1978/09/0578-1161
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
INVOCATION:
FLAG SALUTE:
to the Flag.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Howard Brody
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
Rabbi Hershel Brooks of Temple Beth Emet gave the Invocation.
Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was adopted by
the City Council and presented to Mrs. Rex Bruhns on the occasion of the 20th
Anniversary of the Anaheim Memorial Hospital Guild.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, minutes
of the regular meeting held May 16, 1978, were approved subject to typographical
corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAI~ER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $590,112.90 in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. '
152/153: MEDICAL DISABILITY RETIREMENTS AND DISCUSSION OF OFFICER PLUMMER CASE
AND INVESTIGATION: Councilman Kott read a prepared statement as follows:
"During April of 1977, through dealing in devious and deceitful 'maneuvers, the
City Manager of the City of Anaheim, made the decision to disability retire an
unfit police officer, who had been fired by the Chief of Police, just a few months
earlier. In this action, the City Manager took it upon himself to expend taxpayers'
funds to the tune of $144,000.
As a result of this immoral conduct, there has been a public outrage, which has
still not sUbsided and is presently under investigation by the Grand Jury.
78-1162
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5; 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
As an elected official, representing the taxpayer, I firmly believe that an
appointed public servant should not have this kind of authority. The decision
was made for this huge expenditure of public funds without benefit of Council
knowledge or Council approval. Perhaps there were Council Members who travel
socially with the City Manager, who did know of this deceitful act, but I was
never consulted.
The Government Code of the State of California as well as the Charter of the
City of Anaheim specifically state that retirement activities shall be a respon-
sibility of the legislative body.
However, during November of 1973 the then City Council abrogated its responsibility
by delegating this authority to the City Manager. The City Manager in turn, may
then delegate this authority to another appointed bureaucrat if he sees fit to
do so.
As a result of this fiscally irresponsible act by the City Manager, it is my
opinion that a precedent has been set that can cost the taxpayers of Anaheim
millions of dollars. Any City employee with an upset stomach can now apply for
medical disability retirement using the Plummer deal as a basis for such action.
I believe this is too much power for an appointed public servant and I can no
longer tolerate and allow this cancerous disease to exist. Therefore, in the
public interest and in behalf of the taxpayer of the City of Anaheim, I hereby
offer the following resolution: That the City Council immediately rescind the
action of the City Council of November 7, 1973 relative to this matter and hereby
give all final authority for such action back to the City Council as provided for
in the City Charter.
Further, the City Manager shall be directed to conduct all investigations necessary
to give the City Council proper information so that appropriate decisions can be
made."
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that by offering the resolution, Councilman
Kott would be proposing to rescind the decision made by the Council in 1973, thus
placing the authority for making a final decision on any medical retirement in the
hands of the City Council; Councilman Kott confirmed the Mayor's understanding.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the proposal was an item she would want to discuss and
receive input to ascertain why the Council made the choice they did in 1973.
Councilman Kott stated the resolution had been offered and he wanted the Mayor
to call for a vote.
Councilman Roth stated that he could not support the resolution until the Plummer
investigation was complete. He understood there was another review in process
regarding the disability retirement of Mr. Plummer. When all the facts were in,
he could then either support or not support the resolution.
Councilman Overholt stated that although he took exception to almost all of the
statements made by Councilman Kott in his preamble, he could see the wisdom of
the resolution proposed. He was not a member of the Council when it delegated its
authority to the City Manager to rule on disability retirements.
78-1163
City Hal.ir Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sep.tember 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that none of the present Council Members were in office
at the time, and thus it was necessary to find out why they took such action.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed for the Council that the Government Code did pro-
vide that the City Council may delegate the authority to make medical retirements
to the City Manager or other City officials and that was the action taken at the
time. Thus, there was no violation of the Code.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated that although he might support Councilman
Kott's resolution, he wanted to determine that the Plummer matter investigation
was, in fact, complete and thus moved to continue the vote on the resolution until
such time as the Council determined that the investigation of the Plummer incident
was complete which might be today. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt explained for the Mayor that at the
meeting prior to vacations of staff, he (Seymour) asked the question as to when
the investigation would be completed, and at the time the statement was made that
on September 5, 1978 further testimony would be taken.
Mayor Seymour asked if it was the City Manager who intended to pursue the Plummer
investigation or some member of the Council. He thought the Plummer matter had
been concluded, because prior to the City Manager going on vacation, one of the
two people remaining to offer any testimony was the Personnel Director who gave
a prepared statement that had nothing to do with the Plummer investigation. When
he asked the City Manager if he intended to have the Personnel Director attend
the Executive Session, there was no response to that. The only other person going
to offer anything in Executive Session was the President of the Anaheim Police
Association (APA) and he withdrew so he was at a loss to know who was investigating
the matter further and reiterated he thought it was a matter that had been completed.
Mr. Talley stated that he was not investigating the matter. The investigation done
by City staff concluded that absolutely nothing improper took place. When the
Mayor asked the question relative to the Personnel Director, he stated that the
Personnel Director had filed his report inasmuch as the Chief had not said anything
about him with regard to Plummer, but with respect to grievances only. Staff's inves-
tigation was complete with the City Attorney's report that concluded there was nothing
improper in any circumstances.
Councilman Roth stated as he understood, a review of Mr. Plummer's retirement was
underway.
Mr. Talley stated that was correct and the Council directed that a physical be re-
quired. As a part of the investigation, the City Attorney revealed that Mr. Plummer
was allegedly working in a safety position which was ascertained' the week before
the report was turned in and Council requested that further medical examinations
be conducted and they had been ordered. Officer Plu~ner had been directed to report
to the two physicians indicated for further medical evidence.
Councilman Kott stated, in answer to Councilman Overholt, where he (Kott) indicated
delegation of the authority to the City Manager was illegal, he was merely saying
that the Code did provide that the legislative body be the final authority unless
the responsibility was delegated. As well, his resolution did not relate at all
to the status of the Plummer investigation at this time. It simply stated that if
78-1164
City Hal.!.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sept-mber 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
huge amounts of tax dollars were to be spent, then the elected body should have the
responsibility of either making the expenditure or denying it and that responsi-
bility not be delegated to appointed officials. He asked the City Attorney the
status of his resolution.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that Councilman Kott was entitled to have a vote on
the resolution.
Before any action was taken, City Manager Talley stated he had researched the
particular item. The reason that the delegation occurred and the Government Code
provided that the delegation could be made, not only to the City Manager, but also
further down the line in the organization if the City Manager chose, was due to the
fact that the matters, in effect, became hearings where attorneys appeared and ex-
tensive medical evidence taken which could be quite lengthy. The Council at that
time, did not want to load themselves down with two areas, first having extensive
hearings and secondly subjecting themselves to comments of a political nature. If
there would be interest on the Council's part, staff could provide a report on the
number of hearings and also the extent. With the resolution stating that the City
Manager would conduct investigations for the City Council, that would be no more
than a staff report as provided now on any other hearing on any Tuesday at 3:00 p.m.
The Council would be required to listen to all of the evidence of an extremely com-
plex type by various people. With more permissive laws being instituted every year,
and the number of increasingly older employees, the Council could rightfully expect
that the workload would not decrease and it might be appropriate to find out just
exactly what would be involved.
Councilman Kott stated that although he appreciated the City Manager's concerns
for the time that Council Members might have to spend on the item, he had no facts
and was offering his opinion only. He reiterated that since huge amounts of public
funds were involved, he considered it to be a part of his responsibility and not
to ~brogate that responsibility because of the time inVOlved. The City Council
and the public had a right to know about the people who were asking for medical
retirements and the amounts of money involved and, under the present system, the
information was not public.
Mayor Seymour agreed that it was part of the responsibility of serving as a Council
Member since they were representing the taxpayer. Relative to the Plummet decision,
he had no confidence in the way the City Manager handled the matter. When elected
officials saw what, in his opinion, was unprofessional conduct in handling that
case, they had no choice but to respond by taking that power back into their hands
so that it could stand the test of public scrutiny. He would want a staff report
and the resolution called for one on every retirement.
A brief discussion then followed relative to the status of the ~esolution and
motion presently on the floor. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that his interpre-
tation of the way the matter should be handled was, if the majority of the Council
voted to continue the resolution, that motion would have precedence, but the resolu-
tion at some date or this day would have to be voted on, and it could not be com-
pletely abandoned.
78-1165
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt again spoke to the issue and although Councilman Kott stated
his preamble had nothing to do with his resolution, he and another member of the
Council stated essentially the same thing--that there was an alleged wrongdoing
on the part of the City Manager. He reiterated he favored Councilman Kott's
resolution because he believed the disability retirement benefits the City was
paying were getting out of hand and for the moment, he would like to see the
Council take the responsibility to ascertain if the matter could be brought into
line. However, when two Council Members couched it in terms of reprimanding the
City Manager and also talked in terms of the Plummer report and the investigation
as being complete, he disagreed wholeheartedly and emphatically. The minutes of
the meeting held before Mr. Talley and the Mr. McRae took their vacations would
reflect that it was stated if any Member of the Council at the meeting today,
September 5, 1978, wanted to have any further testimony, it would then continue.
The reason he made the motion to continue was to see if the matter could be re-
Solved today. That, in fact, the Plummer investigation was completed. Relative
to the matter of revocation, it was decided some time ago that that would continue
and perhaps the disability should be revoked if the facts warranted, but he was
talking about the investigation of the alleged legal acts of alleged wrongdoing
He reiterated, because the resolution was proposed in the same breath with allega-
tions against the City Manager, he disagreed with it because those allegations
colored the situation. He recommended that the motion for continuance pass so that
they could immediately go into the question of whether the basic Plummer investiga-
tion was completed.
Councilman Kott emphasized again that his resolution had nothing to do with the
status of Officer Plurmner.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed that a continuance was in order to study the matter
and make a decision based on facts.
Mayor Seymour maintained that a continuance was only going to give facts, for
example, that the hearings might be lengthy and take a long time while the thrust
was as Councilman Kott stated, the ultimate responsibility should be returned to
the elected officials and by so doing, would make each case public.
Councilman Overholt then asked the City Manager if he had any desire to testify
before the Council regarding the Plummer investigation as a result of the release
of Chief Bastrup's statement and also if he knew whether Personnel Director Garry
McRae wished to testify before the City Council in answer to the Chief's charges.
Relative to the first question, Mr. Talley answered "No". The fact was there were
three things that did occur and one was the Chief acknowledged that he had never
discussed the items in his statement with him and that the City Attorney acknowledged
that many things Chief Bastrup brought up did not change, in any. way, his report
of the findings therefor. He clarified it was the Deputy City Attorney who pro-
vided the report to the Council. Lastly, there was categorically a conclusion that
there was nothing irregular or illegal about any aspect of the Plummet matter. With
that, he said he did not have any further comments and, unless some Member of the
Council wanted to proceed from there, it was merely speculating from a subjective
independent review beyond that.
