look at
the possibility of creating a Senior Citizens Commission and the Board had been
in the process of doing so. About two weeks ago in a conversation he had with
Jan Billings of the CSB, they had investigated some 13 different cities who had
Senior Citizens Commissions and Mrs. Billings had just about completed her reportm
He felt it best to get a reading from the Council today as to their acceptance or
rejection of the concept of a commission and subsequently await the CSB's recom-
mendations relative to how such a commission should be constructed and what its
direction, charge and authority would be.
Councilman Roth stated that six to eight weeks ago, the Council agreed to approach
the various groups of seniors to ask if there was a need for such a commission.
They had now received petitions relative to that need as well as testimony from
people such as Mr. Eggett and Ms. Weatherspoon. He did not believe it should be
a part of the CSB and he wanted to see the formation of a commission moved ahead.
He did not feel there was anything further that the CSB could offer at this time.
They could go directly to the seniors who were in finality going to run the com-
mission.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not intend it to become part of the CSB. How-
ever, he felt it inappropriate to proceed on something without having thought it
through and suggested they would be better served by looking to the CSB as to
how it should be structured and how it should relate. He did not know how any-
one could object to that. ~lhe CSB did have the seniors serving on that Board
as ~el!.
Mr, Eggett expressed his concern with the Mayor's proposal on the basis of time.
As an example, he referred to the bus shelter program which took three years
before coming to fruition. He also received a letter from Mr. West of the CSB
indicating that he had formed a senior citizens subcommittee. He could not
accept that because the formation of a commission belonged to the seniors and
the Council,
Mayor Seymour stated the input they received was that they should, in fact, have
a Senior Citizens Commission and he was in support of that. However, he did not
think they should be performing an "end run" on a very valuable citizens group,
the CSB, which heretofore served all segments of the community. They should
look to them for input. To circumvent them was just as wrong as if they were
to create a Senior Citizens Commission and then to have a pertinent matter arise
relative to seniors and, in turn, circumvent the commission.
Councilman Roth's motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Overholt asked to have the motion restated; Councilman Roth repeated
his motion as articulated previously.
79-1392
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December .11~. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt thereupon stated that he would second the first part of the
motion relative to authorizing the formation of a Senior Citizens Advisory
Commission, but he could not second the entire motion.
Councilman Roth thereupon withdrew the second portion of his motion and instead
moved that a Senior Citizens Commission be established. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was a member of Anaheim's
Senior Citizens Center and also the AARP. She took great pride in the Senior
Citizens Center and all the activities there, not just the recreation. The
other reason she questioned whether there should be a separate senior citizens
commission was due to the fact that they had senior citizens on every one of
the commissions and boards in the city. Nobody under 30 was on anything except
the Youth Commission and the greatest bulk were 50 and above. She felt that
Anaheim was and had been a most responsive city in the area relative to seniors'
needs and concerns. Most of the cities that were forming or had formed a
commission was because they wanted a senior citizens center. Anaheim had such
a center for years and there were 5,000 members in the group. She did not want
to slap at anything that was existing. TLC had served very well, as well as Meals
on Wheels. With all of the senior activities in the City, she questioned the
need for anything else and she would have to be shown what more a commission
could accomplish. She however was supportive of a commission being established
and perhaps it would be best on a one-year basis so that at the end of that time,
they could review the situation to be certain it was accomplishing something more.
Councilman Overholt stated that he fully supported the establishment of a
commission. He felt that the charge of that commission would be a broader and
more general charge than the existing senior citizens organizations and that
such a commission would complement those organizations. He reiterated he was
100% behind the concept and congratulated Mr. Eggett for the efforts he had put
forth.
A vote was then taken of the foregoing motion to create a Senior Citizens
Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Community Services Board report to
the City Council within the next two weeks their recommendations as to the
structure, purpose and charge of the commission. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since Jan Billings was
working on the matter and had checked with 13 cities, it would behoove the Council
to know of the outcome of that investigation and any recommendations they might
have.
Councilman Overholt stated that he hoped that the CSB would also solicit the
input of Herb Eggett and other representatives of senior groups who felt they
had not given such input to the CSB.
The Mayor encouraged any input to be given to Jan Billings directly so that she
could include it in her report.
79-1393
.C__it~ Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING ~ ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading o£ the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST ~ME CITY in the amount of $7,436,159.55, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
140: PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR THE ANAHEIM HILLS LIBRARY: Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz,
Chairman of the Library Board, stated it was her pleasure today on behalf of the
Board and the City Librarian, Mr. William Griffith, to present a nationally-known
architect they had employed to design the Anaheim Hills Library who was in the
Chamber to present the conceptual plans. She thereupon introduced Mr. William
Blurock of Newport Beach who~ in turn~ introduced his associate architect, Mr.
Joe Shroeder.
Mr~ William Blurock gave a slide presentation, showing a vicinity map depicting
the location of the 18,000 square-foot library in the vicinity of Nohl Ranch
Road and Via Cabrillo. The balance of the presentation depicted and described
the actual site from many views; what would be seen looking out from the sight;
how the building would be oriented on the property; the parking area elevation;
and site plans. Mr. Blurock also clarified questions posed by the Council
during the presentation on the technical and practical aspects of the building.
~e slides also included a rendering of the library and traffic flow diagram
through the building.
M~ Biurock also reported on ~he e~ergy saving aspects of the building, including
the ~se of solar panels to s~pplement the hot water system, and passed booklets
~o the Council explaining that aspect in further detail. He also explained how
f~ure expansion of a~: addi~onal 7,000 square feet could be facilitated. Because
of energy and for other reasons, less than 50% of the wallm would be windows and
thus, 50% would be bearing and/or sheer walls. He then referred to another
booklet pertaining to a detailed budget wherein he pointed o~t that the $1,500,000
budget was broken down into two areas: (1) approximately 51.29 square feet gross
cost, $923,000; (2) other-associated cost of the site work, equipment, furniture,
contingencies and furnishings.
Mr. Blurock then brief~d the Council on the re~ining timetable for the project°
Site drawings were to be completed for review by the department on February 1,
~980. If it was then within line to separate the site work from the general
construction, they would proceed with final working drawings to be ready for
approval sometime around March 1, 1980 followed by a 30-day bid period with
groundbreaking approximately April 1, 1980. That seemed a reasonable
schedule dependent on the westher and the number of other considerations.
The site work was an entirely separate function and that portion could be started
earlier if desired.
79-1394
~ity Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December lip 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he felt they would want to move ahead as rapidly as
possible. He asked if there would be any additional cost by splitting the site
work and the general construction.
Mr. Blurock answered "no", and in fact, thmre could be a savings if the timing
was right. Perhaps by February 1, they would want to come back to the Council
with that request. He felt confident that they could keep to the tentative
time schedule.
The Mayor commended Mr. Blurock for the work he had done relative to the AnRheim
Hills Library.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the preliminary design for the
Anaheim Hills Library. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt referred to and read a letter dated November 30, 1979 from the
Canyon Hills Junior Women's Club announcing a drive for private funds to purchase
books for the new library. He commended the group for Joining in the enthusiasm
the Council had for that library.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:15 P.M.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-11A: In accordance with application
filed by Carlos H. Alvarez, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
a public utility easement located on the southeast corner of Kraemer Place and
La Palma Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-671 duly published in the Anaheim
Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 5, 1979 and the recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment.
City Engineer William Devitt also clarified for Councilman Bay that the building
was relocated in such a manner that it covered the existing easement and thus a
new easement had been acquired by the Electric Utilility Department in place
of the one abandoned.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-712 for adoption approving Abandonment
No. 79-11A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-712: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT.
79-1395
~ity Hal~u_A_Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
~e Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-712 duly passed and adopted.
169: PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSURE OF THE CERRITOS AVENUE SERVICE ROAD~ EAST OF
CARLOTTA AVENUE: Application submitted by the Public Works Department, to con-
sider the closure of Cerritos Avenue Service Road as requested by the City of
Buena Park, pursuant to Section 21101 of the Vehicle Code of the State of
California.
A report of the City Engineer dated December 3, 1979 recommended that the Council
approve the agreement with Buena Park relative to the subject and approve the
closure of the Cerritos Avenue Service Road, east of Carlotta Avenue as shown on
Exhibit "A" attached to the report.
The Buena Park Engineering Services Division reviewed the Initial Study material
prepared in regard to the subject project and determined that the proposed
project would have no significant effect on the environment and therefore
declared the project exempt from the requirement of an environmental impact
report (see letter dated October 4, 1979 from the City of Buena Park--Notice of
Determination for a Negative Declaration).
City Engineer William Devitt first briefed the Council on his staff report of
December 3, 1979. He stated that the closure was an accomplished fact and it
had been closed by Buena Park who had an appropriate public hearing and during
that hearing issued notices to all of those residing in Anaheim as well. He
explained that the road entry was actually in the City of Anaheim as depicted
in Exhibit "A" of his report showing the entry which was presently closed off
at the City L~ne. Bu~,na Park indicated they would propose to improve the
closure in Anaheim with the e×tension of the landscaped median island and
also with stamped con~rete ~o eliminate the possibile hazard of someone en-
tering the street from Anaheim and then being blocked at Buena Park.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mrs. Elizabeth Watkins, owner of property at 10460 Carlotta, stated she was very
much in favor of permanently closing that service street because she had personally
suffered property damage from speeding automobiles that had gone out of control
there and it had been a safety hazard for children in the area. As an indivi-
dual, she was willing to do whatever necessary to insure the closure of that
street.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION CERTIFICATION: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council certified
review consideration and concurrence with the granting of a negative declaration
status by the City of Buena Park. MOTION CARRIED.
79-1396
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11., 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-713 and 79R-714 for adoption
ordering the closure of Cerritos Avenue, east of Carlotta Avenue and approving
an agreement with the City of Buena Park to close that service road as recom-
mended in memorandum dated December 3, 1979 from the City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-713: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF THE SERVICE ROAD NORTH OF CERRITOS AVENUE, EAST OF
CARLOTTA AVENUE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PURSUANT TO SECTION 21101 OF THE VEHICLE
CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-714: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BUENA PARK
TO CLOSE THE SERVICE ROAD NORTH OF CERRITOS AVENUE, EAST OF CARLOTTA AVENUE, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-713 and 79R-714 duly passed and adopted.
123: 1980 RENEWAL OF EMPLOYEE GROUP MEDICAL~ DENTAL AND LIFE BENEFIT PLANS:
Approving renewal agreements, with premium and benefit modifications, provide
for employee group prepaid health plans for 1980, and authorizing renewal of
employee life insurance with Northwestern National Life Insurance Company and
authorizing the Human Resources Director to execute same.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-715 through 79R-723, both inclusive,
for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated December 5, 1979 from the Human
Resources Director Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-715: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA MEDICAL GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC.
FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE SAID RENEWAL AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO BE EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 1980.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-716: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA MEDICAL GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC.
