1974/01/0274-1
~itv Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January__ 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT :
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCILMEN : None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER; Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Dens M. Daoust
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry 0. McRae
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph 0. Pease
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES:
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PARK SUPERINTENDENT: Dick Kamphefner
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
Ronald Thompson
FLAG SALUE: Councilman W. J. (Bill) Thom led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: Mayor Dutton read aloud and presented to Dene M.
Daoust, City Clerk, the following Resolution of Appreciation for her
28 years of dedicated service to the City of Anaheim:
"RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, since 1946, Dene M. Daoust as City Clerk, has
guided the Anaheim City Clerk's Office from the days of a small
rural community to Anaheim's present urban status; and
WHEREAS, Dene M. Daoust has made the Office of City Clerk
one of distinguished service both to City Government and to the
co~nunity of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, her personable and knowledgeable character has
given grace, stature and honor to the City Clerk's position during
her years of service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Dene's efficient,
devoted and unselfish efforts have contributed immeasurably to the
efficiency of City Government..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Anaheim that it joins with the citizens of Anaheim and with
the City's professional staff in offering Dene their sincere
appreciation and gratitude for a job well done during her tenure in
office.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council extends
to Dene and her husband Harold best wishes for her continued
happiness, good health and an enjoyable, well-earned retirement.
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED this 2nd day of January, 1974.
ATTEST:
/s/ Alona M. Farrens
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
/s / Jack C . Dutton
JACK C . DUTTON , MAYOR
/s/ Ralph G. Sneegas
RALPH G. SNEEGAS, MAYOR PRO TEM
/s/ Calvin L. Pebley
CALVIN L. PEBLEY, COUNCILMAN
/ s / Mark A . S tephenson
MARK A . S TE PHENSON , COUNC IIMAN
/s/ W. J. (Bill) Thom
W. J. (BILL) THOM, COUNCILMEN"
N
4-2
i~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
INUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held
December 18 and December 26, 1973 and Adjourned Regular Meetings held
December 18 and December 26, 1973, was deferred to the next regular meeting.
RIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom 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 Councilmen, unless after reading of
the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION ,,,.,~.
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
.EPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $1,171.430.95, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
'ONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, ZONING, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
City Manager Keith A. Murdoch stated in light of new Environmental Protection
Agency regulations and existing energy crisis, it is staff's recommendation that
amendment to Title 18 relating to Chapter 18.28, R-2 Site Development Standards,
(off street parking) should be postponed for an additional six months to allow
time to consider various changes which are now occuring in transportation and
parking habits.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
public hearing; on amendment to Title 18, Zoning, Anaheim Municipal Code, was
continued to July 9, 1974, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
;ODE OF ETHICS - PLANNING COMMISSIONER, JOHN SEYMOUR: Mayor Dutton stated he had
requested Mr. John Seymour to appear before the City Council based on information
he had obtained, which appeared Mr. Seymour was in violation of the City's Code
of Ethics. He thereupon read portions of the Anaheim Municipal Code starting
with Section 1.04.400 governing the Code of Ethics for public officials and
employees.
Councilman T}zom recalled no action was taken by the total City Council
ordering Mr. Seymour to appear and that his appearance is under the orders of --~°~
Councilman Dutton. He thereupon requested a ruling from the City Attorney as to
whether or not one Councilman can order an official or employee to appear and
show cause why he should not be dismissed from his position. It was his opinion
that if Mr. Seymour is to appear before the City Council it should be on order
of the Council and not one Councilman.
Mr. Watts replied that it would be the Council's action as a body which
would order anyone to appear and show cause. However according to his recollec~
Lion, he believed the Council did take action, and this could be determined by
the Minutes or the City Council as a body could act at this time.
Councilman Thom suggested prior to proceeding, that the Council members
be polled to determine if they did in fact issue the order and also asked that
the City Clerk save the tape of the meeting for his review.
Mayor Dutton stated that in all fairness, he could not recall a specific
action of the Council, however many time by general consent, ar lack of desent,
an action is considered taken and it was his opinion that the request to appear
was with the general consent of the City Council.
Councilman Pebley advised of his absence during this issue of the last
meeting and stated he wished to hear the tape of that portion of the meeting be-
fore taking any action. Further, before taking an action he would want an opin-
ion from the City Attorney as to whether or not Mr. Seymour has done anything
that is a conflict of interest and if there has been a conflict in his opinion, `~"'"
it should be a decision of the Grand Jury.
Councilman Thom advised that the question was whether or not a Councilman
can order someone to appear, and by your statement (Councilman Pebley) you did
not, and neither did he.
Councilman Pebley stated what he meant to convey is that any charge of
conflict of interest against a public official or employee should be by the City
Attorney which should then be referred to the Grand Jury, and that he as one,
74-3
~itY Hall. A~he~. Ca ~,fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M._
would not set in judgement. Councilman Pebley called attention to the fact
that he was named along with Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall in a recent case and
was investigated by the Grand Jury. Further if the investigation determines
there is a conflict of interest, it should be heard by the City Council in
Executive Session and not at a public meeting inasmuch as it involves person-
nel.
Councilman Stephenson remembered Councilman Dutton relating the
possible charges of conflict and asking Mr. Seymour to appear to show cause
why he should not be removed from the City Planning Commission. Further to
his recollection no vote was taken nor did Mayor Dutton order Mr. Seymour to
appear, he asked him to come.
Councilman Dutton stated Mr. Seymour appeared to be in violation
from the information he had received,and his presence was a means of determin-
ing the truth .
Councilman Sneegas expressed reluctancy to remove anyone from office
but as he understood the former statements made by Mr. Seymour before the. City
Council that he would like to bring this issue to the public and clarify the
matter, he felt this would be an opportunity to do so, however if Mr. Seymour
does not wish to, then it should be investigated by another agency completely.
Further, he for one had no intentions of removing anyone from off ice without
another agency's investigation.
Councilman Dutton again advised that the sole purpose of requesting
Mr. Seymour to appear was to bring out the truth of what was alleged.
Councilman Stephenson stated he considered this a voluntary appear-
ance on the part of Mr. Seymour as he did not remember it being an "order".
Councilman Dutton thereupon moved that the hearing proceed with Mr.
John Seymour in the ability to learn the truth of statements brought to him
by people, constituents of this City, that would appear to show John Seymour in
the light of being in a position of conflict of interest. Councilman Dutton
assured those present that this was not a personal vendetta as alleged.
Councilman Sneegas stated on the basis his (Mr. Seymour) appearance
is voluntarily and that he may so decline, he would second said motion.
At the conclusion of the discussion that followed, vote was called
for and the MOTION CARRIED .
Councilman Dutton reported it appeared Mr. Seymour was in conflict
of interest in that he could find no public record that he had disclosed pos-
sible conflict of interest in matters coming before the City Planning Commis-
sion of which he is a member ,and to the contrary he denied to him that
he or his company was involved in anyway until pressed concerning a specific
property. He (Mr. Seymour) either then did not tell the truth or was guilty
of an illegal act by loaning his real estate license to Mr. James Rogers.
Councilman Dutton further in recapping the events,reported that Mr.
Seymour has since admitted his involvement,and in talking to two members of
the Planning Commission, one did not know of his ~.nvolvement in selling homes
in the hill and canyon area and one was aware of the fact.
Councilman Dutton then referred to previous statements made by Mr.
Seymour, one from an October Planning Commission meeting wherein he stated
"he had some personal business dealing with Mr. Rogers". He also related
statements of October 25, 1973 at a Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Associa-
tion meeting regarding Mr. Seymour's position as a realtor and elected offi-
cial and how this affected his decisions thinking and philosophy. Another
statement following an Anaheim Chamber ~f Commerce Board of Directors' meeting,
December 20, 1973, concerning "standing aside watching the City being sold to
greedy lands and apartment developers". Further "he had witnessed the 'reput-
itious exploitation of our land".
4-4
ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Co~~ncilman Dutton stated the purpose of the hearing is to deterine
the facts as there has been a great attack on the credibility of government.
Councilman Thom felt the record should show that Mr. button's remarks
were confined and charges made based on a tape of a meeting which took place in
a high school in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
Councilman Dutton further advised that in late September or early
October of this year, two different people within a period of two weeks told
him that Mr. Seymour was selling new homes in the hill and canyon area. After
which he questioned Mr. Seymour who advised that he was not involved at all.
On questioning further, he admitted he had loaned his real estate license to
Mr. Rogers and this not being possible, is what motivated his investigation.
Mro John Seymour, resident of 931 South Peregrine Place, Anaheim,
business 1205 South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, addressed the Council advising of
the presence of his Attorney, Mr. Willard Pool, and other Anaheim citizens
who were present to speak on his behalf as a Planning Commissioner.
Mr. Seymour stated that when he last ap~~eared before the City Council,
November 22, 1973, he stated that Mr. Dutton was personally attacking him and
that he had no quarrel with the other members of the City Council and at that
time the City Council agreed that this was a squabble between Mr. Dutton and him
only. Now, Mr. Dutton has asked him to appear and show cause why he should not
be dismissed from the City Planning Commission. Mr. Seymour stated that Mr.
button's charges against him were lies which can and will be proven and that Mr.