78-1166
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Relative to the Personnel Director, he believed that Mr. McRae had furnished a
reply and had no wish to say anything further unless the Council wanted ampli-
fication on his remarks. Those remarks showed that any statements regarding a
'~ea~'being made were not only totally false, but also many of the alleged
grievances that occurred as part of the 'heal' were still being negotiated today
and, therefore, could not have been part of any arrangement. Both he and Mr.
McRae felt that they had been subjected to extreme pressures because of a failure
to go along with something totally irrelevant to the matter.
Personnel Director Garry McRae stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
He did not have anything to add to what Mr. Talley referred to and that was with
reference to the allegation that there was some sort of "quid pro quo" exchange of
grievances in the past, which just did not happen. There was no question that a
number of those grievances were in the process of being resolved simultaneously
under Council direction as he perceived it at the time, but each grievance was
considered on its merit. One of the allegations was that members of the Police
Association had been "sold out." In no instance, did he ever discuss a grievance
with Mr. Solomon, Attorney for the APA, wherein he (Solomon) said he would take
the information back to his client who was the individual involved in each grievance.
That was part of the reason it took many months to resolve the situation because
they were talking to Mr. Solomon and he, in turn, was talking to his clients. He
reiterated he was prepared to answer any questions from the Council in the meeting
or in Executive Session regarding the matter, but he did not know how he could
amplify further beyond what he and the attorneys had said in the short report
submitted to the Council on grievances which became a peripheral issue in the
Plummet matter.
Councilman Overholt stated the reason he asked the questions was that those were
the two unfinished items of the primary Plummet investigation aside from the matter
of revocation of the disability which was something that would perhaps have to go
on for a long time. If neither Mr. McRae mm~· Mr. Talley requested the opportunity
to give testimony, he was satisfied that the investigation was complete and if other
members of the Council were satisfied also, then he would withdraw his motion to
continue and support Councilman Kott's resolution.
Mayor Seymour stated that since Councilman Overholt asked a number of questions of
the City Manager publicly and now of the Personnel Director relative to the Plummer
affair, the other Council Members should also have an opportunity to do so. He
asked for a copy of the report.
Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Talley relative to the cormnunication from the Chief
of Police, at what particular time did he tell the Chief that he had overruled
his decision to fire Officer Plummer, reinstate him and grant him a disability
retirement.
Mr. Talley stated that he was going have to recite the answers again so that
everyone was aware that the questions had been asked before and they were being
phrased in, what he considered, a fallacious manner.
Mayor Seymour suggested that Mr. Talley answer the questions without giving speeches.
78-1167
City Hall, .Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley stated he was going to answer the questions, but when the Mayor was
attacking his integrity, he was not going to be told that he had to answer with
a "yes" or "no". Mr. Talley continued an answer to the question posed that he
never told the Chief. When he (Talley) made the decision that the medical re-
tirement was appropriate, part of the administrative process required that the
officer be reinstated. It was not an act which he performed himself nor was it
an act he even knew was performed and he did not tell department heads when
Personnel procedures had transpired about things which he did not know. Therefore,
he did not tell the Chief. He would not have told any department head because he
had no personal knowledge that Officer Plummer had been reinstated procedurally in
order for the situation to have occurred. When the medical retirement was granted,
it negated the dismissal that had never gone through the arbitration process. Those
were all facts of which the Mayor was aware.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Talley, at any time, told the Chief of Police that he
had overruled him by reinstating Plummer and granted'him a disability retirement.
Mr. Talley answered he never felt that he had overruled the Chief, but that the
medical retirement which occurred chronologically before the dismissal was appro-
priate and he, therefore, was prepared to grant that retirement which negated the
other action. He never told any department head that he had medically retired
any person.
Mr. McRae interjected that the Chief had a representative from his office at the
Retirement Committee meetings where that action was confirmed.
Mayor Seymour then questioned Mr. MgRae relative to the Chief's report. The Chief
stated he had a difficult time getting any information from Mr. McRae when he tried
to find out what decision had been made in the Plummer affair. That information
was given to the Chief on May 31, 1978, when the information was dated May 19th.
He wanted to know if, in fact, he openly and freely communicated with the Chief of
Police in a timely fashion relative to the decisions that were made and if the
Chief did have a difficult time getting that information as he stated.
Mr. McRae did not know. Lieutenant Gray was the person attending the hearings and
the Chief never informed him until a year later that he had trouble getting that
information. He had no reason to withhold any information from the Chief and was
completely surprised by the fact that he did not have that information.
Mr. Talley interjected that the Chief was represented on the Board and waited a
year to advise anybody that he was concerned about a time lapse of several weeks.
He also never advised him (Talley) of any concern.
Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Talley relative to the Board, the r~port stated that
he directed Mr. McRae to tell the Chairman of the Board to retire Plummet even
before the Board met. He asked if that were true.
Mr. Talley stated he did direct Mr. McRae to do so and his motivation was, in reading
the file and believing the City had a very poor case, that the best interest of the
City would be served in so doing by not continuing the matter at full pay. He never
directed the Chairman of the Board to do anything. What he did say was that he had
made that decision, but the Chairman of the Board determined he was going to conduct
a hearing to ascertain whether the facts supported such action. The procedure was
that a recommendation be given to the City Manager since the Board did not retire
anybody. Only the City Manager could do so.
78-1168
City. Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour emphasized that his question really had to do with the fact that
he directed the Chairman of the Board to make a decision before the Board even
met and, therefore, in his opinion, the meeting of the Board was a sham. He
asked if it were not true that a month and one-half before the Board met, he had
already made the decision to retire Plummer and also he asked if he had a conver-
sation with Steve Solomon.
Mr. Talley first confirmed that he did not talk to the Chairman of the Board, but
that Mr. McRae had done so.
Mr. McRae stated the Board met finally on about the 12th of May and the Council's
direction to seek resolution of the matter was April 19, 1978.
Mayor Seymour then read a portion of the report from the City Attorney's Office
(on file in the City Clerk's Office), page 17, which stated, "the City Manager's
decision to disability retire Plummer was communicated to APA Attorney Steve
Solomon during April of 1977. Garry McRae was directed by Mr. Talley to talk to
the Fire Chief, James Riley, Retirement Review Board Chairman, and communicate the
City Manager's desires. McRae complied with Mr. Talley's request sometime prior
to May llth when the Retirement Review Board met on the Plummer disability retire-
ment.'' He asked if those were factual statements that the City Manager had, in
fact, made a decision to retire Plummer before the Board had even met.
Mr. Talley replied that the statements were factual and that he had conveyed his
decision, but not his wishes. He emphasized, the Board did not retire, but the
Mayor kept trying to imply that they did so. The decision was that of the City
Manager.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that on page 20 of the report it stated, "James Riley,
Board Chairman, although having been notified by the Personnel Director that
William O. Talley desired Plummer retired, stated that he independently viewed
the medical report along with other Board members and voted to disability retire
Plummer. James Riley advocated Plummer's disability retirement, but felt he did
so based upon the merits of the case itself and his prior knowledge that Dr.
Goldfarb's opinion was often accepted."
The Mayor questioned Mr. McRae relative to testimony offered by Gene Hughart and
David Hill. Mr. Hill indicated that Mr. McRae informed him that a"comprehensive'
settlement" had been reached.
Mr. McRae stated he told David Hill that the grievance had been settled as one
element of a comprehensive settlement of all remaining grievances and issues. It
meant they had resolved a wide-range of grievances during the discussions that were
held and there was a comprehensive settlement of a long-range of grievandes. He
reiterated the implication that somehow people inferred that a deal had been made
was not so. The record spoke for itself in the fact that the grievances continued
and that was the essence of his report to the Council of August 7, 1978 (on file
in the City Clerk's Office).
The Mayor noted that on page 18 of the report from the City Attorney's Office, that
it seemed to say on one hand Mr. McRae supported Mr. Talley's position that he did
not agree to disability retire Plummer in exchange for the resolution of Police
grievances. It stated, "while Garry McRae's comments are consistent with Mr. Talley's
statement that no exchange of grievances for disability retirement took place..."
I T r III]111 I .
78-1169
~ity, Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
and went on to say that David Hill said that there was such an agreement and that
Plummer be placed on disability retirement as one element of a comprehensive settle-
ment. Mr. Hill seemed to be saying, in his interpretation, that there was a deal
made and Mr. McRae was saying that no deal was made, but it was done ail at the
same time.
Mr. Talley pointed out that Mr. Hill did not have anything to do with the arbitra-
tion of the grievances and thus, he was giving his subjective evaluations, but he
was not present. Those present were Mr. McRae, Mr. Solomon and himself and occasion-
ally Mr. Jansen who is the President of the APA.
Mayor Seymour then read from a sworn affidavit from David Hill, "I recall the
Personnel Director giving me a short briefing on negotiations between the City
Manager and Steve Solomon, Attorney for the Anaheim Police Association, aimed at
attempting to resolve all remaining issues in the dispute between the Police Chief
and the Anaheim Police Association. The morning after the ninth, the issues were
tentatively resolved, Garry McRae indicated to me that William O. Talley had agreed
to a proposal by Steve Solomon that Richard Plummer be placed on disability retire-
ment as one element of a comprehensive settlement of all remaining grievances and
issues involved in the dispute between the Police Chief and the Anaheim Police
Association."
Mr. Talley stated that such an affidavit was merely a statement of a person's best
recollection. It was Mr. Hill's best recollection of a comment made over a year
ago by his supervisor about what he thought took place between that man and two
other people and nothing more than that.
Councilman Kott questioned Mr. Talley further on whether or not he had spoken
directly with the Board Chairman on the decision he had reached. He then stated
it was a fact that out of the four medical reports, the one who was known to be
Mr. Solomon's "lacky" was the only one who favored the retirement. The other
thrae not only opposed the symptoms found, but also one even went as far as to
comment and criticize Dr. Goldfarb who was the physician for that attorney. He
believed that there was a loss of credibility when one report said one thing, and
three reports stated the extreme opposite.
After further questioning by Councilman Kott for purposes of clarification, Mayor
Seymour then pursued the discussion relative to the medical reports. He noted
that it was supposedly on Dr. Goldfarb's opinion that Officer Plummer's condition
was permanent and stationary that Mr. Talley made his decision to disability retire
him. On the other hand, he had at his disposal at the time, two different doctors
opinions that disagreed with Dr. Goldfarb's report. He referred specifically to
page i4 of the City Attorney's report relative to the conflict of medical opinions.
It stated, "This conflict in medical opinion was addressed on or about March 30,
1977. In a memorandum from Garry McRae to Gene Hughart, W. P. Hopkins, the City
Attorney, was quoted as recommending no retirement action until Dr Klein confirms
Dr. Goldfarb's opinion." '
"Now on March 22, 1977, Plummet was sent to Dr. Klein, an internist, who issued a
medical report on April 13, 1977." Dr. Klein had the benefit of reviewing both
Goldfarb's report as well as the third doctor, Dr. Sosner's report. Further, "He
concluded after that review that Plummer's problems are, in part, due to personal
78-1170
~it7 Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
stress outside of work. In addition, Dr. Klein stated he did not consider Plummer
to be permanent and stationary. As to the diagnosis of hypertension, Dr. Klein
states that, "I do not believe this diagnosis can be made on the basis of one or
two mildly elevated blood pressures." He then asked, if on or about March 30, 1977,
the memorandum from Garry McRae to Gene Hughart quoted the City Attorney as saying
no retirement action should be granted until Dr. Klein confirmed Dr. Goldfarb's
opinion, why Mr. Talley did not consult with the City Attorney before making his
decision.