FOR EMPLOYEE DENTAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO BE EFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
1980.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-717: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH FAMILY HEALTH PROGRAM, INC. FOR EMPLOYEE
HEALTH SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID
RENEWAL AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
79-1397
_Citlf Hall.~. Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-718: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A MASTER GROUP AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER HEALTH PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING THE
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-719: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GROUP MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND HMO CONCEPTS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE
HUMA~ RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Effective January 1, 1980)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-720: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND HMO CONCEPTS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Effec-
tive January 1, 1980)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-721: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT~
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-722: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 12, 1977, FOR EMPLOYEE DENTAL
CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., AND
AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMBNDMENT TO AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-723: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY GROUP
POLICY NO. GL-11742-1 FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1980 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1980.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-715 through 79R-723, both inclusive duly
passed and adopted. '
180: EMPLOYEE LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE - 1980: Councilman Overholt offered
Resolution No. 79R-724 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated December 5,
1979 from the Human Resources Director approving the renewal of the City's long-
term disability insurance with Standard Insurance Company at a premium rate of
1.35% of insured payroll, effective January 1, 1980,(Policy No. 384412). Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-724: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A DECREASE IN PREMIUM RATES AND RENEWING THE CITY'S LONG TERM DISABIL-
ITY POLICY COVERED BY STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY AT SUCH LOWER RATES. (POLICY
NO. 384412)
79-1398
City Hal. l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overhoit, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-724 duly passed and adopted.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FOUR MONTHS ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1979:
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the monthly
Financial Statement for the four months ending October 31, 1979 was received
and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
128: ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1979: Mayor Seymour
stated relative to the subject, he and Councilman Overholt acting as Liaison
met at a 11:00 a.m. that morning and it was the first time they had seen the
report. He suggested that a motion to receive and file the report would be
appropriate and if there were any questions, that they be discussed as
another time.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Annual Finan-
cial Report for the year ended June 30, 1979 was received and filed. MDTION
CARRIED.
123: MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - OFFICE SPACE IN NEW CIVIC CENTER: Con-
sideration of a lease agreement with the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association
for 156 net square feet of office space in the Civic Center complex at a cost of
$568.40 for a period of one year was recommended.
Mr. John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superintendent, first clarified questions
posed by the Mayor relative to the proposed agreement by which they were provi-
ding services to the AMEA.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-725 for adoption as
recommended in memorandum dated November 26, 1979 from the Facility Maintenance
Superintendent. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-725: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM MUNICI-
PAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION IN CONNECTION WITH LEASING OFFICE SPACE IN THE CIVIC
CENTER COMPLEX, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LEASE
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-725 duly passed and adopted.
79-1399
City Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
159: PREVAILING RATES PER DIEM WAGES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-726 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated December 3, 1979 from the City Engineer William Devitt.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-726: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DIRECTING THE FILING AND POSTING OF PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM WAGES PERTAIN-
ING TO PUBLIC WORKS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-726 duly passed and adopted.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS - (East Street between
Romneya Drive and Lincoln Avenue--Account No. 01-795-6325-51937: Councilman
Roth stated that he hoped the subject contract included the signal at the
corner of East Street and Lincoln Avenue, the reason being that that inter-
section had become chaotic since the Traffic Department had installed a left-
turn indicator from Lincoln onto East Street. He emphasized if there was a
priority relative to the subject intersections, that they make modifications
at the East Street and Lincoln intersection first.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-727 for adoption, awarding a
contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 3,
1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-727: 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 MODIFICATIONS AT EAST STREET BETWEEN ROMNEYA
DRIVE AND LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5193.
(Steiny and Company, Inc., $73,354)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-727 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 75,000 POUNDS - 653.9 ACSR WIRE - BID NO. 3587: ~
City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on the extensive three-page report
dated December 7, 1979 from Purchasing Agent, Richard Jefferis, containing infor-
mation requested at the previous week's meeting (on file in the City Clerk's office,
see minutes December 4, 1979).
79-1400
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he appreciated the report and asked the Purchasing Agent if
he understood correctly that he (Jefferis) was recommending that the City ~ain-
tain an 18-month inventory of the wire.
Mr. Richard Jefferis, Purchasing Agent answered "no". He was recommending that
they continue to be permitted by their suppliers to empty the reels, accumulate
them and ship them back on flat cars in 18 months. It was more economical to
gather the reels and send them back all together since the City had to pay the
cost of returning them. Also he wanted as much time as the vendor would allow
and they hoped in the future to get a better handle on the situation and perhaps
reduce the time frame to a year or something less than 18 months.
Mayor Seymour noted that they could save $2,783 today if they were to accept
Alcoa's bid instead of Westinghouse provided the reels could be returned.
Mr. Jefferis stated that was correct, but in this case, they had already set
out the ground rules in their instruction to bidders and if they went to a
rebid, they would be faced with a higher price.
Mayor Seymour agreed, but he wanted assurance that they did not bid that way
again in the future or that a policy be set stating that a 12-month inventory
was sufficient.
Mr. Jefferis stated he was willing to go along with a 12-month period for bid
evaluation.
Councilman Seymour moved to accept the low bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply
on the subject wire and authorize purchase in the amount of $79,633 including
tax as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated November 21,
1979 with the understanding in the future that they would be using a 12-month
bid proposal. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was aware that there
were often shortages with various kinds of wire. She asked if they could be
leaving themselves in a position where they might be without wire in an
emergency.
Mr. Jefferis answered that he did not think so and it was a housekeeping problem
at this point.
Mr. Talley also noted that they also had the privilege of holding onto the reels
at the penalty price if necessary.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - INSULATORS AND CLAMPS - BID NO. 3586: On motion
by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low bid of General Electric
Supply, Items 1-4; Maydwell & Hartzell, Items 5-7; and Lindsey Manufacturing, Item
8, was accepted and purchase authorized in the amounts of $46,097.01, $6,846.59
and $1,453.26 respectively including tax as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated December 5, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
79-1401
C__ity Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
123: BELOW MARKET INTEREST LOANS FOR HOUSING REMABILITATION: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 79R-728 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated
December 5, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Development Norm
Priest, approving an amendment to an agreement with Security Pacific Bank to
originate below-market interest loans for housing rehabilitation, placing a
maximum limit on interest rates based on maximum permitted by Federal statute.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-728: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY
PACIFIC BANK, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-728 duly passed and adopted.
155: FREMONT SCHOOL SITE: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum
dated December 7, 1979 from the Planning Department and Community Development
Department relative to the subject. He stated they were specifically talking
about the entire ten-acre site where the buildings were located and the land
south of Broadway--the athletic field.
Mayor Seymour stated it was in order to study that site. They had received
requests from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Schools as to what they as a
City felt the best use of the Fremont School site might be. The intelligent
way to proceed was to have it go through the process of planning to preclude a
quick decision that might result in a permanent development that would cause
problems further downstream.
Councilwoinan Kaywood stated that it sounded to her as if they were talking about
leveling the whole site. She referred to the presentation made by the Foundation
For Culture and the Arts before the School Board with regard to the use of the
Fremont School itself as a performing and cultural art8 center. There was a dire
need in the City for such a theatre and there was tremendous support for it at
the presentation. Since such an alternative was not listed in the December 7,
1979 report, she wondered whether it was a foregone conclusion that the school
would be removed.
The Mayor answered "no" and he did not think that Councilwoman Kaywood should
have that fear.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development stated he attended
the December 6, 1979 meeting of the Housing Commission and it was not their
thought that the entire site should be leveled at all. They felt among the uses
being considered, that a combination of housing and open space was one that should
be investigated and they recommended the planning process. He reiterated, there
was no thought of leveling the ten-acre site.
79-1402
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December lip 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the different acreage on both pieces of property;
Mayor Seymour stated that the school site on Lincoln was in addition to the
9.8 acres bounded by Broadway, Harbor, Citron and Santa Ana. He felt it was
in error to say that the entire Fremont School site was ten acres.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it were possible that the Housing Commission was
referring only to the athletic field.
Mr. Priest stated that the proper answer was "yes". They were thinking in terms
of where housing could appropriately be built and they were cognizant of the
fact that any development ought to recognize the open space and any developer
should consider an open kind of development, but they were not thinking at all
beyond that.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the Planning and Community Develop-
ment Departments to analyze the potential land uses appropriate for the Fremont
School site and to submit these to Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: STORM DRAIN AND SEWER EASEMENT LITIGATION - HAROLD R. AND TILLIE JONES:
City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on memorandum from his office
dated December 6, 1979 relative to the subject.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present who wished to be heard on the matter; no
one was present.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-729 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated December 6, 1979 from the City Attorney's office approving
an agreement with Harold R. and Tillie Jones relating to a storm drain and sewer
easement located across property at 715 Peralta Hills Drive. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-729: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH HAROLD R. AND TILLIE
JONES AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-729 duly passed and adopted.
102: APPOINTMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT: Councilwoman
Kaywood nominated Mrs. Judie DePerry to another two-year term of office on the
Orange County Vector Control District as recommended in letter dated November 16,
1979 from the District's Manager Gilbert Challet. Councilman Bay seconded the
nomination.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, nominations for
appointments to the Orange County Vector Control District were closed MOTION
CARRIED. '
79-1403
City Ha.~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - DecEmber 11~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. DePerry was thereupon unanimousiy reappointed to the Orange County Vector
Control District for the next two-year term of office ending December 31, 1981.
174: H.E.R.E. RAPE CRISIS CLINIC - APPOINTMENT OF BOARD MEMBER: Councilwo~mn
Kaywood nominated Barbara Riegle as appointee to the Board of Directors of
H.E.R.E. to serve as a liaison between the City and Clinic. Councilman Bay
seconded the nomination.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, nominations were
closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Barbara Riegle was thereby unanimously appointed to serve as a member of the
Board of Directors of the Clinic to serve as liaison.
127: PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATION ORDINANCE: Mrf James
West, 1537 West Kimberly, stated he was representing a group of people, although
not an official committee, to speak relative to a growing concern in the City--
the movement of local government from the voters to the special interest, big
money groups. They saw the campaign elections moving more and more towards
big money. He reviewed the voting patterns in Anaheim and noted that 13% of
the registered voters turned out at the last municipal election to vote for
three Council seats and the office of Mayor--13,000 people out of a City of
210,000. His group believes that was a direct result of the fact that voters
felt shut out because there was no way that campaign contributions in the
amounts of $25, $50 or $75 could ever compete with the kind of money contributed
to the municipal elections at $500 and $2,000 per donation. They had a strong
feeling that large amounts of money were leading to the employment of profes-
sional political consultants who formed a wedge between the voters and the
elected officials. They also felt victimized by the slick computerized letters
that were coming to their homes, and manipulated by the Madison Avenue type
techniques of selling prepackaged candidates. That was occurring all over,
but Anaheim was the first C~ty where it had descended to a municipal level.
It happened at the County level and two years ago the County adopted an ordin-
ance, the purpose of which was to limit campaign contributions. However, there
were problems regarding the constitutionality of limiting such contributions.
~he Charter amendment they propose recognizes that large campaign contributions
cause conflicts of interest and thus they are saying that an elected official
must disqualify himself from any action having a direct material effect on any
major campaign contributor to his or her campaign. A major campaign contributor
as defined in the proposed amendment, was any individual contributing over $200
in a 48-month period which equated to $50 a year. It did not limit individual
campaign contributions. An individual could still give whatever he wished, but,
if over $200 in 48 months, the foregoing disqualification on the part of the
person who received the contribution would apply, the idea being that the tact
was Constitutional. It also covered political action committeez (PACs). The
PAC's could not be restricted from giving money but they could be limited which
was also constitutional. According to the amendment, those committees would
be limited to $500 in a 12 month period and lobbyists would be limited to $100
in a 12-month period.