Dutton knows they are lies. He stated that Mr. Dutton was using the office of
Matror to politicall~r blackmail, malign, slander and disgrace him in the eyes of
the Anaheim citizen and requested the entire affair be considered as a cheap
political ploy the further the Mayor's brand of "mudslinging and depraved power
politics". Further, if this is a legally constituted hearing, that his Attorney
be heard.
Mr. [~Tillard Pool, 12550 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, stated he .---,~.•-~
could not determine what kind of a hearing this was. He referred to the letter
of the City Clerk advising that the Mayor had requested Mr. Seymour to appear
and also raised the question whether this could be done by one Councilman or
whether it took an act of the Council to do this; the Council apparently agree-
able to proceed as long as Mr. Seymour's appearance is voluntary.
Mr. Pool thereupon requested the purpose of the hearing and what action
could be taken at the meeting because if charges for removal are being filed
against Mr. Seymour, he would like to see them formally filed and they have an
opportunity to defend and not talk in "heresay language".
Mr. Pool advised that if there are to be formal charges they would be
happy to defend them, but so there was no misunderstanding, they deny there has
been any conflict of interest what so ever by Mr. Seymour's activities, that even
assuming, without admitting, that he may have "loaned" his license as a broker,
it would have nothing to do with the conflict of interest with the City of
Anaheim. If it is a violation of his obligations as a broker,, it would be a
matter for the State Department and not the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Pool asked if the City Attorney had done any investigation on this
matter and if so what his findings were.
Councilman Dutton, with reference to "loaning the license", stated
that was the statement Mr. Seymour made to him when he first denied any activity
in the hill and canyon area. That this was either an untruth or an illegal act. _,~.`~a_,
Later Mro Seymour admitted the people selling the Woodcrest tract, a James Rogers
Development, were his salespeople and he was in fact selling those homes.
Councilman Dutton again advised that he found nothing in the public
record that states what his involvement was as required by the Code of Ethics,
and that this hearing is to find out what his involvement is and if in fact he
is guilty of violating the Ethics Code.
Mr. Pool asked what would happen if he assumed Mr. Seymour was guilty.
74-5
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974,__1:30 P.M.
Councilman Dutton replied that that would then be a matter for the
City Council.
Mr. Pool stated he objected to the proceedings because if Mr. Seymour
is to be charged on which the Council may make a decision that he be removed,
he would like those charges specified so that they can be defended and cross-
examined. This he felt they were entitled to.
Councilman Dutton agreed and stated that this was an inquiry to find
what the truth was. He noted the many stories in the City concerning people
in government with reference to land movement and ownership; and that this is
to establish some credibility within this government of the allegations
being made.
Mr. Pool replied that this would never prove or disprove credibility,
Assuming Mr. Seymour was selling homes in the Anaheim Hills area, and the
section says, ~'a substantialconflict of interest" he asked the Mayor what his
definition was of a "substantial conflict of interest".
Councilman Dutton replied if a person is on the Planning Commission
and is selling homes in a certain area, the Planning Commission and City Council
should be aware of the facts in that the Planning Commission makes recommenda-
tions to the City Council on which the Council acts. A personal or financial
involvement might tend to influence his thinking and on the other hand, if he
actively opposes a possible competitor, in his opinion, this would be conflict
of interest.
Mr. Pool advised, without admitting everything said by Mr. Dutton
was true, he would still like to have someone say that Mr. Seymour is selling
these homes and that he was interested in it,and that it was a conflict of
interest and that it was a substantial conflict of interest rather than
Councilman Dutton reading from partial tapes and relating conversations with
Mr. Seymour wherein he stated he had no involvement which may mean in his
opinion, what the City ordinance calls for, no "substantial conflict of interest."
Mr. Pool again asked if the City Attorney had check the Planning
Commission Minutes and tapes and what his findings were.
Councilman Sneegas asked Mr. Pool if he was saying that Mr. Seymour
would rather not have this discussed today and would rather proceed formally
and legally.
Mr. Pool answered affirmatively and again advised he would rather
have specific charges, if any there are. He noted Mr. Seymour has denied the
charges and he as his Attorney also would deny the charges on his behalf.
Councilman Sneegas stated the reason the issue has gone this far is
to determine if Mr. Seymour has an explanation for has been charged or whether
he denies this and as far as he was concerned, this closes the hearing. If
Mr. Seymour wishes to go the legal route, that is what should be done.
Mr. Pool advised that he perferred the issue be handled legally.
Councilman Thom advised that it has been intimated that the City
Attorney's Office has done some investigating and asked if that was true, and
had the results of any reports or material been provided to other Councilmen,
since he had received none.
Councilman Sneegas, to clarify the possibility that he had intimated
some investigation has proceeded, advised that he had done some investigating
on his own.
Mr. Watts reported that a member of his staff reviewed the tapes and
Minutes of the City Planning Commission meetings -and made a report to him.
Councilman Thom asked if the report had been shown to any other
Councilmen, to which Mr. Watts replied negatively and further advised that
there was only one copy of the report which was in his possession.
~-6
Lt Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar 2 1974 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Thom advised the reason for his inquiry was that when he
went into the City Clerk's Office last week, Mr. Watts was in conference .with
Councilman Dutton and .former Councilman Roth and the report was before him and
he had assumed he had been showing it to others and not to him.
Mr. Watts agreed the report was there and stated the discussion
however related to other matters.
Mr. Pool asked what the report contained.
Mr. Watts suggested, since it appeared the matter is to be continued
to a future date, that the City Attorney's Office completely review the issue.
Councilman Sneegas thereupon moved that the issue be continued to
allow investigation by the City Attorney.
Councilman Thom was of the opinion that since this has been turned
into a public discussion, that others present should be allowed to address the
Council.
Councilman Stephenson noted that Mr. Pool had stated he did not wish
to proceed with the discussion and felt no purpose would be served by hearing
others until the continued date when the matter is again considered.
Councilman Pebley thereupon seconded Councilman Sneegas' motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mro Seymour requested the Boor and stated in his opinion there were
too many people present wishing to be heard not to hear them. Further, he was
fearful that nothing but buckpassing would come from a continuance and as a
result preferred to have the open hearing at this time. He stated he was not
prepared to answer charges as he did not now until now what they Mere and he
still was not sure what the charges specifically were, however since it appeared
that this would be the only opportunity he would have to have a public hearing
on the matter, he chose to proceed. ~~~°-~
Councilman Sneegas felt the matter should be pursued by another agency
with a public hearing before the City Council following affording the same
opportunity for people to speak as any other public hearing.
Mr. Seymour noted he had been given the option to proceed which he
chose to do. He questioned why the Mayor made charges against him before it
was investigated.
Councilman Sneegas noted Mr. Pool, Attorney for Mr. Seymour, had ad-
vised that he did not wish the matter discussed at this time and asked Mr.
Seymour if he was going against his Attorney's wishes.
Mr. Seymour replied that he has discussed it with his Attorney who
also feels that this in all probability will be the only hearing available to
them .
Councilman Pebley stated he rather defer the issue until the City
Attorney's Office has made a complete investigation.
Mr. Seymour advised that the City Attorney's Office has already invest-
igated the matter and all that was necessary was to request him to make his re-
port on what he has researched.
He further stated, as he understood it the charge is that he is the
sale agent on houses at the Westcrest Development,which he has openly admitted
that he is the license broker of record and responsible for sales at the Wood-
crest homes. However that was not the question, the question was whether or
not this is a conflict of interest and whether or not he disclosed that fact,and
this being the case asked the City Attorney's opinion as to whether or not,from
his investigation, he did disclose this fact.
Councilman Sneegas advised that this was the first time he had heard
Mr. Seymour say that he was the sales agent.
74-7
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Seymour remarked that this has been no secret and can be found
in the City Planning Commission Minutes. Further he knows that the City
Attorney's Office has been investigating this and he would like to know the
results of that investigation.
Mr. Watts reported that after last week's Council meeting, he re-
quested one of his staff to review the Minutes and tapes of the Planning Com-
mission meetings with respect to several developments; Tract Nos. 6734, 6772
and 6771, developer, Westfield Development Company, which are in the hill and
canyon area beginning at the intersection of Anaheim Hills Road and Santa Ana
Road, extending up Nohl Ranch Road just west of Anaheim Hi11s Road and in
question because apparently Mr. Seymour was the broker of record selling those
homes.
Mr. Watts further advised that Tract No. 6734 was approved some time
before Mr. Seymour was appointed to the City Planning Commission. Subsequent
to Mr. Seymour's appointment, Tract No. 6734 was divided into the three sub-
division tracts (above mentioned) at a Planning Commission meeting, February 7,
1972. At that February 7, 1972 meeting, there was no indication from the
Minutes whether Mr. Seymour voted on the action or abstained and since there
is no tape of that meeting there is no certainly whether he voted or not,
In February, 1973, two tracts, Nos. 8215 and 8219 with Variance No.
2475 and an Environmental Impact Report came before the Planning Commission
and there is an indication that Mr. Seymour left the meeting before this matter
was voted upon.