Mr. Talley stated he did not recall that typically the City Attorney was consulted
nor the City department head.
Mr. Hopkins stated, in answer to the Mayor, that whenever his office was called
upon to give an opinion relative to medical retirement matters, they did so. How-
ever, as Mr. Talley stated, the decision was that of the City Manager.
Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, the City Manager acted in an unethical and
immoral fashion when he did not consult the City Attorney because he probably did
not want to hear what he had to say. He asked the City AttOrney if he typically
gave an opinion relative to retirement or disability matters as the files were
passed~to him.
City Attorney Hopkins stated only if his office was called upon and requested to
give an opinion on a particular case. In this case, as stated in the report, a
telephone call was received that requested some legal advice on the matter. His
advice was to wait until Dr. Klein's opinion came through. It was a standard
procedure to ask for an opinion. He also stated, in answer to Mr. Talley, that
he did not recall him ever asking his opinion before he signed one of the letters.
Mr. Talley emphasized again that what the Mayor was trying to make into a cause
celebre for some purpose that he had yet to perceive, was a typical procedure
and'-he never called the City Attorney. If there was something wrong with that
procedure, he believed that in nearly three years since he was employed with the
City, somebody should have indicated he ought to do just that. The procedure had
been in effect for many years.
The Mayor asked how many cases there were since Mr. Talley had been with the City
where he had taken an employee who was fired by the department head and subsequently
medically retired him.
Mr. Talley stated he knew only of the specific case in question, but he did not
know if that was the only one.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to page 19 of the report wherein i.t stated, "The
synopsis on all three medical reports attribute psycho-physiologic gastrointestinal
symptoms, in varying degrees, to job stress. If any part of a disability is job
related, then Plummer would be entitled to disability retirement. Even where the
disability is mental, it is not necessary that employment be a "substantial" con-
tributing factor. It is sufficient if it is a "part" of the cause even if the part
is very substantially less than 50% -- Heaton v. Marin County employees Retirement
Board." Also on page 31, "Labor Code Section 3202 states that: This Code shall be
liberally construed by the courts with the purpose of extending their benefits for
the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment.
[~ [[[[[[][ ~T [ [[[ [ [ [ [[ I[[[ [
78-1171
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Ail reasonable doubts as whether injuries arose out of employment are resolved in
favor of the employee."
Councilman Kott stated the matter was not based on law, but on personal opinion.
Mr. Plummer went out and became a life guard and he was working 8 hours a day for
the Irvine Company as a Deputy Sheriff and on his application it stated he was in
good health. He wanted to know how it was possible to attribute a permanent disa-
bility to someone who now no longer has that disability.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that was why the matter was being investigated and
why he was being reexamined.
The Mayor then asked the City Attorney if, in fact, the firing of Plummet by the
Chief of Police would have been upheld in arbitration, would the medical retirement
have been able to take place.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the termination and the sustaining of that termi-
nation by an arbitrator would have enabled the City to decline to proceed with the
retirement matter. It may have then ended up in court, but he believed it would
hardly have been a basis for the City's denying the retirement.
Deputy City Attorney Howard Brody stated that the matter was addressed in the report
on page 25, outlining alternatives available with a subsequent analysis of those
alternatives. The first alternative was to hold off making a determination on
disability retirement until the arbitration proceedings had been completed and the
arbitrator ruled. If the arbitrator had upheld the City's position, then as of
December 7, 1976, Plummer would have been terminated for cause and that would have
been upheld. The City Manager at that point could have denied the disability retire-
ment based on the medical reports that had indicated termination as a temporary
reason for Mr. Plummer's neurotic situation at that time and he could have denied
the disability retirement on the grounds that Plummer, a terminated employee, was
frankly not eligible for retirement at that particular time. Again, had the
arbitrator ruled for Plummet and reinstated him, which was always a possibility,
he might have withdrawn his disability retirement application and continued his
employment as a Police Officer.
Mayor Seymour maintained if the arbitration had been permitted and the arbitrator
upheld the Chief's dismissal of Plummer, the City could have avoided a disability
retirement.
Mr. Brody stated the City would have been in a much more favorable position to
contest the disability retirement. Based on a total review of the case, there were
problems associated with it. A consideration going into arbitration dealt with the
equities involved, those being whether a particular employee had done wrong and
engaged in conduct which was a substantial detriment to the Cit~ and apparently
that had been the case. The number of incidents and the quality of the incidents
in which Mr. Plummer was involved were of a serious nature and even though there
might be some shortcomings as far as the file was concerned, the City was in an
advantageous equitable position in arbitrating.
78-1172
City. Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Talley, in view of what Mr. Brody had said, why he did
not opt to go through with arbitration.
Mr. Talley explained there were several reasons. First, if the City lost, full
pay would have been granted for the entire time. The retirement was granted in
early February and at that time Plummer went on one-half pay. If the City chose
to take the matter to arbitration and lost, he would have been on full pay the
entire time which would have been many months. Even if the arbitrator ruled in
favor of the City, it would not invalidate the medical retirement claim. As well,
a great deal depended upon how well the City's presentation could be made and he
was advised that there probably would have been a substantial problem in presenting
the case. He did not consult with the City Attorney relative to the matter, but
the City Personnel Director who reporte~did.
Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. McRae, after consulting with the City Attorney, why
his opinion was different from the City Attorney's opinion as far as winning the
case was concerned.
Mr. McRae stated that his judgments of the resolution of the grievances were based
on discussions he had with City Attorney Hopkins at the time Plummer was dismissed.
Along with members of his staff, he met with Mr. Hopkins, the Police Chief and
members of his staff. At that meeting, Mr. Hopkins indicated to the Police Chief
and to him some grave concerns about the Chief's ability to sustain a dismissal.
From that point forward, it was his opinion that the grievance was not sound. The
opinion that it was not so was baJed upon his listening to the statements made at
the meeting wherein Mr. Plummer's performance evaluation was discussed. They
talked about the fact that relative to a previous incident which had taken place,
the chances of sustaining a dismissal in that case were much better than on the
incident in question. The witnesses to that incident (November 7, 1976--Plummer
backed up his vehicle and struck a civilian) had refused to give testimony and
essentially all they had was a case where a Police Officer backed up a car that
may pr may not have been travelling at excessive speeds and hit a citizen. Al-
though Plummer had had problems in the Department factually, he had been punished
for those problems and had an ongoing record of satisfactory performance from his
supervisor. As well, he believed in all honesty that the Police Chief was right
in that none of the witnesses were prepared to testify to the facts as the Chief
saw them and thus, at that meeting further action was discouraged. He contended
that Mr. Hopkins and he discouraged such action.
City Attorney Hopkins then explained for the Mayor that a meeting had taken place
with the Chief of Police concerning the grievance filed by Mr. Plummer. It was
discussed with Chief Bastrup and a number of Police officials. This was prior to
the investigation of the accident and some conflicting statements had been made.
It was pointed out to the Chief that there was always a chance in arbitration that
the arbitrators would see the other side of the case. His recollection at the end
of the meeting was that the Chief said very definitely that he wanted to proceed
with the arbitration and at that point, it was agreed to proceed. As Mr. Brody
stated, there were factors on both sides that had to be argued and it was felt that
the case had a good chance of succeeding, but one could never be 100 percent sure
on such matters.
78-1173
C_ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott referred to page 17 of the City Attorney's report: "As a witness
in arbitration, Chief Bastrup occasionally has shown a tendency to ramble and be
non-responsive to questions, thereby leaving himself open for effective cross-
examination. Nevertheless, the equities of the Plummer case were in favor of the
City, in that Plummer's conduct was considered to be substantial evidence to support
termination."
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Just prior to that it also stated: '~ad Chief Bastrup
suspended Plummer for his November 1, 1974 conduct followed by a termination action
based upon the August 6, 1976 incident (along with performance reviews that properly
weighted such conduct), an arbitrator would have a more than adequate basis for sus-
taining a termination action." Thus, it was possible to find whatever one wanted
to find in the report. As well, on page 35 it stated, "Based on the available
evidence, there does not appear to be any illegal conduct involved in the handling
of the termination, grievance, workers' compensation case, or disability retirement
of Officer Richard J. Plummer. The management decisions made appear to have been
judgments based on medical opinions and other relevant evidence."
Mayor Seymour stated the problem with the foregoing statement was that it stated,
"Based on the available evidence." The only available evidence was from two City
employees who were involved in the negotiations with Mr. Solomon and no other
evidence, so the City would never know. Also, it only spoke to the legal or illegal
conduct and it was not an opinion rendered upon the quality of service delivered
by a public servant. It did not indicate whether it was a good judgment or a bad
judgment or whether it was in the best or worst interest of the taxpayer. It only
said that he (Talley) did not do anything illegal.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was the purpose of the investigation, to ascertain
if there was anything illegal and that was the Mayor's comment at the time, and if
there was nothing illegal, he would drop the matter.
The Mayor stated that was untrue.
Councilman Kott commented on the so called merit grading system the Police had.
No matter what happened, their superiors seemed to constantly give good ratings.
He is hopeful that social attitude would change in the future because he believed
if it was not an honest system, it would be best to eliminate it.
Councilman Overholt asked if any members of the Council or City employees had
anything further in the way of evidence or questions regarding the Plummer
investigation.
Mayor Seymour stated at this particular time he had none, although it was very
possible that he might have some at a later date if he should uncover additional
evidence or information.
Councilman Overholt replied that would be true in any case. He continued that
unless they could conclude that the Plummet investigation, exclusive of the revoca-
tion matter and barring new evidence, was completed, he was going to vote for his
motion to continue. At some point it was necessary to say that the matter was
finished.
78-1174
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Council Members Roth and Kaywood were supportive of Councilman Overholt.
Councilman Overholt further stated that he was satisfied on July 11, 1978, the
date the City Attorney's report was submitted. Certain members of the Council
felt that the Chief should have an opportunity to respond and the Council went
along with that suggestion. Subsequently, the Chief published a statement which
assessed the responsibility to other members of City staff, and that is why he
asked today if Mr. Talley or Mr. McRae had anything they wanted to testify to.
He now wanted to see the primary investigation come to an end, but Jf other
evidence was revealed or if he found more evidence, he would bring it to the
attention of the Council.
Mayor Seymour accepted what Councilman Overholt suggested.
Councilwoman Kaywood posed one further question to Mr. McRae relative to his
response to the Chief's statement on grievances. She wanted to know if he had
discussed them with the Chief, who afterward, recalled Mr. McRae had mentioned
them to him.