79-1404
City Hail., Ana~e.%m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The ordinance also contained a great deal of explanation as to how people would
be recognized and people who had dealings with the City would be acknowledged
and identified. They were asking the Council to accept the concept of campaign
limitations through this constitutional manner. If they believed in it, they
should adopt it and live within the spirit of the ordinance. Like any other
ordinance, it was extremely difficult to plug all the loop holes but they were
hoping to plug as many as they could find, thereby setting a precedent acknowledging
that large campaign contributions led to conflicts of interests.
Mr. West stated that the Council did not have a copy of the proposed ordinance
(Anaheim Campaign Reform Ordinance-General Provisions--on file in the City Clerk's
office). He also noted that he had a list of approximately 30 people who signed
a letter urging the matter to go before the Council. Those people primarily
came from a list of people who supported the amendment on a County level and
expressed a desire to see it implemented on a City level. If the Council did
not support the proposal and put it on the April ballot as a Charter amendment,
they would go to the initiative process which was basically what occurred at the
County level. They hoped the Council would support the proposal in concept today
and that it would be agendized for the 15th of January at which time they could
take a definite action to adopt the ordinance. They wanted it done before
election and in time to run their initiative if neceseary. The amendment was
good law, it was constitutional, and it had been tested in courts. The people
on the list believed in it and would support it and had supported it in the
past.
In concluding, Mr. West urged the Council today to adopt the principles, to
review the documents and to agendize the matter for January 15, 1980, when they
might take a definite action on it. The initiative process was a long one and
they would rather see the Council adopt it themselves. They wanted to see the
responsiveness of local government revert to the people and the amount of money
being raised brought back into line not only with the rest of the County, but
also with the majority of the City. He reiterated, they wanted to see an end
to professional political consultants who simply drove a wedge between the
people and the voters.
Councilman Roth asked what the estimated cost would be to the taxpayers to ad-
minister and enforce the proposed ordinance which the Council had not yet seen.
Mr. West answered that the cost would depend on how vigorously it was enforced.
He did not have a dollars and cents cost but felt that they had seen the social
cost of not having such an ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what Mr. West had in mind because she had no documen-
tation in front of her and she felt they should have had the material in their
agenda packets. Mr. West then submitted the proposed ordinance to the Council
and stated that he would like a vote on the concept of limiting campaign contri-
butions.
Councilman Bay stated, as he understood the request, it was primarily for the
Council to place the proposed ordinance on the April 1980 ballot; Mr. West
answered that was correct. Councilman Bay then stated that Mr. West, therefore,
considered that the idea was a political issue that should be put before the
people.
79-1405
city Hal~,~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December lip 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. West answered that he did not feel it was a political issue but something
the people should have a right to vote on.
Councilman Bay then posed questions to Mr. West which he prefaced by stating
that his questions would not deal with the ordinance because it was just submitted
to the Council. He assumed since Mr. West was proposing a new and different
legal control for election campaigning, and that he (West) was fully aware of
the existing election codes and Proposition 9 already in effect in the City and
the State; Mr. West answered that he was fairly well familiar with them but not
totally.
Councilman Bay continued that again he assumed that someone who would go to
work on a new resolution that would mean a charter change as well as changing
and adding to the existing rules would have been very familiar with those rules.
He then asked Mr. West if he wrote the proposed ordinance.
Mr. West stated that he wrote it with a lot of help from other people who had
worked on it. It was not his ordinance, but it was from a group of people whose
names were on the list who knew more about it than he did.
Councilman Bay then referred to the first six names on the list (James West,
Joe White, Mary M. Dinndorf, Bob Linn, Alice Grant, Shirley Modiano). He asked
if they wrote the ordinance.
Mr. West answered that they were familiar with it since the ordinance was basically
the County ordinance reduced to a municipal level and they had plagiarized the
County ordinance.
Councilman Bay asked if the County ordinance restricted political action commit-
tees; Mr. West answered "no", but it did restrict lobbyists. Basically it was a
concept that he talked about with some people and with those who wrote the County
ordinance who told him of some problems involved with that ordinance. There
were no new issues, theory or law in the proposed ordinance but there were things
in it that were not in the County ordinance. He had received some legal assis-
tance from those who overviewed the writing of the ordinance on the County level
and he incorporated some of that information in the proposed ordinance.
Mr~ West then explained for Councilman Bay that he mailed out approximately 53
copies of the letter which was attached to the proposed ordinance (on file in
the City Clerk's office). He personally typed it, printed it on a Kodak machine
and mailed it.
Councilman Bay viewed the matter as a potential political issue and assumed that
was what Mr. West was interested in; Mr. West stated that he did not understand
potential political issue.
Councilman Bay again noted the first six names on the list who were in favor of
starting to change campaign laws. Perhaps Mr. West was not aware that at least
four of the people listed were members of what was loosely called the cadre of
former Mayor Bill Thom.
79-1406
.City.. Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December llT 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. West stated that he had heard that, but to put an extra emphasis on the
six names in the front and ignore the 24 or 25 on the back would be erroneous.
He tried to contact as many people as he knew so that he could send out as many
letters as possible. The people on the second sheet were primarily people who
worked on the initiative at the County level and who supported it on a City level.
Councilman Bay then asked, when Mr. West made his mailing to the 53 people looking
for support, was the second page included in the mailout, that containing the 24
or 25 additional names; Mr. West answered "no".
Councilman Bay stated the reason he was curious, in looking at the letter and
the name of the six people that went out on the original mail-out, it seemed
to him that those people had been very active with politics in the City and he
may have jumped to the conclusion that it might be a political issue. That was
why he assumed it was being presented in such a manner since the Council was not
presented with a copy of the ordinance until Just now. Therefore, it would be
very difficult for the Council, in his view, to vote for a concept before they
had time to look at that concept.
Mr. West stated he felt the concept of limiting unreasonably large campaign
contributions did not take any in depth research. He realized that to adopt the
document at this time would be unreasonable and that was the reason he asked
that it be agendized for January 15th so that the entire group of people would
know the feelings of the Council. If the Council did not want to do it and had
no intention of limiting their ability to collect large sums of money, his group
could then go through the initiative process and do it for the Council.
Councilman Bay, referring again to the six people, asked Mr. West if he was
aware that one of the people was a candidate for the City Council in the last
election and received what Mr. West would term a very large financial contri-
bution from a controlled committee of Bill Thom's which money was raised in
the name of Bill Thom.
Mr. West stated that he had researched all the records in the City Clerk's office,
all the expenditures and all the collections, and he did not see that.
Councilman Bay then asked if he was aware that one of the six people was also
the treasurer for the campaign funds of former Councilman William Kott who,
according to the newspapers, was still under investigation for violation of
Proposition 9 campaign laws in the State of California.
Mr. West stated that he was somewhat confused at the tack of questioning and
asked if he (Bay) was indicting the people on that list or if he was talking
about campaign limitations.
Councilman Bay stated he was just trying to get across to Mr. West that, in
his opinion, when starting a move to change laws, particularly those pertaining
to campaign funding and financial contributions in the City, considering all the
disclosure laws presently in force, it seemed ironical that he would start with
this particular group of people, the six he mailed to when he started his
campaign to gather names.
79-1407
~City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 19~9, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. West stated that he believed Councilman Bay misunderstood what he said. He
did not seek out to gain as many possible names. Those were not official signa-
tures of registered voters. He wanted to collect people who were committed, who
had beliefs and people who would stand behind those beliefs and back an initiative
process if the Council refused to put the issue on the ballot. Those people had
done it before and they would do it again.
Councilman Bay then read the letter that was sent to 53 addresses:
"Dear fellow citizen of Anaheim:
We hope you will take a moment to look at the material we are sending you. If
you agree with the concept of campaign contribution limitations we strongly
urge you to add your name to the list of those supporting the ordinance. You
may do so by either signing and returning the Presentation (first page only) or
by contacting one of us: James West, Joe White, Mary M. Dinndorf, Bob Linn, Alice
Grant, Shirley Modiano."
In his opinion, if he were going to start a political organization, he would
start it about the same way and he felt that was the true intent of what Mr.
West had done--he had started a political organization. He did not see anything
wrong in that, but he did not understand why Mr. West did not admit that was
what he was doing.
Mr. West answered, if that was what Councilman Bay would do, he was speaking
for himself. He was not speaking for him (West) and that was not what he would
do. If Councilman Bay saw it as a political move, he felt it said more about
him than it did about the 30 people on the list. He asked if Councilman Bay
had looked at the Proposition 9 disclosures in the City Clerk's office and if
he found nothing philosophically imbalanced in those reports.
Councilman Bay answered that he had looked at them quite often and he did not
say that he did not find anything wrong. Mr. West made the statement that he
felt the concept that large campaign contributions equalled conflict of interest.
He wanted to know if Mr. West had some specific examples of where that had been
created.
Mr. West stated if they felt that on a municipal level large campaign contributions
did not lead to conflicts of interest, they were better people than the Board of
Supervisors. When they adopted the ordinance two years ago, the Supervisors
"implicitly implied" that large campaign contributions did lead to conflicts of
interest.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. West was aware that there was no way he
could expect the Council to stop and read the four page document Just presented,
absorb it, and discuss it at this time. When he asked to speak to the Council
she was certain 'that he had the proposed ordinance at that time.
Mr. West reiterated that was why he asked that it be set for the January 15, 1980
meeting. He explained that he did not have the document completed when he asked
to be placed on the agenda but that it was completed by last Friday; howe~er, he
was trying to put some finishing touches on it.
79-1408
City Hal.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 19.79~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had been on record for a very long time as being
opposed to spending huge amounts on elections ever since 1976 when $30,000 was
spent to buy an election. She felt that was obscene and would not have any part
of it. She did not believe from glancing at the documentation presented that it
would be able to correct the problem.
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not like to be subjective particularly
with the two leaders of his recall in the Chamber but he did think that his
election was exactly contrary to one of Mr. West's previous statements relative
to hardball financing which he asked him to clarify.
Mr. West stated that he was saying that hardball, big money politics had descended
to the municipal level of Anaheim in certain instances but not all.
Councilman Overholt stated that his election in April of 1978 disproved that
statement. He further stated that he would not vote on anything today whether
or not it was to be agendized on January 15 or whether or not he agreed or dis-
agreed because he had not had time to read what Mr. West presented.
Mr. West stated he would like to have a definite time because they did have a
recall..., he then corrected himself by stating that he did not mean a recall.
Councilman Overholt interjected and stated that since he raised the point, he
wanted to know what impact the proposal would have on the recall.
Mr. West answered that he could not imagine it having any effect on the recall,
as he did not feel that Councilman Overholt violated the concept of reasonable
campaign fund raising. Mr. West further contended that one way or another the
proposed ordinance would become law. The people who signed the list and the
commitment they had exhibited in the past should make that obvious. They could
talk about his staff, his printing or his timing but he felt they should be
talking about limiting political campaign contributions.