At the August 6, 1973 Planning Commission meeting, Tract Nos. 8215
and 8219 again came before the Planning Commission and apparently, from the
tape, not the Minutes, Mr. Seymour asked whether or not this was a Jim Rogers
Development (owner of Westfield Development Company). The reply being affir-
mative, Mr. Seymour was heard to state that he would abstain on the vote be-
cause "from time to time he did business with Mr. Rogers."
At an October, 1973 Planning Commission meeting, relative to Variance
No. 2553, from the Minutes and the tape, there is an indication Mr. Seymour
abstained from voting on the matter due to the fact that"he has business deals
with Mr. Rogers."
Mr. Watts further reported Tract Nos. 8215 and 8219 are located oz
Canyon Rim Road just east of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course. Variance No. 2553
pertained to an apartment project located just off Nohl Ranch Road.
Mr. Watts stated apparently all the tracts reported are being devel-
oped by Westfield Development Company and that the facts that he has were ob-
tained from the Minutes and tapes of the Planning Commission meetings.
Mr. Watts advised that the information he did not have was when Mr.
Seymour became broker of record for these various developments; his first
disclosure of interest was in August, 1973. The Minutes indicate in one in-
stance Mr. Seymour did not vote and in the other cases there is no indication
that he did vote. A motion calls for a voice vote (not a roll call vote) and
there is no record of whether he did or did not vote.
Councilman Pebley asked Mr. Watts if it would have been a conflict
of interest if Mr. Seymour had voted.
Mr. Watts replied that if Mr. Seymour was broker of record at that
point in time on that particular tract, in his opinion it would constitute a
conflict of interest under the City's ordinance, if he had voted.
Mr. Seymour stated it appeared from the City Attorney's verbal report
that at any time Jim Rogers or Westfield Development Properties came before
the City Planning Commission he was either absent or abstained. He asked Mr.
Watts if that was a correct statement.
•-8
rv ual~ Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts replied "yes" he believed that was a correct statement.
However there was one matter before the City Planning Commission, February 7,
1972, and in that instance, the Minutes simply do not reflect whether Mr.
Seymour was present or whether he voted.
Mr. Seymour then stated for the record that to the best of his know-
ledge, any time Mr. Rogers appeared, if he appeared at a time that he was lic-
ensed as a licensed real estate broker of record, in any development whatsoever
that Mr. Rogers was involved in, he assured the City Council that he did in fact .-..,
abstain.
Mr. Seymour explained that more than 98% of his business was derived
from sale of existing and used properties and he would never be so foolish as
to involve himself in the sale of a few new houses,or in such a pecuniary con-
flict of interest. He stated what the City Attorney has said is that there has
been no conflict of interest. Mr. Seymour said that there was not one thread
of evidence in the Planning Commission meetings that he ever had a conflict of
interest. Further, no properties in the general vicinity nor adjacent to the
Westfield properties have even come before the Planning Commission, therefore
there has been no reason for him to abstain from any other action.
Mr. Seymour said if Councilman Dutton is saying because he sells pro-
perty in the Santa Ana Canyon he cannot vote on other properties somewhere else
in the canyon, it would preclude him from serving on the Planning Commission
because he sells existing properties throughout the City; this had to be under-
stood when he was appointed to the Commission.
Councilman Stephenson asked Mr. Seymour if he ever made a public state-
ment to the Planning Commission that he was abstaining because he was selling
property in that particular area.
Mr. Seymour answered "no", but advised he had made the statement that
he had "business dealings".
Councilman Dutton advised that the disclosure must be on the record
and if it was on the tape, it should have also been reflected in the Minutes and
this may not have been the fault of Mr. Seymour, however the Minutes once approved
are those of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Seymour asked Councilman Dutton if he did not think the record
should have been thoroughly checked before he charged anyone.
Councilman Dutton advised he did check the record, but did not listen
to the tapes; that copies of the Planning Commission Minutes are sent to the
Council, but that the Council does not have the tapes.
Mr. Seymour reminded Councilman Dutton that he had access to the tapes
and apparently did not check as thoroughly as did the City Attorney. Further,
any Planning Commissioner could attest to the fact as well as the Deputy City
Attorney that attends the Planning Commission meetings and the recently retired
secretary to the Planning Commission, Miss Ann Krebs. Mr. Seymour stated that
the Planning Commission handles such a volume of business that the only true
record of what is said is the tape of the meeting, the Minutes at best, show a
general intent and the reasonings, who makes the decisions and how the decisions
are made. There is such a volume of activity that takes place in the Planning
Commission it would require three secretaries to keep up with the dialouge,con-
versations and testimony.
Mr. Seymour., in summary stated the following facts:
1. That the City Attorney has advised that the record does not show
he has a conflict of interest.
2. That he has now testified to the best of his knowledge, whether in
the minutes or on the tapes, or whether the tapes are destroyed or not, he never
did have a conflict ~~f interest.
Councilman Dutt~i~ related a conversation had in his office, October 29,
1973, with Mr. Seymour when. asked what his involvement was in sales in the hill
. ,. _ __
74-9
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
and canyon area and he replied "none" and later admitted he loaned his real
estate license. Councilman Dutton asked if this was not true.
Mr. Seymour replied that first of all he was called in the Mayor's
Office to listen to the tapes the Mayor had recorded of a Homeowner's meet-
ing. Subsequent to those tapes the Mayor asked the question "do you sell
houses out in Anaheim Hills" and he asked what location he was referring
to. The Mayor then asked if he was involved in sales with Jim Rogers and he
replied "yes". Mr. Seymour further noted that there was a witness to that
conversation.
Councilman Dutton asked again if Mr. Seymour did not say "he loaned
his real estate license to Mr. Rogers"?
Mr. Seymour replied negatively and stated that if this was the charge
against him, perhaps the meeting (in the Mayor's Office) was also taped and
if so the tape would also clarify this statement.
Mr. Seymour further advised that there was no such thing as the
"loaning of a license", that he was responsible legally and ethically for the
conduct of any salesmen who works under his brokers'license so the "loaning
of a license" is some phraseology that would take on other implications. Either
you are in it or you are not,and he has stated publically that he was the sales
agent (for the Rogers property).
In conclusion, Mr. Seymour was of the opinion that his position has
been made perfectly clear and thereupon requested those present who came to
speak on his behalf, be allowed to do so.
Councilman Stephenson read a portion of the Ethics Code wherein any
member is required to disclose the nature of their interest. He thereupon
asked the City Attorney if in his opinion, Mr. Seymour had complied with that
portion of the Code.
Mr. Watts replied that in his opinion the disclosure as he had re-
ported (August 6, concerning Tract Nos. 8215 and 8219) was an adequate dis-
closure. Mr. Watts referred to the language of the Code, wherein an official
or member of a Board or Commission is required to disclose the "fact" of the
conflict of interest. In the instance of an employee who has an conflict of
interest, he is required to disclose not only the "fact" but the "nature and
extent" of his interest.
Mr. Watts reported the language "the nature and extent" is becoming
more common in these types of codes and noted that S.B'. 716 pertaining to con-
flict of interest which became effective January 1, 1974, uses similar language.
As result of the requirement that only the "fact" must be disclosed, Mr.
Seymour's action August 6 and presumably at the meeting in October, was a
sufficient disclosure. The only question in his mind was the point in time
Mr. Seymour became the broker of record for Tract Nos. 6734, 6772 and 6771.
Mr. Seymour replied that he became broker of record for Tract Nos.
6734, 6772 and 6771 in March of 1973 and to the best of his knowledge, he had
never voted in favor for anything that could possibly incline himself towards
favoring Jim Rogers or his developments.
Councilman Dutton stated again that the reason for his requested
appearance was to determine the following questions:
1. When he became broker of record for the Woodcrest Developments.
2. When he became broker of record for the Canyon Rim Road Develop-
ment
3. What his involvement was with Tiffany Escrows.
4. Whether he was involved in property management of the 108 apart-
ments in that canyon area.
Mr. Seymour replied that the apartments referred to have not yet
been built and asked how he could be involved in management of something that
does not yet exist.
4-1~.
itv Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:_30 P.M.
In answer, Mr. Seymour reported that he manages no property for Mr.
Rogers; his sole relationship with Mr. Rogers was the sale of new residences
which has already been disclosed. Further he has no other financial dealings,
owns no interest nor has any interest in a financial corporation, partnership,
joint venture, family trust, blind trust, that he (Mr. Rogers) may be involved
in .
Councilman Sneegas stated his only concern was the Code itself and
whether or not it was sufficient to simply abstain from voting without disclos- .,,,,,
ing the personal aspects why. He questioned at what point, morally, the actual
disclosure of conflict of interest and the nature thereof, should be made. In
his opinion, the Code should be amended to require disclosure of the nature and
extent of the interest.
Councilman Dutton noted the ethics ordinance was more restrictive of
employees than the City Council or Boards and Commissions and that he had read
the spirit of the law and not necessarily the letter of the law.
Mr. Watts reported if the Council wished the requirement of disclosure
to be similar for all, an amendment to the ordinance can be prepared accordingly.
Councilman Pebley stated the new State law (S.B. 716) covers every-
thing under discussion today and pinpoints procedure whereby a conflict of in-
terest is reported and the nature of the interest is also reported. He further
stated as of this instance, the City Attorney s opinion is that Mr. Seymour has
complied with the Anaheim Code of Ethics as they exist at the time and unless
and until someone proves Mr. Seymour has done something illegal, he wanted to
hear no more about it.