Mr. McRae answered that prior to delivering the document to the City Council
several weeks ago, he took it to the Chief of Police and discussed it item by
item with him and they recognized, at that time, that the discussions he described
in the documents had taken place. He could not answer for ithe Chief whether he
agreed that the report was accurate since he never said that, but it was discussed.
He did not raise any questions about the factual situations as described therein.
Councilman Overholt clarified for the Mayor that he was withdrawing his motion
to continue based on the understanding that the resolution was offered independent
of the comments that were made in the preamble of that resolution and with the
understanding that the Plummet investigation now be deemed completed.
Mayor Seymour then confirmed that the resolution was to remove from the City
Manager the authority to make decisions on disability retirements.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was going to abstain because she wanted to
see the reason why the Council, in 1973, made the decision to give the authority
to the City Manager.
The Mayor stated that he could always change his mind sometime in the future, but
presently it was important to restore some credibility with the public.
A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 78R-575. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-575: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING THAT PORTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 73R-579 WHICH HAD AUTHORIZED THE INCUM-
BENT OF THE OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER TO MAKE DISABILITY RETIREMENT DETERMINATIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-575 duly passed and adopted.
'7 Iff[~ll Il Illlll I,II
78-1175
C_ity ~al.1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley asked, in order to implement the resolution, was it the maker's wish
that they conduct some type of hearing and them bring everything forward to the
Council, or did the Council wish to start from scratch every time a disability
retirement was filed.
The Mayor recommended that a written memorandum be submitted that would provide
alternatives to accomplish the objectives that Councilman Kott included in his
resolution.
Mr. Talley then proceeded to seek clarification whether or not a memorandum should
be submitted with each case and was a procedure part of the resolution.
Councilman Kott stated what he had in mind was that staff still perform the investi-
gation and then report back to the Council, but not before he (Talley) signed the
documentation. If there were other areas or alternatives, those should be submitted
so that the Council could make the decision. He did not feel, however, that the
Council had to get involved in the basic issues. He did not believe that the City
Manager should carry the matter to fruition, but should present the facts, make
the decision, and then the Council might, in turn, talk to others. They might
even decide to talk to the City Attorney or department heads or to again have
their own medical expert brought in before making a decision and that expert
should change from time to time depending on the ailment.
Mr. Tailey stated he would provide a report as soon as possible on the alterna-
tives with the amplification as outlined by Councilman Kott.
Councilwoman Kaywood still favored receiving a report on why the 1973 decision
was made by the Council and personally wanted a copy of same.
A verbatim transcript of the foregoing matter is on file in the City Clerk's
Office.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-6 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1866:
Application by Carl Cissell, William M. amd Betty Jo Clow, for a change in zone
from RS-A-43,000 to RS-5000 to permit a 36-unit planned unit development on prop-
erty located north and east of the corner of Simmons and Haster Street with a
wavier of minimum building site area per unit.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-164, reported that
EIR No. 212 was certified in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 145 on
April 18, 1978, and granted Reclassification No. 78-79-6 subject to the following
conditions: '
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land 30 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Simmons Avenue for
street widening purposes.
78-1176
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Simmons Avenue,
including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements
such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities
or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of
the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Simmons Avenue and Haster
Street shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections unless
otherwise approved by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with
standard specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities;
and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credi6, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to
occupancy.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of 95 cents per front foot along Simmons Avenue and Haster Street for tree
planting purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
6. That a six (6) foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the portions
of ~he east property line adjacent to the RS-7200 zoned lots, and along the portions
of the south and west property lines which abut the RS-A-43,000 zoned parcels
located at the northeast corner of Simmons Avenue and Haster Street.
7. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
11. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Mountain View
Avenue subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
12. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's standards for private streets.
13. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
78-1177
City H.all.,...A. naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
14. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Council Policy No. 214) amount to $36.00 per each new dwelling unit prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
15. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights
granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning
Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date
hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
16. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9, 1! and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-165, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 1866, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 78-79-6, now pending.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Council Policy No. 214) amounting to $36.00 per each new dwelling unit prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 4.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, covenants, conditions, and
restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
that said CC&R's shall include a provision for the permanent maintenance of the
landscaped area adjacent to Simmons Avenue; and, further, 'that the CC&R's shall
be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney representing the developer, Mr. Clow, first presented
a plot plan of the proposed development which followed exactly the parameters
established by the City Council on April 18, 1978, under General Plan Amendment
No. 145. The plan equaled or exceeded every development standard established by
the City Code in the RS-4000 and RS-5000 category. Site coverage was 32 percent,
40 percent permitted; 2-story not permitted within 150 feet of single-family
residences, theirs was 154 feet; 1,200 square feet of recreational-leisure areas
required, theirs was approximately 1,665 square feet; they had 92 parking spaces,
88 required. In comparing the RS-5000 with the present plan, Mr. Farano pointed
out that one worthy note of aspect was the fact that land devoted strictly to
residential uses excluding garages was 20.2 percent when it was possible to build
homes that Would use up to 40 percent of the ground coverage for residential
78-1178
City Ha~.l.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
purposes alone, including garages. They had gone to great lengths to reserve
open spaces thus alleviating crowded conditions. The proposed plan was the
best possible use of the land for the owners, the people who would reside there-
in, and the residents of the community.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. James Theis, 1131 South Spinnaker, President of the Tri-Cities Homeowner
Association, stated as was evident by Mr. Rowland's plans' and his reputation,
he was an excellent developer and undoubtedly the plan was excellent, but it
was not what the residents of the area wanted. Mr. Theis then briefed the
Council on the background history relative to the subject property and the pre-
vious versions of projects that were proposed to be built on that property. For
over two years, the entire population in the surrounding community had stated em-
phatically that what they wanted was single-family detached homes. They had been
to City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, Zoning meetings and also
special meetings with some of the Council Members. They had worked long and hard
to let the City Council know what they wanted in the area. Mr. Theis contended
that the present plan was the same project that had been denied a year before be-
cause of high density, with the exception of a tennis court that was now eliminated.
They had done everything in their power to try to get the Council to understand
what they want. It had been a lengthy fight and they lost a number of people
through attrition. The majority felt that they could still put their faith in
the City Council so that they could keep their neighborhood as they wanted it.
Otherwise, more people would move, more houses would be downgraded and subsequently ~-~
the whole neighborhood would be destroyed. Mr. Theis continued that Mr. Clow had
since acquired another acre of property from a man who was originally against the
project, but he wanted to leave the neighborhood and if the Council allowed other
than single-family detached dwellings, he would probably be next to leave in spite
of the fact that he was very fond of his neighborhood and had spearheaded the fight
for two years. They had already elaborated upon the problems of crime, overpopu-
lation and related problems and the plea now from the approximate 200 residents
of the community was to let them decide what they wanted and he asked, what was
of higher priority, the benefit of one man or 200 people who lived in the area.
Mrs. Velma Richardson, 4502 Simmons Avenue, Orange, stated she had also been in
the fight with the residents for two years in opposing the project and during that
time, learned a great deal about City government and neighborhood government and
was proud that in the course of opposition, that the Tri-Cities Homeowner Associa-
tion was formed. The formation of the group was a positive aspect of the situation
and there were many advantages to be gained as a whole by their working together.
It was important that government listen to them which was the American way.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mr. Farano took issue with the fact that Mr. Theis indicated that the present plan
was the same as that proposed in the past. They actually went from 3.9 acres to
4.4 acres since the project was last presented to the Council with the overall
difference being one additional unit. Instead of 34, there were now 35 so that
in actuality the addition of Just under one acre allowed one additional unit.
Basically the density was less and it was a better arrangement from the standpoint
78-1179
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
of continuity. Although there was a loss of a tennis court, the general layout
had been improved, there was more landscaping and more open spaces. The density
of the original plan was in excess of 8 units and the present plan was 6.97.
Mr. Dan Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, pointed out
that the staff report indicated 8.97 as a net density. It was a figure that was
meaningless from the standpoint .of density per acre, but meaningful from the stand-
point of determining the amount of net area per unit. Thus, the project qualified
precisely to the stipulations placed on it at the GPA hearing. The 2 percent
breakage previously mentioned was a convenience breakage. That is, while they
were 2 percent short in net land areas, it was due to the fact that the vehicle
was convenient for the City to use, but not the developer. The developer
conformed precisely to RM-4000, but that would be single-family zoning, rather
than multiple-family, and that was the reason for the 2 percent breakage.
Mr. Farano also referred to the appeal to the Council as explained by Mr. Theis.
He pointed out, however, that the desires of the neighborhood had not always been
in concert and even at this point, might not be consistent. He then read a por-
tion of an early letter submitted by Mr. Nicolas Netty, Attorney representing
the entire neighborhood at the time, stating 4 reasons why some of the residents
supported RM-4000. He quoted several sentences from the letter, the essence being,
"It would be ideal, of course, to have you buy this property and build $125,000
homes on large lots. That would also accomplish this goal, but that prospect is
totally unreasonable and economically mad .... " He emphasized, the wishes of the
neighborhood were not always as unanimous as Mr. Theis led the Council to believe,
nor was the same project involved. There was no question that this was a problem
piece of property, but to put in a single-family detached zone would violate one
of the most inviolate and long-standing rules of the City, mainly not to permit
single-family residences within 150 feet of 2-stories and there were multiple-
family dwellings directly to the north of the proposed development. The project
was infinitely better than many single-family detached homes since it contained
almost 3 and one-half times more open space than any other residence in that
neighborhood whether single- or multiple-family. He maintained that the develop-
ment, as proposed, would be a credit to the neighborhood.
Mayor Seymour acknowledged the fact that the neighborhood and the Tri-Cities
Homeowner Association had labored long and hard regarding the matter. Contrary
to their belief that they "could not fight City Hall", if by that they meant
getting their elected officials to respond, he believed they had achieved that
purpose. The property was originally proposed to carry medium density and a year
prior the City amended the General Plan to bring in low-medium density. The
neighborhood now wanted to see single-family detached housing developed. There
was also a question of property rights and who was to determine what should be
developed on the property. Any responsive elected body was willing to listen to
what the neighborhood wanted, but on the other hand, the property rights of the
property owner could not be entirely disregarded. In this case, the property
owner had done an admirable job in amending his proposed development and reducing
the density from 48 to 36 units, a 25 percent reduction. The applicant had now
met and exceeded the already high site development standards of Anaheim and thus,
he could find no reason why the applicant should be denied his right to develop
his property which had an attractive and professional layout. He found himself
in support of the Planning Commission recommendation of approval and was prepared
to offer both resolutions.
78-1180
City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-576 for adoption, autho-
rizing the necessary ordinance changing the zone as granted by the City Planning
Commission, and Resolution No. 78R-577 for adoption granting Conditional Use
Permit No. 1866. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-576: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULDBE
CHANGED. (78-79-6, RS-5000)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-577: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1866.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the original 48
apartments proposed were on the smaller piece of property. She noted that two
years prior, she and the Mayor attended a meeting in the neighborhood and they,
too, objected to the apartments that were proposed at the time because they would
be an intrusion into the single-family residential areas. The main concern was
individual homeownership. With the new plan, the neighborhood was getting exactly
that and, therefore, she could support it wholeheartedly.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-576 and 78R-577 duly passed and adopted.
