1978/08/2978-1127
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth a~d Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linde D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry
CITY ENGINEER: 3ames P. Maddox
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
FIRE CHIEF: James Riley
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Cordon Hoyt
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Bob Lyons
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST: Kate Kocher
Mayor Seymour called ~he meeting ~o order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
MOMENT OF SILENCE:
In lieu of an invocation, a moment of silence was observed.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led ~he aseembly in ~he Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag]-
119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A Resolution of Support was adopted by the City
~'UnCil andpresented 'to M~-j Bob Barton for the Senior Health Fair scheduled for
September 10, 1978, at La Palms Park.
172~ TRAFFIC DIVERTERS ON CAMINO MANZANO: City Attorney Hopkins first reported
~h~% 'in revfewing the Statutes, it Was h'i~ opinion that an assessment district
could not be set up to pay for the cost of a traffic diverter as discussed at
the meeting of August 22, 1978 (see minutes that date). Relative to whether or
not the City could furnish the materials and the citizens construct the project,
Mr. Hopkins stated tht the job was considered to be a public works project which,
according to the City Charter, must be let by a public bid, As well, a public
hearing would have to be held if a portion of the street was to be closed to
public traffic.
Mr. Murray Zuta, representative from the neighborhood, stated he did not have much
to offer in view of the City Attorney's report although they did have various
contractors look at the proposal. However, their community would be satisfied
with Alternative No. 2 ($25,000). In having con2ractors look at the project,
they felt that the proposed amount of $25,000 could be reduced by at least 20
to 30 percent. In concluding, Mr. Zuta requested the following in order to move
the project forward: (1) setting of a public hearing for the street closure and
(2) directing the Engineering Division to set out specificatio~s on the project
and put it out to bid in order to expedite the job,
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that Alternative No. 2 was acceptable with
the understanding that some landscaping would have to be installed to prevent any
transients between the two heads of the cul-de-sac. Also, the Fire Department
78-1128
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
requested that serious consideration be given to renaming the street which could
be done at the public hearing for the street closure.
Mr. Zuta stated that relative to landscaping, if that aspect was left out of the
specifications, they as a community would install the necessary landscaping after
the City had completed the construction of the diverter.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that could be worked out with the City Engineer.
Mayor Seymour was interested in trying to find a way to take advantage of the
offer of the neighborhood in their efforts to reduce the cost of the diverter.
He asked the City Attorney if, in going through the public bid process, there
was some way in that process the City could work with Mr. Zuta and the leader-
ship in his neighborhood in having them submit a bid.
Mr. Hopkins explained that the Government Code required advertising and following
the normal bidding procedure, which was also spelled out in the City Charter, and
subsequently an evaluation would be made. The contractors would have to submit
bids on their own without any assistance from the City, just as with anyone else.
The Mayor was concerned that if the Council were to start to spend $25,000 each
time from the Council Contingency Fund to solve such problems throughout the
City, they might have a problem. He would favor an expenditure from the Council
Contingency Fund on a basic traffic diverter ($3,000), but not a $25,000 job.
On the other hand, he would be willing to expend $15,000 to $18,000 on the $25,000
job, as long as a contractor from the neighborhood would be willing to assist and
do the job at cost.
Mr. Zuta stated they were prepared to propose such an arrangement, but they could
not do so until the initiation of the bidding procedure.
MOTi~ON: Councilman Kott moved to approve Alternative No. 2 ($25,000) with the
job to be bid through the normal bidding procedure; contractors from the community
also to submit bids; set a public hearing relative to street closures, including
a street name change as requested by the Fire Department. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, a brief discussion followed between the Council and
staff wherein City Engineer Maddox indicated that plans could be ready within
3 to 4 weeks. The Mayor also clarified that the plans should include all but
the actual landscaping itself. He also stated that since money would be expended
from the Council Contingency Fund for the actual construction, it was not asking
too much for staff to prepare plans and specifications out of their budget.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the minutes
of the regular meeting held June 6, 1978, were approved subject to typographical
corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1129
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 19.78~ 1:30 P..M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,008,650.98, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
101: AGREEMENT WITH LOS ANGELES RAMS: Councilman Kott stated that since many
questions had been raised within the last couple of weeks regarding the Rams
contract, he wanted to hold a public hearing relative to the matter so that
the taxpayers of Anaheim could have an opportunity to question the Council and
ascertain certain findings relative to the contract. It could also be determined
whether or not the item should be referended. He favored such an action and so
moved.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Kott stated he believed it was unfortunate
that, since both the Rams move and the real estate associated with that move were
two separate issues, both were in one contract. That was the essence of a great
deal of questioning and confusion. He reiterated it would be in order as elected
officials that they give the public an opportunity to ask questions to avoid
future problems.
Mayor Seymour stated first he would have no problem whatsoever in conducting as
many hearings as necessary in order to insure that the public was fully informed
relative to any portion of the negotiations with the Rams or the agreement to
agree already signed. He believed it to be premature at this time to set a date
because some relevant information was not yet available in which the public would
undoubtedly express interest. The Stanford Research economic analysis was not
yet available, specifications had not yet been developed, the exact cost of the
facility itself had not yet been determined, nor a specific lease contract written
for the use of the Stadium, as well as a specific contract covering land development.
He reiterated what had been written, signed and agreed to was an agreement to agree
setting forth general principles. He was not opposed to public hearings and sup-
ported the concept, but he did not favor starting those hearings before all facts
were in, merely because of one individual, Mr. Douglas Patty. Mr. Patty had stated
he would spend any amount of money to insure that the Rams did not come to Anaheim
unless, in his opinion, Mr. Patty was fortunate enough to own the franchise. The
Council had to be prepared to face the reality that a multi-millionaire was suddenly
placing himself in a position of a crusader acting in the people's best interest.
As the Mayor understood the facts, Mr. Patty was acting in his own interest for the
purposes of making a dollar--the dollars he lost in the sinking of the California
Sun football team.
Mayor Seymour continued that from the very beginning of negotiations, the City had
been very open with the press and the public, and there was no secret about the
agreement to agree that the Council unanimously approved and the Rams signed. The
appropriate time for public hearings would be prior to the time that the City signed
a detailed lease agreement on the Stadium and a detailed contract for development
on the rest of the Stadium property. He would be happy to second the motion indi-
cating the same.
78-1130
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott believed that the public input might assist in fulfilling the
agreement to agree and thus he preferred to leave his motion in the form offered.
The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour offered a substitute motion: Prior to the time of
signing a final lease agreement on the Stadium and a final contract for the
development of the Stadium property relative to the agreement with the Rams,
that a public hearing be held. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt pointed out that if the public did have questions, the docu-
mentation regarding the Rams agreement was a matter of public record and avail-
able for their viewing. As well, there were five Council people available and
ready to answer any questions that any citizen might have regarding the entire
transaction.
158/101: QUITCLAIM DEED FROM ANAHEIM STADIUM, INC.: (certain real property
bounded by State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, Route 57 Freeway and
Katella Avenue) Frank Lowry, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the
quitclaim deed was required by Title Insurance and Trust Company to assure
the divestiture of the 95 acres from Anaheim Stadium, Inc. (ASI), because they
had a 41-year leasehold interest in that property. Last evening the ASI Board
of Directors unanimously voted to tender a quitclaim deed to the City of its
leasehold interest. Thus, the proposed resolution was requesting acceptance
of that particular document which would be necessary for the financing of the
refunding issue for the Stadium.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-553 for adoption. Refer to Reso-
lution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-553: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A QUITCLAIM DEED FROM CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-553 duly passed and adopted.