Councilman Dutton requested Mr. Seymour to furnish the City Attorney
the dates he became broker of record in that he felt it could go further as it
might involve neighboring properties.
Mr. Seymour stated he would be happy to furnish the requested dates -^
and further reported that no neighboring properties have come before the City
Planning Commission since his membership and if they did and he was aware they i
were a neighboring property, he would have abstained. He questioned how far
Councilman Dutton was extending this philosophy and whether it encompassed any-
thing he might sell in the City.
Councilman Dutton in explanation referred to a zoning action opposed
by Mr. Seymour, February 5, concerning a 76-unit R-1, 35 acre application and
on April 2, concerning a 83-acre 229 unit-application located on the north side
of Canyon Rim Road involving Environmental Impact Report No. 90 and Variance No.
2489 and Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8220, 8221, 8222 and 8223, developer, Richard
B . Smith .
Mr. Seymour asked when there was a six to one vote as-was the case in
the cases referred to, how his vote could be considered the one making the dif-
ference. He further stated if his voting record was checked, it would be found
that. .n 99~~ of the cases, his was not the deciding vote. In the majority of
cases. the Commission m8y not have voted as a body but in a very clear majority.
He thereupon requested the other people present be allowed to testify to his
record as a Planning Commissioner.
(ouncilman Stephenson stated he agreed with Councilman Pebley, and if
there is no conflict of interest, which the City Attorney has stated, there is
no reason to continue this hearing and thereupon moved the hearing be closed.
Councilman Pebley seconded said motion. ~`
Before vote on the above motion, Mr. Seymour stated he had been maligned,
and his character blackened and either those charges be proven correct and if they
are, he should resign from the Planning Commission and not be thinking of being a
candidate for the Council. However on the other hand, if the charges are proven
untrue which we now believe they are untrue, then in his opinion, he deserved
a public apology. He felt the office of Mayor should not be used to malign and
slander someone else in public office and if he (the Mayor) had wanted to invest-
igate h~~s activities it should have been done in Executive Session and charges
made only when and after the true facts were known.
74-11
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Dutton replied that no one was maligning Mr. Seymour, he only
asked him to be pre sent so that the truth of the allegations could be brought out .
Mr. Seymour again questioned why the matter had not been considered
in Executive Session according to Code provisions governing personnel.
Councilman Thom expressed the opinion that the real charge against Mr.
Seymour is that he is a threat in the forthcoming municipal election. He also felt
that Mr. Seymour~s candidacy in 1972 prompted the current requirement that provides
for resignation from a Commission upon filing a nomination paper. At the conclu-
sion of the discussion a member of the audience requested to address the Council.
Councilman Stephenson advised that it appeared to him, that Mr.
Seymour has been absolved of any charges and for that reason, there was no
justification to take any further time on the issue. He thereupon referred
to his motion and the second that the hearing be closed and requested the vote.
To this motion, Councilman Thom voted "no". MOTION CARRIEDo
PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Isabel A. Lopez on behalf of Sociedad
Progresista Mexicana ~~24 for permit to conduct public dance on January 20,
1974 from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue,
was submitted and granted, subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code and that two private security officers be hired to
police the dance, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following applications for amusement devices per-
mits were submitted for City Council consideration:
1. Application filed by Larry Mitchell for amusement devices per-
mit to allow a pingpong, air hockey, rifle, computer, and two pinball machines
at the Firehouse Pizza, 1000 North Euclid Street.
2. Application filed by Larry Mitchell for amusement devices per-
mit to allow a pingpong, rifle, and two pinball machines at Smiling Sams, 125
North State College Boulevard.
3. Application filed by Helmut K. Stoehr, amusement devices permit
to allow a pool table, air hockey and cigarette machines at the Doll Hut, I07
South Adams Street.
4. Application filed by Jules Radinsky for amusement devices permit
to allow a pool table, juke box and cigarette machines at La Cantina, 900
South Anaheim Boulevard.
5. Application filed by Oscar and Lupe Valenzuela for amusement
devices permit to allow two pool tables at Val's Beer Bar, 405 South Brookhurst.
6. Application filed by James T. Moore for amusement devices permit
to allow one coin operated air hockey pinball machine at Crystal Pistol, 426
South Euclid Avenue.
7. Application filed by Ben D. Kenney for amusement devices permit
to allow eight electronic amusement devices games at Camelot Golf Course,
3200 Carpenter Avenue.
8. Application filed by Dave Warman for amusement devices permit
to allow one pool table and juke box at B J's, 3291 East Miraloma Avenue.
Also submitted together with the applications were the recommenda-
tc~ns from the Chief of Police that saic~i permits be granted.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
amusement devices permits as c~ut.lined above, were granted, subject to provi-
5ions ~f Chapter "3.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the
Chief of Police. MOTION CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following applications for amusement devices per-
mits were submitted for City Council consideration:
1. Application. filed by Ronald A. Brandt for amusement devices per-
mit to allow one pinball machine at Samoa Motor Inn, 425 West Katella Avenue.
2. Application filed by Julia M. Villa for amusement devices per-
~~i t to allow juke boxes at Smiling Sams Pizza, 125 North State College Boulevard.
3. Application filed by George H. Duensingfor amusement devices per-
^?it to allow various amusement devices at Stadium Golf, 727 South Beach Boulevard.
Also submitted together with the applications were the recommenda-
tions of the Chief of Police that said permits be granted.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, amuse-
ment devices permits as outl.ineci above were granted, subject to provisions of
74-1
"itv Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Chapter 3.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of
Police. MOTION CARRIED.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application filed by LeRoy D. Curtis for entertainment per-
mit to allow rhythm and blues, country-western, and rock and roll groups,
seven nights a week from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and
from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., on Sundays, at The
Back Door, 1807 West Katella Avenue, was submitted and denied, as recommended
by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman
Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held December 10, 1973, pertaining to the following applications.
were submitted for City Council information and consideration:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION STATUS: As recommended by the City Plan-
ning Commission, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Stephenson, it was the finding of the City Council that the impact of the pro
jest in the following zoning applications would be trivial in nature and that
no environmental impact reports or statements be required:
VARIANCE N0. 2567
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1437
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1441
MOTION CARRIED.
1. VARIANCE N0. 2567: Submitted by Prelude Development Company, to erect two
free-standing signs on C-1 zoned property, located on the south side of Lincoln
Avenue, west of Cliffrose Street, with waivers of:
a. Maximum permitted number of free-standing signs.
b. Minimum distance between free-standing signs.
c. Location of free-standing signs.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-259,
granted said variance in part, denying waivers "a" and "b", granting waiver "c",
subject to conditions. ~-,
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1403: Submitted by Thurman A. Rock and Larry
Thompson to establish a contractor s storage yard on M-1 zoned property, located
on the south side of La Jolla Street at the southeast corner of La Jo11a Street
and Red Gum Street, with waivers of:
a. Landscaped front setback.
b. Six-foot solid masonry wall enclosing, outdoor storage area.
c. Minimum number of parking spaces.
At the request of the Petitioner, said conditional use permit w8s
avi thdrawn .
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1437: Submitted by Alexander Haagen Development,
to establish a veterinary clinic in a shopping center, on C-1 zoned property,
located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-257,
granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1441: .Submitted by Theodora Frahm to establish
a nondenominational church to include counseling, Bible classes, and sale of
religious gift items, and new and used books, on C-2 zoned property, located on
the s^uth side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-258,
granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 646: Submitted by Douglas K. Nelson, Nelow y
Development Company, requesting termination of said conditional use permit which
was approved by the City Planning Commission for the establishment of a t~nultiple-
family planned residential development on R-3 zoned property, located on the west
side of western Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-262,
terminated all proceedings of Conditional Use Permit No. 646.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1193: Submitted by Reverend Mark Trotter, United
Methodist Church and James A. Hudspeth, President, East Anaheim Bobby-Sox League,
requesting clarification of Resolution T1o. PC70-143, in order that the southeastern
portion cif subject property may be used for a softball diamond. R-A zoned property
is located on the southeast corner of Wagner Avenue and State College Boulevard.
___.
~°
74 -13
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission interpreted "related facilities" as in-
cluded in the original resolution of approval for said conditional use permit
to include requested softball diamond.
The foregoing applications were reviewed by the City Council and
no further action taken.
7. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72-73-45 AND VARIANCE N0. 2499: Request for approval
of final floor plans and elevations; R-A zoned property, located on the south
side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Anaheim Hills Road, which was approved
for R-1 zoning to establish a 76-lot subdivision (Tentative Tract No. 5778).
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of said final
floor and elevation plans.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, final
floor and elevation plans in conjunction with Reclassification No. 72-73-45
and Variance No. 2499 (Tentative Tract No. 5778), were approved as recommended
by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
8 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - SANTA ANA CANYON SOUTH _R_I_VER TRUNK SEWER ,
PHASE II AND III AND THE WALNUT CANYON SEWER, PHASE III: On motion by
Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council accepted
Environmental Impact Report for Santa Ana Canyon South River Trunk Sewer,
Phase II and III, and the Walnut Canyon Sewer, Phase III, and Environmental
Impact Report Review Committee Analysis thereof, together with City Planning
Commission recommendation, and adopted same as the statement of the Council.