Councilman Overholt emphasized that he would not vote one way or the other today
even in the face of Mr. West's lightly unveiled threat.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, stated he was not present to speak in favor or
against the proposed ordinance. He believed he heard that the Board of Supervisors
supported the ordinance for the County because they felt there was undue influence
with regard to large money contributions. He questioned that simply because
there were two or three provisions in the proposed document that were not in
the County ordinance. He urged the Council before taking any action to note
those differences. They were two different documents completely and he re-
iterated they should take a careful look at it.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Brown how he obtained a copy of the documents.
Mr. Brown stated he was somewhat surprised to receive it in his mail last Tuesday
afternoon and he subsequently read through it. He also put a copy of the document
in the mail to each Council Member but he understood it had not been received
as yet. He further stated that he would be curious to know who the remaining
names were in support, because the documents he received contained only those
names listed on the first page with no other names attached to it.
79-1409
City, Ha.ll., An~heim,..Ca!iforD~a L COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if what Mr. West sent to people in the mail was not
the same thing he just handed the Council.
Mr. West answered that what he sent to people in the mail was not the same thing
he handed the Council but the concept was there.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification if Mr. West was saying that people
signed something and he was changing it as they were signing it so that it
might not be the same thing as he now had; Mr. West stated they signed for the
concept of campaign limitations. They were all familiar with the program as
it went through the County and the loopholes it contained and they were all for
plugging those loopholes. What Mr. Brown stated about it being a different
document was true but what he (Brown) failed to mention was the concept of not
limiting individual contributions as well as the concept of limiting but not
prohibiting political action committees which was special interest and lobbyists.
The legal concept of limiting a lobbyist was the same as limiting a political
action committee. There were no new legal concepts and it was not possible to
plug all the loopholes.
At the conclusion of additional discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and
Mr. West, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that (1) she did not have any undue
influence from anybody and, (2) she would never sign anything Mr. West passed
around because it was apparently subject to change.
Mr. West stated, to ~nake it clear, no one signed anything. He did not ask for
a signature, but asked to list those names on a document to go to the City
Council to limit campaign funds. Those were not legal signatures. He had
asked if he could list their names in support of the concept and they said
"yes".
Mayor Seymour stated if anybody were accused of high campaign fund raising and
professionally managed campaigns, they could all point the finger at him since
he was on the record. He wholeheartedly agreed with the concept of limiting
campaign financing--he had stated so before and he still believed it. On the
other hand, he felt equally as strong that they should not start to make rules
when the ballgame had already begun. To be specific, there were three people
who he knew of, himself, Councilmen Roth and Bay and perhaps others who had
already begun fund raising as a very necessary activity for the purposes of
running a campaign in the coming year. If the intent was to set rules for the
coming campaign to be effective in the next election, he felt that to be inap-
propriate. Since most ordinances provided for "grandfathering" it would put
at least the three people he mentioned at a distinct advantage over any other
individual who chose to run because they had already been in the business of
raising funds. It would put an unfair limitation on others and thus it was
not appropriate as far as the timing was concerned.
He also wondered why it was necessary and why it was being suggested that the
matter be placed on the ballot. He was prepared to structure a campaign limi-
tation ordinance after due thought and consideration and by going through an
intelligent and well thought out process. The Board of Supervisors never saw
fit to put the issue on the ballot, but adopted it in an ordinance form, and if
the Council wished to do so, they were capable of doing Just that.
79-1410
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11, 1979; 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated further that he suspected the timing of the proposal may have,
in fact, some political overtones to it. If he were an aspiring candidate, he
felt that would be a good issue to run on. He believed they should have limi-
tations because the cost of a campaign in Anaheim was extremely expensive in
trying to reach some 60,000 registered voters. The best way to reach the voter
~n the City was to knock on doors or to reach them through the mail.
In concluding, he stated he supported the concept of limiting campaign financing,
but he did not support making it a political issue in a political campaign. The
proper time for the creation and implementation of such an ordinance wac when
there was no campaign and people were not politically motivated. As well, if
it were placed on the ballot, and he did not see any reason for doing so if the
majority of the Council was willing to adopt it, June would be a better time
than April. Placing it on the ballot in April would only make it a political
issue and it would be turned to the advantage of one political opponent or
another, thereby detracting from the real issues that faced the City. Those
issues included the cost of government, electrical generation, redevelopment,
crime, sufficiency of libraries, streets and capital improvements.
Councilman Overholt stated that he believed there should be a limitation also
and he had signed the CUP proposal when it was circulated. To ask the
Council to do anything today was presumptuous. He felt they should merely receive
the request.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to receive the request as presented by Mr. West.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked for clarification if the motion was
to receive the request relative to the adoption of the concept or the adoption
of the ordinance or both.
Councilman Overholt answered "no". Mr. West's request was to place the matter
on the Council agenda January 15, 1980. The Council should receive the request
and subsequently any Member of the Council could then bring the matter up again
and the Council could then act on it. If no one brought it up, they would not
act on it.
Mayor Seymour moved to amend the motion to include that the Council approve of
the concept of campaign limitation.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that would be acceptable if it was very clear that
it had nothing to do with what they had not yet read; the Mayor confirmed that they
would vote on the concept only.
Councilman Overholt accepted the amendment and made it a part of his motion
which was also acceptable to Councilman Bay.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to receive and file the request
and approving the concept of campaign contribution limitation. MOTION CARRIED.
79-1411
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-56 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9876 - EXTENSION OF TIME:
Councilman Overholt moved to approve the extension of time to Reclassification
No. 76-77-56 retroactively for one year to expire July 5, 1980 and an extension
of time to Tentative Tract No. 9876 to expire January 5, 1981. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports~and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed; the requests for leave to present
late claims (a & b) were denied:
a. Claim submitted by Shelley Slack for leave to present late claim, and claim
for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by
Anaheim Police during arrest of claimant at or near 125 North State College
Boulevard, on or about July 11, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Ronald J. O'Donnell for permission to file late claim,
and claim for personal injury and property damages purportedly sustained as a
result of claimant's seminar at the Convention Center being rendered ineffec-
tive by a noisy event being held in the same building, on or about April 27,
1979.
c. Claim submitted by Ira J. Martin for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of necessary vehicle tow due to open excavation in the intersection of
Vermont and Rose Streets, covered by rainwater, on or about October 20, 1979o
d. Claim submitted by David J. Sattler for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of actions by Anaheim Police resulting in false arrest and false impri-
sonment, on or about November 13, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Clara Morgan for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of trip-and-fall accident on sidewalk in front of Anaheim
Village No. 1 Apartments on Chippewa Street, on or about November 24, 1979.
f. Claim submitted by Allen and Gayle Hanosh on behalf of their son, Cory Dean
Hanosh, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of danger-
ous condition on playground area at Sunkist School, on or about August 16, 1979.
The following claims were allowed:
g. Claim submitted by Barbara Erkkila for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident involving City employee driving City-owned vehicle,
near 400 W. North Street, on or about October 15, 1979.
h. Claim submitted by Truck and Auto Supply, Inc., for vehicular damages
purportedly sustained as a result of collision involving City-owned vehicle,
on Katella Avenue east of State College Boulevard, on or about October 15, 1979.
79-1412
City H~i.1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for October 1979.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of November 14, 1979.
c. 175: Public Utilities Department--Customer Service Report for October 1979.
d. 107: Public Works Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for November
1979.
3~ 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendation of the Chief of Police:
ao Dinner Dancing Place Permit, submitted by Casa Manana Restaurant, 1204 South
Harbor Boulevard, for dancing Friday through Sunday, 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
(Jorge Ulloa, applicant)
b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit, submitted by Betty's Inn Place, 1740 West La
Palma Avenue, for dancing four days a week, 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. (Ronald and
Betty Schnabel, applicants)
c. Public Dance Permit, submitted by Vietnamese Community's Christmas Party,
for a dance to be held December 22, 1979, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. at the Anaheim
Convention Center. (Lam Van Nguyen, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-730
through 79R-732, 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-730: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Blue Ribbon
Builders, Inc.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-731: 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: VILLA PLACE
EXTENSION SEWER IMPROVEMENT, FROM PEARL STREET TO LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0170; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CON-
STRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICA-
TIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE
INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened
January i0, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.)
79-1413
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-732: 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: VIA VISTA
SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0160; APPRO-
VING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUC-
TION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCOR-
DANCE 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 January 10, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nom. 79R-730 through 79R-732, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held NoVember 19, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3120 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10694): Submitted by Brookhurst
Village Development Corporation, to convert an existing 228-unit aparment
complex into a 228-unit condominium complex on RM-1200 zoned property located
at 1250 South Brookhurst Street, with Code waivers of: minimum building site
area per dwelling unit, maximum building height, maximum site coverage, minimum
floor area, minimum setback abutting single-family residential developments,
minimum recreational-leisure area, minimum distance between buildings, required
building orientation, minimum number and type of parking spaces, minimum distance
to parking spaces.
The City Planning Co~nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-225, granted in
part Variance No. 3120, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004--DELETION OF CONDITION AND WAIVER OF CODE
REQUIREMENT: Submitted by Cosmo Vincent Taormina, Arlene Taormina, Taormina
Industries, Inc., to delete Condition No. 13 of Resolution No. PC79-180 per-
taining to a required parking agreement and waiver of required number of parking
spaces to permit an Elks Lodge on property located at 526-528 West Vermont Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, denied the deletion of Condition No. 13 and the
waiver of a code requirement. A negative declaration had previously been
approved.
No action was required by the Council, however, Councilman Roth asked that the
record reflect that he abstained.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2031: Submitted by Gerald Elmer Albright and
Sue Carol Albright, to permit an auto body repair and upholstery shop and office
use of a residential structure on ML zoned property located at 225 Euclid Way
with Code waivers of minimum access drive width and minimum number of parking
spaces.
79-1414
.City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Dec-mber 11, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-224, granted in
part Conditional Use Permit No. 2031 and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2036: Submitted by Orangethorpe Ltd., to retain
a billboard on ML zoned property located on the south side of Orangethorpe
Avenue west of Placentia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-223, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2036, and ratified the Planning Director's
Categorical exemption determination.
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-15 AND VARIANCE NO. 3051--EXTENSION OF TIME:
William E. Uhl, requesting a retroactive extension of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-15 and Variance No. 3051, proposed RM-1200 zoning to construct a
70-unit apartment complex, with Code waivers, on property located at 125 South
Westchester Drive.
The City Planning Commission, approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-15 and Variance No. 3051, to expire September 25, 1980.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2380 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by the City of
Anaheim, requesting to terminate Variance No. 2380, to permit a miniature golf
course, with Code waivers, on property located at 727 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-226 terminated
Variance No. 2380.
7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-37 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by
Villa Vista Development Corporation requesting approval of specific plans for
a 12-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-1200 zoned property having frontage
of 167 feet on the northerly terminus of Provential Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved specific plans for Reclassification
No. 77-78-37.
No action was taken by the City Council, therefore the action of the City
Planning Commission became final.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (4:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:15 P.M.)