101: ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA)
STADIUM, INC.: Mr. Lowry explained that as a result of the meeting last evening
with the Board of Directors of Anaheim Stadium Inc., the three following changes
had to be made to the proposed resolution because they did not know the exact
amount of the bonds involved in the two bond issues at the time of preparation:
Page 1--paragraph 5--change $12,700,000 to, "not to exceed $12 million." Just
below under "Special Obligation Bond"--should state, "an amount not to exceed
$13,500,000." Minor change in By-Laws for consistency--one-day notice to be given
to the City Manager the same as one-day notice to be given to the Board of Directors.
78-1131
City Hal. l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Lowry continued that under the Commissioner of Corporations ruling, in
order to make bonds tax exempt, the corporation must submit those Articles
of Incorporation and By-Laws to the City Council for approval, also requiring
that the City receive notice and have an opportunity of the floor at all Board
meetings. This was a requirement of the "blue sky" laws of the State of Cali-
fornia and the specific reason they were being presented to the Council.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-554 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-554: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS OF, THE CURRENT FINANCING
PLANS OF, AND THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY, CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-554 duly passed and adopted.
123: SUPPLEMENTAL DENTAL PLANS~ INC. - GROUP P~_~P_AID SERVICE: (January 1, 1978-
December 31, 1980) Personnel Director Garry McRae first answered questions posed
by Councilman Kott.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that on Page 14, Section A--General Provisions--Plans
Records--it stated, "...in the event that an eligible member shall seek the services
of another dentist, the plan shall make X-rays and service records of each eligible
member available for copying (at eligible member's or group expense)...". She
wanted to have, "or group expense" removed. She did not know, however, if it was
something subject to negotiations.
Mr. McRae stated that the document itself had been subject to a number of negotia-
tions. He pointed out that the group absolute expense was the expense of the
monthly premium. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was specifically why it should
not be included. Mr. McRae commented that he did not have a problem with the
change, but did not know what it would mean in terms of getting it signed.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-555 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated August 21, 1978, from the Personnel Department. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-555: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY oF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SUPPLEMENTAL DENTAL PLANS,
INC. AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-555 duly passed and adopted.
78-1132
C_ity Ha.ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated his "no" vote was due to the fact he did not know the
dollar figures involved.
150/155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CITY PARK
PROJECTS: For proposed improvements to Peralta Canyon Park and expansion and
improvements to John Marshall Park.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds
that these projects will have no significant effect on the environment and are,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
150/174: LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION CONTINGENCY RESERVE-URBAN RECREATION DEMON
STRATION PROGRAM FUNDS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-556 for
adoption as recommended in memorandum dated August 29, 1978, from James Ruth,
Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-556: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION CONTINGENCY RESERVE-URBAN
RECREATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE PEARSON PARK POOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-556 duly passed and adopted.
155: CERTIFICATION OF EIR NO. 271 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AGENCY: (Meats Avenue extension) EIR No. 271, having been reviewed by the City
staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with
City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act,
the City Council acting upon such information and belief that the potential project
generated environmental impacts have been reduced to an insignificant level by
conformance with City plans, policies and ordinances, does hereby certify on motion
by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that EIR No. 271 is in compli-
ance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines
MOTION CARRIED. ·
132: REVISION OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SANITATION. Councilman Kott
offered Ordinance No. 3907 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3907: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTERS 6.20
AND 6.21 OF TITLE 6 AND CHAPTER 10.12 OF TITLE 10, AND ADDING NEW CHAPTERS 10.10
AND 10.12 TO TITLE 10 AND NEW SECTION 6.56.080 TO TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.56 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SANITATION.
78-1133
C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123/132: COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
SOLID WASTE - JAYCOX SANITARY SERVICE AND ANAHEIM DISPOSAL~ INC. AND MODIFI
CATION OF SANITATION ~'~ STRUCTURE AND RATES: (agreements to expire June 30,
1983 with both Jaycox and Anaheim Disposal) Councilman Kott offered Resolution
Nos. 78R-557 through 78R-559, both inclusive, for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated August 23, 1978, from the Director of Public Works. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-557: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND JAYCOX SANITARY SERVICE OF ANAHEIM, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (residential solid waste)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-558: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND ANAHEIM DISPOSAL, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT. (commercial and industrial solid waste)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-559: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING SANITATION CHARGES.
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-557 through 78R-559 both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted. '
114: REVISION OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 539 RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF GAME
ARCADES: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that some existing game arcades were' closer
than 600 feet to schools and wanted to know if they would fall under a grandfather
clause.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that those would have to be looked at on an individual
basis. If they had been permitted, the City would have an obligation to see that
they were retained, but any future action would be in accordance with the proposed
policy.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Council Policy No.
539 relating to the establishment of game arcades was revised, as recommended in
memorandum dated August 10, 1978, from the City Attorney's Office, as follows:
"It is the policy of the City Council that game arcades be considered similar to
other amusement, such as bowling alleys, billiard parlors, slot car racing, etc.,
and are therefore permitted as a matter of right in the CL, CG, CH and C-R Zones.
Such arcades will continue to be subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code which prohibits such games, recreational devices, or amuse-
ment devices within six hundred (600) feet of any school. Machines for the dis-
pensing of music are excluded from this restriction on location."
MOTION CARRIED.
78-1134
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
148: VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE - ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Mayor Seymour was
designated as the Voting Delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood, Alternate, at the Annual
League of California Cities Conference. MOTION CARRIED.
116: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, Mr. Thomas Schuller, Vice
President and General Manager of Autonetics Strategic Systems Division, was
appointed to the Economic Development Corporation. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the balance of the
appointments to the Economic Development Corporation was continued one week.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO BUDGET BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE: On motion by
Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, Mr. William Gist, Comptroller
of Delco-Remy, a subsidiary of General Motors, was appointed to the Budget Blue
Ribbon Committee. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Herb Leo,
MCP Foods, was appointed to the Budget Blue Ribbon Committee. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, Mr. William
Bridgford, Chairman of the Board, Bridgford Foods, was appointed to the
Budget Blue Ribbon Committee on the basis that he would not have to attend
night meetings. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the balance of
the appointments to the Budget Blue Ribbon Committee was continued one week.
MOTION CARRIED.
180: EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE - RENEWAL PLACEMENT: Assistant City Manager
William Hopkins explained that in attempting to obtain adequate coverage of the
insurance being provided under the Admiral First State, the lowest submitted to
the Council, it was determined necessary to designate S & H Insurance to provide
additional coverage at an additional cost of $10,000. The reason was based on
the questions raised by Continental General Insurance (CGI) regarding the sub-
mission of a bid by Admiral First State (AFS), a non-admitted firm to the State
of California for submitting bids. However, because their's was a unique form
of bid, it was considered a proper and appropriate bid for excess liability
insurance.
Councilman Roth questioned the additional $10,000 cost.
Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, explained that was the figure agreed upon by
S & H Insurance as a condition of their participating in the insurance program.