MOTION CARRIED.
9. FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT LOCATED IN TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 7419: The City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-261, finds that the pro-
posed quitclaim by the Orange County Flood Control District of a flood control
easement in Tentative Tract No. 741.9, property located on the north side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway, is in conformance with the
adopted Anaheim General. Plan and will have no significant effect on the envir-
onment.
On motion. by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council concurred with the finding of the Planning Commission.
MOT-ION CARRIED .
10. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, ZONING: On
motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, public hearing
was set for January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M., to consider amendment to Title 18,
Chapter 18.08, amending definitions, and addition of Chapter 18.61, Criteria
and Development Standards for Service Stations. MOTION CARRIED.
REVIEW OF PARK IN-LIEU FEES: Mro Murdoch reported that the adoption of Park In-
Lieu Fees was the result of extensive investigation and recommendations made
by the Citizens Committee in 196$. The factors used in determining the for-
mula were: The average cost per acre for land acquisition; the cost of devel-
opment of the parks; the standard for number of park acres per thousand popu-
lation. The last revision of the fee was accomplished in 1971 and at that
'wi~^e, fees which amounted to two-thirds of the figure arrived at through the
~c~rmula were adopted. Mr. Murdoch pointed out that since the figures used
are based on the average cost of the land required and the value of same is
largely dependent upon the surrounding land uses and locations, the formula
is not precise. He adtiTised that the value of park land use in the recent
review was $35,000 per acre and noted that in the central and western part of
the City, the cost is substantially more, as much as $45,000 to $50,000, and
in the hill and canyon areas, substantially less, so it is a fairly accurate
average.
Dick Kamphefner, Park Superintendent, reported on the survey of fees
charged in other Orange County cities for parks and recreation facilities, and
noted that of those cities surveyed, the highest fee is th8t charged by
Huntington Beach which is $668 for single-family residential units. The aver-
agE= of the eight cities surveyed was calculated to be $380. He advised that
if the same formula were maintained. by the City of Anaheim, but 100% of the
4-I~
ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
figure so arrived at used as the park in-lieu fees, these would be increased
as follows:
CURRENT FEE AS
SET IN 1971
INCREASED FEE USING 100%
OF THE FORMULA FIGURE
Single-Family Homes $200.00 $314,00
Multiple-Family Homes 125.00 198.00
Mobile Home Spaces 100.00 157.00 -,
Councilman Dutton stated that even perfunctory examination of the
facts reveal that the current park in-lieu fees do not cover the cost of land
acquisition alone. He remarked that a more realistic approach was in order,
however he would like to see the increased fees shown in the survey rounded out
to even numbers.
Councilman Sneegas noted that the increased fees shown by Parks and
Recreational using 100% of the formula appear to be approximately at the County
average. Noting that certainly the costs of land has risen since the last ad-
justment, and from his experience on the Parks and Recreation Commission, he
felt that there is a definite need to take some action on the increases as soon
as possible.
Mr. Murdoch inquired whether Council would wish the City Attorney's
Office to prepare an ordinance using the fee increase produced by utilizing 100%
of the formula as shown above, however, rounding these out to the nearest even
number, i.e., single-family from $314.00 to $300.00; multiple-family from
$198.00 to $200.00; mobile home spaces from $157.00 to $150. He related that
the first time park in-lieu fees were adopted using such a formula, the figure
used was one-half, and the next revision brought the fee up two-thirds, however
the intent was expressed that ultimately the fee would reach 100% of the formula.
By general consent, the Council authorized the City Attorney to draft
an ordinance increasing park in-lieu fees using the original formula recommended ~..-..
by the Citizens' Committee and as recommended by the City Manager.
DESIGN SERVICES - THREE PROPOSED PARK BUILDINGS (BOYSEN, ~4JILA RE ID AND MANZANITA
PARKS (Proposal submitted by Mr. Floyd E. Weaver to perform construction drawings
for three park buildings, was continued from the meeting of December 18, 1973,
for further information.)
Mr. Murdoch reported that it has been ascertained that Mr. Weaver
would be willing to accept the responsibility for all phases of engineering for
these three buildings, i.e., structural, mechancial and electrical engineering.
The fee indicated in Mr. Weaver's proposal is either 6% of the cost of the work
as shown on the drawings, or on an hourly basis per the table submitted in the
proposal dated December 27, 1973. ($1,800 - Boysen Park; $3,000 - Twila Reid;
$2,400 - Manzanita Park.) Based on an estimated number of required hours.
Mr. Murdoch related that the usual approach to contracting of this
type services is to award a percentage of the cost of the activity on condition
that at the time the plans are drawn and an estimate of the costs made, a
maximum fee can be agreed upon.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council authorized the City Attorney to draft an agreement. employing
Floyd E. Weaver to perform construction drawings for park buildings at Boysen,
Twila Reid and Manzanita Parks with complete structural, electrical and mechani-
cal engineering responsibilities, the fee to be 6% of the construction cost pro-
viding that an agreement as to the maximum fee is reached when plans are drawn
and costs estimates available. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED ACQUISITION - ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY: Mr. Murdoch
advised pursuant to the presentation and Council discussion regarding acquisition
of additional park acreage on December 18, 1973, that the Board of the Anaheim
Union High School District is prepared to shortly declare the property located
north :~f La Palma Avenue, west of State College Boulevard and adjacent to Edison
74-15
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 _P .M.
Parlc surplus and offer same for sale. It is therefore necessary that they
have some indication from Council as to whether or not the City wishes to ac-
quire the eight acres recommended for expansion of Edison Park.
Mr. Murdoch advised that these eight acres would be entirely on the
east side of Baxter Street and would run from the south property line of the
park to La Palma Avenue and would therefore provide additional access to the
park from La Palma, whereas currently the only access is from Baxter Street.
He stated that if it is Council's intent to purchase the property, a five-year
term could be arranged, beginning at the start of Fiscal Year 1974-75. He
estimated the cost of the property, which depends upon the use of the remaining
property sold by the High School District, to be in the range of $45,000 to
$55,000 per acre if the remainder of the property is developed in multiple-
family units as anticipated.
Councilman Pebley inquired how long the School District has owned
the property and whether or not they brought condemnation proceedings against
the owners to acquire it originally, to which Mr. Murdoch replied that the
School District has held the property for ten years and that although condem-
nation proceedings were initiated the matter was settled out of court.
Councilman Pebley remarked that it seems the School District pur-
chased many more acres than they needed and that it gave him cause for concern
when a School District or governmental agency condemns property and then many
years hence sell the property at the higher value.
Mr. Murdoch advised that at the time the school district brought
the property the survey information on student population was such that the
need for the additional property was demonstrated and justified, however, the
school population has not increased as anticipated.
Mro Murdoch outlined that Edison Park is currently a 7~ acre facility
which would be expanded with this addition to a 15 acre community park.
Councilman Pebley remarked that if there is no need for a school in
that immediate vacinity perhaps there is no need for expansion of the existing
park.
Councilman Dutton asked if the sale of the land is imminent since it
is difficult to make such decision when the impact of recent events on the
City's projected income and revenue is not yet clearly defined.
Mr. Murdoch assured Council that the School Board will decide whether
or not to sell the property during the forthcoming week and therefore the
Council's action to notify them of their interest is required immediately.
Further he stated that if a commitment is made to purchase subject property,
at this time it would have a higher priority than had been anticipated and
would preclude from any other use approximately $100,000 a year for the next
five years .
Councilman Thom voiced his personal opinion that the Question of
developing existing sites is of more urgent priority than acquiring land for
more park sites. He stated he would be reluctant to proceed with acquisition
o~ any additional park property until a crash program has been implemented to
develop existing sites,
Councilman Dutton noted that Councilman Thom's remark is contrary
to existing and past Council policy which has made it possible for the City to
have park sites to develop by purchasing the necessary park land as sale of the
property becomes imminent,
Councilman Thom stated that he realizes his opinion is contrary to
prior policy but feels it is in conformance with the needs of the people, and
that it is a higher priority than existing policy. He maintained the position
that at this point in time the need for development exceeds the need for
acquiring more land.
4-1
ity Hal Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M,
Mr. Murdoch summarized that the Council is considering whether or
not the present 7% acre park is sufficient, since, if the surplus property is
not purchased by the City and development occurs, there will be no opportunity
to acquire and develop a larger park facility in the future.
Councilman Pebley noted that Sunkist Park is located approximately
one mile from subject park site, that Pioneer and Rio Vista Park sites are with-
in a reasonable distance as well, and perhaps it might not be necessary to pro-
vide more facilities than the current 7~ acres, especially when considering .~..,
purchasing property at a cost in the neighborhood of $50,000 per acre. Further
Councilman Pebley noted that much of the population in the immediate area of
Edison Park resides in large apartment complexes which provide their own private
recreational amenities.
In answer to Councilman Dutton, Mr. Kamphefner related that the popu-
lation of the park service area in which Edison Park is located is projected -
at 11,500. Further he noted that in-lieu fees are not based on private recrea-
tional facilities but in an attempt to provide the standard amount of park acre-
age for each area of the City.