ORDINANCE NO. 4083: Councilman Overholt moved to waiver further reading of
the subject ordinance. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4083 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4083: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-4, RS-HS-22,000)
79-1415
CitM Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 197.9~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4083 duly passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4084 - RELATING TO BINGO GAMES:
moved to waive further reading of the subject ordinance.
seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt
Councilwoman Kaywood
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked how many were present in the
Chamber audience relative to the subject; there were approximately six.
Councilman Overholt thereupon withdrew his motion and Councilwoman Kaywood her
second.
Deputy City Clerk Leonora Sohl read the proposed ordinance amending Section
7.34.120 of Chapter 7.34 of Title 7 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
Bingo games in full.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak to the subject.
Miss Jackie Anderson, 118 Normandy Court, first asked if this was with reference
to no donation bingo.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the definition proposed in the
ordinance defined bingo as a game of chance in which prizes are awarded on the
basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card which conformed to numbers or
symbols selected at random. That was the definition contained in Penal Code
Section 326.5. The City added to that two sections--one indicating that it
included bingo "conducted among persons all or any of whom have paid, or pro-
mised to pay, any valuable consideration" sometimes referred to as lottery
bingo. The second part, "conducted among persons none of whom has paid, or
promised to pay, any valuable consideration for the right to participate in
such games where the total value of the prizes awarded in such games exceeds
the value of twenty-five dollars ($25)." That would include the so-called
donation bingo in the definition that covered the entire ordinance.
Miss Anderson asked if she went to the bingo parlor and did not feel like paying
for a card, could she still win; Mayor Seymour stated that he thought she could,
in fact, do so.
Miss Anderson explained that she had been to the bingo parlor (Colonial Manor)
and because she refused to donate, she was refused a card and last night she
was asked to leave the premises.
The Mayor stated he thought that was in violation of the law.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that donation bingo would now be covered by the
entire City ordinance regulating the prizes and all aspects of the conduct of
bingo games in Anaheim. It would provide for covering both the type of bingo
where payment was made, and the type where there was merely a donation.
79-1416
City Hall, ~n~h.e%m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ %979~ 1:30 P.M.
Donation bingo up until now, assuming the Council were to pass the ordinance,
was not controlled in any way. The State law, at least in the Attorney General's
opinion, only applied to the lottery type bingo and there was no control on
donation bingo. The proposed amendment would now put donation bingo under the
City's regulations and the entire ordinance would apply, but as of right now
it did not.
Mayor Seymour asked, under donation bingo, with or without the ordinance, was
Miss Anderson permitted to go into a place offering donation bingo, pick up
a card for nothing, play the game and potentially win.
Mr. Hopkins answered "yes". Donation bingo meant that a person did not have to
pay anything, they may or may not donate and they should be able to win a prize
and play without any consideration whatsoever.
Miss Anderson stated she had been to Colonial Manor on several occasions and
she normally spent $40 to $50 a night. She sometimes bought one card and got
a free card and when the worker found out she was getting a free card, he would
avoid her and wait on everybody else around her pretending he did not see her.
The following night, she took another person with her and they sat at the estab-
lishment partly through the night and did not donate and they were refused cards.
The workers would not wait on them. Last night, she went in with her friend and
asked for a card. She was told that they could not give a no donation card and
the workers had been asked to tell her to leave. When she asked for a reason,
they were told they were intimidating workers. She had not been rude to any-
body but she was asked to leave the premises and she felt they wanted to weed
out anybody who did not want to donate.
Mr. Hopkins reiterated that there was no legislation at the present time covering
so-called donation bingo. The Attorney General ruled under donation bingo that
there was no consideration and a person should be able to play; however, there
were no limitations and no rules and that was the reason for adding the section
to the City's ordinance so that the controls devised and the various regulations
would apply to donation bingo°
Trudi, Widow's Anonymous, 613 North Euclid, stated that she did not understand
the ordinance read to them by the Clerk. Relative to the sum of $25, she asked
if she was to interpret that to mean that the games would now not exceed $25
for the payoff on either ordinance bingo or donation bingo.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the $25 was to exempt from the ordinance childrens games,
games that were played in the home where there was no consideration. It would
apply to the ordinance any game where the prize was $25 and then it would apply
the standard limitations of $250, etc. It merely exempted from the ordinance
games where there was no prize exceeding $25.
Trudi then continued, speaking for her organization only, since the Council chose
to limit bingo to one day a week, it had crippled her program. The two programs
that had suffered the most from the ordinance were the Velvet Knights and Widow's
Anonymous. To emphasize the point, she stated if there were 200 bars in Anaheim
and one cocktail lounge was causing a problem, it was not necessary to close all
the bars but the one creating the problem. Groups such as Widow's Anonymous
became the backlash for some of the things that had happened in bingo. There
79-1417
~ity Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
were three operators that she believed were no longer in Anaheim and who probably
never should have been in Anaheim to begin with. The Council earlier discussed
raising campaign funds and she contended it was more difficult to raise funds
for charity and bingo was a great way of doing so. Bingo was not their business
and they never operated more than two days a week. They could not make it on
one day a week.
Trudi then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they played bingo at 613 North
Euclid. Before the new ordinance limiting bingo to one day a week, she had
committed to the lease for the larger building so that they could have a thrift
shop in the daytime and have bingo two days a week. She was now committed to
something she could not pay for. The present building could hold 140 people
whereas prior to that, their capacity was 50. They also had 10 weeks of down
time during their move.
Councilman Overholt asked if Widow's Anonymous ever conducted donation bingo
games.
Trudi answered "yes" on two Saturdays and four Sundays. They started November 18,
1979 and had donation bingo for three Sundays and as of Saturday the first, they
started Saturdays and Sundays but were not filling the hall. She switched to
donation bingo until she found out what the Council was going to decide. She
was not playing lottery bingo at all because she had not received her license
renewal as yet.
Hilda Demer, 118 Normandy Court stated she was Miss Anderson's friend and she
had accompanied her the previous night to Colonial Manor and witnessed what
happened. She too was also refused a card but they did not ask her to leave;
however, she saw no point in sitting there without cards. She also stated that
if she ever won, and she had been going to Colonial Manor once a week for the
last three months, she could not have collected the money because she did not
possess a California Driver's license and only had an English passport. She
did not know if that was the law but they were told it was an Anaheim City
Ordinance.
Mr. Hopkins clarified that the City's ordinance did not require that, and
apparently it was a rule of the house.
Mrs. Gaylen Phipps, 320 North Lemon, stated that they still had all the same
problems they had on October 2, 1979 (see minutes that date) with parking in
front of residences, noise until three o'clock in the morning sometimes starting
at nine and continuing through to two and three in the morning. Ail of the
people living in the vicinity of Colonial Manor could not get their sleep.
Colonial Manor, as it was being run now, was depreciating the value of the pro-
perty in the immediate vicinity of that establishment within three, four or
five blocks. The majority of the properties were rentals and the tenants were
very dissatisfied because of the lack of sleep due to the excessive noise. The
parking on their streets seven nights a week prohibited the residents or their
friends from getting near their houses or apartments. They were getting very
tired of the environment. As well, people parking along the street were throwing
trash all over the curbs and on the lawns. On Zeyn, there was a camper that
parked in front of one of the residences frequently and sometimes all night.
79-1418
ci.ty Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The residents spoke with the people who owned the camper and they indicated they
were going to Colonial Manor to play bingo. The next morning after they left,
the residents had to clean up body waste along the curb. The situation made it
difficult to find good tenants because when they found out about the problems,
they would refuse to rent. Many of the residents had lived there since 1944,
paid their taxes and did not want to have such things occurring in their neigh-
borhood which was continually getting worse. They did not think it fair to the
property owners who paid taxes to allow one establishement who did not pay taxes
to cause all of those problems and depreciate the property values. They hoped
that the Council would take all their problems into consideration when making
a decision.
Councilman Overholt asked if the conditions eximted seven days a week at present.
Mrs. Phipps answered "yes" and the conditions were worse on Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays.
Councilman Overholt stated that Mrs. Phipps was prement when the Council passed
the ordinance which reduced lottery bingo to one day a week. He asked if she
noticed any change since that day; Mrs. Phipps answered that there had been no
change.
Elizabeth Whistler, resident of Buena Park, stated that she was a bingo player
and in the past had called bingo for the Good Life Church and the Desiderata
Crisis Center Hotline and she aided the Anaheim Police Department in shutting
down the latter establimhment. She did not think the issue today was Frank
Rose or the Colonial Manor, but bingo and they were getting side tracked by
the way Colonial Manor was run. She did not feel that they should let Colonial
Manor put a bad impresmion on bingo generally since there was good and bad in
all of them. She did not represent anyone at the present time but was supportive
of Widow's Anonymous.
Mayor Seymour asked if she had a position on the ordinance or specific suggestions
as to how it might be changed; Miss Whistler stated that she did not.
Councilman Roth asked if she objected in general to reducing bingo to one day a
week whether pay or donation; Miss Whistler stated she did have an objection to
one day a week but that was her personal opinion. She then clarified for Council-
woman Kaywood that she had not worked for Colonial Manor but for the two previous
organizations she mentioned. Also, one Saturday when Trudi of Widow's Anonymous
was running her game at Colonial Manor, she did volunteer at that time.
In answer to Councilman Overholt Miss Whistler stated Demiderata was no longer
in business and that their charitable activities supposedly involved a referral
service for suicide crisis victims.
Councilman Overholt asked if she had personal knowledge if there was ever such
a referral service; Miss Whistler answered "no" there was not.
Mr. Frank Rose, Colonial Manor, first pasmed out copies of the Attorney General's
opinion relative to donation bingo. As a preface to him comments, he stated
that Desiderata was the organization who brought the free clinics to Orange
79-1419
City H~!., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
County. He also maintained that Miss Whistler was as guilty of breaking the
law as the people who paid her under Section 326.5 of the Penal Code since she
admitted she got paid.
Later in the discussion, Miss Whimtler confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that
she did not in fact may that she had ever received money for anything.
Mr. Rose continued that everyone who worked bingo at Colonial Manor had to sign
a statement indicating that they understood that if anyone asked for a donation
card, when giving that card to the patron they had to treat that person the
same as anyone else. %hat statement was signed everyday by the people working
the games. He also stated that he had a tape of the two women who spoke earlier
(Miss Anderson and Demer) that he asked to play a little later in his presentation
that would refute the statements made. He stated there had been a problem and
any time they had that many people coming through their establishment, they were
going to run into problems from time to time. To him knowledge, no one had ever
been denied a free card on request.
Relative to Mrs. Phipps' statement that the property was being demoted, he ex-
plained that they had an option on the two pieces of property in back of
Colonial Manor in excess of $100,000. He did not know how that property was
going down when its value had doubled and tripled. Many people had complimented
them on the improvement of the property. If anybody was parking overnight and
doing the things that Miss Phipps explained, they should call the Police. The
problem with the neighborhood lay in the fact that were multiple dwellings and
no off street parking. He stated that Chief Tielsch said that they ought to
tax bingo. He (Rose) did not believe in taxation and the interference of
government in people's lives. Colonial Manor had not been playing bingo because
they did not now have a bingo license. It had expired and they could not get
another one. The way the bingo ordinance was constructed, a person had a right
to donate their money in any amount they wished. They also had a right not to.