123: FIRST TRUST DEED CHFA LOANS - PROCESS PAYMENT DISBURSEMENTS~ Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-578 for adoption as recommended in memorandum
dated August 30, 1978, from the Executive Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-578: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH TRANSAMERICA MORTGAGE
COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-578 duly passed and adopted.
123: TRANSFER OF GUSTAVO A. DURAN TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS: Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-579 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated August 30, 1978, submitted jointly by the Personnel Director and the Executive
Director, authorizing a second amendment to an agreement with the State of California
providing for the transfer of Gustavo A. Duran to the California Conservation Corps
for a period of one year to allow the State's reimbursement of moving expenses for
Mr. Duran. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1181
~ity Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-579: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
kBS ENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-579 duly passed and adopted.
174: SUMMER PROGRAM FOR ECONOMICALLy DISADVANTAGED YOUTH (SPEDY). Councilman
Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-580 and 78R-581 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated August 28, 1978, from the Personnel'Director, modifying an agree-
ment with the Orange County Manpower Commission awarding additional funds for the
1978 SPEDY Program and also modifying agreement with the Orange County Community
Development Council awarding additional funds for the 1978 SPEDY Program Refer
to Resolution Book. ·
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-580: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A MODIFICATION TO THE SUBGRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID MODIFICATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-581: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-580 and 78R-581 duly passed and adopted.
180: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - CETA PROGRAM: Authorizing the Risk Manager to insure
the City's CETA Program with Argonaut Insurance Company relative to Workers Compen-
sation. '
Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, first answered several questions posed by Councilman
Kott. He explained that the subject insurance was not put out fo bid because it
was his understanding there are only two companies who would write Workers' Compen-
sation for a CETA program other than the State Fund and the rate was the same re-
gardless of what insurance company provided the insurance. The rate submitted by
Argonaut was without a surcharge and he did not know any local people who handled
the insurance. For the year just expired, the premium was approximately $108,000
and he did not know what it would be in the current year because of cut-backs in
the CETA Program. The City's self-insured program was operating far less expensive
than an insured program, but the reason for insuring the CETA Program was due to
the additional risk involved.
78-1182
City H~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth noted in the documentation that an approximate $35,000 a year
savings could be realized based on the last year's premium.
Mr. Love confirmed that was true. He also clarified for the Mayor that he had
not notified the City's Broker of Record of his intent to obtain the insurance.
As he understood, the City's only Broker of Record was in the field of liability
insurance and subject insurance was workers' compensation. Continental General
Insurance (CGI) covered excess liability on the self-insured program, but not
CETA.
Mayor Seymour asked City Manager Talley if he had instructed Mr. Love to pass the
CETA workers' compensation program by Mr. Parker (CGI).
Mr. Talley answered that he had not, but if Mr. Parker had input, they would be
glad to receive it. However, one of the continuing problems was Mr. Parker's
absolute refusal to go through staff.
Mayor Seymour did not understand how Mr. Parker could go through staff when the
only way he could find out when such items were coming up on the agenda was to
contact the City Clerk's Office. He also asked if it would surprise either Mr.
Talley or Mr. Love to know that CGI was doing business with Argonaut, the company
recommended in the memorandum dated August 30, 1978, from Mr. Love.
Mr. Talley stated, not only that, but also if CGI had some way to save the City
$35,000 and had not come forward in the past, he considered it a serious omission.
The Mayor emphasized that Mr. Love was hired to identify cost savings which he did,
but rather than do business with a local broker, he went to Los Angeles to get a
bid, intentionally circumventing the Broker of Record in Anaheim; Mr. Love stated
that was not true.
Mr.'~Talley stated that he would remove the item from the agenda for one week, but
he was concerned that the City had been giving hundreds of thousands of dollars
of premiums to the local broker and if there was an opportunity for savings, such
opportunities should have been brought to the City's attention.
Mayor Seymour contended that the present situation was one more example where,
regardless of what Council said, Mr. Talley and Mr. Love continued to do what
they wished even though the Council named CGI as Broker of Record.
Mr. Talley stated that CGI was Broker of Record for liability insurance; the
Mayor maintained that before going to Los Angeles to obtain a bid, protocol was
to contact the local broker to obtain his opinion.
Mr. Love explained that two brokers approached him; he did not ~pproach anyone.
If the local broker had knowledge of the fact that a private carrier was writing
workers' compensation with no surcharge, he would have expected him to present
that fact. In approximately mid-May, the broker from Pasadena contacted him, but
after finding out his was a non-participating policy, he was turned down. In
mid-July, the gentleman from Los Angeles contacted him and explained the Argonaut
program. When he came to his office and picked up the loss information he (Love)
told him if he could write out a participating policy with no surcharge, the City
would be interested in placing the insurance with him. He did not know if a local
could have done the same thing since CGI was the only local broker with which he
had done business.
78-1183
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour then suggested obtaining another local broker and reiterated that
he was not pleased with Mr. Love's circumventing local people.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that consideration of workers' compensation
insurance for the CETA Program, be continued one week. Councilman Kott seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley asked for clarification if it was the Council's
thought that any time anybody brought in a cost savings, it had to be brought to
Continental General and that it should not be brought immediately to the Council,
to see if a local broker could equal or better the bid.
Mayor Seymour answered "yes", an equal or better bid and that was what the Council
instructed him to do.
Mr. Talley thereupon questioned where the incentive would be for any insurance
company ever to bring a savings to the City; Mr. Love stated if that procedure
were followed, the City would never have any other brokers coming into Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour said if another compmny could better what CGI had to offer, they
should get the business, but if the bid could only be met, the City preferred to
do business with a local broker. It did not always have to be Mr. Parker.
Mr. Talley asked that, if at any time they heard of potential savings, could they
send it through at least three local brokers and then submit a report.
Mayor Seymour agreed, but as long as the City was doing business with a Broker
of Record, they, in fact, should do business with that broker and not circumvent
him.
Mr. Talley stated he believed what he was being requested to do, and would do
if it was the Council's intent, was to make Mr. Parker the Broker of Record for
every type of insurance existing and not just liability insurance.
The Mayor stated that was not the intent. A simple principle was involved--
a local broker employed people, brought payroll into the community and created
jobs. Thus, when the City could obtain service locally at the same or a lesser
price than outside the City, that should be done.
Mayor Seymour then defined for Councilman Roth what he considered to be a broker
of record--any insurance that was handled covering a particular area of expertise
in Mr. Parker's case that being liability insurance. '
Councilman Roth contended that in the subject instance, it was a matter of creating
a proprietary broker, thus limiting the possibility of competition. If Mr. Parker
did shop the market, he questioned why he did not come up with a $35,000 savings.
Mr. Hal Parker, CGI, stated that the reason he did not come forward was due to the
fact that they had been advised some years back that the City would provide all of
the workers' compensation with the California State Fund. The Code required that
the State Fund write municipalities, with the CETA Program being an exception. He
was still acting on the instructions to leave it alone because it was handled by
the State Fund. Those instructions had come from the Personnel Department approxi-
mately two and one-half years prior.
78-1184
qity Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley pointed out for the Council's benefit, and something which Mr. Parker
could not deny, that he was aware that the City was self-insured for workers'
compensation for regular City employees since 1974 or 1975, and not CETA employees
since the City did not want to assume that risk.
Mr. Parker stated he believed it was 1975 when the City went self-insured on
workers' compensation and the State Fund wrote the stop loss excess workers'
compensation until they came up with a premium of $350,000 and he was able to
place that insurance for the same limit at a premium of $67,000.
Mr. Talley maintained that Mr. Parker was aware of exactly how the City was
doing business and that it would change any time he found a savings.
In answer to several questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Parker revealed
the following: He was not aware that the program was insured any place other than
the State Fund; he did not know that the City was surcharged for the insurance or
that the particular insurance program was going to be pulled out and put to bid. His
understanding was that they were to work through staff and the Risk Manager's Office
which they tried to do. He would be happy to do whatever staff or the Council
wished.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the fact that although Mr. Parker
was the Broker of Record and closest to the situation, why firms from Los Angeles
and Pasadena approached the City with savings that he did not know about. She
questioned if it was a situation where Mr. Parker was carrying the City's insurance,
but was never going to come in with a savings unless someone else brought such
savings to the City's attention first.
Mr. Parker countered that on many occasions he had come in with a number of savings
on insurance he was able to place when no one else could.
In answer to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Parker stated that his understanding of
Broker of Record status with the City applied to the liability insurance for
placement for the coming year and that year only. He did not contact Mr. Love
or Mr. Talley when he learned the matter was on the agenda, but he did contact
members of the Council. He had called City Attorney Hopkins to obtain information
regarding another item and in that conversation, he was mmde aware of some of the
information contained in the report submitted by the Risk Manager. He explained
further that in the meeting that a Mr. Knox and he had with Mr. Talley, he was
advised that CGI would be put on a mailing list so as to be aware of such matters.
Mr. Talley was pleased that Mr. Parker referred to part of the conversation that
took place and asked Mr. Parker if he recalled what he had promised he would do
the next time he found an instance where that procedure did not occur.
Mr. Parker answered that Mr. Talley made a specific request that he go to him
(Talley) without exception.
Mr. Talley stated that he was asked to solve the problem and he had an agreement
with Mr. Parker that the next time the same situation occurred, he would be con-
tacted personally by Mr. Parker which was not done.
'-- ~ ....I Ill ~n~ Ill z [ Il I I Il Il [l[llll [ I I [ I I[lll [ I Il Il I [ l[ [
78-1185
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt was anxious to somehow establish a relationship between the
City's Broker of Record and staff so that business could be conducted in an
orderly fashion and to avoid weekly confrontation. He suggested that Mr. Parker
keep staff informed of his concerns.
Mayor Seymour commented that the game had been going on ever since Mr. Love in-
formed the Council that Errors and Omissions Insurance was not needed and from
that point on, there had been continual harassment. In his mind, Mr. Love had
already made a decision that he had one goal in mind--to eliminate the local
broker and do business with out-of-town firms.
Councilman Overholt reiterated that Mr. Parker and Mr. Love meet and see if they
could do business. He would thus support the motion to continUe and in the mean
time both could meet to determine a basis on whiCh they could function.
Councilman Roth contended if the City dealt strictly with Mr. Parker, they would
not have been aware of the $35,000 savings. He was interested in obtaining the
best deal for the taxpayers.
Mr. Parker reiterated that they did not know the City was going to place workers'
compensation with anybody else but the State Fund or that a surcharge was being
paid.
Councilman Roth stated if he was aware of any other premiums where the City was
paying more, he hoped Mr. Parker would advise the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that lower premiums and better coverage was of
major concern to her as well.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
For~purposes of clarification, Mr. Talley asked Mr. Parker if there was any doubt
in his mind that if he found a cheaper way to do anything, he should approach the
Risk Manager with it.