Councilman Stephenson inquired whether or not complaints have been
received from the immediate vicinity that the existing park is insufficient or
whether any desire for expansion of these facilities is known to the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. Kamphefner replied that they have received no such complaints or
requests, but that there is a high degree of vandalism at the Edison Park site.
Councilman Sneegas inquired whether, in the event that Council decides
against purchase of the property, Baxter Street could be extended south. to
La Palma Avenue as this would increase accessability to the park and would im-
prove the relatively poor usage.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts stated that this street extension could be ~"'
accomplished through an Area Development Plan or other means when plans for
development of the area are considered.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the
City Council indicated no interest in acquiring Anaheim Union High School pro-
perty adjacent to Edison Park (8 acres) at this time. MOTION CARRIED.
tESOLUTION NO . 74R-1 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT
74R-1 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim IImion High School District
of Orange County, California; Flossie C. Hein; Walter Karloff & Bertha
Nittel; Roland T. & Bessie A. Reynolds; Savanna School District of Orange
County)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-1 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - AUTOMOBILES: Assistant City Manager Robert Davis reported on
a change in City policy this year as far as automobiles are concerned. He stated
that the various types of automobile usage by City Departments has been reviewed
and almost universally, wherever possible, the size of the vehicle and engine to
be purchased as replacement has been reduced in an effort to bring about a con-
servation of fuel. It is estimated, with reasonably adequate control, over air
conditioning usage in these automobiles, that the City can conserve 35,000 gallons
74.17
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 19741 1:30 P.M.
of fuel next year by using the smaller vehicles with smaller engines. There-
fore, there have been size reductions across the board, in some instances go-
ing to compact. automobiles and some sub-compact models.
2 STATION WAGONS (ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION UNITS - POLICE DEPAR~'iENT)
Mr. Davis reported bids were, received as follows and recommended
acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, LESS TRADE-IN,
INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - $7,622.35
McPeek Chrysler-Plymouth, Anaheim - - - - - 7,872.79
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - 8,385.16
Vern Trider Chevrolet - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
McCoy Ford - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO ,QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Stephenson, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $7,622.35, less trade-in, including tax.
MOTION CARRIED.
1 SMALL SEDAN (UNDERCOVER POLICE UNIT): Mr. Davis reported bids were
received as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT , INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - $3,760.05
McPeek Chrysler-Plymouth, Anaheim - - - - - 3,798.92
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - 3,867.56
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,160.61
Vern Trider Chevrolet - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman
Stephenson, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $3,760.05, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
21 COMPACT SEDANS (9 POLICE DETECTIVE UNITS ; 12 CAR POOL_ AND VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS): Mr. Davis reported on bids received as
follows and noted that the low bid received was from McCoy Ford, how-
ever they indicated that this bid would be valid only until December 26,
1973 because of the heavy demand for smaller automobiles and advised
they would not honor this bid after that date. He therefore recommended
that the second low bid of Santa Ana Dodge be accepted:
TO TAI. AMOUNT , LESS TRADE - IN ,
VENDOR INCLUDING TAX
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - $65,253.57
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - 66,100.06
McPeek Plymouth, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - 66,667.98
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - 67,929.69
Vern Trider Chevrolet - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman
Stephenson, the second low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and
purchase authorized in the amount of $66,100.06, less trade-in,
including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
2 INTERMEDIATE SEDANS (DEPARTMENT HEADS) : Mr. Davis reported bids
were received as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
~~OR TOTAL AMOUNT. INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - $6,403.94
McPeek Plymouth, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - 6,625.10
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - 6,640.70
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,504.69
~-1~
iy Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase auth-
orized in the amount of $6,403.94, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
23 SEDANS (POLICE DEPAR'IlKENT): Mr. Davis reported bids were received
as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, LESS TRADE-IN,
INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - $76,655.47
McPeek Plymouth, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - 77,859.29
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 81,246.84
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
Vern Trider Chevrolet, Anaheim - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
American Motors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Stephenson, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $76,655.47, less trade-in, including tax.
MOTION CARRIED.
4-1/2 TON PICK-UP TRUCKS: Mr. Robert Davis reported on bids submitted
for these items and stated that the Iow bid received from Santa Ana
Dodge did not meet specifications as to engine size. It is recommended
by the Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent that the City not purchase
engines below 240 to 250 cubic feet in pick-up trucks. Mr. Davis there-
fore recommended that the next low bid of Wood G.M.C. be accepted:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Wood G.M.C., Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - $12,423.60
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - 12,315.32
Vern Trider, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13,007.19
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,995.30
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QIIOTE
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
the second low bid of Woods G.M.C. was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $12,423.60, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
6-3/4 TON PICK-UP TRUCKS: Mr. Davis reported bids were received as
follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid;
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - $20,790.00
WoodsG.M.C.,Anaheim ------------ 21,086.10
Vern Trider, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21,951.34
McCoy Ford, Anaheim, - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22,178.08
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 22,302.00
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman
Dutton, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase auth-
orized in the amount of $20,790.00, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
1 LARGE CARGO VAN (PARKS AND RECREATION): Mr. Davis reported bids were re-
ceived as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid;
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - $3,687.88
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,200.91
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
Woods G.M.C. , Anaheim - - - - - _ - _ - - _ _ NO QUOTE
Vera. Trider, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
74-19
City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase auth-
orized in the amount of $3,687.88, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
3-10,000 G_V.W. CAB AND CHASSIS:. Mr. Davis reported bids were received
as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - - $10,808.96
Vern Trider, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11,137.09
McCoy Ford, Anaheim -------------- 11,158.51
Woods G,M,C,, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11,334.75
I. H. Company, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11,838.67
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,489.16
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman
Dutton, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase auth-
orized in the amount of $10,808.96, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
1-10,000 G.V.W. 4 X 4 CAB AND CHASSIS: Mr, Davis reported bids were
received as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDO R
TOTAL, AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - - $4,989.92
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,350.97
I. H. Company, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,299.10
Vern Trider, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
Woods G.M,C., Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Dutton, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase auth-
orized in the amount of $4,989.92, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
7-2,400 G.V.W. CAB AND CHASSIS: Mr. Davis reported bids were received
as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR
'DOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - - $38,338.26
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40,247.72
Woods G.M.C., Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42,127.05
I. H. Company, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40;292.28
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44,213.17
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Dutton, the low bid of Santa Ana Dodge was accepted and purchase auth-
orized in the amount of $38,338.26, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
1-27,500 G.V.W. WITH TILT CAB_: Mr. Davis reported bids were received
as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
I. H. Company, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - $7,533.87
Woods G.M.C., Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,918.05
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8,201.37
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
Vern Trider, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, the low bid of International Harvester Company was accepted
and purchase authorized in the amount of $7,533.87, including tax.
MOTION CARRIED.
4 - ~.
ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 PoM.
2-30,500 G.V.W. TILT CAB AND CHASSIS: Mr, Davis reported on bids sub-
mitted for these items and advised that in this instance again McCoy
Ford was the low bidder, however they would not extend or honor their
bid beyond December 26, 1973. He therefore recommended acceptance of
the next low bid from Woods G.M.C:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT , INCLUDING TAX
McCoy Ford, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $19,606.61
Woods, G.M.C., Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,620.30
I. Ho Company, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,237.18
Anaheim Dodge, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE.
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
Vern Trider, Anaheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
the second low bid of Woods, G.M.C, was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $19,620.30, including tax. MOTION CARRIED,
?URCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - MISCELLANEOUS PLAY EQUIPMENT: The City Manager reported on
recommended purchase of miscellaneous play equipment and advised that Game Time,
Inc., has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $4,796.40,
including tax. He thereupon recommended the purchase be authorized.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, pur-
chase was authorized in the amount of $4,796.40, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers. (3:55 P.M.)
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion
by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. City of Fountain Valley - Resolution 1Vo. 7176 - Opposing the
application of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for authority to
split the present Orange County Telephone Directory into two separate directories
to be known as the Orange Coast Telephone Directory and the Orange County
Directory.
b. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Investigation for the
purpose of establishing a list for the year 1974 of existing and proposed cross-
ings at grade of city streets or county roads most urgently in need of separa-
tion, or projects effecting the elimination of grade crossings by removal or
relocation of streets or railroad tracks, or existing separations in need of
alteration or reconstruction as contemplated by Section 189 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
c. Community Center Authority -Minutes - December 3, 1973.
d. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of November, 1973_
for the Electrical Division and Police Department.
e. Anaheim Public Library Board - Minutes - November 19, 1973.
MOTION CARRIED .
ORDINANCE N0. 3248: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3248 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14.32.151 RELATING TO TI~REE-
HOUR PARKING AND ADDING PARAGRAPH 90 TO SECTION 14.32.190 RELATING TO NO
PARKING AT ANY TIME. (Three-hour parking - Clementine Street, both sides,
from Cypress Street to Chartres Street; No Parking Anytime - Katella Way,
both sides, from Manchester Avenue to Katella Avenue)
Roll Call Vote
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN : Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3248 for adoption.
74 - 21
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE N0. 3249: Councilman Sneegas offered Urgency Ordinance No. 3249 for
second reading and adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.08,
SECTION 18.08.330 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING 'PO ZONING.