They had licensed bingo in California because there was a lot of donation bingo
going on. He doubted seriously the way the ordinance was constructed if it was
not unconstitutional° What they did was to put themselves out of the policing
~f bingo and that was the reason AB101 was adopted in the State so that they
could regulate it. The City said they could have 326.5 bingo and subsequently
their license expired and they could not get it renewed. He reiterated Colonial
Manor had not played bingo in their building since their license expired. They
had to rent it out to other organizations to get the revenue to make payments.
He questioned why Colonial Manor did not have a license. They were raising money
for indigent people and he felt what the Council was doing today was an immoral
act serving political interests.
Mr. Rose then asked to play the tape he had referred to earlier; the Council
granted him permission to do so. However, after they had listened to a part
of it, the Mayor ruled any further airing of the tape out of order since it
was not intelligible and lacked clarity relative to identification of speakers.
In concluding, Mr. Rose asked that they not pass the proposed ordinance because
it was going to "kill" them since they had gone on donations in lieu of lottery
bingo. He felt a terrible injustice was going to be done to their program. They
had a large hospital, several halfway house8 and they did not take any tax money.
79-1420
City ga. 11, An.a.~qi.m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Also, there was no evidence by Chief Tielsch's admission in previous depositions
that any skimming was going on. With donation bingo, they could keep themselves
afloat although it was not as profitable. They Just when through an audit and
if anything was wrong they would be in jail.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many spaces they had in their parking lot.
Mr. Rose answered that he did not know but it was perhaps somewhere between 100
or 200, He felt that the Sons of Italy Hall was causing a parking problem since
there was no off-street parking for that hall. They also did not have adequate
off-street parking for Colonial Manor but they were in the process of obtaining
it as he previously explained.
Mr. Steven Sawyer, partner in the law firm of Davis, Sawyer and Volmer, General
Counsel for Colonial Manor, 504 Golden Circle Drive, Suite 214, Santa Ana, stated
that the Mayor remarked, "an intelligent, well thought out process should be con-
sidered before enacting an ordinance" and that was what they were there to dis-
cuss. On October 2, 1979, the previous ordinance was passed regarding lottery
bingo limiting it to one night a week in Anaheim. There was a lawsuit filed
against that in the name of Colonial Manor and also by another organization who
conducted lottery type bingo in the City. In that suit, they sought a temporary
restraining order and injunctive relief to stop the passage of the previous ordin-
ance dealing with lottery bingo. One of the legal theories they expressed to
the court was that they felt the previous ordinance as drawn may have applied
to donation type bingo and, if so, the ordinance was vague and had other con-
stitutional problems. Judge Wallen granted a temporary restraining order and
refused a temporary injunction. In that suit, there were numerous statements
made in court and in papers submitted to the court that the bingo ordinance
did not apply to donation bingo. The position which was taken prior to the
proposed enactment of the ordinance before them today was that the ordinance
in Anaheim dealing with bingo applied only to lottery bingo and not donation
bingo which he felt to be a very important point. The Anaheim ordinance dealing
with bingo was enacted under Section 326.5 of the Penal Code which, in turn, was
enabling legislation under the California Constitution. In 1976, voters in the
state overwhelmingly approved bingo and the State Legislature enacted 326.5 to
allow bingo to be played under various restrictions and those restrictions dealt
with lottery type bingo. This was now an attempt to add another type bingo
to the existing ordinace and they were talking about two different types of
bingo--one which had never been legislated and another which had since 1976.
He questioned by proposing the ordinance, could the Council now control what
had previously not been controlled and make an action which had heretofore
been legal, illegal.
He stated that Chapter 7 of the City Code had many restrictions on the playing
of lottery bingo. By passing the proposed ordinance they were now applying
those restrictions to donation type bingo. He asked what facts the Council had
indicating that those types of restrictions must be applied in a circumstance
where an organization was raising funds not through a lottery. There was no
question that anyone on any evening could play the game for free. The Attorney
General's opinion spoke directly on that point. True donation bingo where no consi-
deration had to be paid was not unlawful because it was not a lottery. If the
79-1421
.qit~ ~a~l, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979; 1:30 P.M.
Attorney General said that donation type bingo was not an unlawful activity and
never legislated against, the question remained, did the City Council now have
the right to say they were going to include this type of activity under the
program of lottery type bingo. He did not think it would, but it was something
that should be considered and he did not feel that it had been considered.
He questioned if the Council. had considered what impact the legislation would
have, for example, on places like Jack-in-the-Box and McDonalds with franchises
in Anaheim and who were running sweepstakes and games. Under the proposed
ordinance, that type of activity could not take place. He implored the Council
to think about the matter to ascertain if the proposed ordinance had been con-
sidered adequately for them to adopt it this evening. The ordinance would be
almost wiping out Colonial Manor's ability to function financially. He urged
the Council to carefully consider the ordinance before passing it.
The Mayor thereupon closed the public portion of the discussion.
In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Sawyer then explained how the ordinanace if adopted
would apply to those businesses he mentioned as well as grocery stores; Mr.
Sawyer thereupon pointed to language in the first paragraph of the proposed
ordinance by way of an explanation.
City Attorney Hopkins clarified that if the games being played by those stores
fell within the purview of the definitions contained in the proposed ordinance,
it would prohibit them in the City of Anaheim. They had no privilege to engage
in a lottery any more than anyone else and they could not violate the law just
as anybody else could not do so. Stores had called and asked for an opinion
as to whether or not their particular game was in violation. He reiterated if
they violated the ordinance, they would be prohibited just as anyone else.
In answer to further Council questioning, City Attorney Hopkins relayed the
following: in an inquiry he made recently at a League of California City
Attorney's meeting, he was unable to find any other cities that were aware that
donation type bingo was being played in their city but there may be others where
it was being played. The $25 dollar limit was tO exempt from the ordinance
any game in which the prizes awarded did not exceed a value of $25 per game.
Mayor Seymour asked if, for example, he were the VFW and conducted ten games
of bingo in an evening setting of donation type bingo in which he offered a
$25 dollar prize for each game totalling $250 for the evening, would he fall
under the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Hopkins stated the exemption would apply in that case because each game
had a limit of $25 assuming he was talking about donation bingo in which there
was no required consideration.
ORDINANCE NO. 4084: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4084 for final
reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4084: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 7.34.120
OF CHAPTER 7.34 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES.
79-1422
City Hall, Anaheimz California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ ~.979~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he thought Mr. Sawyer
in representing Colonial Manor made a learned presentation and he agreed person-
ally with many things Mr. Sawyer said. The former ordinance was not designed to
reach donation bingo and that was a fact. The present proposed ordinance was
designed to avoid a subterfuge. One operator told them if they passed the
ordinance limiting lottery bingo to one night a week, they would go to donation.
There was no question that the ordinance was for the purpose of bringing in line
one-night-a-week bingo as it was practiced in the City. One of the questions
Mr. Sawyer asked him in the deposition was if he (Overholt) would intentionally
vote for an unconstitutional ordinance. He felt the question of constitutionality
was one that was going to be tested in the courts. He had total confidence that
the proposed ordinance was constitutional because he had confidence in the City
Attorney's office and believed it accomplished the purpose of avoiding a sub-
terfuge which had been going on in the City since they passed the one-night-
a-week ordinance. That was the purpose of the ordinance and the reason he
offered for final reading.
Mayor Seymour stated that he agreed that bingo was continuing in the City under
the banner of donation bingo just as under lottery bingo. To the degree that
the Council was really interested in bringing under control, he could be totally
supportive of the ordinance. The last time they voted, he opposed the ordinance
not on the basis that he was not interested in removing a possibility or an
element of potential crime related with bingo, but that it was overkill in
limiting bingo to one-day-a-week. He suggested at that time that the City
had not given an opportunity to have the first ordinance work and they were
now following on with donation bingo. He concurred if that was what they were
after, the ordinance was certainly appropriate, but he still could not live
with the one day provisions. He felt there were many social services that
were provided to the community and they could continue to be provided with
the three day regulation and at the same time controlling bingo to insure that
illegal acts did not accompany the playing of bingo. He wanted to see if that
were not possible first before taking the stringent action of one day a week
bingo and he did not think they had given the opportunity to try it. It was
obvious that organizations such as Widow's Anonymous, Hope House, Alcoholics
Anonymous, TLC and others that performed great social works would be precluded
from that activity as a result of an overkill on an ordinance. He reiterated
he was totally supportive of eliminating any criminal element having to do
with bingo and tying it to one day rather than three was an overkill. Thus,
he was going to oppose the proposed ordinance. If anybody would be interested
in amending the present or proposed ordinance to three days a week, he would
champion the cause.
Councilman Roth stated that he was the one who brought out the point previously
that they did not give three days a week an opportunity to be tested. Before
they limited bingo to one day, whether donation or lottery, he wanted an
opportunity to try and bring it under control on a three day a week basis.
A vote was then taken on the foreoing ordinance.
79-1423
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Bay
Roth and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4084 duly passed and adopted.
179: PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO RETAIL SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE:
Council-
man Bay stated that last Thursday there was a liaison meeting to discuss some of
the problems relating to the ML zoning ordinance in the northeast Industrial
area. The meeting was attended by the Mayor, himself, two Planning Commissioners,
the Director of Planning, another staff member, Larry Sierk from the Chamber
of Commerce, the City Manager and City Attorney. The Council had instructed
City management to hire a new Zoning Enforcement Officer and in turn to survey
and start the enforcement of the ordinance as it was amended from time to time.
In discussing the survey in the liaison committee, it was noted that the Plan-
ning Department was moving along well on the survey and that they did not feel
at this time that they needed to hire a third enforcement officer. After gen-
eral discussion and the fact that they did not have all the data as yet on the
Northeast Industrial area, the following agreements were reached and recommended
to the Council:
1. That they delay hiring the new enforcement officer.
2. That the Planning Department complete its survey and present the results of
that survey to the next liaison meeting.
3. Meanwhile there will be no changes to the Zoning Ordinance and no new retail
sales approved in that industrial area.
4. That any recommended clarifications or changes to the ML Zoning Ordinance
be directed to the liaison committee by other Council Members and the people
at the meeting.
In effect, they withdrew the subject proposed ordinance from first reading with
no action to be taken at this time as well as the proposed ordinance he submitted
last week (see minutes that date). That was the intent of the agreements made.
Mayor Seymour stated he concurred with everything except one area. It was his
understanding that the potential amendment of the ordinance would be accomplished
by making a list of those types of businesses that could be brought under the
definition of commercial to be completed by the Planning Department and brought
back to the Liaison Committee and Council for approval without waiting for the
gathering of data. Its purpose was to determine what form of enforcement would
take place and that is what he thought they had agreed to.
Councilman Bay explained that after the meeting, he called Planning Director
Thompson and read him the four agreements he just read as well as to Larry
Sierk and asked if that was the understanding within the liaison meeting.
He was not ruling out that there could be lists submitted to the liaison
committee on certain businesses that would fall within and be approved within
that ML zone and to offer some amendments to it. He understood that work would
go on parallel to the continuation of the collection of data at the same time
79-1424
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
so that when they met again, they would be looking at both things--recommendations
from the Planning Commission or any of the groups as to what clarifications or
modifications to the ML Zoning Ordinance might be practical in the real world.