Mr. Parker acknowledged the fact that there was no doubt now after this meeting
and it was clearly understood.
Mr. Talley asked (1) if the Council wanted Mr. Parker as Broker of Record for
other than liability insurance at this time and (2) if the same type of occurence
should be found again, was the Council's intent to pass it only to Mr. Parker or
more than one Anaheim broker.
Mayor Seymour answered "no" to the first question. Relative to the latter, Mr.
Love was hired to identify areas of cost savings and if Mr. TalIey was suggesting
that Mr. Parker have the total responsibility for Mr. Love's function, that is not
the way he understood the situation. If Mr. Parker could identify areas of savings,
he had the responsibility to do so. Mr. Love had the responsibility to open up his
books, policies and information and give those to Mr. Parker totally and completely
so that he could ascertain if there could be savings.
78-1186
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
For further clarification, Mr. Talley asked (1) if someone approached the City
from the outside, was staff being directed to only go through Mr. Parker's
office or should they solicit two or three brokers in Anaheim and (2) would
the same be true if Mr. Parker brought in a similar situation.
Mayor Seymour confirmed that (1) the Broker of Record on liability meant that,
liability only, and that (2) the procedure suggested should be followed if it
did not involve liability. What he wanted to see were quotes to give some
credibility that the City was getting the lowest bid.
Councilman Overholt repeated his suggestion that the two men meet during the
week and spend some time going over the City's liability portfolio to see if
there were any other areas where, between the both of them, suggestions could
be made that would save the City money. He believed there was a lack of communi-
cation or understanding as to what the Broker of Record Letter meant and to the
extent it involved liability only. It was their responsibility to see that the
City obtained the best deal in that area.
163: USE OF CITY STREET FOR HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND PRACTICE - ESPERANZA HIGH
SCHOOL: Request for an exemption to Section 12.16.050 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, to allow band members to utilize Cresthill Drive between Kellogg Drive and
Sundown Lane for band practice between September 11 and December 8, 1978, 1:45 P.M.
to 4:00 P.M., was submitted.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that complaints were received regarding the noise
the band made while utilizing City streets for practice and also the fact that
band practice in a public street was an obstruction interferring with free passage.
Mrs. Linda Florence signed a complaint and subsequently the matter went to court.
The judge indicated the band was not to use the street unless such permission was
granted by the City Council. Mrs. Florence still felt that the band would cause
her problems and would still obstruct the street, while the band maintained they
hada right to be on the street. Mr. Hopkins recommended if the band was permitted
to utilize the street by the City Council, that the School District execute a
Hold Harmless Agreement and name the City as an additional insured on the policy
of the high school district as outlined in his memorandum dated September 1, 1978.
Mr. Dave Andrews, Principal, Esperanza High School, referred to his letter dated
August 28, 1978, stating briefly the reasons for the band using the street. Only
two streets were available in the area for band practice, Post Lane and Cresthill
Drive. There were homes on both sides of Post Lane with one through cross street.
That was one of the reasons they used Cresthill Drive and houses were only on one
side of the street facing away from the main street. During the Fall of 1976, they
used the street for band practice with minor complaints. In 1977, they had one
complaint from Mrs. Florence which did bring them into court. Mr. Andrews then
submitted a petition containing 70 signatures which stated: "Residents of this area
support the Esperanza High School band practice practicing on Cresthill Drive. We
do not find this to be disturbing or obstructive in any way." Of the 15 homes on
Mrs. Florence's street (Cresthill), 10 of the homeowners signed the petition. There
were approximately 10 other homes in a virtual line with her home bordering on the
sidewalk approximately 60 feet from the school campus and those people also signed
the petition.
78-1187
C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Andrews stated he wanted everyone to know that he was concerned about Mrs.
Florence's situation and he attempted to develop a compromise the previous year
when the band alternated practice times and practice locations, but this was not
satisfactory to her. Less than 10 days per month were involved when the street
was used for practice and this year it was only in the afternoon.
Councilman Roth referred to a letter received from Mrs. Florence with an attached
diagram suggesting that the practice be held on the asphalt area depicted. He
asked why the band did not practice on the school grounds.
Mr. Andrews answered first that there were parking bumps every 70 feet and the
parking lot was not wide enough. The field was used to practice for half-time
competition and the street was used to practice parades because' that was where
parades were held. The band did not practice in the front of Mrs. Florence's
house, but up and down Cresthill Drive. In reviewing the diagram submitted, he
stated it was not accurate.
A brief discussion then followed during which Mr. Andrews clarified questions
posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Kott.
Mr. Fred Madden, 5701 Sunmist, President of the Esperanza Band Boosters, stated
he had friends living in the area, but they expressed no problem relative to the
band. One man lived directly across the street from where the band practiced and
he, his wife and their one-year old child were not distUrbed by the band. Every-
body he knew was in favor of allowing the band to practice.
Anita Turley, 1925 Deer Creek Circle, stated that she had circulated the petition
and she did not get to 16 homes because some were vacant. She stated that the
band was a pleasure to everyone on her street and they would be very disappointed
to lose them.
MayQr Seymour invited Mrs. Florence to speak to the matter.
Mrs. Linda Florence, 1900 Cedar Creek Circle, stated that many of the things
Mr. Andrews stated were completely untrue and the diagram she drew and submitted
was completely accurate. She had asked him repeatedly to have practice at the
end of the street where they were not right by her window. Mr. Andrews said
"no" because they were near the school gate and did not want to walk further
down. She pointed to the area she had outlined in her diagram where the band
could practice and where she maintained there was ample room for them to do so.
The children and people who liked to watch and listen could also do so from the
bleachers on the school grounds. A primary concern was to secure peace and quiet
so that her two children could sleep which was difficult when the band was playing
approximately 20 feet away from her windows causing them to rattle, the details of
which were explained in her letter. Relative to the petition wi'th 70 signatures
involving 82 homes, there were approximately another 100 homes back behind the
cul-de-sac that had to use Cresthill to get in and out of the tract. She had seen
people waiting in their cars for 10 minutes honking their horns and the band refused
to move. When they would finally move, they trampled her flowers and she had to
buy more and replant the parkway. She had.also parked her car on the side, put
sprinklers in to discourage the band, but the band members marched right through.
78-1188
City Hal.l~ ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Florence continued that the previous year they received a schedule indicating --
that the band would be practicing 2 or 3 times a week for one hour in the morning,
but there were times when they practiced for 2 to 3 weeks straight 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.
and 2:15 to 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. every day for 5 days. She literally had to take her
children to a neighbor's house so that they could get some rest. She then commented
on the fact that in talking with some of the people who signed the petition, that
the purpose was misrepresented to them. She then emphasized how many times she
had talked to Mr. Andrews relative to a resolution of the matter, but he was totally
uncooperative. She also indicated that he had told "white lies" under oath in court.
Mrs. Florence then relayed some of the other measures she had taken to resolve the
problem, but to no appreciable avail. She thus urged the Council to deny the requested
permit otherwis~ she would have no alternative but to move, and she had lived in
Anaheim all of her life.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mrs. Florence if the band were to practice in the after-
noons only about 10 days during the subject period, would that be something she
could live with.
Mrs. Florence answered "no" because the afternoons were what she objected to the
most. She suggested if they could practice when there was not much traffic, from
10:30 to 11:30 or 12:00, that would be acceptable, but would still present a problem
with traffic. She also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that there were others
in the neighborhood who objected, but they did not want to get involved.
Mr. Andrews first stated it was the first time he had been accused of perjuring
himself in court. He continued that if someone purchased a home less than 70 feet
from a school, they had to take into consideration some of the inconveniences such
as cars, football games, band practices, etc. He maintained that at no time did
the band stand in front of her house and practice, but marched up and down the
street. The road she suggested for practice was a surface road which backed up
to other homeowners just wide enough for one vehicle whereas the band took up a
whole City street. Relative to cars having to wait 10 minutes to pass, the court
minutes would bear out the fact that any wait was far less than 10 minutes. Also,
they had never practiced for 2 to 3 weeks straight, but less than 10 days a month
and never in the street unless they were preparing for a parade.
Further questions posed to Mr. Andrews followed by the Council for purposes of
clarification and relative to possible alternatives, at the conclusion of which
Mayor Seymour asked if the band practice could take place in the morning rather
than the afternoon.
Mr. Andrews explained that the previous year the band was scheduled for the morning,
but in the current year was scheduled for the afternoon. It was too late'at this
point to change practice from 7th period to first period becaus~ such action would
alter all of the master schedules and the students had already completed registra-
tion. They did have a new band director and he proposed to practice only in the
afternoon.
Mayor Seymour stated he was supportive of Mr. Andrews request and did not have any
objection to the band marching on the street or early in the morning. However, he
was sensitive to Mrs. Florence and her children who napped in the afternoon and
78-1189
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
therefore suggested that practice take place in the morning. He asked Mr. Andrews
if he would be willing to reschedule band practice to the morning next year.
Mr. Andrews stated he would be willing to do so and if Mrs. Florence had asked him
if it were possible to practice in the morning rather than the afternoon, he would
have done that the previous year.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour first moved to approve the subject request of the
Esperanza High School Marching Band, with, beginning with. the Fall term of 1979,
practice to be moved to the morning hours, and the Placentia School District to
provide the City with insurance and a Hold Harmless Agreement relative to the
City's liability on the street. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted memorandum dated September 1,
1978, from Lieutenant Gaston from the Traffic Bureau commenting on having a large
group of pedestrians in the roadway and the high frequency of young motor vehicle
drivers in the proximity of the high school. She asked, therefore, that extra
precautions be taken to see that traffic could get through and if possible explore
all ways to make it quieter around Mrs. Florence's house so that her young children
would not be disturbed.
Mr. Andrews stated they would do everything they possibly could not to inconvenience
homeowners.
Councilman Kott stated that he would have to have not only hours established on
the motion with the concept of having those hours in the late morning next year
if not at all possible this year, but also the number of days and a possible one-
year limitation so that Mrs. Florence and other people in the area who had not
come forward could be protected; Mayor Seymour was agreeable to amending his
motion as suggested.
Further Council discussion followed relative to setting specific times and dates
during which the band would be allowed to practice. In discussing morning hours
for the Fall term of 1979, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a firm time should
be specified between 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. At the conclusion of discussion,
Councilman Seymour clarified and amended his motion as follows: That permission
be granted for the current semester allowing the Esperanza High School Marching
Band to utilize Cresthill Drive between Kellogg Drive and Sundown Lane for band
practice between 1:45 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., not to exceed 10 times each month be-
tween September 11 and December 8, 1978; approval granted for one year, with
Esperanza to obtain another permit following a re-evaluation of the situation;
subject to insurance and a Hold Harmless Agreement; and that beginning in the
Fall term of 1979, practice be confined to morning hours.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. MOTION CARRIED.