It was not unusual for an admitted company in the type of insurance involved to
front for carriers that were not admitted. A carrier admitted to write insurance
in the State of California or any other state was subject to the insurance rules of
that state. Mr. Love also confirmed for Councilman Roth that Mayor Seymour's
previous motion (see minutes of August 8, 1978) was contingent upon picking up the
same cost. The $10,000 represented an additional cost, but it was still the lowest
78-1135
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
cost for the insurance. Mr. Parker of Continental General Insurance did do
further shopping after he became aware of the additional cost and approached
a company called Northwood Insurance which was an admitted carrier and their
quotation was $135,000.
Mayor Seymour expressed his concern relative to the additional $10,000 even
though it was still the lowest bid. He referred to Mr. Love's memorandum dated
August 23, 1978, paragraph 3, stating the following: "There was, in fact, no
violation of Insurance Code Section 1763 by H & W because their policy form is
not duplicated by insurance company admitted to write insurance in this state."
If that were so, he could not understand the following:
4. "To avoid any further questions or charges of possible Insurance Code viola-
tions which might jeopardize their book of business with others, they decided to
obtain a fronting company and thus brought in S & H Insurance Company."
It was his opinion that the statements were contradictory, with the bottom line
being that the taxpayers were asked to pay another $10,000.
Mr. Love stated that the $10,000 increase would not have resulted had the issue
not been raised by the City's present insurance broker. There were 115 cities in
California insured with Admiral First State. As well, although he did not have
an opportunity to discuss the matter with H & W, his understanding was that
there was no evidence of a violation. The City did not actually go out to bid,
but instead selected two brokers to negotiate the best deal for Anaheim. The
type of policy form alone made it permissible to write the insurance with a non-
admitted carrier within the parameters he established.
Mr. Hal Parker, Continental General Insurance, stated he had prepared a written
report for the Council which he submitted (see report titled "Excess Liability
Insurance - September 1, 1978 Renewal Placement" on file in the City Clerk's
Office). Mr. Parker thereupon read paragraphs A, B and C, paragraph A and B
being the essence of the controversy which were as follows:
A. "H & W Insurance Services have withdrawn the quote of the Admiral/First State
Insurance Companies declaring that they were in "technical violation" of agreement
with the California Department of Insurance wherein they have agreed not to prepare
any Insurance "quotes" for municipalities which have placed their insurance out
for "bid". They further advise that the California Department of Insurance found
them to be in violation of Section 1763 of the Insurance Code two years ago in a
bid situation with the City of Buena Park and therefore had no choice but to
withdraw their bid.
B. The City Attorney has reported in his opinion that issuance of Insurance
with the Admiral/First State Insurance Companies would be in Violation of
Section 1763 of the California Insurance Code."
Mayor Seymour noted that there was a conflict; the Risk Manager stated there
was no violation and because Admiral/First State was fearful of an investigation
by the Department of Insurance, they decided to obtain a fronting company in
S & H Insurance. Mr. Parker had stated that H & W Insurance Services withdrew
the quote of the Admiral/First State Insurance Companies declaring that they were
in "technical violation" and the Department of Insurance had found them to be in
violation of Section 1763 of the Insurance Code in Buena Park, as indicated in
paragraph B, aforementioned.
78-1136
~.ity H~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the law stated, "It is conclusively pre-
sumed that the insurance is placed in violation of the law when the premium
charged by the non-admitted insurer is lower than the lower rate which would
be obtained from an admitted insurer." Mr. Parker was correct in that the
H & W people signed a letter indicating they were in technical violation.
Extensive discussion followed between Mayor Seymour, Councilman Overholt, staff
and Mr. Parker relative to the controversy and diverse points of view regarding
whether or not there was a violation of Section 1763 of the Insurance Code. City
Attorney Hopkins stated that if an investigator was sent out by the Department of
Insurance and they determined that the policy was not unique as alleged, there
would be a violation presumed by Section 1763. Had an investigation been made
with a subsequent report that there was a violation, the Insurance Department
would have made that determination. He had a letter signed by Mr. Walter T.
Wooton of H & W stating that while they believed their quotation to be entirely
proper, it was submitted on a bid basis which was in technical violation. He
presumed Mr. Wooton was referring to the agreement they had with the Department
of Insurance not to place quotations with municipalities placing their insurance
out to bid. Thus, there was a technical violation of that agreement and a poten-
tial violation of Section 1763 if it had been investigated and subsequently proven.
He confirmed for Councilman Overholt that H & W was not admitted and that they
violated Section 1763.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was.not willing to conclude there was a
violation of Section 1763 by H & W, and he did not believe they were admitting
that was so. He believed they were saying if the solicitation was on a bid
basis, that they might be in technical violation of some agreement. It was not
clear whether a bidding process was followed or not, but it was Mr. Love's im-
pression that it was not. The City was in between two brokers, each of whom
wanted their con~nission and also, in between the taxpayers and the insurance
industry with a potential increase in premium of $10,000.
Mayor Seymour recommended that the premium of $117,509 be accepted subject to
an agreement with CGI that they, because of the position in which the City now
found itself in paying $10,000 more for the premium, pay to the City a settlement
not to exceed the amount of their commission and not to exceed $10,000 in that
event. He was of the opinion that between Mr. Love's handling of the matter,
the Los Angeles broker and the involvement of all brokers, Mr. Parker included,
someone owed the City $10,000 or owed in good faith whatever they were going to
make on commission.
Mr. Parker stated as he understood, because of the way the matter was handled,
which was not of his making, CGI was going to pay for it. He had difficulty in
responding to whether or not the recommendation was acceptable since the Insurance
Code clearly stated that they could not negotiate conditions as an inducement to
make a sale. If it was determined that there was no legal problem for CGI in
accepting the Mayor's proposal, he had no objections, but would have to get his
partners to concur.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a motion confirmed as follows: Accept the
premium for excess liability insurance in the amount of $117,509 with S & H Insur-
ance Company with a separate agreement to be drawn by the City Attorney and approved
by Continental General Insurance that the City be reimbursed by them out of their
commission up to a maximum of $10,000 and if less, in that amount. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion.
78-1137
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt offered a substitute motion incor-
porating the terms of the Mayor's motion and further, directing S & H Insurance
to pay the commission to the two brokers involved by a joint check subject to
the agreement. '
Relative to Councilman Overholt's suggestion, the Mayor was concerned over the
possibility that Rollins, Burdick and Hunter would not agree as Mr. Parker had
just agreed.
Councilman Overholt asked for confirmation as to whether or not the Mayor was
directing that the entire commission on the first $500,000 be paid to CGI; the
Mayor confirmed that was true. Councilman Overholt thereupon asked that that
be part of the motion.
Mayor Seymour clarified that the entire commission be paid to CGI and with the
agreement that they would apply their commission.
City Attorney Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Overholt that the City would
not be incurring liability to the other broker after having taken a previous
action. The original agreement appeared to have been cancelled because of the
problem and he saw no basis for their making any further claim.