He also felt it important to have the data which should be available at about
the same time in order to know what they were looking at.
Mayor Seymour stated that data would show how many potentially illegal businesses
there were, what types, and how they had been established. He did not know what
that had to do with the clarification of the ordinance.
Councilman Bay stated in his mind it had a great deal to do with taking the pre-
sent ordinance, the interpretation, and comparing that against the data which had
been and would be collected to actually define the scope of the enforcement that
would be necessary if they did not change that ordinance. Therefore, the two
were locked together in trying to determine what they were up against.
Mayor Seymour stated that one issue was the enforcement of the ordinance and
the reason they agreed to delay the hiring of the Enforcement Officer. They
felt they should gather data to see how bad the problem was and the need for en-
forcement. The other subject was an ordinance which they agreed was unclear,
and they further agreed that the approach he (Seymour) had suggested of using
a figure of 25% retail sales might not be a good solution. They also agreed
that Councilman Bay's proposed wording of last week did not get to the thrust
of the majority of the Council. In order to clarify the ordinance, he thought
what they agreed to in the liaison meeting was to have the Planning Commission
and Planning staff develop a list of businesses, bring that to the Council to
see if they could accept those and to clarify the ordinance. Gathering of the
data had nothing to do with the clarification of the ordinance.
After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilman Bay, the Mayor stated
if the matter was going to be coming back to the Council by mid-January, he
could live with the ordinance as currently worded until then.
The proposed ordinance was thereupon withdrawn from the agenda until after
January 15, 1980 for consideration at that time.
156: ORDINANCE NO. 4085: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4085 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4085: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4,
CHPATER 4.30, SECTION 4.30.010 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW
SUBSECTION .040 PERTAINING TO IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 4086: Councilwoman Kmywood offered Ordinance No. 4086 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4086: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 4.97 RELATING TO BUSINESS
REGULATIONS (DANCE STUDIO AND SOCIAL STUDIO ESTABLISHMENTS).
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (7:03 P.M.)
79-1425
City .Hall, ..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Bay. (7:08 P.M.)
112: HIDALGO VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Carl Warren & Company
were authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 31-85-64
(Hidalgo vs. City of Anaheim, et al) for a sum not to exceed $7,901.25.
Councilman Bay was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay entered the Council Chamber. (7:09 P.M.)
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM: To
consider the 1980-81 Community Development Block Grant Program and budget.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development first ~tated they
solicited citizen input on a more concentrated basis than ever before as evidenced
by the size of the Chamber audience. He then outlined the efforts put forth and
media used to obtain that input carried out in some 15 neighborhoods in five
different areas of the City. At the conclusion of the neighborhood meetings,
a Community Wide Committee was formed consisting of members of various commissions
Parks and Recreation, Planning, Redevelopment, Housing and members of all neigh-
borhood areas. Two such committee wide hearings were held on November 15 and
November 29, 1979 and a summary of both were included in the Council's agenda
packet (on file in the City Clerk's office). The resultant budget submitted
(Exhibit A--Staff Recommendations For CDBG Funding For 1980-81) reflected their
best judgment for that community wide board as to how $2,230,000 of new CDBG
funds and $750,000 in carry-over funds from prior years to be utilized in the
upcoming year in Anaheim particularly in those neighborhood areas (see report
dated December 5, 1979 from the Community Development Department--Sixth Year
1980-81, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Budget--with
attachments---on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mr. Priest continued that they were aware as they arrived at the budget that
they had not been able to meet all requests of the citizens; the four issues
of greatest concern in their most recent hearing being, graffiti removal,
crime prevention, Ponderosa Park and facilities in that park, and some discussion
on public works. He then briefed the Council on the proposed budget (on file
in the City Clerk's office).
At the conclusion of Mr. Priest's presentation, the Mayor opened the meeting to
public testimony relative to the 1980-81CDBG Program and budget.
Mr. Alan Clendenon, 900 East Cypress Street, stated that Mrs. Patricia Clency,
303 North Bush had asked him to read a letter, since she was unable to attend
the meeting today, the highlights of which were as follows: she could see a
neighborhood consisting of single-family homes that were well maintained and
apartment buildings that were beginning to show severe signs of going downhill
that were less than 25 years old, however, still better than new ones. She had
a very large investment in one of those apartment houses. She was interested
in finding out what ordinances, rules, regulations and laws were available that
might be enforced to keep the neighborhood from becoming a blighted area. She
found that there were many instruments available but unfortunately also found
that it was impossible to get some of those enforced. The Neighborhood Block
79-1426
~ity Hall, Anaheim,.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December liT 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Grant could provide the necessary funds for the reasonable things requested by
people that would improve the neighborhood if it were not for the guidelines
set down by people who had no concept of the needs in all parts of the United
States because they did not contribute any monies and it was deducted from
the taxpayers.
Ail four neighborhood councils listed law enforcement as the number one priority.
It was a known factor that incidents of law infraction were constantly rising
in their area. There were reckless drivers usually in improperly registered
automobiles and with no auto insurance or ability to post the required bond, etc.
Many homes in the City had been broken into and valuables stolen. Having car
ports hit by unlicensed, uninsured drivers and having to continually paint over
grafitti and being concerned about the safety of her senior tenants was adding
to her personal stress and unless conditions started to improve, she would have
to move. She urged that the Council use Neighborhood Block Grant Funds for
the items necessary to protect and preserve neighborhoods. Additional housing
facilities would be of no value without substantial law and order.
After reading the foregoing letter, Mr. Clendenon stated that he also tended to
think that law enforcement was an important point of consideration and, in fact,
intruders were found on his property last Saturday night.
Mro Tod Polquist, 543 South Dickel, first stated he agreed with what Mr. Clendenon
had said. Police response in his area had been very good. His concern was
relative to the alley adjacent to his property that was very dusty in the
summer and almost impassable in the winter. As a newcomer to the City, he
wanted to know the procedure for getting an alley paved.
Mr. Priest answered that plans indicated, in Mr. Polquist's case, that the alley
was scheduled to be improved either this year or next year and suggested that
Mr. Polquist talk with Public Works relative to specifics.
Mr. George Oisen, 124 South Bush, stated he also had alley trouble. He had
lived at his residence for 14 years and the problem was ongoing.
Mr. Priest explained that Mr. Olsen was located in the redevelopment area and
they were just now moving into that neighborhood preservation program. He
stated that they would perhaps be underway within this year as part of the
overall improvement.
Mr. Olsen also stated that the street sweeper had not been cleaning their
street as of late. He knew that there were signs in existence indicating that
in certain areas vehicles could not park at certain times. There were so many
apartments and people in his area, that many people did not have a place to
park.
Councilman Roth stated that the parking situation was atrocious and if they
installed no parking signs tomorrow to accomodate street sweeping, they would
probably have a revolution on their hands. The streets and the alleys were
deplorable and he hoped that Mr. Priest would take the matter under consider-
ation.
79-1427
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decemb~K 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dominic Tedario, 1180 North Crown, stated in the past 15 days there had been
either actual or attempted intrusions into homes in their immediate neighborhood.
Part of the problem was due to the need for street lights. They had only one
street light on the corner and if they had additional street lighting, they
felt that would be a deterrent to such occurences.
The Mayor suggested if Mr. Tedario had not already done so, that he contact
staff who subsequently could report back to the Council the next time they
had a hearing on the CDBG program and perhaps the request could be included
in the assessment program.
From the audience, it was indicated that the streets involved were Crown and
Arbor. It was also ascertained by the Mayor that there were approximately six
people in the Chamber audience who were interested in street lighting in that
area. The Mayor thereupon suggested that they talk to Mr. George Edwards,
Electrical Engineering Manager, who was present in the Chamber.
Mr. Tedario also stated that, not unlike other residents and other areas in the
City, they also had a grafitti problem in their area. Everybody was working
hard to keep up the integrity of the neighborhood, better their homes, keep
their yards clean and paint walls and sides of buildings, but they seemed to
be losing the race against grafitti.
Mayor Seymour suggested that they choose a spokesman and set up a neighborhood
meeting with Mr. Edwards and anyone else from staff to go to that neighborhood
and sit down one evening convenient to the majority to discuss those problems.
Mr. Priest noted that a meeting was scheduled for that neighborhood early in
January.
Mrs. Jackie Dvorman, Housing Commissioner, stated she was speaking to the
necessity for funds in the budget to be devoted to housing. In the last CDBG
Program, there were 10,000 in the City who needed assistance in rental above
and beyond the 1,500 were already being helped by Section 8 Assistance and
Rehabilitation for their homes--7.4% of the people in the City needed rehabil-
itation on their homes and 15.5% were in need of maintenance. The greatest
need would be for new units for low and moderate income people. A second need
was relative to the fact that business and industry liked to locate in Anaheim,
but there were no homes for people coming into the City and they needed approx-
imately 3,000 homes to accommodate them. She emphasized that they needed those
funds in the budget.
Ms. Glee Cantablibre, Executive Director, Women's Transitional Living Center,I
Inc., P. O. Box 6103, Orange first submitted a report dated November 26, 1979
explaining the function of the center which was to meet the urgent need of
women and children who were the victims of family violence (on file in the
City Clerk's office). Primarily, they were serving low income women and approx-
imately 90% of their population was from the low-medium income level although
it was a problem that cut across all lines. She then relayed information as
to how widespread the problem of family violence was and quoted some statistics
from last year's Attorney General's report which indicated that 20% of all
79-1428
C~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
relations were in a chronic battering syndrome and about 10% were in life
threatening situations. In California, the statistics were even higher.
Their program was not a crash program but a very involved, intensive counseling
program both for the women and the children. One of the most important things
they provided was parenting skills for the women. Twenty-four percent of those
~orought into the center last year were Anaheim residents or 500 women and children.
She then explained the difficulty they had in being able to acquire the 75 bed
facility for $300,000 which represented a Small Cities Reallocation Grant from
HUD when such a facility would cost $600,000. The budget she submitted along
with the report was in proportion to the client population from the individual
cities. Since they were a non-profit corporation, they had difficulty in
getting mortgages nor did they have the type of client who would ever be able
to pay for the services provided. She asked the Council for assistance and
noted that they had received a positive response from other cities.
She then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they were applying for assis-
tance from United Way and were making the final formal application next year
but it was a long process.
The following people also spoke in support of the Women's Transitional Living
Center (WTLC): Diane Prop, 5937 Camino Correr, a member of the Canyon Hills
Junior Women's Club stated that their membership was from Anaheim Hills and
they were the largest group in Orange County and very active in their community.
They supported the WTLC and had supported it for the past year and a half with
various projects including a fund raising event which raised $5,000 for the new
building. They requested that Anaheim allocate funds to help obtain the new
facility.