(Automobile Service Stations)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN : Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3249 duly passed and adopted.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CODE OF ETHICS - SECTION 1.01.400: City Attorney Watts re-
ported that pursuant to Council's direction on December 26, 1973, a draft
amendment to the Code of Ethics, Section 1.01.400 has been prepared which
accomplishes the removal of the language relating to "pecuniary gain" from
Section 1.01.400, Subsection (g) Conflict of Interest: General, Item No. 3,
Disclosure of Confidential Information. However, he advised following the
tenor of earlier discussion, if it is anticipated that further amendments to
the Code, might be forthcoming, it would be expeditious to encompass all of
these changes in one amendment.
Councilman Dutton stated it was his personal opinion that the Code
of Ethics should be amended so that the Council members as well as members of
City Boards and Commissions are subject to the same rules and regulations as
City employees.
Councilman Thom related that his objection to this particular amend-
ment is that the removal of the words "for pecuniary gain" is intended to re-
strict information to which the public has a right. He contended that the
reason the amendment was introduced was because of Mayor button's charges that
he "Mr. Thom" had released confidential information and specifically the charge
regarding the audit report covering the enterprise function at the Anaheim
Municipal Golf Course (regarding which he freely admitted disseminating infor-
mation).
Councilman Thom stated that he would like to ask that in working up
the amendment to the ordinance, the Council consider Government Code Section
54957, known as the Ralph M. Brown Act which pertains to E xecutive Sessions and
the purposes for which these may be legally used; to wit: To consider appoint-
ment, employment or dismissal of a public officer or employee; To hear com-
plaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee unless public
hearing is requested by same. According to the Brown Act, he related, these
are the only purposes for which Executive Sessions may be held except that he
would assume that matters under litigation and possibly the negotiating for
sale or purchase of real property, might also be included.
Councilman Thom explained that his concern arises from the possibil-
ity that if the Section of the Ethics Code is amended by 8 majority of the
Council, and it would henceforth be a crime in the City of Anaheim to disclose
the subject matter of an Executive Session, and yet such subject matter was the
result of an audit which requires a public meeting, then does the City ordinance
by its criminal sanctions compel the Councilmen to became accessories after the
fact or principles in a crime violating Government Code Section 54959. He
requested that the City Attorney present the Council with a written opinion
addressing this particular question.
Councilman Stephenson inquired whether the City Attorney in fact con-
sidered the audit report in question a proper subject for Executive Session
discussion.
Mr. Watts replied that it was his opinion that such an audit report
can be legitimately discussed in Executive Session. He cited a legal case in-
volving the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County in which the court speci-
fically authorized the use of Executive Session for Attorney-Client discussions.
4-~.
itv Ha11 Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar 2, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
He further stated that anytime a matter involving a contract which the City is
a party to, an when discussing matters which may result in potential litigation,
this is construed as an Attorney-Client discussion and therefore an appropriate
matter for Executive Session.
Councilman Dutton interjected that such matters would also be appro-
priate areas of confidentiality, until resolved, with which statement Mr. Watts
concurred.
Councilman Thom noted that Executive Sessions can be called for cer-
tain purposes but inquired what the consequences would be if a second improper
subject is discussed. Then, if this amended ordinance were in effect, a
Councilman who was present at said Executive Session and did not divulge the
subject of the discussion, he would be committing a criminal act, by becoming
an accessory to a criminal act. He voiced the opinion that the State has pre-
empted this field and that a Councilman cannot be muzzled by a City ordinance
from revealing improper or illegal deliberations. Therefore he stated he would
not vote to adopt such an amendment and assured Council that he would test it.,
in court if it is adopted.
Councilman Stephenson asked if Councilman Thom did not think there
azas a point in the City's best interests,which in this case a cost amounting to
$20,000, warranted the responsibility of handling the information confidential.
Councilman Thom replied that it is in the public's interest to know
how an enterprise is administered which may ultimately affect City revenues,
in particular when their interests are not being safeguarded.
Councilman Sneegas concurred with Councilman Thom's regard for safe-
guarding the public's right to certain information, but not at the expense of
forfeiting the City's ability to recover possible damages by disclosure of in-
formation before the City has an opportunity to initiate litigation. He further
noted that at the very Executive Session under discussion, litigation was auth-
orized. He remarked that he felt it incumbent upon anyone in Executive Session
to be cautious as to what information they release until the time is right. He
further noted that there is no way to legislate morality and that occasionally
an individual's common sense and judgement must come into the picture, and that
person must take the responsibility of protecting the confidentiality of such
information.
Councilman Thom reiterated that he intends to test the amendment if
adopted,, and that he desired a written opinion from the City Attorney.
By general consent, the City Council withheld any action on adoption
of the proposed amendment to Section 1.01.400, pending the written opinion from
the City Attorney.
COUNCIL. POLICY - ELIGIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL UNDER "REPORTS_ AND RECOMMENDA-
TIONS": Pursuant to Council's request at the meeting held December 26, 1973, that a
Council policy be drafted setting forth eligibility to address the Council under
the "Reports and Recommendations" section of the Agenda, the City Clerk read the
follc~w-~ng draft
"It is the policy of the City Council that under the "Reports
and Recommendations" section of the Agenda, only those named shall be
heard, and in the event oral presentation is requested by other than
those listed on the Agenda, it shall be allowed only with the consent of
the majority of the City Council.
Citizens wishing to address the Council shall be scheduled on °~
the Agenda in the regular manner (Resolution No. 62R-790 and Policy No.
106} .°'
Councilman Dutton remarked that it certainly is not his intent nor any-
other member of the Council,to set up any type of procedure wherein any citizen
cannot be heard before the Council, but rather what Council is attempting to do
via this policy ~s to require that all persons who do wish to address
the Council utilize the proper procedure,and that exceptions to the rule are not
made particularly on behalf of certain Councilmen using the Council meeting as
a springboard for politically motivated slander and harangue.
74-23
Citv Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Dutton thereupon moved that the Council policy as set
forth above be adopted as Policy No. 106 A. Councilman Sneegas seconded the
motion .
On Roll Call Vote at the request of Councilman Thom, the foregoing
motion carried by the following, vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
ABSENT : COUNC AMEN : Peb 1 ey
In response to an outburst from the audience, Councilman Sneegas
strongly emphasized that he for one was extremely tired of receiving the types
of presentations at the conclusion of Council meetings that have recently been
witnessed, which, in his opinion, had no business coming before Council at all.
He remarked that it appears to him ridiculous to retain Councilmen, City offi-
cials and employees overtime so that political points can be made, after most
of the public has gone, by haranguing the Council for the edification of the
press. He stated that those individuals who wished to address the Council may
still do so by applying through the appropriate procedure and being scheduled
on the printed agenda so that all those interested may hear their presentation.
ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION - REQUEST Ti0 MEET WITH COUNCIL : The C i ty Clerk read a
letter dated December 28, 1973 from the Anaheim Police Association, Monica
Kurtz, Executive Secretary, requesting that a representative of that organiza-
tion be given an opportunity to address the Council at the ne xt regular Council
meeting. She advised that the Council was polled and a majority agreed to hear
from the Anaheim Police Association.
Mr. John Beteag, 10583 56th Street, Miraloma, California, Police
Officer for the City of Anaheim and member of the Anaheim Police Association,
stated that the Board of Directors had requested hirn to represent the Associa-
tion. He summarized the sequence of events leading to his appearance, noting
the negotiations between the City and the Anaheim Police Association were
initiated in August of 1973 in an attempt to work out an acceptable wage agree-
ment, and in October of 1973, the City presented a final offer. This offer
was voted upon and rejected by 65% of the Association membership. Mr. Beteag
advised that according to the Anaheim Police Association bylaws this vote pre-
cludes any future voting on that offer. Since that time, he remarked a climate
has developed which is not in the best interests of any of the parties involved.
Therefore, he request, on behalf of the Anaheim Police Association, that the
City Council with the Association in Executive Session or that they authorize
Mr. Garry McRae to reopen negotiations so that the situation may be resolved
as expeditiously as possible.
Councilman 'Thom remarked that he felt this request to be reasonable
and thereupon moved that the City Council meeting with the Anaheim Police
Association in Executive Session.
Councilman Dutton stated that Mr. Garry McRae is the representative
of the City Council authorized to speak on the City's behalf within the parameters
as determined by the Council. He voiced the opinion that an Executive Session
would serve no purpose since it is already difficult enough to relay informa-
tion to all members of the Police Department specifically because of their
working shifts.
Councilman Sneegas inquired whether the slightly revised pay package
which was presented to the President of the A.P.A. Board and which provided
that the Association members could decide whether or not to receive the addi-
tional $10 cash per month or the dental benefit plan was ever presented to or
voted upon by the general membership.
Mr. Beteag answered negatively, stating that to his knowledge the
plan which was presented was rejected in total and this precludes the Associa-
tion from voting on any part of that package; that no portion of it can be re-
submitted to the members according to the Association bylaws.
4-2t
ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Sneegas asked Mr. Beteag if he was aware that negotiation
had taken place which changed the language on some of the articles in the plan
which would make it possible for another vote to be conducted, to which Mr.
Beteag replied negatively.