A brief discussion then followed relative to whether or not the Council had to
act on the matter at today's meeting since the insurance would expire August 31,
1978, at the conclusion of which Assistant City Manager Hopkins recommended that
action be taken on the original motion which he considered to be in the City's
best interest, although technically the City could be bound for the coverage and
the issue resolved at a later date.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Seymour, including
that the entire commission on the first $500,000 be paid to CGI. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Roth stated that every year the same issues arose relative
to insurance forcing the Council to have to act because expiration was imminent
which was very disconcerting to him. If the insurance companies with which the
City was dealing could not submit a quotation or whatever was necessary in a
reasonable length of time so that the Council could act accordingly, then the
Council should not recognize them as the City's insurance carrier, and he so
moved. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour suggested it would be appropriate to
include in the motion that the City Council was to be furnished with a firm and
final bid two weeks prior to the expiration date of the insurance; Councilman
Roth was agreeable, but recommended that submission be 30 days rather than two
weeks.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Love if he had any problem
with the transaction just completed.
Mr. Love stated he had very serious problems with it. It appeared to him through
no fault of Rollins, Burdick and Hunter (RB&H), they were being denied a commission
after doing extensive work and marketing the City's insurance. He had a letter
78-1138
_~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
from RB&H stating if they had marketed the City's insurance, they would have
saved almost $200,000. He also had a statement from Mr. Dave Hoskins if they
had continued the insurance with RB&H, the cost would have been $380,000 to
$390,000.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: ~e Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:30 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-49 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1703:
Application by Holly Wade Tuszewski, to consider amendment to Condition No. 9 of
Resolution No. 77R-669, relating to obtaining of an encroachment permit on property
located at 3200 Frontera Street.
Councilman Kott stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on the matter.
He left the Council Chamber. (3:31 P.M.)
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney representing the petitioner, stated the reason for the
request was that his client had filed a request with the County of Orange for
abandonment of the dedication of Newkirk Road. He was recently informed that
the encroachment permit cannot be issued because the appropriate vacation had
not been made. Because of the proceedings before the County, their building
permit was being held up. In essence, they were requesting a waiver of Condi-
tion No. 9 predicated upon the abandonment of the dedication by the County so
that when the County heard the item, they would not abandon the dedication of
Newkirk Road and his clients would make the appropriate dedication of the street.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-560 for adoption, amending Resolu-
tion No. 77R-669. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-560: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING CONDITION NO. 9 OF RESOLUTION NO. 77R-669 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS
NO. 76-77-49.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and SeymoUr
None
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-560 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-63: Application by Texaco-Anaheim
Hills, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC) on property
located south of Nohl Ranch Road and the southerly terminus of Anaheim Hills Road.
78-1139
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-139, disapproved
a negative declaration finding and denied Reclassification No. 77-78-63.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Planning Director Ron Thompson described the location and surrounding land uses.
He outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and
considered by the City Planning Commission.
Councilman Kott returned to the Council Chamber. (3:36 P.M.)
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Philip Bettencourt, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
stated they found themselves in the unusual position of appealing a decision of
the Planning Commission, but the subject project was a situation which required
a second look. In their judgment, the findings of the Commission, as reflected
in the resolution, were in no way supported by the hearing record or by the fact
of the matter in the case. Relative to the question of commercial use of the
property, in the entire Anaheim Hills area within the Anaheim City limits or
sphere of influence, only approximately 55 acres out of 3,000 had been designated
for commercial uses. It was their objective as land planners to provide a full
service community. They assured the Commission they would not seek out competing
businesses, but there were a number of unfulfilled commercial needs in the area.
The Planning Commission and the City Council approved a planned community zone
for the area and although residential areas were adjacent to the zone, there was
more than adequate buffering in existence which he demonstrated from the posted
exhibits, one of which showed the residential areas to the rear of the project to
be at least 50 feet above the corresponding pad elevations of the center. Further
protection, was a Code provision that within the zone many permitted uses required
a conditional use permit, requiring a precise site plan review by the Planning
Commission.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission action, because there were concerns expressed
by the Traffic Engineer, the Anaheim Hills Road extension plans were reviewed and
revised at the request of the Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans had now
been signed by the Traffic Engineer and therefore, traffic was not relevant. In
terms of traffic impact, Mr. Bettencourt filed for the record a letter from
Western Pringle & Associates, their transportation and engineering consultants,
verifying that Anaheim Hills comprehensive traffic study which the City previously
certified already anticipated a traffic system which would accommodate the uses
proposed. The project was located at the intersection of two secondary'arterial
streets. The traffic signal plans had been provided and the intersection would
be signalized within the coming year.
Mr. Bettencourt stated the most potentially troublesome aspect of the Commission's
denial was the consideration that there was already adequate commercial opportunities
within the area and until the existing businesses within the planned community had
a stronger clientele, that additional competition was not called for. From their
78-1140
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
standpoint, government was in effect, participating in restraint of trade. In
looking at the General Plan population projects for the area, they believed there
was room for additional business growth. In their best estimation, if the appli-
cation was approved today, there would not be any store or office buildings ready
to open in the center for at least two years. In concluding, Mr. Bettencourt
stated that one of the difficulties of the cost benefit analysis as applied to the
Santa Ana Canyon was that the land uses most popular from an environmental stand-
point tended to be most expensive from a cost/benefit standpoint in terms of
municipal service. Sales tax revenues were relatively impossible under the pro-
posal for office zoning on the property because those were not generators of sales
tax. Some retail uses would provide that opportunity. Their prime tenant nego-
tiations were with a bank, but they would not be able to affect a conclusion of
those negotiations unless they could offer more retail trade opportunities as
a part of the total sales package. They were in conformance with the General
Plan, the street improvement plans had been signed, and they developed the
grading plan which had already received City approval and one providing all
environmental considerations. Thus, they believed their appeal had merit and
the Planning Commission's decision should be overturned.
Mr. Bettencourt then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Council-
man Roth after which the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed
project either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Ann Kevin Kershaw, 5416 Willowick Circle, stated that in the beginning when
Anaheim Hills, Inc., presented the project to HACMAC, it was denied with one ab-
stention. They then presented the project to the Planning Commission who did
extensive research. At the hearing, both the Planning Commission and the Traffic
Director mentioned safety pertaining to ingress and egress of the commercial prop-
erty. The property as they were told from the 'beginning and as had been approved,
was for office development. Anaheim Hills was now contending that since there were
offices across the street not leasing rapidly, they now wanted to put in retail
stores. She maintained that the builder was also considered in the retail exper-
iment so that he could advertise walking to local retail stores. The fact was
that residents could walk directly across the street to an Alpha Beta Shopping
Center which she believed was not fully leased and where business failures had
occurred. She was basically concerned about a blighted area. She maintained
that at this point in time, development of the area could not sustain another
retail center and she agreed with Mr. Bettencourt that it could not sustain
another office buiding either. They preferred, as did HACMAC and the Planning
Commission, that the parcel not be developed until the area became more developed
so as to preclude a blighted area.
Councilman Roth stated that the Council's responsibility was to deal with land use,
rather than the economic aspects of the project. He also pointed out that Nohl
Ranch Road was going to be widened into a highway and to suggest that people were
going to walk across the road to the Alpha Beta Center was not valid.
Mrs. Kershaw reiterated that her primary point was the fact that the Planning
Commission felt they had a responsibility to the area as part of City government
to prevent a blighted situation, not to insure economic success for the merchants.
Commercial development at present was sufficient for the area, and she concurred
with the Planning Commission and HACMAC.