Mr. John Lether, member of the Board of Directors of WTLC and practicing attorney
stated that domestic violence was a horrendous problem that all in the community
faced and the WTLC was the only place that provided refuge, training or help for
women who had nowhere else to turn. In Orange County, Anaheim was a rich city
and other cities with a smaller "pot" had already contributed funds on a direct
pro rata portion based upon the number of clients that went to the Women's Center
from their particular cities. Of the women who went to the WTLC, 24% were from
Anaheim and the Center turned away 850 women and children a month--24% of that
figure was approximatley 200 women and children from Anaheim. It was a matter
of high priority and the City would undoubtedly save money because they would
be helping to break a chain of violence and the only way it could be done was by
getting involved. He urged the Council to seriously consider the proposal.
Mildred Dailey Pageloe, 1111 Liberty Lane, sociologist and researcher at the
University of California, Riverside asked that the Council give consideration
to allocating a fair share from Anaheim to the support of the building fund so
badly needed by the WTLC. Anaheim could do as other cities had done, pro rata
payments over two or three years. It was an investment in the interest of
crime prevention
Heidi Nichols, 1631 Buena Vista, counselor, stated that she gathered the sta-
tistics for WTLC and she urged the Council support for the Center.
From the audience, it was explained that the WTLC had to find a facility by
June or forfeit the $300,000 HUD grant. Also, the average stay of a client
at the Center was 13 days and maximum of 30 days.
79-1429
City ~all.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11, 197.9, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Eddie Araya, 417 North Vine, Chairman of the Central City Neighborhood Council
stated that he had three concerns: (1) the need for a noise barrier near the
railroad tracks on the west side of Vine Street between Sycamore and Lincoln.
There was a great deal of noise generated from the AMTRAK train which ran
through that area. Mr. Priest told him that would be a part of the redevel-
opment project area. He knew that eventually there would be a sound barrier
but in the meantime, due to the concerns of the citizens relative to noise
pollution, he asked if there was any way to reduce the amount of whistling
by the train as they proceeded through the area. (2) Overcrowding--the over-
crowding near the area was a major problem. He was also an apartment landlord
and knew from past experience the only way to attack the problem was through
the landlords and not the citizens, no matter what the race and in their neigh-
borhood there were mostly Latin people. Councilman Roth interjected and stated
it was very difficult for government to knock on doors to obtain a head count
and a great part of the problem was due to absentee ownership. (3) Other
problems of concern were grafitti, burglarizing, dumpsters overflowing and
parking. Mr. Araya concluded that all such problems were due to the over-
crowding of so many people in one area.
Mrs. Patricia Bayley, 801 North Loara, Apt. 224 stated that she was a tenant
commissioner member of the Housing Commission. She was a renter and faced
periodic rent increases. They were well aware of the low number of housing
stock available in the City both in rentals and home ownership. She urged
the Council to always keep before them the need for additional housing. It
was possible that increased housing would solve some of the problems mentioned
relative to overcrowding as well as the problems which required such things
as the Women's Transitional Living Center. She reiterated the need for an
increase in housing especially low and moderate income. Rent raises were hard
on everyone.
Linda Moore, 112 West Wilken Way, first suggested the possibility of using an
empty school building such as Fremont for the WTLC. She then stated her main
concern was relative to Ponderosa Park and Crime Prevention. She felt that
crime prevention could only be successful if done through citizens working to-
gether. She explained that their's was the first official Neighborhood Watch
formed in Anaheim. She suggested that the Block Grant use their Crime Prevention
funds for an officer and also to take some of the $68,000 for the solicitation
of citizen input and use it for more fliers and publicity on Neighborhood Watch
Programs.
Regarding Ponderosa Park, she was grateful for the $40,000 allocated for the
building fund but she was concerned over the tenseness of the situation with
the many children in the area and the problems they were getting into. More
apartments were being built and more people were moving into the area and if
they had to wait too long for the building, there would be more severe problems
which would take additional money to cure. They were concerned over how long
it would take to build up the fund in order to construct the building. She
asked if any consideration had been given to meeting with the other cities,
Orange and Garden Grove, to see if they would be willing to allocate funds to
make it a tri-city park. Perhaps that way they could get the building sooner
since they had been waiting too long now.
79-1430
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decmmber 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Relative to grafitti, Mrs. Moore stated she did not see how putting money into
grafitti prevention was going to improve the situation where the grafitti would
be back again in 24 hours. She asked for an explanation.
Mr. Steve Swaim, Community Services Manager, stated they felt the elimination of
grafitti with sand blasting and painting was Just one step in the problem. It was
then up to them to meet with the young people who actually performed the grafitti
acts to ascertain why they were performing those acts and how they could work
together in precluding such acts. In the downtown area, they had about six
young people who were involved in grafit~i. They had talked with them and
subsequently started a boxing program and also initiated a mural program at the
Salvation Army to try to meet their needs.
Councilman Bay stated if they knew the six young people responsible for the
grafitti downtown, why something could not be done about the situation.
Mr. Swaim explained that they had to be caught in the act for any arrest activity.
Barbara Johnson, 206 East Wakefield, stated that she was present to support
Linda Moore relative to Ponderoma Park. Their's was a denmely populated area
and the improvements at Ponderosa would help the children since they would then
have some place to go. They almo had a problem with red curbs in their neigh-
borhood which had previously been discussed in 1978 with the Traffic Engineer.
The red curbs were at least four parking spaces long and with the parking problem
in the area because of the many apartments, they had been trying to have the red
curbing removed and had been told it was on a Work Order.
The Mayor asked for a report on the situation.
Carol Ernst, 303 Leatrice, explained that in 1978 when they petitioned for curb
painting, they asked for the limited or green curbing for bus stops and red
curbing at the corners to eliminate carm parking around the corners. Instead,
they got red curbing at the bus stops and nothing else. She was also present
to plead for the improvements at Ponderosa Park. It was a very dense area
which time had worsened. They wanted to have the park built up.
Sharon Pione, 1181 Crown, explained that approximately six weeks ago dumpsters
were placed in the Chevy Chase area in order to clean up that area. A few days
later it looked very nice but in checking the area two weeks ago, it was hard
to believe they were ever placed there. The area was a shambles and evidently
the little metal trash cans the landlords provided were not adequate for the
number of families living there. Trash bins were overflowing, most garage
doors were open and they were about to collapse. She was cognizant of the
great parking problem but most of the garages were filled with broken down,
nondrivable vehicles so that the drivable vehicles were parked on the
street. She questioned whether anything could be done to get the nondrivable
vehicles out of the garages. She was told at a meeting at the Patrick Henry
School that Santa Ana passed an ordinance and enforced it where they went to
certain apartments and found out how many people were living in them. One of
the problems in the Chevy Chase area was that too many people were living in an
apartment. She had been to the Council before and although everybody talked
about doing something in the area, nothing ever got done. She felt that the
79-1431
Cit~ .H~!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 1.~ .1979~ 1:30 P.M.
money spent for the dumpsters was a waste. There were too many families parking
problems, broken down cars, etc. She asked if an ordinance could be passed and
enforced indicating that only "X" amount of people could live in a one and two
bedroom apartment.
Mayor Seymour stated that they did not have an ordinance telling people what
they could or could not put in their garage relative to storage, and he ques-
tioned whether or not such an ordinance would be legal. Relative to overcrowding,
there was an ordinance limiting the number of unrelated people that could live
under one roof and to that degree, they could enforce the ordinance. Relative
to the Santa Ana situation, he had observed that, and in his opinion, the Santa
Ana City Council had decided to get extremely aggressive in enforcing that par-
ticular ordinance as to how many people were living in a ~unit and in bringing
properties up to certain standards. From a practical standpoint, there was
an immediate uproar of the citizens living in those neighborhoods to the degree
it had rendered that Council incapable of accomplishing the very good and worth-
while goal they set out to accomplish. He felt they could move on some of the
areas mentioned, but they had to walk softly. They were going to have to solve
the problem on a slower basis rather than to try to correct in one year what it
had taken 20 years to create.
Mr. Priest stated that was in their Patrick Henry neighborhood area which had a
very active association but the particular group of landlords (Chevy Chase) had
not been at all active. Staff advised him when they sent out notices and com-
munications, they were often returned because of bad addresses or marked "not
here". They were seeking to increase their efforts to contact those landlords.
About three years ago, what was now the east central Anaheim association pre-
sented a series of issues not unlike those just presented although their
situation was not as bad. At that time, the Council suggested that they form
an associatio and subsequently they did so.
Mayor Seymour explained that Mr. Priest was referring to a concept that was successful
not only in Anaheim, but also in many cities whereby neighbors would band together
when they wanted something done in their neighborhood and where they kept at it
until they got it. That was the type of activity a political body could easily
support but without that support, if the City went into that neighborhood and
came down hard, the neighborhood would revolt and accuse the political leader-
ship of "storm trooper" tactics, etc. As Mr. Priest was suggesting, with the
nucleus in the Patrick Henry Association, the Council encouraged them to persist
and expand and the Council could then work with them on that basis.
Darlene Castaneda, 1137 North Harbor stated they all made suggestions at the
individual community meetings and these are contained in the budget and the
documentations submitted to the Council. They could sit all night and discuss
the situation but they all knew the Council was going to be fair and she sug-
gested that they let the Council decide what they wanted to do with what had
been presented to them.
Barbara Pembrook, 1186 Crown stated that they purchamed their home in Anaheim
approximately five months ago when she and her husband moved from Norwalk because
of the crime. They found Anaheim to be just as bad--no street lights in their
area, Manzanita Park was not fit for their children or their dog, and the
79-1432
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
grafitti was awful. They had a Neighborhood Watch Program in their area but
without street lights, they could not see acrosm the street. They cared and
wanted to do something. She felt they needed publicity relative to the
Neighborhood Watch Program to let the Juveniles or whoever was breaking into
their homes know that they had such a network so am to be a deterrent. They
did not want to move out of Anaheim and they wanted to do something.
Mayor Seymour stated they would turn the situation around and ask the Neighbor-
hood to persist. The Council, as well, needed their help and support.
He then stated on behalf of the Council, although it had been a long day, they
were extremely pleased with the turnout and input received. He thanked every-
one for coming and hoped by the next hearing, they would have solved many of
the things brought to their attention this evening.
Mr. Priest stated that he and Mr. Ruth had conferred briefly in the Chamber and
as a result suggested the following for Council consideration: that $10,000 be
removed from Loan Subsidy and $5,000 from Pearson Park funds to be allocated in-
stead to the Women's Transitional Living Center. With those modifications, they
recommended the budget as presented.
Mayor Seymour asked if they were to take that recommendation, was this the final
approval.
Mr. Priest answered, "no". The next step would be a public hearing in January
on the application for A95 Review and in April they would come back with the
final application and ultimately they would again be presented with documents
for final approval and signature.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the 1980-81CDBG Program and budget
as recommended by staff including a provision for the WTLC by removing $10,000
from Loan Subsidy and $5,000 from Pearson Park funds and allocating that $15,000
amount for the Women's Transitional Living Center. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that the Council would be able to
make further modifications and adjustments in the budget as they proceeded through
the next two hearings.
Mr. Priest stated although that was correct, in all fairness they would start
to firm up the numbers for A95 Review and if there were questions or suggested
changes that any Council Member would like to discuss, they would appreciate a
call or note.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~0T~.ON: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the revision to the 3-year CDBG Plan
for designation of Target areas as recommended in memorandum dated December 5, 1979
from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
79-1433
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:55 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
BY