Councilman Sneegas, noting that there appeared to have been a tremendous
lack of information reaching the individuals involved in this matter, moved that
the Council agree to conduct a public meeting with the Anaheim Police Associa-
tion to discuss the situation in the open, at an evening meeting, so as to en-
able as many officers as possible to attend.
Further Councilman Sneegas remarked that if the Police Association
elected not to accept the dental benefits, the additional $10 per month in-lieu
thereof would amount to another 1P/o increase in a patrolman's salary, bringing the total
increase to nearly 7 3/4%. He also felt that the public meeting wau ld afford
the Anaheim Police Association an opportunity to make known their objectives,
as there still seems to be some confusion in this regard.
Councilman Thom inquired if Councilman Sneegas' motion included the
reopening of negotiations.
Councilman Sneegas explained that his motion was to conduct a public
meeting with the Anaheim Police Association for the purpose of discussing the
pay package as it was supposed to have been presented to the membership with
the option of dental benefits or the equivalent cost of same in wages.
In answer to Councilman Stephenson, Mr. Beteag reiterated that once
a vote is taken of the membership on a particular package, the membership cannot
vote again on the same package.
Councilman Sneegas remarked that he was aware that the Anaheim Police
Association held two elections on this particular pay package and that some of
the members of_ the A.P.A, were disturbed about the manner in which this package
was presented to them at the time of the second election.
~~r. Beteag stated that he felt the vote which was taken was represen-
tative of the feelings of the Association members.
Councilman Sneegas stated that perhaps it was representative of the
feelin€;s of the Association with the information that was available to them at
that time.
Councilman 'I~hom restated his motion that the Council meet in Executive
Session. with the Anaheim Police Association. Said motion died for a lack of a
second.
Councilman Sneegas restated his motion that the Council and the Execu-
tive Board of the Anaheim Police Association and members of the Anaheim Police
Association meet at an evening public meeting, or ata time and place which is
mutall~~ agreeable. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
r.~r. Beteag advised that the A,P.A. Board of Directors will meet this
evening; and that potential dates could be submitted following this meeting so
that Council may schedule the hearing at a mutally agreeable time.
~~onica Kurtz, Executive Secretary of the Anaheim Police Association
was recognized by the Mayor and advised that when the pay package was presented
to the Association, it was clearly identified as the final pay package, and it
contained no mention of the ability to elect to receive the additional $10
increase, only the dental benefit was shown.
Councilman Sneegas explained that prior to submitting the final pay
package to the membership, the Board or the negotiating team evidentially took
action making the decision to include the dental plan, without ever apprising
the membership of the fact that there was an option.
'~~r. Carry McRae advised that before the final offer was made, the
negotiating team and himself had discussed at great lenghts whether or not the
74 - 25
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU'I'ES_ - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M
Police Association would be interested in the dental plan, in view of the fact
that they have their own dental plan. The final decision made by the A.P.A.
negotiating committee was that the most reasonable way to provide dental beice-
fits is with pre-tax dollars, i.e., that for the Association members to receive
after tax dollars in wages and then purchase dental benefits in a commensurable
amount as provided through the City dental plan seemed not the reasonable ap-
proach. The A,P.A, bargaining committee determined in this instance that the
dental benefits would be a part of the final offer and that offer was the one
which the bargaining committee agreed to recommend to its membership, it was
a bilateral document.
Mr. McRae further explained that subsequent to rejection of the
package, discussions regarding what types of modifications could be made with-
in the parameters approved by the City Council, the option of the $10 per month
to replace the dental benefits was mentioned, however, he remarked the modifi-
cations have never been discussed since there has been only one meeting since
the vote on the final package. That meeting was held to assess the magnitude
of t:he differences. 'T'herefore the option has never been exercised.
In answer to Councilman Stephenson, Mr. McRae advised that he has
been available to meet with the Anaheim Police Association and has actually
met with the Attorney for that group on two occasions; the first time the
Attt~rney indicated that the Association would like to start all over again;
i~_n ;.he second occasion the Attorney made demands of the City which were sub-
stantially higher than the early= August demands, at which time it was deter -
mined that the two parties were at an impasse.
Councilman Thom referred to the fact that at a Council meeting in
November, the question was specifically asked as to whether or not Mr, McRae
was authorized to reopen negotiations and a majority of the Council indicated
that he was not authorized to do so.
Mr, McRae stated that actually what has been under discussion is
the definition of the term "'reopen negotiations", since the use of this term
implies to the A,P.A, that the City will start at its initial position.
Councilman Thom remarked that there was no point in meeting and con-
ferring unless Mr. McRae was authorized to reopen negotiations, since there is
no negotiating to be accomplished from a point of final offer,
Councilman Stephenson disagreed, noting that discussions with the
Anaheim Police Association could be fruitful and these were encouraged by the
Council; however his definition of renegotiation would be throwing out the
package entirely and beginning all over again, and this is not what the major-
ity of the Council desired to do.
Councilman Sneegas stated that after the failure of the vote and
the problems which that generated, he personally had numerous conversations
with the Anaheim Police Association Board members relating to what they felt
they needed to sell the. package to their membership, and afterwards no attempts
were made to sell the package to the Association. Further he remarked that
he has had several meetings with Garry McRae and has discussed modifications
which are possible but the representatives of the A.P.A. have not come forward
to meet and discuss these items, so that he can only draw the conclusion that
what the Board has stated they want from the negotiations is not in keeping
with what the membership wants or that they are not receiving accurate trans-
mittal of the membership's wishes. He remarked that for these reason, he feels
an open meeting is necessary.
Mr. Beteag stated that he felt the A.P.A. was acting in accordance
with the wishes of the membership and certainly not contrary to their wishes.
He reported that information is disseminated following each Board meeting to
the members' individual homes and that his opinion and that of every other
member has been solicited,
On learning from Mr, Beteag that Councilman Thom was present at cer-
tain A,P,A. Executive Board meetings, Councilman Dutton inquired whether he
was aware that Councilman Thom was repeating comments and information from
+-2
ity Nall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Council Executive Session directly to the A.P.A, negotiating committee. He
remarked that this is one of the factors which prompted him to introduce .the
amendment to the Ethics Code provisions.
Councilman Sneegas asked if it is Mr. Beteag's contention then that
the membership knows entirely what the .package consists of and there is no
question in anyone's mind, although they have not have an opportunity to vote
on the minor changes which could be implemented, to which Mr. Beteag answered
affirmatively.
At the conclusion of discussion, the Council requested that the A.P.A.
submit several possible dates which would be agreeable to them for the public
meeting.
RDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT - JOLLY OX RESTAURANT: Mr. Watts
reported that the Jolly Ox Restaurant, 950 South Ox Road was granted a dinner
dancing place permit in March of 1973, having met the provision of the Code that
they have a minimum 300-square foot dance floor. Subsequent to that time, in-
vestigation by the Police Department reveals that they have reduced the size of
this dance floor to 120-square feet. Attempts have been made to have them cor-
rect the situation which have been unsuccessful. Mr. Watts suggested that the
Council authorize the City Attorney's Office to forward a letter ordering them
to show cause as to why the dinner dancing place permit should not be revoked.
Council discussion ensured relative to whether or not the alteration
to the dance floor was permanent or was merely that the management had moved
tables and chairs onto a portion of that floor and Mr. Watts advised that a
memorandum from Lt. Wilcox implies that there is a physical alteration of some
kind.
Councilman Stephenson stated that the minimum 300-square foot provi-
sion requires a very small dance floor,and that the necessity for enforcement
of this requirement is to obviate the possibility of all the smaller beer bars
and cocktail bars requesting similar privileges.
By general consent, the City Council authorized the City Attorney to
forward a letter to the Jolly Ox Restaurant, 950 South Ox Road, ordering them
to show cause within ten days from date of the letter, why their dinner dancing
place permit should not be revoked.
ZESOLUTION i~0. 74-2 - AGREEMENT - CYPRESS JUNIOR COLLEGE : Councilman Sneegas offered
-_
Resolution No. 74-2 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERMITTING CYPRESS
COLLEGE GOLF TEAM TO ENGAGE IN PRACTICE GOLF MATCH PLAY AT ANAHEIM HILLS
GOLF COURSE .
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Thom and Dutton
^~10E S : COUNCILMEN : None
ABSENT : COUNCILMEN : Peb ley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-2 duly passed and adopted.
ZESOLUTION N0. 74R-3 - AGREEMENT - ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: Councilman
Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-3 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERMITTING THE
ANAHEIr1 UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT TO UTILIZE THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL AND
THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE .
Roll Call Vote
74-27
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-3 duly passed and adopted.
RESIGNATIONS FROM THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - LENZI ACCRED AND DAN L. ROWLAND:
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom, resignations from
Dan L. Rowland and Lenzi Allred dated December 28, and December 31, 1973, re-
spectively, were accepted with regrets, effective the dates submitted. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY CLERK - OATH OF OFFICE: Oath of office was administered to Alona M. Farrens,
appointee to the office of City Clerk effective January 4, 1974, by retiring
City Clerk Dene M. Daoust.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the request of Councilman Thom, Councilman Sneegas
moved to recess to Executive Session, Councilman Dutton seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (4:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being pre-
sent, with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (5:19 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:20 P.M.
Signed ~~~`~~~
City Clerk