78-1141
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bettencourt stated that as land developers, their project was in conformance
with the General Plan and if the ownership of the property was with someone else~
he believed the situation would be viewed differently. They were in a position
of being asked to subsidize the clientele of existing businesses for some future
undetermined period. He reiterated the time for financing construction development
and leasing would be at least two years. They had already invested over $.5 million
in the property on existing improvements. He contended the blighted area argument
was not valid in the present day and age, and they would not have gone to the cost
of land preparation if they did not feel the project would be a viable one. There
were in existence final approved tract maps for more than 400 living units in the
area, of which the center was a part. Thus, the clientele was certainly on the way.
He asked that the Council look at land use in terms of the long range and not the
economic circumstances.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Kott asked staff what the Planning Commission most objected to relative
to the project.
Planning Director Ron Thompson stated the Planning Commission cited a number of
problems such as timing, other commercial opportunities in the area and traffic,
the latter having subsequently been mitigated to the satisfaction of the Traffic
Engineer.
Councilman Roth stated that he believed the location to be logical place for a
limited amount of commercial that had been designated for Anaheim Hills. As well,
the project was in conformance with the General Plan since it had been redesignated
for commercial use. It was a good improvement plan and would be beneficial to the
community.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that the subject
project will have no significant effect on the environment and hereby declares
subject property exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report thus reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-561 for adoption authorizing the
preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, reversing
the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-561: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (77-78-63, CL)
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that as a prior member
of the Task Force in the many meetings held over a two-year period when commercial
sites were designated, the subject property was a chosen commercial site.
78-1142
_City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour confirmed that, in fact, the property had been identified as a
commercial site and he was not concerned about the area becoming a blighted
shopping center. The market was there and the General Plan designation was
as it should be. The applicant was not asking for any variances, and thus he
would find it difficult to disapprove the project.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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-561 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-3 AND VARIANCE NO. 3026: Application
by Spiers E. and Mary C. Wilson, Herman H. Flum and Kenneth D. Hinsvark, for a
change in zone from RS-7200 to CL to construct a convenience store on property
located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street, with code
waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-162, declared
that the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and
granted Reclassification No. 78-79-3, subject to the following conditions,
and pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-163, denied Variance No. 3026:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall irrevocably offer to deed to
the City of Anaheim a strip of land 60 feet in width from the centerline of
the street along Katella Avenue, including a 25-foot radius property line re-
turn at Walnut Street, for street widening purposes.
2. That the vehicular access rights, except at approved access points to
Katella Avenue, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
3. That street lighting facilities along Walnut Street shall be installed
prior to the final building and zoning inspections unless otherwise approved
by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard specifications
on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond,
certificate of deposit~ letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City Of Anaheim the
sum of three and one-half dollars ($3.50) per front foot along Katella Avenue
for street lighting purposes.
5. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of 95 cents per front foot along Katella Avenue and Walnut Street for tree
planting purposes.
78-1143
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- August 29, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
6. That sidewalks shall be installed along Katella Avenue and Walnut Street
as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
7. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
10. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Council Policy No. 214) amounting to $363.00 Per 1000 square feet of building
or fraction thereof prior to the issuance of building permit.
12. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the north and west
property lines.
13. That the southerly driveway on Walnut Street shall be deleted and the
northerly driveway be located 110 feet from the flow line of Katella Avenue.
14. That the owner(s) of subject.property submit a letter requesting the
termination of Variance No. 918.
15. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year
from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
16. That Condition Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by Herman H. Flum,
applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Mr. Thompson described the location and surrounding land uses. He outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Hank Flum, 14205 Hatteras Street, Van Nuys, stated that when he appeared be-
fore the Council several months prior to request the General Plan Amendment, it
was in connection with the~cormmercial development. He had owned the subject
property since 1954 and although it was zoned residential all through the years,
the surrounding neighborhood had changed to commercial. Before making his request
78-1144
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
for an amendment, he had contacted 12 of his neighbors in the area to seek their
support for the change in zoning. Everyone he spoke with gave their support as
evidenced by the signatures on two petitions which were given to the City Clerk
at the General Plan Amendment hearing April 18, 1978 (see minutes that date).
After approval, he subsequently submitted a request for the zoning change for
commercial limited along with a request for a variance.
At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, one of the people who
twice signed his petition spoke in opposition and further stated that she was
speaking for most of the neighbors. She maintained that neighborhood stores
were proper for commercial development, but should be restricted in time from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Flum pointed out that he could not proceed with the
development faced with those restrictions since renters would be impossible to
secure. At the time of the hearing, he refrained from telling the Commission
that the woman who spoke in opposition had her home up for sale, and it since
had been sold. He had also found out in the interim that she did not represent
the consensus of her neighbors, but rather her own position regarding the project.
The Planning Commission then granted the reclassification, but denied the request
for a variance, in what he believed was an attempt to appease the apparent opposi-
tion to the development. Startled by the opposition, Mr. Flum neglected to explain
to the Commission the reason for requesting the variance.
He wanted to place a 4-foot sidewalk in front of the stores comprising his small
neighborhood business development and in order to get that 4 feet, he was appealing
to the Council to grant the variance. By so doing, it would reduce the buffer zone
from 20 feet to 17 feet at the rear and side of the building and reduce the side-
walk green space from 3 feet to 2 feet with 12 feet of parkway already existing.
At the rear and side of the proposed project, residences were approximately
60 feet away, and thus the reduction to 2 feet would not appreciably intrude on
his neighbors' privacy. He had since spoken to most of the residents and they
felt it would cause no hardship. In looking at similar developments in Anaheim,
there were examples where variances of the type requested were granted.
In concluding, Mr. Flum also requested a stay on constructing a sidewalk on
20 feet of land he would have to dedicate to the City for future widening of
Katella. The sidewalk, if built at the present time, would dead-end into a
garage 120 feet to the west. When Katella was widened, the sidewalks would
then become functional, and he would be pleased to construct a sidewalk at that
time.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Cecil Stowers, 1212 Holgate Drive (20-year resident), stated that the proposed
development would be beneficial to the whole community. He then.read a letter
dated August 23, 1978 (made a part of the record) which he had presented to the
City Clerk, along with the petition expressing the favorable sentiments of the
area residents, urging the Council to vote affirmatively on the subject reclassi-
fication and variance.
Councilman Roth asked for a show of hands of those present in the Chamber audience
in favor of the applicant's request. Seven people were present in favor; there were
none in opposition.
78-1145
City ..Hal. l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak to the subject request; there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the request for deferment of
sidewalk installation, City Engineer James Maddox stated that they did not
anticipate widening Katella in the near future. They had just reconstructed
and widened a portion of Katella approximately one and one-half years ago.
Mr. Flum stated that he indicated he would pave the area in lieu of a sidewalk
so as to avoid a mud problem and unsightliness. If it was deeded to the City,
he would no longer have to maintain it and in that sense, it could become a
blighted area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: on motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-562 for adoption changing the zone to
CL, as recommended by the City Planning Commission, and Resolution No. 78R-563 for
adoption granting Variance No. 3026, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission, with the stipulation that the sidewalk would be installed when Katella
Avenue was widened (amendment to Condition No. 6 of PC78-162). Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-562: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (78-79-3, CL)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-563: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3026.
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-562 and 78R-563 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-17A: In accordance with application
filed by Las Tiendas de Yorba, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment
of certain sanitary sewer and public utility easements lying within the'property
located at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road,
pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-511, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and
notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 12, 1978, and a recommendation by the City
Planning Commission were submitted, recommending unconditional approval of said
abandonment.
