1978/08/0878-1023
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
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
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach
PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jeff eris
FIRE MARSHALL: Charles Kanenbley
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was adopted by
the City Council and presented to Fire Marshall Charles Kanenbley for saving the
life of Thomas "Tad" Dennis. Tad was today celebrating his third birthday due
to the quick and correct actions of Marshall Kanenbley.
A birthday cake from the Anaheim Fire Association was presented to "Tad", who
was accompanied by his parents.
111: HALLOWEEN PARADE COMMITTEE - 55TH ANNUAL ANAHEIM HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL: Mr.
Herb Leo stated that at the request of the Mayor, a couple of people met to dis-
cuss the possibility of pulling together a committee to conduct a Halloween Festival.
At a steering meeting held the prior morning, 35 people were present and the con-
clusion was that, in fact, Anaheim would be celebrating its 55th Annual Halloween
Festival. He was present today to request the City Council to appropriate $1,500
as seed money to assist in their efforts, as it was their intention to repay that
sum from the funds generated from the program.
Mayor Seymour believed the request to be most appropriate and recalled that in
years past, the City had contributed $5,000 to $6,000 a year to fund the 'Festival
without the expectation of repayment. This year there was no Halloween Festival
Committee, but there were some citizens who felt the event was an important part
of the history, heritage and roots of Anaheim, that it should be continued. It was
his understanding that Mr. Leo's company was providing office space for the Committee
and that Disneyland and others had been most helpful and all were committed to bring-
ing the Halloween Festival to fruition without any expense to the taxpayers of
Anaheim.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to appropriate $1,500 as seed money from the
Council Contingency Fund for the Halloween Festival to be repaid through the fund-
raising efforts of the Halloween Festival Committee. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1024
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
169: TRAFFIC HAZARD - CAMINO MANZANO: Mr. James Majerkirth, 5954 Camino
Manzano, spoke on behalf of the residents listed in the petition submitted in
a letter signed by Mrs. Rona Witt (Mrs. Witt was present in the Chamber audience).
He stated that they hand-carried the petition throughout the addition of the
tract in question to give the Council the feeling of the general public living
along the portion of Camino Manzano and what they believed was a very unsafe
situation. They had started some fundamental research on the problem and con-
tacted Traffic Engineer Paul Singer regarding the matter in the form of a
request to evaluate the situation and to possibly conduct a speed survey on
the street. Since the request was made, a fourth child had been hit by a
vehicle and was presently in Intensive Care. That was the fourth vehicle/
pedestrian injury accident on the street and although they did not have accident
reports documenting same, there were others involving vehicle to vehicle collisions.
Mr. Majerkirth continued that due to the length of Camino Manzano which ran parallel
to the 91 Freeway, they wanted to have some type of control on the street to reduce
(1) the total volume of traffic circulating through the tract and (2) to assist
the residents in doing something to control speed through that area. They were
asking that the foregoing be accomplished primarily the same way as during the
construction of the two tract additions shown on the posted photograph. During
that time, Camino Manzano was blocked by a standard barrier located by the drainage
culvert area to prohibit large vehicular traffic from using the street. They
were asking that it be re-established either by a portable-type barricade system
which could be utilized in case of an emergency or if the City found that unaccep-
table, to instead install a permanent-type barricade which would force the alternate
use of the primary accesses to the other addition. Another system would be the
utilization of speed bumps which were, however, not generally installed on resi-
dential streets. Something that should be done immediately would be the posting
of the speed limit, as well as warning signs that children were at play in the
area, although signing would not be the ultimate solution.
Mr. Majerkirth then relayed the following: The community performed their own
basic traffic survey the prior weekend which was after the accident occurred.
On a 12-hour count on Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., there were a total
of 842 vehicles. Between the peak hours of 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., there were
103 vehicles and between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., 113 vehicles. The average during
the hours when children were out playing showed a count of more than a vehicle
per minute. Considering the 842-vehicle figure and the total number of streets
from the beginning of Solomon to the drainage culvert area, it was obvious that
that portion of Camino Manzano designed primarily to service 57 homes was never
set up to handle 842 vehicles. As well, parking was allowed on both sides, intro-
ducing the other factor of extremely poor visibility.
Relative to the accidents, all had been associated with a speeding situation; two
were only in excess of 5 miles per hour above the speed limit, b'ut due to the
high volume of traffic and limited sight, the pedestrians had no chance. Another
survey conducted in a 14-hour period on a Monday revealed 845 vehicles and, elim-
inating the morning and evening peak hours, approximately 699 cars were involved
on the street, which served only 57 homes.
78-1025
City .R.all, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Majerkirth continued that they realize that whenever a street was barricaded
or closed off, there would be objections, the first being that it would be in-
convenient for other people to get to their homes. They contended, however, if
people were regulated to drive the normal speed limit down Camino Manzano, it
would not make sense to drive on a road 20 to 25 miles per hour when Santa Ana
Canyon Road was only 2 blocks away with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour.
The next concern would be relative to emergency vehicles, but as shown on the map,
both areas had a minimum of 2 access points into the tract. They checked with
emergency services in the area, primarily the Police and Paramedics, since the
fire service was dispatched down Anaheim Hills Road from the upper reaches of the
Anaheim Hills area. Both indicated that Camino Manzano was not their primary
route. He then explained the routes that were taken by those services.
In concluding, Mr. Majerkirth stated that the neighborhood felt that a crisis
situation existed because the accidents were getting more severe each time. They
wanted the City to take a good, hard and fast look at the situation and give in-
terim relief with a subsequent permanent fix that would restrict the flow of
traffic on the street. He then submitted the petition to the Council containing
106 names.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that they had conducted a study in the
area in 1975 and at the time, 800 vehicles were projected which was very close to
the recent count made. They also conducted a speed study at Mr. Majerkirth's re-
quest which revealed an average speed of 32 miles per hour and a critical speed of
37 miles per hour. The pace of the majority of traffic was between 28 and 38 miles
per hour. The traffic volume was approximately 100 cars ADT. There were only 3
reported collisions, one each in 1976, 1977 and 1978. They could not find any other
reported accidents--one involved a bicycle and the other two involved side-swiping
of vehicles, but they had no record of pedestrian collisions, the most recent
probably had not yet been documented. They also prepared a quick map (posted on
the Chamber wall) showing where a traffic diverter could be located. The particular
diverter would have curbs and gutters and would also be landscaped with provisions
for emergency vehicles at an approximate cost of $50,000. The money for such a
diverter was not budgeted. The alternatives would be to construct a less expensive
diverter that would not be very attractive such as a barricade. Speed bumps were
not advisable or acceptable because of the liability that would be involved since
they tended more to create collisions than to prevent them. Also, sign posting
was not a mitigating measure to speed because speeding in the area was caused by
residents along the street or adjacent streets within the development since very
few outsiders utilized the street. Increased enforcement was an alternative and
since a speed study had been conducted, it was now radar enforceable. In finality,
there were not too many alternatives to the situation.
MOTION: Mayor Seymour stated that since an entire neighborhood~was concerned about
doing something to mitigate the traffic problem, it appeared the best method to
insure a safe street was a barricade although $50,000 would be difficult to fund.
He therefore moved to direct the Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department
to submit recommendations on August 22, 1978 relative to an appropriate and economical
barrier to accomplish the safety purposes requested by the residents. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
78-1026
C__i. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Majerkirth stated that relative to a barrier, some
of the people were polled as to what they would accept as far as aesthetics was
concerned and, in general, everyone was receptive to a barrier similar to what
was used at Anaheim Stadium, the small decorative concrete pillars.
Mr. Singer explained that those would be quite hazardous and they would have to
be illuminated at night just as with any other alternative which would require
street lighting. He suggested that some of the expense could be paid for by the
people requesting the barricade.
Mr. Majerkirth stated that they would be willing to pay a reasonable share of the
cost.
Mayor Seymour stated the City would also look at less expensive alternatives and
requested that Mr. Singer meet with Mr. Majerkirth and the neighbors and come back
to the Council in two weeks.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9685: Application by William York,
Shea Homes, to consider amending Condition No. 11 of the conditions of approval
relative to a deed restriction to prohibit any fencing exceeding forty'two (42)
inches in height along certain portions of Lot Nos. 13, 16 and 17, and to estab-
lish a 20-lot, RS-7200 subdivision on property located north of Orange, west of
Brookhurst.
Miss Santalahti briefed the Council on the staff report and noted that the Planning
Commission attached a condition that no fences be constructed along the pan-handles.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Roy Humphries, Shea Homes, 655 Brea Canyon, Walnut, explained that they were
principally concerned with Lot Nos. 16 and 17 which he pointed to from a displayed
map of the project. They were requesting a modification of the conditions of
approval relative to Condition No. 11. They wanted to build a 6-foot wall for
the privacy of the two adjoining pieces of property 30 feet back from the right-
of-way on either side of the driveway entry. If pools were built, the requirement
would be to have them enclosed with a 6-foot wall. They proposed to construct a
42-inch fence to the back of the garage and they then wanted to raise it to 6 feet
from that point back. The 6-foot fence would be 30 feet back from the curb of
Greenwich Street and thus would provide good visibility when driving out of the
property.
Miss Santalahti confirmed that was correct.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, amendment of
Condition No. 11 imposed on Tentative Tract No. 9685 relative to a deed restric-
tion was approved, subject to the foregoing stipulations made by the developer.
MOTION CARRIED.
78-1027
City Ha!~~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, minutes
of the adjourned regular meeting of June 5, 1978, were approved subject to
typographical corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $21214,313.24, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
123: CONTINUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION: An amendment to the
Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, Huntington Beach,
Garden Grove and the County of Orange for the continuation of the Orange County
Manpower Commission was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-502 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated August 2, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-502: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, THE CITIES OF SANTA ANA, ANAHEIM, HUNTINGTON
BEACH, AND GARDEN GROVE RELATING TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
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-502 duly passed and adopted.
123: JUVENILE DIVERSION/TREATMENT PROGRAM: An amendment to an agreement with
Garden Grove and Stanton relating to participation in a Juvenile Diversion/Treatment
Program, under Public Law 93-83, being the Crime Control Act of 1973, was submitted.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-503 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated July 31, 1978, from the Chief of Police. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-503: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AND THE CITY OF STANTON RELATING TO PARTICIPA-
TION IN A JUVENILE DIVERSION/TREATMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
78-1028
~.~.ty Ha~.l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 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 Resolution No. 78R-503 duly passed and adopted.
158: AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PARCELS: Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 78R-504 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 26,
1978, from the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-504: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GIVING NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO SELL CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND OFFERING SAID
PROPERTIES TO VARIOUS PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR PARK, RECREATIONAL OR OPEN SPACE USES.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth commented that the appraisals on the four
parcels of property in question seemed to be high and suggested if there was no re-
sponse relative to their proposed sale, that they be re-evaluated at a later date.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed relative to the high appraisal.
City Engineer James Maddox explained that all of the parcels were appraised by
Mr. Lawrence O'Toole, MAI. Although he also considered the appraisals to be high,
he believed it would be worthwhile to try and sell the parcels at the appraised
values and if no action resulted, they could then try something else.
Mayor Seymour asked what would happen to the funds when they were received from
the sale.
City Manager Talley stated that the money from the sale of the water well sites
would go back to the Water Fund and the other two in relation to the fire station
site would go back to the General Fund.
Mayor Seymour asked if it would be acceptable to attach to the resolution that
any proceeds of the sale would go to the Council Contingency Fund.
Mr. Talley stated that procedure, in effect, would automatically increase the
budget in a like amount rather than using the funds to off-set any budget deficit.
Mayor Seymour then asked when the Council approved the budget, if it included the
proceeds from the proposed sale.
Mr. Talley answered that it was not included.
That being the case, the Mayor considered it to be new found money and thus wanted
it to go into the Council Contingency Fund where the Council could have control
over it before it was spent.
Mr. Talley emphasized that in so doing, the Council Contingency Fund would be in-
creased, which was an expenditure account, rather than recognizing it as a revenue.
78-1029
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if, on the water well sites, the money that went to
capping and filling those sites came out of the Water Fund.
Both Messrs. Maddox and Talley confirmed that it did.
Mayor Seymour thereupon stated that he would then favor an alternative course
of action, that being all the money received as a result of selling the water
well properties be immediately applied to a water rate reduction since the water
rate payers already paid for the expense of capping the well.
Councilwoman Kaywood took issue with the Mayor's recommendation.
Mr. Talley pointed out again that proceeds could not be placed in the Council
Contingency Fund, since it was only possible to spend out of that account. He
suggested that the Council be given a monthly report on any so-called new found
monies that were not in the budget.
Councilman Roth then clarified for Councilman Overholt that his resolution was to
approve the sales of the subject parcels, as recommended, with the addition that any
monies received be placed in the Council Contingency Fund, as suggested by the
Mayor.
Councilman Overholt stated his understanding was that the Council Contingency
Fund was an expense item in the budget and that by placing the proceeds from
any sale of land into that account, would be putting a revenue item into an
expense item. Thus, he wanted to know how the proceeds from the sale of the
properties could be identified and kept separate so that the Council, at a
future date, could act with respect to their disposition.