123/155: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES RmLATING TO ANAHEIM HILLS DEVELOPMENT. Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-582 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated August 24, 1978, from the City Attorney's Office approving an Environmental
Studies Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange relating to
Anaheim Hills development. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1190
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-582: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN~AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE CITY OF ORANGE RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-582 duly passed and adopted.
123: RECISION OF RESOLUTION NO. 78R-530 - GOLDMAN SACHS AND COM]PANY: Councilman
Kott asked, (1) why the City Council had to authorize an agreement for refinancing
and (2) if another organization did the refinancing, why did the City approve a
different company to do the refinancing.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that Goldman Sachs and Company was the only company
handling the underwriting and the basic reason for the agreement was that Anaheim
Stadium, Inc., did not have the funds. It was merely a matter of convenience to
provide Goldman Sachs with some assurance they would be paid when the financing
was completed. Before processing of the document was complete, however, the re-
financing was complete, and Anaheim Stadium, Inc., had its money and the document
was now not necessary.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-583 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated August 31, 1978, from the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-583: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-530 IN CONNECTION WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH GOLDMAN
SACHS & COMPANY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-583 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all C6uncil Members being
present. (5:30 P.M.)
105: APPOINTMENTS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:
Mr. Don Karcher to the Economic Development Corporation.
seconded the nomination.
Councilman Roth nominated
Councilwoman Kaywood
Councilman Kott nominated Mr. James McAlvin. Councilman Seymour seconded the
nomination.
78-1191
C_ity Ha!.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Mr. Gary Weaver. Councilman Seymour seconded
the nomination.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to nominate Don Karcher, but
Councilman Roth had already done so.
Councilman Seymour moved to close nominations on the remaining appointees to
the Economic Development Corporation. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to cast a unanimous vote ballot for Messrs.
Karcher, McAlvin and Weaver as appointees to the Economic Development Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTEES TO THE BUDGET BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated
Mr. James Cozad, Vice President and Comptroller of Rockwell Electronics Systems
Group to the Budget Blue Ribbon Committee. Councilman Seymour seconed the nomina-
tion.
Councilman Kott nominated Mr. Bruce Grant, CPA and Corporate Comptroller of Transit
Mixed Concrete. Councilman Seymour seconded the nomination.
Councilman Roth moved to close nominations on the remaining appointees to the Budget
Blue Ribbon Committee. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to cast a unanimous ballot for Messrs. Cozad
and Grant as appointees to the Budget Blue Ribbon Committee. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
101: AGREEMENT WITH LOS ANGELES RAMS: Councilman Kott stated that as a follow-
up to his motion of the previous week (see minutes of August 29, 1978) he wanted
to offer a resolution to hold a public hearing within the next one or two weeks
to gain public input relative to the conceptual agreement with the Los Angeles
Rams and also to determine if the matter should be referended.
Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would oppose the resolution, but
not because he was opposed to holding a public hearing on the matter. As was
stated at the previous Council meeting and as the Council agreed unanimously, the
more appropriate time for a public hearing would be when all the facts were
available. He did not see any good coming from providing Mr. Patty a public
forum to try his case before the City Council, rather than waiting another 4 weeks.
A vote was then taken on the resolution proposed by Councilman Kott and failed
to carry by the following vote: ·
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - EUCLID STREET - STREET & STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS -
RIVERSIDE FREEWAY TO LA PALMA AVENUE: (Account No. 13-792-6325-2080) Councilman
Roth offered~Resolution No. 78R-584 for adoption, awarding a contract to the lowest
and best bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated August 28, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1192
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Septembe.r 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-584: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT IO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: EUCLID STREET STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, RIVERSIDE
FREEWAY TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, A.H.F.P. NO. 836, ACCOUNT
NO. 13-792-6325-2080. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, $533,695.60)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-584 duly passed and adopted.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION
OF EUCLID STREET AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE: (Account No. 01-794-6325-2080)
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-585 for adoption, awarding a
contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City
Engineer in his memorandum dated August 25, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-585: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
EUCLID STREET AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
01-794-6325-4070. (Smith Electric Supply, $73,118)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-585 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE TURF PRO 84" MOWER - BID NO. 3457: (Account
No. 72-325-7129) On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the lowest responsible bid of Toro Pacific Distributors was accepted
and purchase authorized in the amount of $6,994.94, including tax, as recommended
by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated August 30, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - DUCTILE IRON PIPE - BID NO. 3450: (Account No.
51-606-7121-24220-34330) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the low bid of U. S. Pipe and Foundry was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $7,031.82, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated August 30, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1193
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FILE MICROCOPIER SYSTEM FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT:
(Account No. 01-184-7115) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the low bid of A. B. Dick/Scott Company was accepted based upon maximum
total variance quantity and purchase authorized in the amount of $2,558.84, in-
cluding tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated
August 30, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
105/162: FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION: Request by
Mr. Louis Dexter to address the Council relating to the feasibility of the City
Council establishing a Public Safety Commission, was made.
City Clerk Roberts read a letter dated August 24, 1978, on behalf of Mr. Louis
Dexter, 305 North Ranchito Street, as follows since Mr. Dexter was unable to
remain at the meeting.
"I would like to address the Anaheim City Council at~ its earliest convenience
regarding the feasibility of the City Council establishing a Public Safety
Commission. Such Commission is to be composed of resident, citizens not
employed by the city or holding any elective office. Such Commission is to
act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and as a Review Board on
matters of Public Safety."
Mayor Seymour stated that since it was a weighty request, the Council should
have time to think about and evaluate such a proposal. He did not want to
merely receive and file the letter since Mr. Dexter should be given an answer
to his inquiry.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to continue consideration of the
subject matter for 90 days and the City Manager, with input from the Chief of
Police, was directed to make recommendations accordingly. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE BLOCK GRANT CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM:
Request by Jan Billings, Chairman of the Community Services Board, to discuss a
procedure for appointment of a police officer for the Block Grant Crime Prevention
Program, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour referred to a memorandum dated August 30, 1978, from the Community
Services Board (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and asked Police Chief Bastrup
if he was familiar with the recommendation and did he recommend approval.
Chief Bastrup answered "no" and deferred to his memorandum dated September 5, 1978,
outlining the reasons why he did not agree with the recommendation.
Councilman Roth suggested that the matter be continued to give the Council an
opportunity to read and evaluate the Chief's memorandum; Executive Director Priest
stated that the Chairman of the Community Services Board was present, but had to
leave, and he concurred in continuing the meeting.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the procedure for the
appointment of a police officer for the Block Grant Crime Prevention Program for
two weeks, to be placed under the City Manager's portion of the agenda. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1194
City Hall~.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
167: REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT IN TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES: Request by
Frank E. Kennedy, General Director of Southern California Conservative Baptist
Association, for an adjustment for Traffic Signal Assessment fee paid in connec-
tion with property located at 2528 West La Palma Avenue, was submitted.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Kennedy was present; there was no response. He then asked
the Traffic Engineer if he wished to speak to the matter.
Mr. Singer stated that he was opposed to the request contained in the letter dated
August 15, 1978, on principle, because any change would be retroactive and the new
fee schedule was not meant to be retroactive. In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr.
Singer stated that under the new schedule, the fee would be $900.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Traffic Signal
Assessment Fee paid in connection with property located at 2528 West La Palma
Avenue was adjusted to $900. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
167: REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT IN TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE: Request by
Richard E. Duffy, owner, Jolly Roger Inn, for an adjustment for Traffic Signal
Assessment fee paid in connection with the expansion of their facility.
Mr. Singer indicated that under the new fee schedule, the subject fee would be
$4,464.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Traffic Signal
Assessment Fee paid in connection with property located at 640 West Katella Avenue
was adjusted to $4,464. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if approval of such requests was going to go on indefi-
nitely; the Mayor stated they would be taken on a case-by-case basis.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-422 - CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 78R-586 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 29,
1978, from the City Attorney's Office. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-586: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73R-422, NUNC PRO TUNC. (72-73-46, RS-7200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-586 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
....... II III -- IIIIIII I I[ I I II I I III. I III I J ll!llJilll I IIII II [I IIII III I I I .~ I I I I
78-1195
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Septmmher 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator or denied and
referred to staff:
a. Claim submitted by Joseph Richard Roda for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about May 10, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by L. M. Campbell for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a chuckhole in the street (Nohl Ranch Road, about 75 yards from
the entrance to Points Quissett) on or about August 16, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of fire caused by an exploding City transformer at 1316 East Kenwood
on or about July 13, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Martin Jay Leonard for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of a collision with a City-owned vehicle on or about June 2,
1978.
e. Claim submitted by Fred H. Hunter, Attorney, for reasonable attorney fees
purportedly sustained in connection with an Orange County Superior Court case
involving an Anaheim Police Officer.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of August 15, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-587
through 78R-592, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-587: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Schwartz and
Company; South Brookhurst Development)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-588: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING ON CORONADO STREET AT CAL COMP, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5080; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID'PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened September 28, 1978 at 2:00 P.M.)
78-1196
City Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
149: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-589: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PHILADELPHIA
STREET PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2170, AND PHILADELPHIA
STREET AND CLAUDINA STREET IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2220, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFI-
CATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened October 5, 1978 at 2:00 P.M.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-590: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LEMON STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT,
S/O LIBERTY AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0040. (Matt J.
Zaich, Jr.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-591: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA CANYON PARK IMPROVEMENT,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-805-6325-0000. (Roy C. Barnett)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-592: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM BOULEVARD SEWER
IMPROVEMENT, N/O LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-
6325-0050. (Fleming Engineering, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-587 through 78R-592 both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted. '
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held August 14, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-11: Submitted by Town Tour Fun Bus Company, for a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct a one-story office/service
building, service garage and bus wash on property located at 1825 and 1829 South
Mountain View Avenue.
I~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III Ii
78-1197
.~ity. Hal!,.Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-190, granted
Reclassification No. 78-79-11 and granted negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1872: Submitted by Elizabeth Schafer, to retain
9 beehives on RS-A-43,000 and RS-5000 zoned property located at 1500 West Broadway
with a yearly review. ,
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-193, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1872 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1873: Submitted by Winston Associates, to permit
retail sales of furniture on ML zoned property located 1321 Simpson Circle.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-194, denied Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1873 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1874: Submitted by Southern Pacific Railroad
Company, to permit a lumber yard on ML zoned property located north of Ellsworth
Street, south of Santa Ana Street, east of Claudina and west of Olive Street with
certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-195, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1874, in part, and granted negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3028: Submitted by Motel 6 of California and Maranco Motels,
Inc., to construct a free-standing sign on CL zoned property located at 921 South
Beach Boulevard with waiver of maximum height of free-standing sign.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-186, granted Variance
No..~ 3028 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
Councilwoman Kaywood indicated in this instance she did not favor waiving the
new rule to make up for the old ones to allow the 35-foot sign. The area was
such a mess that if they did not start to deny the new requests for waivers coming
in, the area would never be cleaned up. She believed the Planning Commission
granted the waiver because of the existing signs in the area.