78-1146
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ !978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determina-
tion of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the defini-
tion of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED,
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-564 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 77-17A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-564: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-17A,
northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road)
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-564 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-23A: In accordance with application
filed by Mr. Dale Price and Associates for Sunburst Development, Inc., public
hearing was held on proposed abandonment of existing public utility and water
line easements and an equestrian and hiking easement all in Tract No. 9524
located southeasterly of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Montanera Road, north
of Via Arboles, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-515, duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated June 29, 1978, and a recommendation by the
City Planning Commission were submitted, recommending unconditional approval
of said abandonment.
Councilman Seymour stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on the
matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being
no response, she closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified'the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-565 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 77-23A. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1147
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-565: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-23A,
Tract No. 9524 located southeasterly of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Montanera
Road, north of Via Arboles)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-565 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77'27A: In accordance with application
filed by Mr. Kevin T. Hansen, Project Coordinator, Emkay Development & Realty
Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of three public utility
easements located along the east side of Anaheim Boulevard between Pacifico
and Orangewood Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-512, duly published in
the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July il, 1978, and a recommendation by the
City Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandon-
ment, subject to the owner removing existing unused electrical facilities at
no cost to the City.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Ko tt, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proPosed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-566 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 77-27A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-566: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-27A,
located along the east side of Anaheim Boulevard between Pacifico and Orangewood
Avenue)
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-566 duly passed and adopted.
78-1148
~ity Hall~ Anah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-1A: In accordance with application
filed by Mr. Roy Grage, president of Grage-Wilson, Inc., public hearing was
held on proposed abandonment of a public utility easement located south of
Orange Avenue, west of Knott, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-513, duly published
in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 17, 1978, and a recommendation by the
City Planning Commission were submitted, recommending unconditional approval
of said abandonment.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City. Council ratified the determina-
tion of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the defi-
nition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the
requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-567 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 78-1A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-567: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-1A,
located south of Orange Avenue, west of Knott)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
'Yhe Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-567 duly passed and adopted.
i76: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-4A: In accordance with application
filed by Ms. Susan Shick, Community Development Department, public hearing was
held on proposed abandonment of a portion of Oak Street, Helena Street and Lincoln
Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-514, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin
and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 12, 1978, and a recommendation by the City
Planning Commission were submitted, recommending unconditional approval of said
abandonment.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EWEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determ-
ination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls with the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the
requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1149
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-568 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 78-4A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-568: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF OAK STREET, HELENA STREET,
AND LINCOLN AVENUE. (78-4A)
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-568 duly passed and adopted.
102: SOCIETY AGAINST VIVISECTION - OPPOSITION TO RELEASE OF PETS FROM PUBLIC
POUNDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES: Virginia L. L'Heureux, Pet Savers, Inc.,
introduced Judy Striker to plead their cause.
Judy Striker, 3001 Royal Palms, Costa Mesa, first explained some of the aspects
of the vivisection method of research on animals also outlined in the book
"Slaughter of the Innocent" by Hans Rusch, a copy of which was presented to each
Council Member. She then stated that they had asked all City Councils in Orange
County that none of the stray animals picked up in their cities be sold for re-
search from the Orange County Pound. She then referred to their position paper
on the matter dated June 1978, which had previously been submitted to the Council,
along with supporting documentation. Senator Paul Carpenter endorsed the organi-
zation on the issue, as well as Supervisor Anthony and John Sibly, Director of
the Pound.
Mayor Seymour stated that as he understood, Ms. Striker and Pet Savers, Inc., were
asking the Council to pass a resolution supporting their activity in trying to
defeat the vivisection policy being followed by the Orange County Pound. If the
resolution were to pass, the Council would be saying to the County that any animals
picked up within the City limits of Anaheim were not authorized to be sold for
research.
Ms. Striker confirmed the Mayor's understanding and added also that the animals
instead be put to sleep humanely.
Further discussion followed between the Council and Ms. Striker relative to the
matter at the conclusion of which Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-569
supporting the activity of Pet Savers, Inc., in assisting to defeat the vivisection
policy being followed by the Orange County Pound in stating that any animals picked
up within the City limits of Anaheim were not authorized to be sold for research
but put to sleep humanely. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-569: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OPPOSING USE OF STRAY ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.
78-1150
C~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29, 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-569 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO (2~ MFM WATER METERS - BID NO. 3451:
(Account No. 51-000-1701) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the low bid of Hersey Products was accepted and purchase authorized in
the amount of $6,190.40, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated August 23, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 205 PAIR OF FIREFIGHTERS' BLACK BOOTS - BID NO. 3448:
(Account No. 01-205-5130) Fire 'Chief James Riley answered questions posed by
Councilman Kott for purposes of clarification.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the lowest and
most responsible bid of Transcom Manufacturing Company was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $13,016.27, including tax, as recommended by the
Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated August 23, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY AGREEMENT - WHITE
PINE PROJECT: Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, briefed the Council on his
memorandum dated August 22, 1978, recommending approval of the Memorandum of
Agreement to the Preliminary Feasibility Study Agreement for the White Pine
Project (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-570 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated August 22, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board with the
expenditure not to exceed $10,650. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-570: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
~PPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND
POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
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-570 duly passed and adopted.
150: SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION S~JDY CATALOG:
Mr. Doug Renner, member of the Historic Preservation Technical Committee, spoke
for Diann Marsh who was not present at the meeting. He stated he would answer
any questions the Council might have pertaining to the selection process of
the consultant to conduct the Historic Preservation Study and Catalog. The
recommendations were made in memorandum dated August 22, 1978 already submitted
to the Council. '
78-1151
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 29 ~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Kate Kocher, Community Development Specialist, first explained for Councilman
Seymour that the reason Mr. Leo Friis was not interviewed by the Committee was
due to the fact that he was not interested in doing the type of work required
for a survey and catalog and a copy of his letter was on file in her department.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the fact that an application had already been
submitted to the State listing historic buildings before the City had hired a
consultant. Common sense would dictate that a consultant be hired first and the
buildings chosen thereafter.
Mr. Renner answered that the matter was not broached during the interview pro-
cess and there was no knowledge within the Committee among the general members
that such a proposal listing 24 buildings had be~n submitted to the State Board
of Historical Resources. He favored conducting the subject historical survey
because having a survey of that nature in the files and available to the Planning
Department would enable them to know the historic significance of a building. He
viewed it as an important planning tool which could be used not only currently
relative to redevelopment, but also for some years into the future. It would
still be a source of historic information enabling the City to make better use
of historic resources and in identifying structures specifically without guessing.
Ms. Kocher explained for clarification that the Technical Committee and the ad
hoc committee appointed by the Council had nothing to do with the survey that was
submitted to the State and it was never discussed. It was the Historical Society's
proposal to the State and not that of the committees appointed by the City Council.
Mr. Bob Lyons, Redevelopment Manager, explained that the survey and the considera-
tion was a requirement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
It was suggested as one of the studies to be made and was approved as part of the
CDBG application and was now being implemented. He continued that to assist the
Council in their selection relative to location of the consultants, Roger Hathaway
resided in Los Angeles, Ronald Roluffs in Anaheim and Thomas Reeve and Emily
Miller in Orange County. Also as noted in the Council minutes of January 10,
1978, referred to by Councilman Kott, the State of California recommended that
one consultant be used to conduct such a study.