Mr. Talley explained that one of two things could be done: (1) set up a separate
account so that the proceeds from the sale or any other category of revenue could
be placed in that account, or (2) the Council could ask for a monthly report that
would continue to report such revenue. He also confirmed for Councilman Overholt
that the monies could not then be expended by any department until the Council
took action.
Councilman Overholt stated that he could see what the Mayor was attempting to do,
and he agreed, but as Mr. Talley pointed out, the suggested method would be putting
revenues into an expense account.
Further discussion followed between Mayor Seymour and Mr. Talley wherein the Mayor
maintained that surplus funds were being created.
Mr. Talley stated that additional funds were being created, but not surplus funds.
The Council previously had obligated itself to find the approximate $1.6 million
borrowed from the General Benefits Fund. Thus, in the future, programs would have
to be cut or additional revenues, such as the subject type of proceeds, used to
balance the budget.
Mayor Seymour defined surplus funds as funds not previously budgeted or accounted
for. Mr. Talley stated under that definition, they would have to be considered
surplus funds. He therefore suggested that the funds be used as part of the Council
Contingency Fund as a revenue supporting that fund. If used in that manner, he asked
if the Council Contingency Fund should then be raised by $42,000.
78-1030
City ~.all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor indicated his concurrence with Mr. Talley's suggestion as long as it
was clear that the revenues could not move out of the Council Contingency Fund
unless there was a majority vote of the Council.
Mr. Talley stated that he would set up a revenue account and raise the expenditure
account concurrently.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, with the clarification that any
monies received from the sale of land would be placed in the Council Contingency
Fund.
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-504 duly passed and adopted.
158/176: SALE OF EXCESS PORTION OF EASEMENT: Request for approval of the sale
of an ex~ess portion of an easement located north of Orangewood Avenue, east of
Anaheim Boulevard, to Emkay Development and Realty Company, subject to the aban-
donment of said easement, was submitted.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-505 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated August 3, 1978, from the Director of Public Works and City Engineer,
with the same stipulation as previously made that any monies received from the sale
be placed in the Council Contingency Fund. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-505: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED EASEMENT RIGHTS AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PORTION
OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE. (north of Orangewood Avenue, east of Anaheim Boulevard)
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-505 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Engineer
was authorized to initiate and process the abandonment through the Planning
Commission and the City Council. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASING PROCEDURES POLICIES: Mr. Talley briefed the Council on a memorandum
dated July 24, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) from the Finance/Purchasing
Division recommending the following: (1) that the City Council, by ordinance, amend
Sections 1.04.260 and 1.04.270 of the Anaheim Municipal Code regarding purchasing
procedures and (2) by motion, adopt Council Policy 306 delineating purchase proce-
dures superseding policies and procedures adopted by the Council February 15, 1977.
78-1031
City Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated it had come to his attention that there were instances
whereby specifications were such that there was no competitive bidding. He be-
lieved that should be one of the steps in the process not to be overlooked. He
had a problem with it and maintained that the bidding procedure should include
specifications that were biddable.
Mr. Richard Jefferis, Purchasing Agent, stated that was the first thing they should
be looking for, that specifications were such that they could be competitively bid.
There were times, however, when a bid might be considered restrictive, but for a
good reason. On some items, there might be only one manufacturer in the world and
if that were true, it was necessary to be certain that that item was definitely
needed. Other than such instances, all bids were equal.
Councilman Kott asked Mm Jefferis if he was familiar with the letter received
from RCA indicating that the City's specifications were proprietary to only one
manufacturer and RCA, although a very diversified company, could not bid on the
item.
Mr.~Jefferis answered that they were referring to the REPCO specifications and
next Tuesday he would be coming before the Council asking them to make an award
to Motorola because Motorola did successfully respond and was the lowest bidder
of the 3 bids received.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3897 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3897: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1,
CHAPTER 1.04, SECTIONS 1.04.260 AND 1.04.270 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PURCHASING.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following
Council Policy No. 306, delineating purchase procedures to be used by the
Purchasing Agent regarding competitive bid requirements, was adopted. MOTION
CARRIED.
"It is the policy of the City Council that the following procedure shall be used
by the Purchasing Agent in making procurements for the City:
1. Purchase orders not in excess of $10,000
Ao
For all awards in excess of $500, the Purchasing Agent shall attempt
to get competitive bids. Where competitive bids have not, or cannot
be obtained, the Purchasing Agent shall provide written justification
in the purchase order file.
2. Purchase orders in excess of $10,000, but not over $50,000
The Purchasing Agent shall solicit at least three sealed bids (except
as provided for under paragraph C shown below) to be publicly opened
by the Purchasing Agent at a time and place set forth in the bid
solicitation.
78-1032
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 8, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Upon determination of the lowest responsive bid from a responsible
supplier, the Purchasing Agent shall submit an award recommendation
to the City Council.
Should the requesting department desire to restrict the bid solicitation
to specified sources, or to limit the purchase to a single source, justi-
fication shall be presented to the Council at the time the award recommen-
dation is made. Documentation shall be placed in the purchase files.
3. Purchase orders over $50,000
Ao
Advertised bidding, as prescribed in Section 1211 of the City Charter,
shall be used for all procurements expected to exceed $50,000, including
those requirements not of a Public Works nature. This requirement may
be waived by a majority vote of the City Council.
If Council waiver of advertised bidding is obtained, the Purchasing
Agent shall obtain competitive sealed bids unless directed otherwise
by the City Council. Council approval shall be obtained prior to award.
4. Local Bidder Preference
In determining the lowest responsive bid, suppliers located within the City
limits shall be given a one percent discount off their bid price due to
ultimate receipt by the City of a proportionate return of the sales tax."
148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION - 1978/79 ANNUAL DUES:
City Manager Talley referred to his memorandum dated August 2, 1978 (on file in
the City Clerk's Office) recommending the approval of the payment of League of
California Cities, Orange County Division, 1978/79 annual dues in the amount of
$4,601. He explained that while the Council did approve the line item in the
1978-1979 Budget, it would be appropriate to reaffirm their policy on the matter.
Councilman Roth asked what had transpired relative to the one-man, one-vote con-
cept. Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was going to be discussed on Thursday night
at the League meeting.
Mayor Seymour stated he intended to take the Council's unanimous wishes to that
League meeting, asking that there be a change in the voting policy, giving proper
weight to representation in relation to the amount of population, as well as the
amount of dues the City paid.
Councilman Roth asked what would occur if the dues were not paid until August 22,
1978, the next time the Council was scheduled to meet, the reason being, if the
League disapproved the recommendation, he would vote against payment of the dues,
but if it was supported, he would favor the motion.
Mr. Talley stated he believed there was a delinquency payment after 30 days, but
that the item could be carried over. Mayor Seymour did not feel that the Council
would have a definite answer by August 22, 1978.
Councilman Roth emphasized that Anaheim should have a bigger voice in voting.
Councilman Kott stated that the Council had established, and in line with that
policy, a vote on the matter should be delayed until it was ascertained the way
the League was going.
78-1033
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
~OTION: Mayor Seymour stated that he would support a motion to continue the
matter until August 22, 1978, but not beyond. Councilman Roth thereupon moved
to continue consideration of payment of 1978/79 League of California Cities,
Orange County Division dues until August 22, 1978. Councilman Seymour seconded
the mo tion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the State Conference
was going to be held in Anaheim on September 24, 1978 and the matter of dues was
an ongoing battle. She was, therefore, asking the Council to consider the impres-
sion it would give if the City, while hosting the State League, was battling with
the County League.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: PROPOSED COUNCIL POLICY CONCERNING THE PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FROM RECOGNIZED
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: City Manager Talley explained that the AMEA did not realize
the proposed Council Policy was on the agenda and thus requested an opportunity to give
input. He therefore recommended that the matter be continued until the next Council
meeting.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration
of the proposed Council Policy 404 regarding the processing of requests 'from recog-
nized employee organizations was continued to August 22, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
180: PLACEMENT OF CITY'S GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: Risk Manager Jack Love
briefed the Council on his extensive report dated August 2, 1978 (on file in the
City Clerk's Office) which recommended the following: That the Council, by motion,
(1) accept the quotation submitted by Rollins Burdick and Hunter for the City's
first $500,000 layer and appoint Rollins Burdick and Hunter to market the remaining
amount of the City's general liability insurance up to $20,000,000; (2) deny the
request of Continental General Insurance Brokers, Inc., that they be granted the
sole right to market all the City's general liability insurance, including the
right to deal with H&W Insuzance Services on the first $500,000 of coverage, or
in the alternative, that they be granted the right to jointly market the City's
liability insurance along with Rollins Burdick and Hunter; and (3) by resolution,
establish conditions and restrictions on the use of the City's self-insured general
liability loss fund.
Mr. Love added he had been advised by one of the principles of H&W Insurance
Services (H&W) in regard to the request by Continental General Insurance (CGI)
that in the event the Council assigns the quotation submitted by H&W through
Rollins Burdick and Hunter (RB&H) to CGI exclusively, that they would insist that
any commission be paid exclusively to RB&H. They would not be in favor of such
action by the Council, but they would not allow their bid to be handled by CGI.
In regard to the second request by CGI that the two brokers be assigned to handle
or market the City's remaining coverage jointly, he saw no advantage to that. The
result would be, the commission, already diluted, would have to be split and RB&H
indicated they would not be agreeable to that approach. They also stated the reason
for not participating in a joint venture was due to the fact it would affect their
Errors and Omissions coverage. Mr. Love further stated that in his dealings with
CGI over the past 3 months, he believed they had not represented the City's interest
in the past year to the degree that he would expect of a professional brokerage firm
78-1034
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
representing an account the size of Anaheim. He would support that statement
by pointing out that in Mr. Bud Griffin's Risk Management Report, (Warren,
McVeigh & Griffin) of December 1977, he laid out in the liability insurance
area alone, starting on page 54, 10 items in the existing policies which, in
his opinion, needed to be remedied. Only one of those 10 recommendations was
complied with and the tenth one involved the additional purchase of insurance.
When he (Love) reviewed the policy, one thing startled him and that was an ex-
clusion contained in the policy. The exclusion, in effect, excluded all of the
insurance otherwise granted in that policy. Mr. Parker of CGI was presented with
a copy of the report and was requested to respond to those deficiencies by the
Finance Director on February 23, 1978. He responded by letter on April 10, 1978
indicating he went through the entire report and suggested that certain areas of
deficiency needed to be resubmitted to insurance markets. He sent a letter to
Mr. Parker on June 2, 1978, again reminding him the deficiencies should be
remedied or that an answer should be received. He also indicated that, in his
opinion, the underwriter had ample time to respond. To this date, Mr. Love
emphasized that he had yet to receive a response from Mr. Parker.
Mr. Love concluded, because of the foregoing, the City's best interest would be
best served in the handling of liability insurance at least for the coming year
by the selection of Rollins Burdick and Hunter, a very reputible insurance
brokerage firm with offices throughout the Country.
Mr. Bud Griffin, Warren, McVeigh & Griffin, summed up his conclusions by stating
that he had reviewed the process of limited competitive bidding which had been
undertaken in this instance with favorable results for the City, and he supported
the recommendation of staff.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Griffin's letter to Mr. Love dated July 6, 1978,
stated, "as requested" which meant that Mr. Love had asked him to do something.
Mr. Griffin explained that the request was made of him during a meeting held with
Messrs. Talley, Love, Parker and Knox (CGI) and Mr. Ryan (RB&H). At that meeting,
it was decided that they could resolve the question that had arisen, that being
Mr. Parker indicated with regard to the Admiral First State (AFS) program through
H&W, that there would be no harm done by allowing both brokers to go to that
market. There was some question as to whether it was correct or if it would or
would not harm the City. It was thus decided that he (Griffin) would contact
H&W as an independent, objective individual to find out whether that was true
and his letter (July 6, 1978) subsequently related what he learned from H&W.
They responded to the question that arose at the meeting--would they quote for
two brokers. The answer was, "no", they would not quote for two brokers and if
two brokers approached them on behalf of the City, they would not quote.
Mayor Seymour also noted in Mr. Griffin's letter that he stated, "if the City
will authorize a single broker to contact H&W Insurance Services, it is my
impression that they will submit a very competitive quote." He asked what
"very competitive" meant and also if H&W stated that if the City would name
only one broker, they would be happy to quote.
Mr. Griffin answered first that a "very competitive quote" meant favorable in
terms of price. They were very anxious to quote on the City because they con-
sidered it to be a good business. Further, H&W did say if the City would name
78-1035
~i. ty Hall~ A. naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
one broker, they desired to quote. Since they were underwriters of many of the
cities in California, they were a prime market for municipalities.
Mayor Seymour then asked if Mr. Griffin had a personal judgment as to the compe-
tency of Continental General Insurance Brokers.
Mr. Griffin stated, as he pointed out in his report, there were things that were
wrong with the existing coverage which he understood had not yet been corrected.
Some of the deficiencies in the existing program were so serious that he did not
understand why they had not been handled. For example, the one specific exclusion
was so terribly written that it would take away everything the policy intended to
give. As to their marketing expertise, judging from the results that occurred,
there were other people who could do a better job. He could not speak to their
competency beyond that, but could only talk about the facts as he saw them. Rela-
tive to RB&H, they had done quite a bit of business in the municipal area and was
the broker for one of the largest municipal liability pools, the Southern California
Joint Powers Insurance Authority, consisting of 33 cities with a $90 million budget
and where they placed the excess insurance under a favorable term.