There was no interest amongst the Council to set the matter for a public hearing
as questioned by the Mayor.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3030: Submitted by Clyde E. Stires, to construct a retail com-
mercial building on CG zoned property located at 351 North Wilshire Avenue with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-187, granted Variance
No. 3030 and granted negative declaration status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3035: Submitted by Dennis D. and Sally Ann Rock, to construct
a two-story addition and garage to an existing single-family structure on RS-7200
zoned property located at 923 Chippewa Avenue.
78-1198
~%ty Hal%., A~. aheim, CAlifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-191, granted
Variance No. 3035 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3038: Submitted by Herman D. and Judith M. Youngkeit, to con-
struct a redwood fence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 930 South Emerald
with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-192, granted
Variance No. 3038 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1660: Request by Robert R. Ralls for approval
of revised plans to permit a boarding house for 6 developmentally disabled adults
on RS-10,000 zoned property located west of West Street and south of La Palma
Avenue with various code waivers.
The City Planning Commission approved revised plans for Conditional Use Permit
No. 1660.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-11: Request by Waldeen B. and Betty C. Hart
for an extension of time to construct an 18-unit apartment complex on RM-1200
zoned property located west of Magnolia and north of Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 77-78-11 to expire August 15, 1979.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
179: AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - PERMITTED PRIMARY USES AND STRUCTURES: Amendments
to Chapter 18.61 and 18.63 relative to Permitted Primary Uses and Structures in
the ML (Industrial, Limited) and MH (Industrial, Heavy) zones of the Anaheim
Municipal Code and adding new sections in their place were submitted, together
with a recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3910 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3910: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SUBSECTION
18.61.020.310 OF CHAPTER 18.61 AND SUBSECTION 18.63.020.460 OF CHAPTER 18.63,
TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE
AND STEAD RELATING TO ZONING. (Permitted Primary Uses & Structures)
132: ORDINANCE NO. 3907: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3907 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3907: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTERS
6.20 AND 6.21 OF TITLE 6 AND CHAPTER 10.12 OF TITLE 10, AND ADDING NEW CHAPTERS
10.10 and 10.12 TO TITLE 10 AND NEW SECTION 6.56.080 TO TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.56
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SANITATION.
78-1199
C~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3907 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3908: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3908 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3908: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-14(3), RS-HS-22,000)
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3908 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3909: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3909 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3909: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-28, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, RoCh and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3909 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3911: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3911 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3911: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-1(2), C-O)
CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 1978: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve
corrections to the minutes of June 5, 1978, adjourned regular Council meeting,
as follows: "Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Roth ~hat the old way
was better although it did not seem so at the time. In her opinion, an unpopular
Mayor was then in office, and that's why the petitions were signed as they were,
with the confusion in the amendment, particularly having to vote twice for the
same person. The size of the campaign also concerned her. The two-year term
might be a problem, since a person might want to serve for one year, but not two.
She also believed it was good psychology to have in mind that the majority of the
Council could remove the Mayor. Although it's probably inflamma~tory to say the
78-1200
C__ity Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
people don't necessarily know who the best choice is, because the Council works
together each week, it is nevertheless a true fact. She pointed out how few
people attend Council meetings to observe for themselves, except on emotional
items in which they are involved personally." Councilman Roth seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked to see the transcript of that portion
of the minutes proposed to be corrected and subsequently, concurred.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
114: OPPOSITION TO "SHARE THE WEALTH" CONCEPT IN DISTRIBUTION OF SALES TAX'
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a resolution that she had received from the
City of Adalanto, which was an off agenda item for the SCAG Executive Committee
relative to a more equitable distribution of sales tax. Their proposal was for
50 percent to be returned to the point of origin and the balance to be apportioned
based on population. The Council, in the past, maintained a position of non-support
and something similar was going to be coming out of the League of California Cities.
She wanted to be certain the Council felt the same now so that she could speak
against the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to oppose the resolution of the City of Adalanto,
supporting the "Share the Wealth" concept in the distribution of sales tax.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
139: RENT CONTROL: Councilman Roth stated that undoubtedly all Council Members
had received messages in the form of telephone calls and letters asking what they
were doing as a City Council, if anything, on the issue of rent control for Anaheim.
He answered that the Council was not in favor of rent control, but he now asked
what they might do relative to the situation.
Mayor Seymour stated that by invoking rent control, it would harm the people they
would be trying to help and rent control was not a permanent answer. Both the
conservative and liberal politically thinking officials in the Country today
agreed that rent control was not the answer to the tenant~ plight. It insured
no increase in the supply of new housing and that was the basic problem. There
was too little supply and too much demand. Thus, he would be opposed to rent
control because it would not solve the problem. The positive approach was to
find ways to cut red tape and encourage the development of rental housing.
Councilman Roth agreed with the Mayor and stated his opposition to rent control.
He wanted to be certain of the Council's position that it had no plans to hold
public hearings regarding rent control.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed that while the problem was very serious, she viewed
rent control as the worst alternative. She questioned if the Council could go
on record as encouraging apartment landlords to share a portion of the Proposition
13 rebate, should they receive it, and that the Council would support this sharing.
78-1201
C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ Califor,~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour did not believe that would solve the problem. When he received
complaints relative to rent increases, he asked the caller to supply the name
of the property owner. He would subsequently call that owner and try to get
him to revoke the rent increase. He was successful in some instances, but
failed in others.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood believed it would help to take an official position
and, therefore, moved that the Anaheim City Council go on record as encouraging
ali apartment house owners to share a portion of the Proposition 13 tax rebate,
if any, with their tenants. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that, in his opinion, rent control
was an intervention into the free market place and as such, although it might
provide temporary relief, over the long range, it would accomplish nothing and
thus he was opposed to it. The market place should be allowed to seek its own
level.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES - DECREASING UTILITY RATES IN LOS ANGELES: Councilman
Kott referred to and submitted to the City Manager several newspaper articles
reporting that water, electrical and gas rates were decreasing in Los Angeles.
He requested that Mr. Talley ask Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt to evaluate the
matter and submit a report as to how rates could be cut in Anaheim.
135: REPORT REGARDING GOLF COURSE LOSSES: Councilman Kott referred to a report
received the prior week relative to the Golf Course losses stating that in 1977-78,
losses were $290,000, but would be $407,000 the following year. He did not believe
that losses could escalate by approximately 33 percent.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that both figures were coming from a different
base. One was a profit and loss statement figure dealing with cash flow and the
figure for 1977 dealt with the balance sheet statement. The statement on the
$407,000 was an operating cost statement that anticipated incurring that loss this
year. Out of that, they would be acquiring payments in the land of $142,000 which
was paid each year to write off the cost of the property. They were going to pre-
sent the Council with analagous information in order to be able to go back on both
the operating statements, as well as the balance sheet statement.
105: LIAISON MEETINGS WITH LIBRARY BOARD - ATTENDANCE OF CITY MANAGER REPRESENTATIVE:
Councilman Kott referred to a recent Council Liaison meeting with the Library Board
which was also attended by James Armstrong, Administrative Aide, from the City
Manager's Office. He personally did not care who attended the meeting, but if
any information was needed, it seemed to him proper that the City Manager seek
that information from the department head. This could be a cask where a department
head could feel he was being bypassed and there was a spy from the City Manager's
Office at the meeting to pick up information that may not otherwise be told to
him. The Library Board was not happy about the situation. He asked Mr. Talley his
philosophy on having representatives attend such meetings where they made everybody
uneasy.
78-1202
Ci..ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley stated on the particular meeting referred to, the Liaison meeting was
called and his office received notice only a day or two before, even though it
was set some time prior to that date. Consequently, both Assistant City Manager
Hopkins and himself had other commitments and since his was only a 3-man office,
Mr. Armstrong attended in their place. They tried to attend all Liaison CommitCee
meetings.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not know that was the case.
Mayor Seymour stated that Council agreed that on Liaison meetings, the City Manager's
Office could be represented. However, the Library Board felt differently than
others and the reason they did not want the City Manager's Office in attendance was
because City Manager Talley sat in a meeting with the Board Members and told them
he was not "crazy" about Libraries at any rate. They felt Mr. Talley was out to
get them and they did not like him.
Mr. Talley stated it was difficult to handle such a situation when it was broached
on the spur of the moment. He stated he valued the Library Board and had personally
appeared at a Board meeting to speak about Proposition 13 cuts, but never said he
was not "crazy" about libraries. He remembered it as a very objective, mutually
agreeable, and positive meeting, and thus felt that "sandbagging" was going on. At
the meeting, he said that the Library should assume that one of the primary areas
Proposition 13 might affect was libraries, and it was obvious all over the County.
He had a great deal of respect, admiration and confidence in the Library Board
and if that remark concerned them, they would have indicated the same to him and
not have gone to somebody else. The purpose of the meeting was to encourage them
to be as creative as they could when the Library Budget would be presented to the
Council for reductions.
Councilman Kott stated that the Board felt that dollar-wise, they had given their
share in terms of other departments.
Mr. Talley stated that was a policy decision the Council was going to have to
make; that is, that they had done their share.
114: COUNCIL/EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SEMINAR: Councilman Kott asked if the forth-
coming Council/Executive Seminar scheduled for the next week could be rescheduled
to a later date.
Discussion followed between the Council and staff relative to the request in which
Mr. Talley pointed out that one of the biggest issues to be discussed was relative
to salaries and contracts and those would be expiring early in October. Staff's
original concept was to look at those during the month of September. Councilman
Kott was asking for a rescheduling to early October and one of the decisions the
Council had to make was whether or not to accept or reject State bail-out money.
Accepting the money would preclude giving salary increases scheduled to occur at
that time. If the meeting was rescheduled to that later date, discussions would
be occurring at about the same time the new contract was going into effect.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not want to make a decision on salaries before
knowing what cuts were going to take place. Mr. Talley stated that all of the
pertenent information would be available by Wednesday, September 13, 1978.
78-1203
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
After further discussion, by general Council consent, the Council/Executive
Management Seminar was reset for September 20, 1978.
113: ADDITION TO PRINTED AGENDA RELATIVE TO PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS
COUNCIL: Mayor Seymour read his memorandum dated September 5, 1978, previously
submitted to the Council.
"It has been brought to my attention by a citizen of our community that there
are items on our agenda, other than public hearings, to which a person in the
audience may wish to address. As was pointed out, people are reluctant to
speak on these items because many times the Council and staff engage in dis-
cussion, an action is taken, and we go on to the next item, never inviting
any input from the audience. There is no procedure publicly specified to
encourage citizen participation on those items that are not subjects of
public hearing.
To that end, I would propose that the City Clerk be directed to publish on
the agenda a statement to the effect that "Those persons wishing to address
the Council on a particular agenda item, other than a public hearing, so notify
the City Clerk prior to the meeting or upon their arrival."
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he would agree to adding, "on a particular agenda
item", because she was concerned relative to off-agenda items coming up.
The Mayor noted that he had, in fact, added the word agenda to the statement.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Clerk was directed to publish on the agenda the aforementioned statement
MOTION CARRIED. '
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded
the-motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:15 P.M.