Mr. Rennet then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that in voting for the con-
sultants, the first vote was a tie between Hathaway-Roluffs and Reeve. He voted
in favor of Reeve because he felt there might be more assistance forthcoming from
the school system in finding volunteers to work on the survey. He noted that
Mr. Hathaway indicated he would be willing to work with the Council in the selec-
tion of the review committee who would, in turn, make the objective findings and
also make the final recormnendation as to the historic value of different structures.
Thus, the Council would have more than a say and a voice in the selection of what
would become a permanent preservation platform. He was certai~ that Mr. Reeve
would also be willing to work with the Council in the selection process of buildings
to be submitted for any type of historical recommendation. It was the committee
feeling that they could work with any of the people who submitted the three
proposals.
78-1152
~ity ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
At the request of Councilman Overholt, Mr. Renner briefed the Council on the
qualifications of each of the 4 people involved in the three proposals, which
information was contained in the formal proposals on file in the City Clerk's
Office.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved that the recommendations of the Technical
Committee be accepted and that the consultants, as recommended, Hathaway-Roluffs
be approved to proceed with the Historical Preservation Study and Catalog
Survey. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had a problem rela-
tive to Ronald Roluffs for two reasons. First, the minutes of January 10, 1978
(see minutes that date, page 78-27) reflected that Diann Marsh and a Survey
Coordinator in Sacramento did not want a team to conduct the survey, but a single
consultant who himself would do a better job. Secondly, Mr. Roluffs was involved
with DATA, the group involved in blocking Redevelopment. She did not believe the
Council would have any credibility of Mr. Roluffs were selected or that Mr. Roluffs
would have any credibility as far as she was concerned.
Councilman Roth asked if Mr. Hathaway was going to be able to spend the necessary
time in Anaheim which was a concern expressed by some of the Committee members.
Mr. Roger Hathaway, 631 Levering, Los Angeles, stated he would be able to spend
the necessary time as the letters of recommendation in his proposal would show.
He stipulated that he would devote sufficient time locally to complete the re-
quirements of the survey.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (5:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:30 P.M.)
Mr. Ronald Roluffs, wishing to speak on his behalf, stated that Councilwoman
Kaywood's point was well taken, that the coordinator must present an unbiased
opinion and to that extent, he pledged such an opinion. At every point there
was going to an oversight committee above the coordinators and working with the
coordinator. He did not believe the coordinators alone could bring forth a
document without comment and discussion inherent in such a relationship,
In answer to a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood regarding the list
of 24 buildings submitted to the State, Mr. Roluffs relayed the following: He
had nothing to do with the submission of the list. He had been shown the xeroxed
copy of the application itself after it was shown to the City Council, but he
did not know anything about it before. He had not done the research himself on
the 24 buildings, and thus could not make a professional evaluat'ion on the submission.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was her feeling there was no way that Mr. Roluffs
could be unbiased in conducting the subject survey. When people were emotionally
involved in something, they could not step back and be objective.
78-1153
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hathaway stated that he would be conducting a survey in order to make a very
professional and unbiased commentary. As proposed, he intended to look at the
structures in Anaheim and judge them on their historical merit and would insure
than any support generated from his association with Mr. Roluffs would be of the
same quality. One person could not devote enough time to approach what was asked
in the preliminary request for proposals. He then chose to search for a cohort
and colleague and was aware after a conversation with Kate Kocher there was an
individual, Ronald Roluffs, who was thinking of submitting a proposal. He con-
tacted Mr. Roluffs, found that he lived in Anaheim and that his qualifications
complemented his own, especially relative to organizational abilities. Mr.
Hathaway also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he had not worked in or
for the City of Anaheim in any way previously.
Mrs. Eleanor Bay, 2148 West Grayson, stated that she questioned Mr. Roluffs' state-
ment not knowing about the 24 buildings. One week prior, she attended a meeting
of the Anaheim Historical Society, and Mr. Roluffs was also in attendance, with the
same group that was with the DATA organization at the time he was working to stop
the City's Redevelopment Program.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that based on past knowledge and considering all
that took place regarding Redevelopment, resulting in waste of taxpayers money in
the form of time and effort necessitated on the part of staff, she could not
possibly vote for Mr. Roluffs.
Councilman Kott stated that in view of all the questions that have been raised
relative to Mr. Roluffs association with DATA and the other items, he would
withdraw his motion since he wanted the survey to be an unquestionable document;
Councilman Overholt also withdrew his second.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that Thomas B. Reeve, II, be selected
as consultant to conduct the Historic Preservation Study and Catalog. Councilman
Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour thanked the committee for their time and
effort. Relative to the review board also suggested by the committee to be
appointed by the Council, he asked if that same committee could act as the review
board.
Kate Kocher stated that names would be submitted to the Council eventually con-
sisting of an architectural historian~ an historian specializing in local history,
etc. However, the ad hoc committee should stay in existence to support the
survey, assist with recruitment of volunteers, publicity and the like.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIER.
150: REQUEST TO BORROW HISTORIC ITEMS FROM THE CITY: Letter request received
August 21, 1978, from the Steering Committee of the Anaheim Historic Museum, to
borrow certain historic items from the City for public viewing for an indefinite
period of time, and further to request City personnel to move same, was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request of
the Steering Committee to borrow certain historic items was approved with City
personnel to move same. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1154
~ity ~.all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authoriZed in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator and the Appli-
cation to Present Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property damages
purportedly sustained during excavation operations for a water vault on or
about June 28, 1978 at 1310 North Kraemer Boulevard.
b. Claim submitted by Robert L. and Carmen Burke for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a power shortage on Standish Avenue on or about the
weekend of July 14 and 15, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Jeanette F. Stewart for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a power failure on or about July 29, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a traffic signal malfunction at Katella and Haster on
or about June 15, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Mary Jane Clutter for personal injuries purportedly
sustained at the Anaheim Convention Center during the Ceramic Hobby Craft
Associates Trade Show on or about June 18, 1978.
f. Claim submitted by Mrs. Rosa Kerwitz for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of a power failure due to fire on or about August 10, 1978.
g. Claim submitted by John G. Miele for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about April 20
1978. '
h. Claim submitted by Leslie L. Dale, for herself and as Guardian Ad Litem
for Tawna Ann Dale, for personal injuries and wrongful death, purportedly
sustained as a result of the death of Robert L. McPhearson on or about
July 15, 1978.
i. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Terry Gene Lissner
for personal injuries purPortedly sustained as a result of actiOns by Anaheim
Police on or about April 27, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered redeived and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of AugUst 9, 1978.
b. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of August 1, 1978.
c. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of August 9, 1978.