Mr. Hal Parker, President, Continental General Insurance, asked to speak to the
matter and submitted a prepared statement dated August 8, 1978 (on file in the
City Clerk's Office), the subject of which was:
(1) City Liability Insurance, September 1, 1978 Renewal
(2) Request for relief from restraints which prejudice the marketing position
of Continental General Insurance Brokers, Inc.
(3) Request appointment of Continental General Insurance Brokers, Inc. as Broker
of Record for the City's excess liability insurance.
Before reading the statement, he first responded to some of the remarks that had
been made specifically in regard to Risk ~ianagement report of December 1977 which
was not delivered to his office even though he had made many requests. He finally
received a copy of the report in early March from the Finance Director. Thus,
there was no way he could respond to a request in February regarding a report not
delivered until March. At that point in time, CGI was directed by the Finance
Director to only secure immediate placement of the excess aircraft and airport
liability coverage recommended by Warren, McVeigh & Griffin, which they did. He
then explained the actions that took place starting in late March or early April
to respond to the recommendations outlined in the report and the delays which
occurred with insurers and reinsurers. They had thus far received endorsements
from every carrier with the exception of one, and he advised the Risk Manager
several months ago that they were holding the endorsements until all of them
were received in order to provide one complete package. He did not understand
that there would be any objection in so doing. He stated that they would piece-
meal those to the Risk Manager's office immediately beginning the next day. The
one carrier who had not yet complied with the request, in his opinion, would not
jeopardize the coverage in any way because each one of the layers of liability
insurance carried a following form endorsement. Thus, the layer of liability
under the layer from the carrier who had not yet responded, had already broadened
the coverage to provide the coverage requested.
78-1036
City H~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Parker continued with respect to the paragraph in the coverage which, sup-
posedly, detracted from all of the City's insurance, it was an exclusion which,
in the opinion of the carrier, would not take away any coverage. %he intent was
to provide the coverage and they advised if the Risk Manager wished to have a
rewording of that exclusion to satisfy their office and the City, they would re-
fer it to their legal department and rephrase it. He would see to it that even
though all of the items were not secured from a number of carriers and a couple
of reinsurers, that they would be in the hands of the Risk Manager within the
next 48 hours.
Mr. Parker then read his full-page statement which also contained attachments,
Exhibits "A" through "B-2". In so doing, he also commented additionally on
several areas for further clarification, some of which were as follows: Although
they felt it was not in the best interest of the City to put the liability insurance
out to bid, when they were informed that was the way it was going to be, they
agreed to bid on the first $4,500,000 of excess liability coverage. The Risk
Manager advised if he could get the RB&H Agency to agree to that, then, in fact,
they would have an agreement. However, that agency did not agree. It would be
a most difficult piece of business to place because it would include the Public
Officials Errors and Omissions coverage and liability insurance for the two major
dams owned by the City. It was then requested that it be reduced to $500,000.
It was reduced, and that was the way the bids went.
Relative to Point No. 6 (page 3 of his report) he emphasized it was not inferring
in any way, nor was it to be interpreted, that they were putting down non-admitted
insurance companies. They served a purpose and had to be used where insurance
was not readily available from an admitted insurer. Admiral First State was a
company well known to them and one with whom they were directly to write and
place business on a regular basis.
Councilman Roth asked for a response from Mr. Love, particularly relative to the
statement concerning the dam liability insurance and Public Errors and Omissions.
Mr. Love first stated that he had not received a copy of Mr. Parker's statement
until now, and it would be difficult for him to respond in depth. He, therefore,
suggested that after he answered, it would be in order to recess to discuss it with
the City's consultant to ascertain if he agreed with some of the statements.
Regarding dams and Errors and Omissions coverage, he had complete confidence in
the ability of RB&H to market the City's dams at a very attractive quotation. On
the Errors and Omissions coverage, they did have on the policy submitted by RB&H,
Admiral First State, Errors and Omissions which was about the bast that could be
obtained.
Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Parker stated that coverage (dams and Errors and
Omissions) was not included in the placement when the bid was received.
Mr. Love stated his instructions were that there was to be no additional charge
for Errors and Omissions coverage. There was no coverage for dams on either of
the submissions because the City was self-insured for the first $1 million.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes to allow Mr. Love
an opportunity to converse with Mr. Griffin. (5:40 P.M.)
78-1037
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 197~, 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:05 P.M.)
Mr. Love, in his rebuttal to Mr. Parker's statement, relayed the following: Rela-
tive to the instructions Mr. Parker received from the Finance Director on February 23,
1978, the letter stated, "also as we discussed, I am forwarding for your review the
Risk Management report prepared by Bud Griffin. This report contains numerous
recommendations for change in our liability insurance area, as well as other areas,
and I would appreciate it if you would address yourself to each recommendation and
provide me with a cost to implement and any other co~ents you have about the
recommendations themselves." The Finance Director stressed that, in his opinion,
the City Council was anxious to adopt recommendations as outlined by Mr. Griffin
as soon as possible, and he would appreciate receiving Mr. Parker's response at
his earliest convenience, in any case, no later than March 17, 1978, so that it
could be placed on the Council agenda March 28, 1978. Mr. Parker replied after
the deadline on April 10, 1978. Under the general liability language classifica-
tion, he (Parker) indicated the Risk Management report made several recommendations
regarding policy wording and language changes that would provide better continuity
of definition and coverage between the various policies providing the total
$10 million limit of liability insurance. He pointed out that although only three
carriers were issuing policies, there were numerous reinsurers supporting those
policies, and it would take more time to get all changes coordinated. He concurred
with the recommendations and submitted the request to the three primary carriers
who, in turn, were going to negotiate with the reinsurers. Mr. Love emphasized
that to this date, the changes had not been effected.
There was no assurance that had CGI been given the right to deal with H&W this
year, that they would have received the very attractive quotation received from
RB&Ho
Relative to the use of an out-of-town broker, if the City's insurance needs were
going to be served to the benefit of the taxpayers, it was essential that all
brokers be allowed to compete in doing business with Anaheim.
Regarding the concept of bidding only the first $500,000, that was the basic
principle being used since essentially the succeeding layers of excess insurance
were based upon the quotation for that first level of insurance. It was building
a foundation and thus the concept was applicable.
If the request of CGI were granted, the City would have an almost impossible time
of obtaining any broker for the foreseeable future. They went to great lengths
to lay out the parameters of the rules before going out to bid, and one was that
no excess insurance markets above the first $500,000 layer be contacted. Apparently,
in view of Mr. Parker's statement, that rule had been violated, and he considered
it a breach of faith of the rules. If RB&H was allowed to continue to market the
City's remaining liability insurance, the anticipated savings would be between
$100,000 and $200,000, and he would expect that it would be closer to $200,000.
He was not confident that same savings could be derived if CGI was granted the
right to market the insurance if for no other reason, because they apparently had
already stirred up the excess market, and those insurance companies would probably
be basing their bid not upon the $107,000 submitted by Admiral First State, but
the $167,000 submitted by CGI.
78-1038
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
~e final point Mr. Parker revealed to him and apparently to the administration
after he (Love) came to the City last year, that after the insurance was placed,
he discovered a favorable market had been blocked by a competing broker. He
(Love) later discovered that that blocking of the market by the competing broker
cost Anaheim approximately $130,000. He contended if Mr. Parker had been doing
his job, as soon as he found out that market had been blocked, he should have
immediately approached City officials and received written confirmation that he
was marketing the City's insurance. Mr. Parker did not do so, and it was too
late to do anything when he learned of the situation.
Mr. Bud Griffin then emphasized the importance of adhering to the ground rules
set for competition in the market place. In this case~ RB&H was given three
markets and Mr. Parker was given many others which he requested, the only conflict
being on the one market, H&W.
Mr. Love then explained for Councilman Roth when and how the process took place.
He sent letters to both brokers and advised them to submit to him a list of pre-
ferred markets. On those markets they both selected, he called a meeting with
City Manager Talley to determine their assignment, with all but the Admiral First
State (AFS) market. Those remaining were assigned to CGI. On the question of
the assignment of AFS, it had been indicated by Mr. Parker that they would be
willing to quote to two brokers. It was believed if Mr. Parker was correct, there
would be no problem allowing both brokers to contact H&W Services, i.e., Admiral
First State. They checked and found out that Mr. Parker was not correct; therefore,
in equity and fairness, they believed it should be assigned to RB&H. It was agreed
in that meeting before contact was ever made by the consultant, that if Mr. Parker
were wrong, the market would be assigned to RB&H. Mr. Griffin contacted represen-
tatives of H&W, and they indicated "no" they would not deal with two brokers; Mr.
Griffin confirmed that was his understanding of what had occurred.
Mayor Seymour questioned w~ there was a dispute in the first place over that partic-
ular company. They had information that that market had been contacted in the past
by CGI, but somebody chose to say (1) that they could no longer contact that market
and (2) it was known at the time the decision was made that it was the most favorable
market.
Mr. Love explained that the decision was made according to the ground rules just
enumerated.
Mr. Talley stated that the decision was reached in his office and both companies
submitted lists of the brokers they wanted to contact. They then excluded brokers
not on each list. When they got to Admiral First State, a question did arise and
both brokers alleged they had relationships with that company. Mr. Parker said
H&W would deal with both, he (Talley) said "no" they would not. He then asked
Mr. Parker if they would not deal with both, could RB&H then have the market.
Mr. Parker answered "yes".
Mayor Seymour then questioned why the letter to CGI requesting them to list their
markets was dated June 19, 1978, while RB&H had already responded to the City on
June 16, 1978.
Mr. Love explained on June 12, 1978, he met with representatives of RB&H, Mr. Don
Huff and Mr. Craig Ryan, and laid down general parameters and suggested they submit
78-1039
~ity Ha.ll~ Ana~.eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
to him a list of the markets they wished to deal with. They immediately responded
before he sent out his formal letter and they had no idea of the list of preferred
markets that would be submitted by CGI. He saw nothing irregular relative to what
occurred, and CGI already surmised that they would be allowed to compete by market-
ing the City's insurance this year. They were not prejudiced by that fact.
Discussion followed between the Mayor, City Manager Talley and Mr. Love wherein
the Mayor reiterated him concern over the fact that RB&H was told the rules of
the game on June 12, 1978, enough so they responded on June 16, 1978, and three
days later a letter was sent to CGI explaining the rules. Mr. Talley maintained
the purpose of the meeting was to ascertain whether or not any new markets were
available that had not been quoted to the City that wonld make them want to go
forward with that company. If they said they did not have any new markets, the
City would probably have looked at another company.
Mr. Griffin stated it was becoming a very common practice to go into the market
place on a restrictive, competitive basis. What transpired had been done by
other public entities, and it worked out well. The difference in dates did not
make any difference at all. The first thing the Risk Manager had to do was talk
to other brokers to find out how good they were, ascertain if he wanted to allow
them to ~ompete, and whether or not they w~re interested. He did not see any
harm in that procedure.
Further discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Griffin relative to the
procedure followed by Mr. Love. Mayor Seymour took issue with the procedure.
Mr. Griffin then referred to Mr. Parker's statement, Item Nos. 4 and 5 on Page 3,
indicating that CGI had placed the full $20 million of liability insurance with
several thousands of dollars of savings over last year's premium. He did not know
if they placed the whole $20 million, effective renewal, or if that was filling out
the extra $10 million the City wanted some time ago. In Item No. 5, it indicated
they had a firm quote to write the first $4,500,000 of excess liability coverage.
He emphasized they were never given any authorization by the City's Risk Manager
to do so. He thereupon explained how that could harm the City. Mr. Parker came
up with $167,000 on the first 500 excess of 500. Excess layers were built above
that and the pricing of the coverage directly related to the first 500 excess of
500. Thus, if Mr. Parker, in fact, did do that, he damaged the City. If he had
gone in at the $167,000 price instead of $104,000, he had already blocked up some
markets at the wrong price. The possible result would be some underwriters, when
approached at the right price, would decline to quote or withdraw from the competi-
tion, stating they were going to stay with the higher price. It was a serious
matter and it was not playing the rules as agreed.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (6:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:40 P.M.)
Mr. Parker then responded to the allegation made, that they had used only four
markets to place the first $20 million.
78-1040
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Relative to their not being successful in placing the City's liability insurance
with H&W/Admiral First State, he pointed out what had not been explained having
to do with reinsurance treaties, which, at the time, prohibited AFS from writing
Anaheim. However, they asked that they be contacted again in 1978 since they
were already in the process of renegotiating reinsurance treaties.
Another reason why they did not go to AFS in years past was due to the fact that
they were a non-admitted insurer. They did not go to non-admitted insurers where
they had an admitted insurer willing to write the risk.
At this time, CGI felt they had been harmed by not being able to use that company,
whereas when the question was first asked they answered "no".
The inference was made that he personally did not relay a whole truth to the City
Manager and Risk Manager in the meeting regarding his advice from H&W that they
would quote for two brokers if the City specifically requested they do so. In
a telephone conversation with Mr. Walt Wooten, H&W, he advised specifically that he
preferred not to quote except to one broker. He (Parker) then rephrased his
question and asked, if the City specifically requested that they quote two, would
he do so. Mr. Wooten stated under those conditions, they would, but they preferred
not to. When Mr. Griffin contacted them, the reply was he indicated they might.
Relative to their blocking favorable markets, if they blocked any market, it was
one with which they were negotiating, and that is what they were paid to do.
He advised both the Risk Manager and City Manager relative to the letter indicating
that they had violated the conditions of the June 19, 1978 letter, there was no way
they could conform to the instructions in that they had contacted and had been under
continuous negotiations with those companies.
The comment was made that when they discovered 15 months earlier that another
carrier had been blocked, they should have immediately approached the City and
requested a Broker of Record appointment. Mr. Love was not employed by the City
at the time so he immediately went to City Attorney Hopkins who gave him a Broker
of Record appointment. They then presented it to the carrier, but they declined
to accept it until after their earlier commitment had expired.
The statement was made that the basic level of the primary policy or first layer
policy was that which governed the premium. That was a true statement, but only
in general. Two of the carriers who quoted this time did not use that as the
first layer.
The Risk Manager commented they apparently received a better rate in this instance
because for the first time an extensive submission was prepared and submitted to
the carrier. He maintained submissions had been in detail in past years and even
more so in several areas.
In all their dealings with AFS, they found them to be a legitimate and most reputable
and professional organization. They did not believe and would not accept any state-
ment that they might discriminate between one city and another by giving a more
favorable quote to one broker than another.
78-1041
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Although the letter dated February 23, 1978 from the Finance Director indicated
that a copy of the Risk Management Report was transmitted therein, that report
was not enclosed with the letter and they were advised that copies were not avail-
able. He secured a copy from the Finance Director's office on or about March 5,
1978.
He recounted that they were commended by the City Manager and several members of
the Council a year ago February for their recommendation that the City had reached
a point where they needed a Risk Manager to evaluate the City's risk and exposure,
and they recommended that the City obtain some independent advice from the Risk
Management firm. One of the two recommended was Warren, McVeigh & Griffin. They
still felt it was necessary. As well, the items pointed out earlier as being
deficiencies in the policy were listed as recommendations for change to improve
the policy.
Councilman Roth stated that the City went out on a competitive bid and somewhere
along the line, someone else came in with a lower bid. The intent was to come
up with the best deal for the taxpayers of the community which was a bid $60,000
less than what CGI submitted.
Mr. Parker agreed, but maintained their position was they were denied the right
to negotiate with that company (AFS) when, in fact, that company had asked CGI
to come back this year when, for the first time, the reinsurance treaties had
been resolved.
Extensive discussion and questioning then followed between the Mayor, Messrs.
Parker, Love, Griffin and Talley and several Council Members regarding the pro-
cedure followed in the solicitation of bids, what transpired at the various
meetings, and the controversy as to how the matter was handled by the City.
During the discussion, the following was revealed: Mr. Parker confirmed that
they accepted the fact that, if H&W would not quote two brokers, that market
would be available to the competing broker, but they did not agree to it.
Mr. Griffin clarified that he spoke to both Mr. Wooten and Mr. Hoskins. Mr.
Wooten came on the phone and said they would consider the matter, but Mr. Hoskins
said they would only quote for one broker and if two came in, they did not want
to get involved.
Mayor Seymour maintained that the problem revolved around Mr. Parker's stated
feeling that had been his market previously, and someone arbitrarily took it
away. He also further expressed his dissatisfaction relative to the Risk
Manager's handling of the situation which he contended was an attempt to bury
CGI and deprive them of doing business with the City. He also asked Mr. Parker
to testify as to what took place relative to a disagreement with the Risk Manager
which came about regarding the $10 million excess coverage and Errors and Omissions
insurance.
Mr. Parker stated he was advised by Mr. Love that he should cease making recommen-
dations and that the Risk Manager was the one who made such recommendations. As
well, Mr. Love stated if this were Denver (Mr. Love's previous place of employment),
that he (Parker) would not get past the Risk Manager's office. He would be thrown
out, and he would not be talking to the City Attorney or City Council.
78-1042
C_ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Love responded that in a general conversation with Mr. Parker, there were
words said along those lines. He was concerned, however, about his making recom-
mendations to the Council regarding insurance purchases and also having Mr. Parker
making counter-recommendations without discussing those at length with him, and
also apparently discussing them with Members of the Council before he had an
equal opportunity to do so. Mr. Parker was circumventing the Risk Manager's
Office which was of major concern. When he (Love) came to the City, Mr. Parker
specifically asked Mr. Ferrone who he was to deal with and Mr. Ferrone said
Jack Love. '
Mr. Talley explained on Friday, June 30, 1978, he met with Mr. Love and Mr. Knox,
Chairman of the Board of CGI, and following that, he Was convinced of two things:
(1) the real issue as far as his own office was charged, was to secure the lowest
possible price, but (2) what seemed to be coming out was there might be less than
total communication between Messrs. Love and Parker with constant reference to the
fact that they wanted to keep the business in Anaheim. He stated his constant
reply was that we want to keep it in Anaheim if it was the lowest possible bid.
His primary concern was to bring the Council competitive bids. If sq~eone said
they should stay with CGI and eliminate everybody else and next year let CGI have
all the market~ again, the City was never going to know if a better bid could be
obtained. He idi~ not know of a solution to that situation, other than the one they
tried. They ~a~ discussed the matter with Mr. Griffin and he concurred' the course
of action taken Was the best possible alternative. As a result, they came in with
a bid on the first $500,000 of coverage $60,000, or 30 percent, below that of CGI.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Roth stated he was not ready to vote
on the matter until he could get a response from all parties concerned relative
to the items that were broached in order to be able to make an intelligent
decision. If the City was paying for an outside Risk Management consultant,
Mr. Griffin, and considering his qualifications, he wanted to receive his input.
Mr. Love interjected and expressed his concern over the fact that it would cost
the City money to delay, and action was almost imperative. There had already
been a substantial delay because of Mr. Parker's objections. The program had
been started well over a month prior, and he had hoped to have it resolved long
before now. Further delay would seriously jeopardize their ability to wrap up
the matter by the policy renewal date of September 1, 1978.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned over what a delay might cost in terms of
money since, at present, the City was already behind $60,000.
M~OTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to appoint Continental General Insur-
ance (CGI) as Broker of Record; direct them to go to Admiral First State .and pick
up the exact quotation received by Rollins Burdick and Hunter; pay RB&H the
commission due in accordance with the agreement, with the entire action to be
subject to the City Attorney's investigation as set forth on Page 3 of CGI's
letter of August 8, 1978, referring to a potential violation of Section 1763 of
the Insurance Code. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor clarified that, subsequently if there was no ....
violation, then CGI, being the Broker of Record, was to go and pick up that bid
from AFS and, in turn, pay the commission for the first year only to RB&H. He
78-1043
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
added, in his opinion, some personally biased and prejudiced feelings had entered
into the process. He reiterated there was little doubt in his mind that there
had been personal bias against the locml Anaheim broker. He was still dedicated
to insuring that Anaheim received the lowest possible insurance rates, and if the
City could get such rates with an Anaheim broker, he would prefer doing business
with that broker. On the other hand, if, in a fair process with no bias or
prejudice, anyone else outside the City could bid, and that bid would be in the
best interest of the taxpayer, the City ought to go with that bid. In this case,
that had not been demonstrated and that was the reason he made the foregoing
motion.
Councilman Overholt reiterated that he did not believe there had been a showing
of bias and prejudice and elaborated again on the reasons why.
Councilman Roth stated he would support the motion if he could be assured that it
was contingent upon getting the same dollar amounts as the same low bid.
Mayor Seymour stated that was correct, they would have to come in with the same
premium as RB~H and if they did not, then he would be interested in taking the
matter up with the Department of Insurance to ascertain why.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Parker if the motion was satisfactory~with him;
Mr. Parker answered, "yes".
Councilman Overholt asked if it was satisfactory with RB&H.
Mr. Don Huff, Executive Vice President, Rollins Burdick & Hunter, stated that
they made a conscious decision to work on the City's business based on two factors:
(1) they felt that Anaheim was sophisticated inasmuch as they secured the Warren,
McVeigh & Griffin report and (2) hired a Risk Manager. Otherwise, they would not
have been involved. They did not like to get into political situations because
they were professional brokers. Everything was above-board, ethically and morally.
He emphasized he was highly disturbed about the Council decision this evening.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Talley suggested, in order to establish some credibility in the process, Mr.
Griffin be instructed to institute a program now tO keep problems from arising
next year, as had been the case in the last two years, relative to insurance.
Until the question was resolved as to how to establish a Broker of Record, no one
would be satisfied that the City was getting the best price.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct Warren, McVeigh & Griffin to
bring to the Council, alternate courses of action in which to properly select a
Broker of Record, to be effective September 1979. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7:27 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:40 P.M.)
78-1044
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California.- COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
156: REQUEST FROM THE COMMUNITY TO BE HEARD - ALLEGED POLICE BRUTALITY WHICH
OCCURRED IN RELATION TO AN INCIDENT AT LITTLE PEOPLE'S PARK~ SUNDAY~ JULY 30~
1978, APPROXIMATELY 9:30 P.M.: Mr. Richard Ornelas, spokesman for the community,
765 West Hampshire, relayed the incident which occurred at Little People's Park,
Elm and Clementine Streets, on Sunday, July 30, 1978, at approximately 9:30 P.M.,
and the alleged Police brutality which took place involving the youth and young
adults who were members of that community. The Police were called to the scene
at the request of the community because, following a neighborhood football game
at the park with the City of Westminster, a vehicle drove by the park twice and
fired shots.
The following persons appeared and gave testimony relating to the incident and
alleged Police brutality, as well as others who spoke on non-related incidents
or on behalf of the community, and are listed in the order of appearance: Richard
Ornelas, 765 West Hampshire, spokesman; Alfred Acosta, 1437 Kenwood; Robert Acosta,
1437 Kenwood; Joseph Vargas, 317~ West Santa Ana Street; Sylvia Guerro, 1134 West
Locust; Valerie Acosta, Anaheim resident, gave no address; Clarissa Castro,
889 South Claudina; Victor Ulloa, 333 South Clementine; Sonija Vargas, 137~ West
Santa Ana Street; Arthur Acosta, 1437 Kenwood; Richard Vargas, 411% South
Clementine; Connie Verdin, 1437 Kenwood; Tomasa Mora, 4116 Addington Drive;
Irene Romas, 4132 Addington Drive; Joseph Gaicalone, Club Continental Apartments,
2175 Mallul (spoke on another incident); Jackie Lykins, 2175 Mallul (spoke on
another incident); Alex Garcia 4155 Lemon; Donald Klonz, 1612 East Romneya Drive
(spoke on another incident); Gil Marquez, 315 South Kroeger; Bill Halloway, 2175
Mallul (spoke on another incident); Larry Freeman, representative of the Orange
County Board of the American Civil Liberties Union; Bill Taormina, representing
the Community Services Board (offered assistance of the Board); Rita Canales,
310 North Philadelphia; Ruth Chiverson, no address given (spoke on another
incident, but also spoke on behalf of the community); and Mary Canales, 310 North
Philadephia.
From time to time comments were made from the Chamber audience by unidentified
speakers.
A verbatim transcript of the entire proceedings performed by a licensed court
reporter from the firm of McCauley & Manning, Court and Deposition Reporters,
1630 East Palm Street, Santa Ana, (People's Park--August 8, 1978) taken from a
tape of the proceedings is referred to and made a part of the minutes, and is
on file in the City Clerk's Office.
During the hearing, the people of the community gave a list of 5 demands presented
by Connie Verdin, as follows:
1. A Citizen's Police Review Board that has the full authorization and support
of the Council. This Board will investigate the issue and make 'recommendations
to the Council.
2. Persons who filed complaints in this matter must be protected from Police
harassment or retaliation.
3. Police Officers involved in the incident on July 30, 1978, to be removed from
the Little People's Park area during the investigation.
78-1045
~ity Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
4. The community must be involved in choosing the patrol officers that will
work in the Little People's Park area.
5. There will be community participation in the entire selection process for
the next Police Chief.
6. The full City Council is requested to attend a meeting with the community
on August 23, 1978, at 6:30 P.M., at Little People's Park. At this meeting,
we will expect you to present us with answers to these community demands.
At the conclusion of the approximate 4 hours of testimony and discussion and
questioning by the Council, the following actions ensued:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney
was directed to immediately launch an investigation of the matter and submit a
report by August 22, 1978; if the City Attorney comes to a point in the investi-
gation wherein he feels he may have a conflict of interest, the matter is to be
referred to the District Attorney's Office. Councilmen Kott and Seymour voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
On mo tion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, relative to the
juvenile matters and adult criminal matters pending as a result of the incident,
the City Attorney was directed to request continuance until completion of the
investigation. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Manager was directed to direct the Chief of Police to assign a special patrol
to the Little People's Park area made up of officers who were not in any way
involved in the incident cited; patrol to continue until the investigation is
completed and further direction given by the City Council. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Council agreed to meet with the community at Little People's Park on Wednesday,
August 23, 1978, at 6:30 P.M.; the City Attorney's report on the incident to
be submitted by August 22, 1978, for discussion on August 23, 1978. MOTION
CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the report of
the City Attorney is not to be marked "confidential" and is to be made public
when submitted. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (10:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (11:00 P.M.)
153: PLUMMER INVESTIGATION - PERSONNEL DIRECTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE
CHIEF OF POLICE: Mayor Seymour stated he recalled that the Council was to meet
with Mr. Jack Jansen of the Anaheim Police Association (APA) and Personnel Director
Garry McRae, relative to the subject, and he asked City Manager Talley if he was
going to recommend further action.
78-1046
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley indicated that the Plummer matter was now complete.
Mayor Seymour further stated he was under the impression that the next step was
to have an Executive Session with the Personnel Director, but now the City Manager
concluded that was not necessary. He wanted to be certain the Council agreed so
that the investigation could come to an end, and subsequently, they could take
whatever action deemed necessary. He asked the Council if they were satisfied
that, in fact, an Executive Session was not necessary with the Personnel Director.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not have an opportunity to go through the
Personnel Director's report since he received it at one o'clock today, nor did
he believe the matter was over. If the City Manager was satisfied, that was
his position and, after he read the report, he might like to have an Executive
Session the next time. Councilman Roth agreed with Councilman Kott.
Mayor Seymour, therefore, concluded in the opinion of the Council, the investiga-
tion would continue at least until August 22, 1978, at which time a decision
would be made. He clarified he was trying to establish among the Council when
the investigation was going to be complete so that the Council could draw its
own conclusions, make recommendations, or take any action deemed appropriate.
He sensed that the Council would like to review the Personnel Director's response
to Chief Bastrup's report and at that particular time, which would be the August 22,
1978 meeting, decide if there was any need for a further investigation, Executive
Session, or anything else.
Council Members Kaywood, Kott and Roth agreed with the Mayor's view.
Councilman Roth interjected, however, that many items were being scheduled for
the August 22, 1978 meeting, and he was of the opinion that Council meetings
should start at 9:00 a.m. So that they could work the whole day into the night
or, instead, hold Council meetings on Tuesdays and Thursdays or Tuesdays and
Fridays.
Mayor Seymour recalled that Councilman Roth had expressed those thoughts at
the previous meeting where he (Seymour) also expressed himself relative to the
recommendation. In his opinion, they were merely in a period of time of most
unusual circumstances with a great amount of business to come before the Council,
but he did not feel it was necessary that the Council meet twice a week or that
meetings should start at 9:00 a.m. and carry on through to 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. He
did not believe there would be a continued necessity for 8- to 12-hour meetings
and considered it premature to establish a new policy along the lines expressed.
He asked the Council's indulgence to see how the situation would progress, and if
it became necessary, he would be willing to consider the recommendations. ~
Councilman Kott emphasized that he would oppose meetings twice a week and the
reason for the unusually long meetings in the past couple of weeks was due to
the fact that people were petitioning their government to be heard. He saw
nothing wrong with that and he considered it to be part of his job to listen.
He also referred to the fact that 3 Council Members voted not to have a meeting
the next week, August 15, 1978, but yet the complaint now was that they were
too long.
78-1047
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ !:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth believed it proper for Council Members to be able to go on
vacation once a year.
Mr. Talley, again referring to the Plummer matter, stated that the Personnel
Director was asked to be at the meeting today so that the report could be filed
because he was going on vacation, and he (Talley) previously announced that he
would also be gone on the 22nd and 29th of August. Thus, neither he, nor Mr.
McRae, would be available on the 22nd of August, and he would not be available
on the 29th of August. It was, therefore, going to be difficult to have them
both in Executive Session until September 4, 1978.
Mayor Seymour restated and asked for clarification that what Mr. Talley was
suggesting, was if the Council did not take some action relative to the Personnel
Director's involvement, questioning, etc., the next opportunity to do so would
be September 4, 1978.
Mr. Talley confirmed the Mayor's understanding, since all parties would be present
at that time. He further added that Mr. McRae, in his report, did not address the
Plummer matter, but only addressed the grievances mentioned in the Chief's report.
There was nothing new on the Plummer matter that was not covered as the City
At torney mentioned in his report.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not agree with the last statement, but that was
Mr. Talley's opinion. He added that since the investigation had been underway
for approximately 6 weeks, he did not believe it appropriate to carry it almost
another month, and he did not know what would be gained by so doing. He felt that
the Council should conclude today that all the testimony they were going to take
either in public or in Executive Session had been taken so that the Council
could then prepare itself to respond to the investigation by its August 22, 1978
meeting. He asked for Council's opinion.
Councilman Overholt stated that he had not yet read the Plummer report or Mr.
McRae's report; Councilwoman Kaywood also stated that she had not done so.
Mayor Seymour suggested they would have an opportunity to read the report by
August 22, 1978.
Councilman Overholt stated that Mr. McRae would not be present and that he did
not know if he would have more questions for Mr. McRae, as suggested by the Mayor.
He did not believe there was a choice, but to carry the matter over until September 4,
1978.
Mayor Seymour stated he was not about to wait until September 4, 1978 because
the matter had been dragged on long enough.
Since the Council did not wish to discuss the matter any longer or make any
decisions, the Mayor called for the next item on the agenda.
112: CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his
8-page report dated August 7, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) prepared
at the Council's request, asking for an opinion from his office concerning "con-
fidential'' documents. In concluding, he recommended that the opinion be received
and filed.
78-1048
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Attorney's
report on "confidential" documents dated August 7 1978, was received and filed
MOTION CARRIED. ' ·
123: LEGAL ADVERTISING: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-506 for
adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 3, 1978, from the City
Clerk, authorizing an agreement with the Anaheim Bulletin for legal publication
services. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-506: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO A RESPONSIBLE PARTY
WHERE SAID PROPOSAL CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'S REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LEGAL
ADVERTISING REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED WITHIN THE CITY. '
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-506 duly passed and adopted.
108: APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE PATROL PERMIT - C.W. SECURITY SYSTEMS: On motion
by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, application for a Private
Patrol Permit to provide a security agent service in the City of Anaheim, submitted
by C.W. Security Systems, was approved, subject to the submission of a $1,000 bond
to be approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of the permit. MOTION
CARRIED.
163: CONSIDERATION OF COSTA MESA RESOLUTION URGING ADOPTION OF STATE LEGISLATION
PLACING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CROSSING GUARDS WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS - CROSSING GUARD
STUDY BY SCHOOL TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: Report dated August 1, 1978, from the
Traffic Engineer recommended that the Council not change the present policy for
providing the services of crossing guards.
Councilman Kott offered a resolution supporting the Costa Mesa resolution urging
the adoption of State Legislation placing the responsibility for crossing guards
with school districts. The resolution failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the Crossing Guard Study
Report dated August 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), prepared by the
Traffic Engineering Division. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott remarked that he believed the report
stated they would like to see where the responsibility of the costs of crossing
guards should be placed. If there were no schools, he maintained there would not
have to be crossing guards, and he felt that the cost for crossing guards rightfully
78-1049
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
belonged with the schools. Thus, in view of Proposition 13, the Council should
take that into consideration.
Councilman Seymour, speaking in favor of the motion, stated that (1) the same
taxpayer was going to pay for the crossing guards whether or not they were pro-
vided by the school districts or the City, and (2) the City had the responsibility
to provide safety and traffic signals or whatever traffic control device was used.
He viewed crossing guards as that type of service to be supplied whether for schools,
commercial businesses, or a residential neighborhood and that is what the report
recommended. Relative to Proposition 13, there were many other places to cut, other
than safety.
Councilman Overholt stated that the efforts of the School Traffic Safety Committee
to try to reduce the overall cost of the program by closely monitoring the need
was commendable. Thus, reductions in that cost might be realized in any case.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No"
MOTION CARRIED.
142/127: CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENTS TO BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 1978 BALLOT: (continued from the meetings
of July 11 and 25 and August 1, 1978) Mr. Ben Bay, Chairman of the Charter Review
Committee (CRC), indicated he would be glad to answer any questions relative to
the recommendations of the CRC as submitted under the letter dated July 31, 1978,
with attachments, (on file in the City Clerk's Office) concerning the proposed
amendments.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to speak to the first item, campaign
limitations.
~ampaign Limitations: Michael Valenti, 202 East Adele, stated that relative to
the matter of campaign contributions, he felt that if such contributions were
scrutinized, that would be a step toward having a totally equitable and honest
government. He did not believe it to be untoward to put a limit on campaign con-
tributions so that all citizens could feel more assured they would have an ample
opportunity to support a candidate and that no special interest group would, in
fact, have a special interest in any given candidate. It was important to know
that elected officials acquired their positions fair and square. Money did command
power and it could, by way of advertising or other means, buy votes. He maintained
that by introducing a limitation on campaign contributions, the system would work
in a fairer way than in the past.
No further persons which to speak relative to campaign contributions.
Councilwoman Kaywood, responding to Mr. Valenti's concerns, explained that was a
concern shared by all and the reason the charge was given to the Committee for
review. Unfortunately, it was one of those issues that sounded like an excellent
idea, but constitutionally it was not feasible and that was why the Committee
voted 8 to 1 not to pursue it further, but that it could be controlled by the dis-
closure requirement. There was no way to prevent individuals from contributing
as much of their own money as they wished.
78-1050
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bay referred to the Charter Review Committee's minutes of June 12 and 19,
1978, on file in the City Clerk's Office, wherein the matter was discussed
at length and in finality, the Committee voted 8 to 1 that no action be taken
based on the fact that Proposition 9 covered the disclosure aspect very thoroughly.
They did not see where they could increase the implementation of Proposition 9,
other than advising that it be enforced and used as intended for disclosures.
MOTION: Councilman Kott recalled that he made a motion relative to campaign
limitations approximately 6 months prior and he thereupon moved that the issue
of campaign limitations be placed on the ballot. The motion died for lack of
a second.
Mayor Seymour suggested that an ordinance would be a more appropriate vehicle
to be used relative to limitation of campaign contributions since it would be
more flexible than a change in the City Charter. That is why he did not second
the motion.
Councilman Kott stated that he did offer the recommendation as an ordinance the
first time, but could not get support for it at that time as well.
The MayQr reminded him that when it was offered, they were half-way through an
election campaign, and it would have changed the rules of the game mid-stream.
Councilman Kott thereupon offered the setting of campaign limitations as an
ordinance; Mayor Seymour stated he would support the proposal if the Council
could receive a copy of the previously proposed ordinance for review.
Section 504 - Election of the Mayor: Mayor Seymour stated that the recommendation
of the CRC was that the election of the Mayor, if the question was placed on the
ballot in November, be returned to the process that was used prior to the direct
election of the Mayor by the people; that is, annually, 3 or more Council Members
would select who the Mayor was going to be, rather than being elected by the people,
and that was the only proposition being recommended.
Mr. Bay stated the Committee considered that the old way, meaning the present
method, would be a choice on the ballot. A "no" vote would clarify that the
present method would continue. A "yes" vote would revert it back to the Council
selection of the Mayor. He referred to the discussion that took place relative
to the matter contained in the minutes. The essence of the decision was that
the Committee felt the alternatives sent to them when the Council could not
decide the issue was as complicated or more complicated than the present method,
and it would not solve the problem expressed. It was a unanimous opinion by
the Committee that the selection of the Mayor from their interpretation of the
Charter, should revert back to the Council because the Mayor should be the Chairman
of the Council, no more, and no less, as well as the ceremonial'head of the City.
Mayor Seymour stated that the people opted, through an initiative process, to
elect their own Mayor. In his opinion, the problem in that initiative process
was that the public was denied the right to truly elect their own Mayor, i.e.,
there was a qualification that in order to run for Mayor, one must first have
to be a Council Member. He did not believe in matters of this type that the
City Council should be placing on the ballot a question that they, as individuals
78-1051
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~us.t 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
or even a majority agreed with. He believed they had the responsibility, and
he suggested the same to the CRC at the outset with what he thought was con-
currence from the Council, to present alternatives to the electorate. The
only alternative being presented, if the CRC's recommendation was accepted,
would be that the electorate could go back to the old way of selecting a Mayor.
He maintained that would be foolhardy and the electorate would not buy it. Once
they had been give a chance to vote and express their opinion, they would hold on
to that right. He reiterated (1) he did not think the electorate would buy the
alternative and (2) no real alternative was presented. He had heard stated that
the present method was extremely confusing and further, in his opinion, totally
unfair. In the last Council election, he ran for a City Council seat for
re-election and also for Mayor. He was totally unopposed in the mayoralty
election, but in order to be Mayor, he had to be elected as a Council person
first. It was unfair for the Council, himself or any other Council person to
feel that they had such wisdom and experience that only one of the five had
the qualities and intelligence to serve as Mayor. He would favor the question
being placed on the ballot as recommended as long as an alternative question
was placed on the ballot with it.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that (1) the recommendation of the
CRC relative to the election of Mayor be placed on the ballot in November as
worded and (2) that the City Attorney be instructed to bring the final language
back to the Council for approval on August 22, 1978, for an alternative question
to also be placed thereon indicating that any qualified elector, registered voter
within the City of Anaheim, be qualified to run for the office of Mayor and (3)
that the office of Mayor be a separate office with no more powers than today--
ceremonial head and Chairman of the Council meetings, for a 2-year term. Council-
man Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked if the motion passed, would that
person hold a Council seat for two years?
The Mayor answered that that person would be Mayor for two years and two years
only, and at every election (every 2 years) the people of Anaheim would elect
a new Mayor.
Councilman Roth noted that the City of Orange had problems with that method already,
the reason being, one Council person gave up his Council seat to run for a 2-year
term, ra!~her ithan 4.
The Mayor indicated it did not have to be 4 necessarily, and all he was trying
to do was offer alternatives to the voter where they would have an opportunity
to elect their Mayor if they wished to do so, given the alternative stating that
the City Council shall select the Mayor on an annual basis. He emphasized he
wanted to give the voters both alternatives so they could make Up their minds as
to which they preferred.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the election of Mayor.
Mr. ~ouis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, stated he was intending to offer advice
along the same lines as the Mayor, that an alternative was not being offered if
left as it is where candidates were limited to people on the Council or where
the Council would select a Mayor as in the past. There were two choices in
78-1052
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
this case between a parliamentary-type system and an executive-type system. He
believed there would be a choice in moving along the lines the Mayor suggested
where anyone from the general public could run for Mayor if qualified to be a
voter, and the choice of leaving it up to the parliamentary body to select their
own Mayor. As far as the choice between 2 years and 4 years, he believed the
City Attorney could take that into consideration in the wording of a measure.
For instance, a person could run for Mayor and also have his term extended for
another 2 years in order to remain on the Council.
In a closing comment, Mr. Dexter stated a complaint he had was, the last time
the strong Mayor issue was offered, the elected Mayor concept was not offered.
If that had occurred, the issue would have been settled at that time.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, stated he could see the point the Mayor was making
with reference to an alternate ballot initiative, but he believed 4 years would
be a wiser choice than 2. Since a Council term was for 4 years, he believed it
would be difficult for the Council to have to go through two Mayors during a
4-year term. He also asked if the public was going to be allowed to vote on a
ceremonial head, would that person constitute the fifth Council person or a sixth.
The Mayor answered that it would be a fifth person, just as the make-up of the
Council today. Relative to the 4-year term, he had suggested that previously.
At that point, the matter was given to the CRC and they came back with no recom-
mendation. He was merely trying to make the situation more palatable to the
Council in order to get the alternative on the ballot.
Councilman Kott stated if the public was going to be given an opportunity to
run for Mayor, there should be a new Mayor every two years even if they had a
4-year term. However, he believed an individual would be best off with a 4-year
term because of the experience factor. He was one of the early proponents of
allowing anyone to run for Mayor and still maintained that position. As well,
as a voter in the City, he favored the opportunity to vote for his Mayor, and
he believed most people felt that way. He did not look upon the recommendation
of the CRC as being progressive.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear the reasons why the Committee recommended as
they did.
Mr. Bay quoted from the CRC's minutes of July 17, 1978, Page 1, under Unfinished
Business to the top of Page 2 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) only leaving
out the specific names of the Committee members. The final vote recommending
that the process of the election of the Mayor be referred back to the former method
was the unanimous 8 to 0 vote.
Mayor Seymour stated he had a problem with the recommendation. The CRC had the
right to express their individual feelings and philosophies, but he recalled the
charge to the Committee as being to develop plausible alternatives so that the
voters could decide, and that was his thrust. If they wanted to return to the old
way, that would be acceptable, but they should be given that alternative.
78-1053
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Seymour
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
None
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the matter of the election of Mayor be
placed on the November ballot as recommended unanimously by the CRC. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he believed the action was an
attempt by a majority of the Council to thwart the will of the people, and he did
not believe the people were going to buy the "hog wash" they were trying to sell,
nor would they give up their chosen right to elect their Mayor. The unfortunate
circumstances that would result if the motion carried, would be that the Council,
after the November election, would be sitting there with the same confusing and
limited process of electing the Mayor as they had today.
Councilman Kott commented that, likewise, the Mayor should be elected by the
people and anyone should be able to run for Mayor, just as for Council.
Councilman Overholt stated that the CRC was given the charge and reviewed the
matter completely and came back with the subject recommendation. He believed
there was an alternative, what now existed and what previously existed, and it
may be a step forward in the minds of some. Apparently, the CRC unanimously
decided it would give the voters a choice.
Councilwoman Kaywood then spoke to the matter of a Mayor elected at large with
no previous experience. She heard continually from new Council Members that they
had no idea how much time and work was involved in the office and how much catching
up they had to do. If someone was elected with no prior experience in a city the
size of Anaheim and stepped into the office of Mayor, it would be overwhelming.
Corporations did not hire people with no experience to take over the top position.
Mayor Seymour asked if the question were approved by the voters in November, when
the measure would go into effect. He remarked it would be interesting to see if
the majority of the Council was interested in deposing the current Mayor before
he had an opportunity to serve the term the people gave to him.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the proposal would go into effect as soon as the
Secretary of State approved the Charter Amendments and the first occasion would
be the second Tuesday of April in each year.
The Mayor noted that would be April of 1979. He commented that' they were very
clever people.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that she was about to add the phrase "April of
1980", but with the remark from the Mayor, she would not add it. That particular
aspect had not even occurred to her because she presumed that having been elected
for two years, it was the same as a contract, and it would hold.
78-1054
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was some question that the Mayor could not
be deposed from the term to which he was elected.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the Charter Amendment would become effective
upon the approval of the Secretary of State which would be around the first
of the year and would be the Charter provision by which the City would be
governed.
Councilman Overholt asked if that would be true relative to the exisitng Mayor
who ran for a 2-year term and was elected to that office.
Mr. Hopkins believed there would be a question in that case which would have to
be resolved as to whether the present Mayor could continue on or not. Off-hand,
he would say that the selection would have to be made each year.
Mr. Bay added that during the discussion on the matter, the intent was for the
amendment to take effect in 1980.
Mayor Seymour merely wanted the Council to admit what they were doing. He then
clarified the motion for Councilman Kott as follows: To adopt the CRC recommen-
dations relative to the election of Mayor and to have the measure placed on the
ballot which, if passed, would go into effect in January 1979.
Mr. Hopkins stated that could be amended to provide that it would not go into
effect until 1980.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would go along with such an amendment; Council-
woman Kaywood indicated it would be very simple to add: "the same Tuesday of
April each year beginning 1980"; Councilman Roth was agreeable to the amendment.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. Councilmen Kott and
Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Section 515 - Ordinances-Violation-Penalty: "Shall Section 515 of Article V of
the Charter of the City of Anaheim be amended to permit the prosecution of certain
designated Anaheim Municipal Code violations as infractions rather than misdemeanors?"
Councilman Seymour moved that the proposed Charter Amendment relative to
Section 515 be placed on the November ballot as recommended by the CRC.
man Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council-
Section 703 - City Attorney~ Powers and Duties: City Attorney Hopkins noted that
the proposed amendment was merely to add something previously in the City Charter
specifically Items H, I and J. These items were inadvertently omitted the last
time the Charter was amended.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the reference to "his" or "hers" be eliminated
from the Section; Mr. Hopkins stated he would change it, omitting any reference
to gender.
Councilman Seymour moved that the proposed Charter Amendment relative to Section
703, be placed on the November ballot as recommended by the CRC. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1055
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Sections 1202 and 1203 - Budget - Submission to City Council - Public Rearing:
"Shall Sections 1202 and 1203 of Article XII of the Charter of the City of
Anaheim be amended to (1) require the City Manager to submit the proposed
annual budget to the City Council at least forty-five days prior to the be-
ginning of each fiscal year, and (2) require the City Council to hold a public
hearing on the proposed budget at least ten days prior to the adoption of the
annual budget?"
Councilman Seymour moved that the proposed Charter Amendment relative to
Sections 1202 and 1203 be placed on the November ballot, as recormmended by
the CRC, with an amendment on Item (2) that ten days be stricken and 30 days
inserted. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated that he did not believe 10 days was
adequate time for the public to respond to such a weighty document. If the
City Council received the budget 15 days prior to the beginning of the 30-day
period, that 15 days would be sufficient time for them to review it, followed
by 30 days of full public hearings.
Councilwoman Kaywood first asked Mr. Bay what the Committee's discussion was on
the matter and secondly, asked the City Manager if 45 days would mean that certain
information would not yet be available.
Mr. Bay stated at first discussions revolved around moving the submission up to
60 days. There was opposition to it, and they then centered on a 15-day improvement.
They felt a 15-day advance could be absorbed very easily in the flow time within
the administration. Relative to the 10-day period for public hearings, the idea
was, when the Council reviewed the budget, the document became public property.
If any citizen wanted to receive a copy during that time, they could do so. Their
recommendation, therefore, was that at least 10 days before the deadline, the
public would have an opportunity to speak to the budget at two meetings prior to
that deadline. There was no intent to not get the information to the public the
same 45 days in advance of the deadline.
Mayor Seymour clarified he was merely saying the Council should have the budget
45 days prior to June 30th which would allow 15 days for them to begin to look
at it, which would then give the public, as well as the Council, 30 days to conduct
hearings on the document.
Mr. Bay stated that he did not believe that would be in disagreement with the dis-
cussions of the Committee.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, stated there seemed to be an inadequate amount of
time for public hearings at the last budget submittal with only one actual hearing
having taken place'. It was his feeling that the budget should Be presented to the
Council at least 60 days prior to its adoption and to be discussed at public hear-
ings during the 45-day period.
Councilman Kott agreed and stated if the Mayor would consider amending his motion
to 60 days instead of 45, he would second that also.
78-f05~
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor thereupon amended his motion changing the 45 days to 60 days and the
30 days to 45 days. The City Manager would present the City Council with the
budget 60 days prior to beginning of each fiscal year. In iturn, the City Council
would set the first public hearing no less than 45 days priior to the adoption of
the budget. Thus, 60 days should be inserted in the proposled amendment where it
stated 45 days, and 45 days inserted where it originally stated 10 days.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the fact that the Committee did
look at 60 days, but dropped it. Councilman Overholt asked the City Manager if
he saw any problem with 60 days.
Mr. Talley stated with 60 days, the Council would have a m~ch more incomplete
document than 45 days. If the budget had to be submitted around the first of
May, the Council would be working with 9-month figures onlY.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. Councilwoman Kaywood
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Section 1210 - Revenue Bonds: "Shall Section 1210 of Article XII of the Charter
of the City of Anaheim be amended to authorize the City CoUncil to establish a
procedure by ordinance for the issuance of Refunding Bonds without requiring
each issue to be submitted to a vote of the electors?"
Councilman Kott did not favor such a recommendation. CounCilwoman Kaywood
stated that it represented the refunding in order to save boney on the interest;
Mayor Seymour stated that the voters ought to approve the issue because otherwise,
it would again be circumventing the will of the people.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that elections would have to be held at a certain time,
whereas if there was an opportunity for a lower interest rate, it would have to be
expedited immediately.
The Mayor stated that relative to refunding bond issues, sometimes they could be
refunded at higher interest rates. He then asked if the measure were approved
by Anaheim, would it be possible for the City Council, by ordinance, to refund
a bond issue at a higher interest rate.
Mr. Bay answered "yes". During their d~cussions, the issue was proposed by
the Utilities Department along with a second proposal to issue Revenue Bonds
without a vote of the electorate. They then split it into two parts--they
rejected totally the issuance of Revenue Bonds without a vote of the electorate
with one "no" vote. They first advised the Utilities Director to take the matter
to the Public Utilities Board and the Board supported the amendment relative to
refunding bonds. There was some opposition within the CRC and the vote was 6 to
1 to pass it. They discussed whether refunding and refinancing' were the same term
and the point that sold the Committee, was the fact that refunding of bonds was a
business, and there might be a time when the City would want to refund the bonds to
obtain a better interest rate which would be up to the discretion of the Council.
They asked the same question as to whether or not it was possible to refund at a
higher interest rate, and it was found that could be done on a vote of the Council.
It would, therefore, put the prerogative on the Council to pass judgment on any
refunding of bonds and if they saw fit as to whether it was going to raise the
interest rate or not.
If not in the best interest of the City, it would not be done.
78-1057
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Kott thereupon moved that, in view of the fact that he
totally supported the concept that the people should have the right to vote on
bond issues, the proposed Charter Amendment to Section 1210, not appear on the
ballot and that no change occur. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Section 1211 - Contracts on Public Works: Councilman Seymour moved that the
proposed Charter Amendment relative to Section 1211 be placed on the ballot,
am recommended by the CRC. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Section 1223 - Sale of Municipal Property: Councilman~Seymour moved that the
proposed Charter Amendment relative to Section 1223, be placed on the ballot,
as recommended by the CRC. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman
Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Section 1224 - Contracts for Professional or Consultant Services: Mayor Seymour
spoke against the proposal because he suspected if it were made a part of the City
Charter, they, as a Council, might be required to accept a contract proposal for
professional services from anybody who would claim to be an Economic Specialist.
He gave an example, the case of the Los Angeles Rams where Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) was hired to perform the economic study and analysis. There was
a great deal of difference between a person who had just received a Bachelor's
Degree in Economics and Stanford Research Institute. He did not want the Council's
hands to be tied precluding a more appropriate choice.
Mr. Bay explained that the idea was not to force going to bid, but that notices
would be published inviting proposals. It merely stated there were some people
in the City who were concerned about contracts going out to consultants, architects
and other professional services where some other people in the same business had
no indication that anything was going on. The discussion centered around whether
or not it was a fair situation. As the discussion progressed, it was decided that
some public notice be made of at least anything over $10,000, but leaving the pre-
rogative to the Council to override the matter in an urgent situation.
Councilman Seymour moved that the proposed Charter Amendment relative to Section
1224 not be placed on the ballot. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance 3898 - Public Hearings on Petitions: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance
No. 3898 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3898: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18,
CHAPTER 18.03, SECTION 18.03.060 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PETITIONS.
Before concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that relative to the election of the
Mayor, he wanted the opportunity to write the argument in opposition to the
question. Councilwoman Kaywood asked to write the argument in favor and invited
anyone else on t~e Council to join her in so doing if they wished.
The Mayor then thanked Mr. Bay and the CRC for their time and efforts.
78-1058
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
127/142: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT - EXPANSION OF COUNCIL TO SEVEN MEMBERS:
City Clerk Roberts stated that a letter from Mr. Louis Dexter relative to the
subject had been received and copied for the Council.
Councilman Roth reiterated his support for an increase in the Council from
5 to 7 members and elaborated again on some of the points supporting such a
proposal, as given at the meeting of June 5, 1978 (see minutes that date) in
which the issue was initially discussed. He stated that 7-member councils
were pretty much standard in the City Council/City Manager form of government.
With the growth of Anaheim, representation per Council Member was now well over
40,000. Most importantly, Councilman Roth pointed out with a 7-member Council,
there would be a decrease in the mathematical probabilities of a crucial one-
vote decision. There was less chance of a 4-3 vote to occur than a 3-2. He
also believed that 7-0, 6-1 or 5-2 votes were greater mandates than even a
5-0 or 4-1 vote in setting policies. It would also increase the pool of poten-
tial candidates for the office of Mayor if the electorate did not desire to
change the Charter in November. There had been some discussion in the past
that the question would be too confusing. He maintained that it could be simply
stated, shall the Council be increased from 5 to 7 members--"yes" or "no".
Councilman Kott stated that a 7-member Council, in his opinion, was a step toward
districting or ward government. He opposed ward government for reasons enumerated
at prior meetings. If there were 5 members at-large, 7 at-large members would not
enhance the situation. Also, 7 members would increase costs to the taxpayer and
might contribute to longer meetings. He could not say one thing in favor of in-
creasing the Council when its members were at-large.
Mr. Fred Brown stated that he did not believe that the issue of increasing the
Council was advocating anything other than expanding the size of the Council at-
large, and it had nothing to do with districting or ward politics. He also did
not believe that an argument could be made that only 5 people were needed to
make decisions for the City. The need was for a Council Member to represent
a finer, smaller amount of people per Member. He maintained the number of people
each Council person represented could be reduced by approximately 10,000 with a
7-member Council, and there would be a greater diversification of ideas with
perhaps some better decisions on key issues affecting the entire community.
In concluding, Mr. Brown explained that during the City Council race just ended,
the Chamber of Commerce polled their members through their "Pipeline" newsletter
as to how they felt relative to the expansion of the Council. The majority felt
it should be expanded. As well, each one of the candidates who ran for office
(Seymour, Kaywood and Overholt) were also entitled to fill out a questionnaire
and the majority had a definite attitude as to the expansion of the Council:
Councilman Seymour favored the expansion, Councilwoman Kaywood opposed it and,
Councilman Overholt favored it. He hoped now that they had been elected, they
could keep with the thoughts and the discussions they had with the populace.
Councilman Kott did not believe there was much substance to Mr. Brown's presenta-
tion and he took issue with some of the things that were said. He also pointed
out that Mr. Brown was incorrect since Councilman Overholt's questionnaire indicated
he was opposed to such an expansion.
78-1059
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Brown apologized and asked to stand corrected on the matter.
Mayor Seymour explained what he stated in the questionnaire was that he favored
placing the question on the ballot to let the people decide. He also qualified
his favoring the possibility of a 7-member Council with the stipulation, if it
would better serve the people. He clarified he did not object to the question
being placed on the ballot.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she also took a poll by sending letters to the
three cities in the county who had 7-member councils, and there were several people
who served on Councils with both 5 and 7 members. The majority favored a 5-member
Council and they saw no reason for an increase unless ~here,.was going to' be district-
ing. One favored 7, and 2 new Council Members felt that 7 was better, one was too
new and had no opinion.
Mr. Louis Dexter then briefed the Council on his letter dated August 7, 1978
(on file in the City Clerk's Office) which contained data supportive of expan-
sion of the Council membership from 5 to 7 members. He also elaborated upon the
laws of probability relative to voting with a 3-, 5-, 7-, 9- and il-member Council.
He maintained that a 7-member Council would also bring about diversity in serving
different sectors of the City. He emphasized that there was a tremendous demand
for such an expansion, and he was highly supportive of placing the question on
the ballot.
Mr. James Theis, 2131 South Spinnaker, stated that the entire State of South Dakota
had only 200,00 people and in Anaheim, 5 people were trying to govern the lives
of 213,000. The voters should be allowed to use their intelligence as to whether
they did or did not want more people to govern their lives.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to direct the City Attorney to draw the necessary
ballot language for the placement of a proposed Charter Amendment on the November
ballot, giving the electorate a choice of increasing the Council from 5 to 7
members. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that he did not have any objections,
but believed the situation to be a move by the VOTE organization to try to increase
its influence on the Council and also of the idea of electing a Mayor from the
Council. He maintained it was very obvious and quite orchestrated. The claim by
VOTE members was that better representation would result; however, Council Members
were at-large members and the result instead would be an increase in costs, salaries,
etc. Having more people did not address the issue of quality at all.
In order to set the record straight, Councilman Roth explained there had never
been a discussion by any VOTE members with him relative to increasing the Council.
Mr. Brown also took issue with Councilman Kott's statement relative to VOTE since
he felt it was addressed to him. He did not recall in his presentation mentioning
the VOTE organization and he respectfully asked Councilman Kott to rescind his
statement. He was before the Council as an individual. When he ran for office,
he did get the endorsement of that organization, but to say the organization was
a puppeteer of the move toward Council expansion was improper, and he believed it
to be a very foolish statement.
78-1060
~jty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated that he would not rescind his statement since it was his
opinion. Mr. Brown was also entitled to feel as he did and likewise he (Kott)
was entitled to his views.
Mr. Dexter also addressed the VOTE matter and took issue with some of the state-
ments made.
Councilman Overholt stated he would support the motion although up to a very
recent date, he could not concede adding two more speeches to everything the
Council had to consider, along with the additional expense and time involved.
However, a number of people had spoken with him regarding the proposed expan-
sion. He emphasized that he was opposed to districting, but with a larger
Council representation, there would be a bigger mix and more Council Members
could be contacted by various people thus resulting in his support of the
motion. It was something the people should have the right to decide.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that every 15 minutes spent at the Council
meeting translated into 2 hours in the City Clerk's Office alone. She agreed
that what was necessary was quality and not quantity. There would be another
opportunity before the 1980 election so that the question would not have to go
on the November ballot.
Mayor Seymour stated he would support a straw ballot question, yes--we want
7 members, but if it was going to be encumbered to officially change the Charter,
he would not support the measure because it would be too confusing. Subsequently,
at the next election, the legal language could be provided to be incorporated in
the Charter.
Councilman Roth did not believe the Mayor's suggestion would make any difference,
and he stated he would not amend his motion to reflect that recommendation. Mayor
Seymour thereupon withdrew his second to the motion.
City Attorney Hopkins then read what the ballot question would say and since
it was not overly extensive, Mayor Seymour withdrew his objection and reinstated
his second to the motion.
Mr. Bay stated the subject was broached and discussed by the CRC against his ad-
vice to the Committee not to discuss the issue. The Committee decided to infor-
mally discuss the matter with a number of Council Members. A straw
vote was also taken to see how many Committee members supported the increase and
the vote was 5 "no", 1 "ye~" and 2 abstensions. He was one of the abstensions.
As a private citizen, however, he favored putting the question on the ballot to
let the people decide.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.~
City Attorney Hopkins stated in connection with the motion, he would also make
the necessary modifications in the pertinent Charter Sections consistent with
the ballot language.
78-1061
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour confirmed that he did not favor a 7-member Council, but did favor
a vote of the people. He wished that those who voted in favor of letting the
people decide the question would have voted the same way in letting them decide
who they wanted as a Mayor. He further stated that he and Councilman Kott would
write the argument against a 7-member Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she might also sign the argument against, after
she had an opportunity to review their argument.
Councilman Roth stated he would write the argument for expansion of the Council.
165: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS~ PHASE I: (Alley north of Lincoln
Avenue, between Emily Street and Claudina Street - Account No. 46-792-6325-2010)
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-507 for adoption, awarding a contract
to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in
his memorandum dated July 31, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-507: 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: ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I - ALLEY N/O LINCOLN AVENUE
BETWEEN EMILY STREET AND CLAUDINA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
46-792-6325-2010. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, $25,975.25)
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-507 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWENTY-FIVE THREE PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS -
BID NO. 3442: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the low bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply Corporation, Items 1 and 2 (20 three-
phase padmount transformers) was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount
of $52,809.20, including tax, and the low bid of General Electric Company, Item
3 (5 three-phase padmount transformers) was accepted and purchase authorized in
the amount of $21,459.70, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in
his memorandum dated August 1, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 9212 AND 9215 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Robert C.
Vatcher, The Baldwin Company, for an extension of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 9212
and 9215 to establish a 48- and 49-1ot RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision on property
located on the south and west sides of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Anaheim Hills Road,
was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, an extension of time
to Tentative Tract Nos. 9212 and 9215 was approved, effective October 27, 1978, to
expire October 27, 1979, as recommended by the Engineering and Zoning Divisions.
MOTION CARRIED.
78-1062
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
1~08: REQUEST TO CHANGE NAME OF AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT PREMISES PERMIT
FOR ANAHEIM RECREATION CENTER: Request by Dorothy Irene Hoskins to add her
name to the Amusement/Entertainment Premises Permit issued for the Anaheim
Recreation Center, 621 North Euclid Street, and to delete the name of Laird
Dean Hoskins therefrom, pursuant to the Order of an Orange County Superior
Court Case, subject to the provisions of the City of Anaheim Ordinance No.
3552, was submitted.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the subject
request to add the name of Dorothy Irene Hoskins to the subject permit and
delete the name of Laird Dean Hoskins, was approved, as recommended by th~ City
Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
175: WATER REVENUE BONDS - BOND AMOUNT AND PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT:
Councilman Roth moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare the final language
for the November 1978 Water Revenue Bonds measure. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked if the subject was the bond issue
where several million dollars would be used for unincorporated areas.
The Mayor stated the report from the Public Utilities Board dated August 4, 1978,
recommending approval, indicated that approximately $2 million would be used for
transmission lines.
Councilman Kott thereupon stated he could not support the proposal and would
have to vote "no" unless that aspect were removed.
City Manager Talley explained that the Utilities Director stated he would not
issue the bonds if that condition existed at the time they were prepared to
issue the bonds. The City would not serve the area and therefore would not
issue the bonds. The proposal would put the bond issue on the ballot for the
people to decide, but the City would not exercise all of the bonds and sell them
if the City was not going to move into the area to serve it as part of the City
of Anaheim.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Superintendent, stated that the question was broached
at the last PUB meeting whereby it was asked what would occur if the area out
in the Canyon would not come into Anaheim, but incorporated into the City of
Vista del Rio. Mr. Hoyt stated at that time, that he had no intention of the
City serving water to the area if that occurred.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-508 for adoption, authorizing the
placement of a $14 million Water Revenue Bond authorization on the November 1978
ballot. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-508: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF A FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLAR WATER REVENUE BOND
AUTHORIZATION ON THE NOVEMBER 1978 BALLOT.
78-1063
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-508 duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-49 - AMENDMENT TO CONDITION: Request by Mr. Floyd
Farano for temporary or conditional waiver of Condition No. 9 of Resolution No.
77R-669, relating to obtaining an Encroachment Permit, was submitted.
Councilman Kott stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on the issue.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to set the subject matter for a public hearing
on August 22, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. to amend or delete Condition No. 9 of Reclassi-
fication No 76-77-49. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant, stated
he apparently must have given the wrong impression in his letter dated August 3,
1978, relative to the waiver of Condition No. 9. The present extension of time
from the Council for the building permit was scheduled to terminate in August
and they were set for commencement of construction on August 25, 1978, and were
hoping to acquire their building permit. Rather than a public hearing, he
wanted to know if there was a way that the requirement for an encroachment per-
mit could be put in suspension until the County acted on their abandonment
proceedings.
In answer to the Mayor relative to the question, City Attorney Hopkins stated
the only way there could be a waiver of the condition was by a public hearing.
Mr. Farano explained further that the person who could grant the encroachment
permit stated he could not do so because there was no dedication, and the reason
there was no dedication was due to the fact that the abandonment proceeding
was pending. They could not get their building permit until they received the
encroachment permit, and he could not get the encroachment permit until all the
other things were done. In other words, if the Orange County Board of Supervisors
granted the abandonment, then the dedication would be a moot point. If not granted,
then they would make the dedication. They were not really asking the Council to
waive the condition completely, but it was the one item necessary before they
could get a building permit.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed twice that a public hearing was necessary since
it was the only way the condition could be legally changed.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
78-1064
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 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:
a. Claim submitted by Richard L. White and Charles A. Berthiaume for property
damages purportedly sustained as a result of the grading and terracing of prop-
erty adjacent to 465 Peralta Hills Drive on or about April 24, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Crawford & Company for property damages purportedly
sustained by their insured, Francis Huntley, as a result of a traffic signal
malfunction at Lincoln and Western on or about June 9, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Noel A. Delgado for general damages and personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of a collision with another vehicle in the
Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot on or about May 7, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of July 17 and 31, 1978.
b. 150: Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes of June 28, 1978.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of June 1, 15 and 22, 1978.
d. 175: Monthly report for May 1978 - Utilities Department, Electrical
Engineering Division.
e. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of July 26, 1978.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following application was approved in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Application for a Public Dance Permit on behalf of the Sabor Car Club, for
a dance to be held at La Palma Park on Friday, September 22, 1978, between the
hours of 9:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. (Andrew Pizano, applicant)
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10474: Submitted by Goodman-Jones, to establish
an Il-lot, 10-unit RS-HS-iO,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located west
of Villareal Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 31, 1978, approved
Tentative Tract No. 10474 and granted negative declaration status.
MOTION CARRIED.
175: PACIFIC TELEPHONE - RATE APPLICATION NO. 58223: Application to the
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to increase rates for certain telephone
services was removed from the City Council consent calendar by Councilman
Kott for discussion.
MOTION: Councilman Kott stated he wished to oppose Pacific Telephone's appli-
cation since he did not support increases requested by monopolies such as Pacific
Telephone. The more phones they had, the cheaper they should be able to operate.
He thereupon moved that the Council not support the rate application to increase
rates requested by Pacific Telephone Company. The motion died for lack of a
second.
78-1065
City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-509
through 78R-514, 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-509: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Otto Henning,
et al.; Adeline M. Dimick, et al.; Goldie G. Montgomery, et al.; Goldie G.
Montgomery, et al.; Donald L. Gardner, et ux.; Walter H. Hiekel; William G.
Maingot, et ux.; Dunn Properties Corporation; Christopher L. Clair, et ux.;
Bernice Gonzales; Elsworth L. Kirkelie, et ux.; Jarrett C. Palmer; August F.
Lenain, et ux.; Henry Bernard Sweeney, et ux.; C. E. Strickland, et ux.; Thelma L.
Herman; Winnifred A. Jacques; Bertha Q. Hernandez, et al.; Frank Pagliari, et al.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-510: 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: NOHL RANCH
ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD TO 760' W/O IMPERIAL HIGHWAY -
PHASE I, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, A.H.F.P. NOS. 908 & 909, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-
6325-2130; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT 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 September 7, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-511: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENTS. (77-17A, northwest of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road -
public hearing set for August 29, 1978, 3:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-512: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENTS. (77-27A, East side of Anaheim Boulevard between Pacifico and
Orangewood Avenue - public hearing set for August 29, 1978, 3:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-513: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (77-78-1A, south of Orange Avenue, west of Knott - public hearing set
for August 29, 1978, 3:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-514: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS
AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-4A, a portion of Oak Street,
Helena Street and Lincoln Avenue - public hearing set for August 29, 1978,
3:00 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 Resolution Nos. 78R-509 through 78R-514, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
78-1066
~ity Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
176: ABANDONMENT NO. 77-23A: Dale Price & Associates, Sunburst Development,
Inc., to abandon an existing public utility and water line easements and an
equestrian and hiking easement located southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road,
east of Montanera Road, north of Via Arboles, in Tract No. 9524.
The recommended action is to set the matter for public hearing on August 29,
1978, at 3:00 P.M.
Mayor Seymour requested this item be removed from the City Council calendar in
order that he could abstain from voting on the matter for reasons stated at
previous meetings.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-515 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-515: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS.
(77-23A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-515 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held July 17, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1842: Submitted by Equitec 77-Real Estate Investors,
to permit retail sales of furniture on ML zoned property located at 1200 East
Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-159, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1842 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1856: Submitted by Greg George, to permit a
drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located northeast of Lincoln Avenue
and Western Avenue with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-166, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1856 and granted negative delcaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1861: Submitted by the Lutheran Home Association
of California, to expand a retirement home on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located
at 891 South Walnut Street.
78-1067
qi. ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-167, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1861 and granted negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1862: Submitted by Albert de Mascio and Dale
Family Trust, to permit a public dancing facility on CL zoned property located
at 125 North State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-168, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1862 and ratified the Planning Director's categor-
ical exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1863: Submitted by Danny L. Kiker, et al, to
expand a service station on RS-7200 zoned property located at 770 North East
Street with a code waiver of minimum landscaped area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-169, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1863 and ratified the Planning Director's categor-
ical exemption determination.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1867: Submitted by Stanley John Betz, to permit
an auto body and paint shop on ML zoned property located at 1531 West Broadway
with a code waiver of maximum area of wall sign.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-170, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1867 and ratified the Planning Director's categor-
ical exemption determination.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3013: Submitted by Robert A. and Rosemarie Smith, to construct
a free-standing sign on ML zoned property located south of Winston Road and west
of Sunkist Street with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-158, granted
Variance No. 3013, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3031: Submitted by Bernardo M. Yorba, Jr., to construct a
free-standing ground mounted sign on CL(SC) zoned property located at 100 South
Imperial Highway with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-160, granted
Variance No. 3031 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-47 AND VARIANCE NO. 2995 - APPROVAL OF REVISED
PLANS: Request of Bob Michelson for approval of revised plans on CL zoned
property located on the east side of Euclid Street, south of Romneya Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved revised plans for Reclassification No.
77-78-47 and Variance No. 2995.
78-1068
City Ha.ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 486 - TERMINATION: Request of Bank of America
for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 486 to construct new service
station facilities on existing service station property located at 300 South
Anaheim Boulevard on approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1845.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-171, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 486.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1087 - TERMINATION: Request by Leonard G.
Muskin and Donald T. Leahy for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1087
to permit a semi-enclosed restaurant on property located east of Harbor Boulevard,
south of Orangewood Avenue as condition of approval to Conditional Use Permit No.
1839.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-174, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1087.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1166 AND 1645 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS:
Request of the Town Tour Fun Bus Company, Inc., for approval of revised plans
to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645 for expansion and bus storage and
repair facilities on property located west of Mountain View Avenue, south of
Katella Way.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans for Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1567 - TERMINATION: Request of Income Property
Services for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1567 to permit auto sales
agencies on property located south of La Palma Avenue between White Star and
Armando Streets as condition of approval to Conditional Use Permit No. 1831.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-173, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1567.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1671 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of William R.
and Barbara L. Whitla for a two-year extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. 1671 for on-sale of beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned prop-
erty at 1527 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1671, to expire December 6, 1980.
15. VARIANCE NO. 2720 - TERMINATION: Request by Joseph M. and Mary M. Anton
for termination of Variance No. 2720, to construct a specialty market on CL
zoned property located southeast of La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard as
condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1829.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-172, terminated
Variance No. 2720.
78-1069
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
16. 155: EIR REVIEW PROCEDURES - STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS:
Agreement with staff report dated July 17, 1978 by the City Planning Commission.
The City Planning Commission agreed with the staff report dated July 17, 1978
setting forth procedure for processing statement of overriding considerations
in connection with EIRs.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-6 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1866: Application
by Carl Cissell, William M. and Betty Jo Clow, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RS-5000 on property located north and east of Simmons Avenue
and Haster Street to permit a 36-unit planned unit development with a waiver
of minimum building site area per unit.
The Planning Commission determined that the project was previously approved
under General Plan Amendment No. 145 and Environmental Impact Report No. 212,
and pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-164 and PC78-165, granted Reclassification
No. 78-79-6 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1866.
Mr. James Theis, 2131 South Spinnaker, stated he wanted the subject item set
for a public hearing. If the Council set the matter, it would save him $175,
but the real reason revolved around the fact that the matter had been contested
by his neighborhood for almost 23 months. He felt that the item should be brought
up before the local community so that they would have an opportunity to voice
their opinions and objections to the planned development.
Councilman Kott left the Council Chamber. (1:28 A.M.)
Councilman Roth was of the opinion that the project had now been submitted along
the lines the Council requested at the last meeting concerning the matter. The
architect, Don Rowland, was asked to revise his plans and come up with a mix
close to what was now being presented, and that was the agreement. He did not
believe they should be holding a public hearing again.
Planning Director Ron Thompson stated that the Planning Commission was of the
opinion that the development, as proposed by the applicant, was in accordance
with the General Plan and the Council's desires.
Councilman Roth felt that all possible had been done to meet the wishes of the
neighborhood, especially relative to density, and there was finally some agreement
as to a mix of residential that would satisfy both the people of the area and the
property owner.
Mr. Theis contended that they submitted the exact same plan, plus one more house
with a tennis court, to the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that according to the minutes, gross maximum
density was to be 7 to the acre and the plan submitted was 6.97 per acre, thus
meeting the qualifications.
78-1070
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Theis maintained it was the same plan with the same identical units, and the
applicant did not meet any of the desires of the neighborhood.
Councilman Kott returned to the Council Chamber. (1:31 A.M.)
After briefing Councilman Kott relative to the matter and what had transpired,
he asked staff if the proposed project had access to Simmons Street.
Mr. Thompson stated that the project had one access toward the easterly end of
the property. The rest was a variable masonry wall along Simmons Street. He
clarified for the Mayor that the access was easterly of the extension of Mountain
View, but it did not connect, and there was no through traffic.
The Mayor stated he would not set the matter for a public hearing because from
the documentation in his agenda packet and the questions raised, in his opinion,
that neighborhood had received the best deal possible as far as land use. The
Council had done two things: (1) decreased the density and (2) changed the method
of ownership. Originally, it was a tenant-apartment complex and now it was condo-
miniums.
Mr. Theis did not agree. At the Planning Commission when Mr. Clow presented his
plan, it was a 34-unit development of condominiums that could be sold for rentals.
He had since acquired another acre of land and increased the units to 35, and
they were still condominiums to be sold for rentals.
Mayor Seymour pointed out that the project started out as an apartment develop-
ment; Mr. Theis clarified that originally 64 apartment units were proposed.
The Mayor stated that another hearing could be held with the possibility that
new and different information would be presented, but he did not believe that
to be the case and he did not want to put the neighborhood through another
hearing. He was of the opinion that the Council, as well as the Planning Commis-
sion, had, in finality, done a good job relative to the project.
Mr. Theis stated that he already petitioned for the matter to be appealed before
the City Council before the 5:00 p.m. deadline on August 8, 1978, but if a Council
person were to set it for a public hearing, it would save him a personal loss of
$I75.
The Mayor stated if the City Council reversed the Planning Commission's decision,
he would offer a motion that Mr. Theis' appeal fee be reimbursed.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10167 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-51(27) - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC
PLANS: Request by Shamrock Contractors, Inc., for approval of specific floor
plans and elevations for Tentative Tract No. 10167, Lots 1 through 12, to estab-
lish a 15-lot RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located north and
east of Country Hill Road, south of Mohler Drive, was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, specific plans
for Tentative Tract No. 10167, Lots 1 through 12, were approved, as recommended
by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ORDINANCE NO. 3895: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3895 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
78-1071
~i_ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3895: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM. (maximum retirement age and increased level of 1959 Survivor.~
Benefits for miscellaneous members)
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. 3895 duly passed and adopted.
167: ORDINANCE NO. 3896: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3896 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3896: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER
14.58 TO TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FEES.
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 Ordinance No. 3896 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-516 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-516: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES.
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-516 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3899 THROUGH 3901: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos.
3899 through 3901, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3899: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-55, CL)
78-1072
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 8.~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3900: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(21) and (22), RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3901: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-41(3), RS-HS-10,000,
Tract No. 9750)
114: REQUEST PERMISSION TO LEAVE STATE: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Overholt was granted permission
to leave the State for 90 days. MOTION CARRIED.
114: REQUEST PERMISSION TO LEAVE STATE: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Roth, Councilwoman Kaywood was granted permission to
leave the State for 90 days. MOTION CARRIED.
148: LEAGUE OF CITIES ELECTION: Councilwoman Kaywood announced that elections
would be held at the League of California Cities meeting on Thursday, August 10,
1978. There was a contested spot for Second Vice President between Ralph Welch
of Tustin and Norma Hertzog of Costa Mesa. She asked whether the Mayor wanted
to make a decision as to choice or if he wished the Council to make a decision.
The Mayor answered if the Council was presently sufficiently informed to make
a decision or recommendation, he would accept that. If not, he would vote his
conscience.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she considered both to be good people; Costa Mesa
was a Consortium City; Tustin was a small city, and the other officers were from
small cities.
No further input was received from the Council.
114: REQUEST PERMISSION TO LEAVE STATE: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Roth was granted permission to
leave the State for 90 days. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the Council meeting was adjourned.
Adjourned: 1:42 A.M. August 9, 1978