78-1155
~ity Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
d. 105: Golf Course Commission - Minutes of August 17, 1978.
e. 175: Monthly Report for July - Utilities Department, Field Division.
f. 114: City of Adelanto resolution establishing opposition to the lack of
the State of California's concern for the impact of mandated costs.
g. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of August 14, 1978.
h. 105: Library Board - Minutes of July 17, 1978.
i. 140: Monthly report for July 1978 - Library.
j. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of July 27, 1978.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits
were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit submitted by the Anaheim Soccer Club for a dance to be
held September 2, 1978, 6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. at the Anaheim Convention Center,
800 West Katella Avenue. (Joel Aguirre Guerena, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit for a video game and pinball machines at the Family
Arcade Center, 1211 South Western Avenue. (Seiyu Yogi, applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Permit for three (3) video and one (1) remote control
wall game at Straw Hat Pizza, 726 South State College Boulevard. (Michael
Mendelsohm, applicant)
d. Public Dance Permit submitted by V.F.W. Post 3670 Youth Group, for a dance to
be held September 8, 1978, 8:00 P.M. to 12:30 A.M., at the Brookhurst Community
Center, 2271 West Crescent Avenue. (Sumiye Shinoda, applicant)
4. 113: TRANSFER OF RECORDS: Authorizing the transfer of certain historical
records from the City Clerk's Office to the Mother Colony History Room of the
Anaheim Public Library, on a permanent loan basis.
MOTION CARRIED.
115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER~ CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1, 2 AND 3: Authorization for
Change Order Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in the amount of $26,173, Del E. Webb Corporation,
Contractor.
Councilman Kott questioned why the items were not in the original specifications.
Mr. Dan Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, stated that
as he recalled when the contract was let, discussion was held that there would be
change orders. It was fortunate that the bids came in much below the estimate in
the budget so as to be able to afford the change orders that would be forthcoming.
He emphasized that in a building of the size and complexity involved, there would
be change orders, time being the key word. There was no way that plans could be
reviewed on such a project suitable to the point where there would be no variations.
Originally the construction documents were completed in 1975, and it was felt by
78-1156
City~ H~a_l~l_~__A_n_ah_e~i_mj California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
many that the project was dead for a number of reasons. The City was able to
revive the project on very short notice and had a very restricted time frame
in which to review the three-year old document. They were changed from staged
documents into one document for one bid. It was reviewed by all departments,
some of which no longer existed and other new departments formed which had to
fit into the building. Ail of the technical data then had to be reviewed by
the Building Review Committee and the Building Division with no real time frame
available.
Mr. Rowland further explained that if the law had permitted, the items would
have been in the plans and specifications as an addendum to the bid documents
that were out. By the time that most of the items were up and recognized, the
plans were being bid and there was less than 7 days left before the bid date.
Because of the existing law, addendum items could not be sent out during that
period. If the bidding had to be postponed for another 10 days or two weeks,
prices would have escalated as they did so consistently and continually. More
change orders would be forthcoming before the Council based primarily on the
same problem, that being time. The items were in the nature of omissions from
the original documents, and the City was now being asked to recognize these items
which would be paid for for the first time and not the second.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, Change Order Nos.
1, 2 and 3 in the amount of $26,173, were authorized, bringing the original con-
tract price to $11,960,753. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-571
through 78R-574, 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-571: A RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Loara Limited
Partnership; Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association; Technic Inc.;
Phillip Quarre, et ux.; Philip J. Schumaker, et ux.; J. Claude Newman, et al.;
Charles Ray Edwards, et ux.; Julie W. Bond; Theodore R. Talisman, et ux.; Harry H.
Nakamura, et ux.; A. C. Ledbetter, et ux.; Vance M. Bauman, et ux.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and SeymOur
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-571 duly passed and adopted.
168/170: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-572: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CERTAIN STREET NAME CHANGES AND NAMING NEW PRIVATE STREETS
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. (Tract No. 9524)
78-1157
C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
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-572 duly passed and adopted.
144: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-573: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR PROJECT NO. 846 OF THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY
FINANCING PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT. (Meats Avenue, Summitridge Lane in Orange to its intersection with
Nohl Ranch Road in Anaheim)
144: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-574: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM INFORMING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, ROAD DEPARTMENT, OF CERTAIN CHANGES IN
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ON THE GENERAL PLAN,
AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO ADOPT SAID CHANGES INTO THE COUNTY
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN.
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-573 and 78R-574 duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 5107: Developer, Covington Brothers; tract located
on property east of Knott Street, south of Orange Avenue and contains 1 RM-1200
zoned lot.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
5107, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated August 22, 1978.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
171: ORDINANCE NO. 3902: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3902 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3902: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A
PROPERTY TAX ON ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF T~E CITY OF ANAHEIM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1978-79. ($0.879/$100 of assessed valuation)
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No..3902 duly passed and adopted.
78-1158
~]jty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3903 AND 3904: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3903
and 3904 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3903: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-58(3), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3904: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(14), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3903 and 3904 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3905 AND 3906: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3905 and
3906 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3905: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(29), RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3906: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-23, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
]he Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3905 and 3906 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3908 AND 3909: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance Nos. 3908 and
3909 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3908: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-14(3), RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3909: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-28, RM-1200)
105: HACMAC - DECLARING SEATS VACANT: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that a'letter
from Jan Hall, Secretary of HACMAC, reported that Committee Member Jerry Walsh
had not attended a meeting since July 18, 1978 and no resignation had been forth-
coming.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the seat of Jerry
Walsh on HACMAC was declared vacant with the vacancy to be advertised. MOTION
CARRIED.
78-1159
--City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
153: CREATION OF NEW POSITION OF JUNIOR ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Council-
woman Kaywood was concerned that the City was not getting the proper zoning
enforcement due to the incredible backlog of situations existing. It was thus
important that something be done quickly to give assistance to Mr. Whitey Walp
Zoning Enforcement Officer, to relieve the great burden under which he labored.
She thereupon moved that the Council proceed with the Junior Zoning Enforcement
Officer CETA Position as discussed at the meeting of August 1 1978 (see minutes
that date). '
Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would not support the motion
since it represented a misuse of Federal funds, but he would offer a substitute
motion that the position be created and that some other vacant position in the
City be eliminated with the City Manager to decide what that position might be.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that they would come back with a recommen-
dation to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood was agreeable to the Mayor's suggestion to create a new
position of Junior Zoning Enforcement Officer with recruitment to begin immed-
iately, and subsequently the City Manager recommend what other full-time City
position would be eliminated. MOTION CARRIED.
CLARIFICATION OF PORTION OF JUNE 5, 1978 MINUTES - ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING:
Councilwoman Kaywood submitted an amendment to the minutes of June 5, 1978, for
purposes of clarification and moved that the change be incorporated in the minutes.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he had a problem with Council-
woman Kaywood's wording, amending the minutes, in comparing that wording with a
verbatim transcript of that portion of the minutes. He read from the verbatim--
"...it's probably inflammatory to say that the people don't necessarily know who
the best choice is, because the Council works with the people each week, it is
nevertheless a true fact." He was suggesting to Councilwoman Kaywood that the
rewording of those minutes was, in his opinion, an attempt to disguise what she
had said.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated what she wanted included for clarification was,
"...because the Council works with the people each week".
Mayor Seymour stated that was acceptable if Councilwoman Kaywood would agree to
include the words, "nevertheless it was a true fact." Councilwoman Kaywood was
agreeable.
By general consent, the matter was continued for one week to allow an opportunity
for further clarification of the proposed amendment to the minutes.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:02 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:06 P.M.)
78-1160
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 29~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
118: SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - ALBERT RAINERD: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was directed to settle a
claim submitted by Mr. Albert Rainerd in the amount of $70 for property damage
sustained at 618 South Shield Drive. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:07 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK