1978/12/0578-1601
qity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
SENIOR STAFF ASSISTANT: Lloyd Trapp
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phillip Schwartze
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
132/148/174: PRESENTATION - AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (AQMP): Mr. Ben Pruett,
Chairman of the Industrial Committee of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, read the
resolution adopted by the Chamber pertaining to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (on file in the City Clerk's Office) concluding, "that the Anaheim Chamber
of Commerce does hereby find the alternative of either compliance to the standards
or enforced major State economic penalties not in the best interest of the State of
California nor the United States, and...that this Chamber will extend every effort
to have these laws brought before the Congress of the United States with the objec-
tive of mandating the Environmental Protection Agency reconsider and modify as re-
quired the National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the guidelines of existing
realistic, medical, technical, economic and social standards." He also read a
letter dated December 4, 1978, submitted by the Chamber Task Force on the 208 Water
Plan stating they had reviewed the November 20, 1978 recommendation from City staff,
the bottom line being that they wanted to work with the City on the next step
required before adopting the total 208 Plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that staff give a report on the subject and she
would also be introducing a gentleman to speak to the Council relative to the
Air Quality Management Plan.
Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that several Weeks
prior, the Council'had received the document from the Planning Department relative
to the AQMP recommending that the City forward to SCAG a list of some 18 items
indicating that those items would be appropriate for their strategy in an attempt
to reduce those pollutants by 300 tons a day and also noting that there was going
to be a great deal of additional activity relative to the matter prior to any
implementation. Council also received a joint memorandum on the 208 Plan from
the Public Works Department and Planning Department and the Chamber concurred with
the particular presentation on the 208 Plan.
78-1602
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~.1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then introduced Mr. Jack Green, former Mayor of Huntington
Beach, now a staff consultant for SCAG.
Mr. Green stated he was present primarily to answer questions, but wanted to
make a few comments about the AQMP. They agreed up to a point with the Chamber
in that the procedure was a very difficult one. They had been~working on an
Air Quality Plan for nearly two years both under the Clean Air Act Amendment of
1977 and the earlier Lewis Air Quality Act, a State law which created the Four-
County Air Quality District. With the Plan, they attempted to permit reasonable
growth in Orange County, maintain the air quality, and reduce the air pollution
in the County. They were under very strict deadlines and had until December 15,
1978 to receive comments from each of the public agencies and from the public
with a response to be given by the AQMP staff and included in the final draft
which would be produced in January.
Mr. Green requested that the City Council approve the AQMP in concept, pointing
out any differences that they might have with the Plan or with individual measures
in the Plan, so that they could address those problems and attempt to resolve them
between now and the end of January when the Plan must be submitted to the Air
Resources Board.
Before concluding, Mr. Green wanted to comment on some items that he stated were
not correct. Relative to the statement that ambient air quality standards were
based on health effects, the National Academy of Sciences, at the direction of
Congress, was in the midst of an ongoing study of the standards to determine
whether they were correct or should be either lowered or raised. At this time,
they indicated there was no basis for change. Further, the statement that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Government would stop all
growth after July 1, was not correct. The EPA under the Clean Air Act had the
responsibility over permits relative to major sources of pollution on projects
such as the SOHIO Project in Long Beach. Even if a Plan was unacceptable and
rejected, growth would not be stopped, but Federal Grants to the area would be
held in jeopardy, both from the EPA and from the Department of Transportation~
He reiterated that growth would not be stopped if the Plan was not approved.
They felt that they had devised a Plan that satisfied many of the area people
with which they worked, such as the Los Angeles area Chamber of Commerce, the
State Chamber and various industry and business union groups. He then asked
if there were any questions.
Councilman Roth commented that he did not like the idea of the blackmail concept
by the Federal Government--unless the Plan was accepted, grants would be cut.
In his opinion, the plan was replacing control of air pollution by increased
government regulations.
Mayor Seymour stated that in the League of California Cities meeting, it was
brought out that the cost of the program to citizens would be approximately
$50 a year for every man, woman and child. He wanted to know if that was an
accurate statement.
78-1603
City Hall~ AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Green answered that they were talking about an annualized cost of between
$400 million and $600 million in the entire region comprised of Los Angeles,
Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties with an approximate population
of 10 million people. That cost would be offset by the cost of air pollution
relating to health damage, damage to crops that could no longer be grown in
the basin, equipment, and even to buildings, which damage was estimated to be
between $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. He confirmed for the Mayor that it
was accurate to state that the cost would be $50 annually for every man, woman
and child.
The Mayor also understood that part of the plan dealing with automobiles would
require all automobiles to be brought to some type of agency for an annual inspec-
tion and potential work and he wanted to know if that was correct.
Mr. Green explained that relative to the Clean Air Act Amendments' for an exten-
sion from 1982 to 1987, a maintenance and inspection program must be set up in
the South Coast Air Basin. At the present time, EPA regulations indicated that
there would be an annual inspection of automobiles tied in at the time of renewal
of automobile licenses.
Mayor Seymour stated as a City Council, they were faced with making a decision
on a program that would cost the citizens in the City of Anaheim some $10 million
each and every year for its 200,000 to 215,000 residents.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Green to clarify what the amount of offset would
be.
Mr. Green reiterated the estimated cost from air pollution in the South Coast
Air Basin--damage to health, lost days of work, damage to crops and equipment,
etc., was estimated at between $1.5 billion and $2 billion per year. The
northern county area particularly was an area that was getting an increased
amount of air pollution. Although much of it might be generated elsewhere,
it was being generated from within, as well as due to the increase.of population.
As public officials, it was necessary to consider the health of the areas' citi-
zens and that was an important factor. There was increasing evidence that changes
were taking place as a result of persons living in the area for a long time and
physicians were indicating that there were serious problems.
The Mayor asked what percentage of the problem was created by the automobile.
Mr. Green answered in the South Coast Air Basin, the estimate was 60 to 70 percent.
The Mayor then stated if 60 to 70 percent of the problem was created by automobiles,
he wanted to know why the Federal Government had not done anything to require that
a clean engine be built by the manufacturers of automobiles and other gas.powered
vehicles. That was the bulk of the problem and thus his suggestion was a more
direct course of action.
Mr. Green explained that Congress must require such action and that there was a
substantial number of studies in progress on different types of engines and some
were being conducted in the South Coast Air Basin. Riverside was testing a hydrogen
bus and there were other types of engines being tested throughout the country to
78-1604
C~tM Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decmmber 5, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
try to come up with a cleaner engine. In addition, the government was requiring
a continual increase in devices for automobiles that would substantially reduce
the amount of air pollutants being emitted from exhaust pipes. They were also
not pleased with the extension given to automobile manufacturers by Congress last
year, but it was a fact of law, which they had to accept and work around. California
had very tough automobile regulations and the inspection and maintenance program
mentioned would perhaps be one of the most effective ways to reduce pollution
from exhaust pipes, and it proved out in the state of New Jersey and Arizona.
Further discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Green along the same vein,
at the conclusion of which the Mayor pointed out that the financial impact of
the proposal would be some $10 billion per year considering the population of
the United States which money would be better invested into demanding a clean
engine. He agreed with Councilman Roth that he was not about to be blackmailed
into doing something because the Federal Government was unwilling to grasp the
bull by the horns and do something about the problem.
Mr. Green stated that he did not believe that the cost per person in the South
Coast Air Basin could be translated to the entire country because the Los Angeles
area had one of the worst air pollution problems in the country and there were
many areas where many of the requirements would not be necessary to attain an
acceptable air quality standard.
Councilman Kott stated that he would like to hear from the Chamber again after
Mr. Green was finished because he (Green) indicated the Chamber made some state-
ments which were not true. He continued that he had not seen any instances where
the Federal Government did anything efficiently, and he elaborated on some Federal
programs as points in fact. Thus, he could not see how the proposed plan would
be any better or different. He agreed with the Mayor relative to the engine
since it was basically the same as when it was first invented at the turn of the
century. It was his opinion that the reason for the lack of a clean engine was
because the big companies donated money to the people who made the'laws. He
also did not favor another layer of government and did not like being threatened
by the Federal Government on the basis that they would withhold certain things
if an entity did not comply with their regulations. As well, Mr. Green had not
proven that people who lived in Los Angeles actually had more respiratory problems
than people who lived elsewhere. Furthermore, as medical science was striving to
prolong the age of people and as they got older, they were more prone to develop
respiratory diseases even if they lived in the country. He was not going to vote
on something just because Mr. Green stated it to be so because that did not make
it fact.
Mr. Bob Haskell, Executive Director of the League of California Cities of Orange
County, stated he was representing Alice MacLain, President of the Division. He
first explained that they were not asking the Council to support the AQMP, but
merely asking for their comment on the Plan. As a Division, they tried to collect
the comments of all the cities on the preliminary draft in order to compile them
and form an Orange County position on those measures where they could find a com-
mon ground. He had with him some examples of comments on the last draft and how
they arrived at certain consensus positions. It showed all.cities who commented/
supported or cities who commented/rejected a certain measure, which was very helpful
to League. Even if the Council felt the plan was a complete waste of time, such a
78-1605
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
comment would be incorporated in the consensus, but to not comment was to give
away all chances to criticize the Plan later. There was going to be a Plan, like
it or not, but now was the time that comments could affect the direction of the
Plan. Being the largest city in the county, Anaheim's comments would be the most
helpful and appreciated.
Councilman Roth stated the problem with the whole proposal was the fact that the
Council was constantly being put in a position of supporting the lesser of two
evils. He suggested that all the Leagues get together with the thrust being to
send the Plan back to Congress to let them know that the States were not going
to accept it and were willing to stand up against such blackmail. Congress would
then have to take another look. To say that 40 or 60 items would be accepted
because they were the lesser of two evils in order to continue receiving grants
was morally wrong, and he could not support such action.
Councilman Kott emphasized that the problem was not really being addressed because
they were trying to solve the symptoms and not the causes. He gave as an example
the catalytic converter which was a Federal regulation for use on cars to reduce
pollution, in reality, had other detrimental effects. Therefore, he could not and
did not look to the Federal Government as being the solver of problems. If they
were to address the cause of the problems such as big plants, big companies, big
manufacturers of cars, and have them cut down on emission of pollutants, he would
be happy to look at the situation and probably support the Plan because then it
would truly be answering the causes, as opposed to the symptoms.
Councilman Overholt stated the concern he had related to the economics of the
proposal and he agreed that it appeared to be a "black jack" technique on local
government that if a Plan was not devised by a certain date, resources were going
to be cut. His reaction was similar to that of the Chamber of Commerce in that
more time was needed. It was no reflection on the good work of the League in
the fact that they were trying to come up with suggestions, but they addressed
the zechnical aspects and not the economics of the situation. In his opinion,
the economics of the plan, even with the revision suggested, would.be chaotic.
Mr. Haskell stated he also wished they had more time. There had been several
people, Supervisor Diedrich being one of them, who stated they did not believe
there was a firm deadline wherein if the Plan did not get to EPA by July 1, that
all Federal funds coming into the area would be cut off that date. Even at the
environmental committee meeting of SCAG last week, there was significant talk
about delaying the entire process for another month or two and it was a possi-
bility that might happen.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Dave DeJulio was present, who was the tech-
nical person involved in the plan. She noted that the present situation Could
be compared with the time the City had a flood insurance probleml While they
were furious about the situation, there were no questions about the sanctions
and they knew they had to conform. At the same time, Councilman Seymour went
to Washington and the City got a revised flood map which changed the situation.
However, when faced with a deadline date or sanction, it was necessary to react
in a certain way.
78-1606
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dave DeJulio, Project Manager for the Air Quality Plan, stated his responsi-
bility was with SCAG and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
who were Jointly developing a plan. He would respond to the technical issues,
but wanted to comment based on what he had heard. While no one liked the black-
mail concept of the Clean Air Act, they had to remember (1) that it was written
in response to the cities' demands that they be included in the process, and (2)
by virtue of the Plan being developed by local government, it had great advantages
over the plan that EPA and ARB envisioned.
Relative to point number 1, the Clean Air Act initially had the Federal and State
government devising the Air Quality Plan. They went back to Washington and demanded
that they be included in the process and that local government be given the oppor-
tunity to state what should be in the Plan and how it should work. That opportunity
should now be exercised otherwise the Federal government would tend to say that
given the opportunity, local government did not respond.
Relative to point number 2, EPA and ARB envisioned a growth control plan for
Southern California, and ARB told him they did not see how one more person could
be added to Southern California without violating air quality standards. Instead,
under the proposed Plan, they were adding three million people. There were major
advantages to Southern California and Orange County under the Plan, and he sus-
pected that other counties in the region were going to be all too happy to hold
up the Plan because of the fact that Orange County was getting all the benefits.
All the major growth was occuring in Orange County, but all the control was going
into Los Angeles County where the sources were. Therefore, there should be other
considerations before simply rejecting the Plan. Another consideration was the
fact that not all of the things contained in the Plan had to be done. They had
looked at all possible cost effective ways of cleaning up the air. They had
identified the ones that were required to be done, but most of those being dis-
cussed were for implementation by the Federal and State government, not local,
and all of them would not have to be done now. It was up to the Council to decide,
but_it was important to bring out those points before taking an action of simply
saying "no, we do not want to deal with that law." It was an option and they
would do it if that was what the local governments in Southern California would
like. Mr. DeJulio then clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott.
At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor asked if the Council wished to take
action on the plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that with reference to the report from staff con-
taining the 18 control strategies which they proposed be adopted, she suggested
that they say "yes" or "no" on the whole package, or each one of the measures,
and then go from there. Otherwise, they would be giving up the right to make any
comment.
Councilman Kott stated he had just received the strategies five minutes ago and
had not read them, but he would take an action on them in any event. He thereupon
offered Resolution No. 78R-763 for adoption, stating that the City of Anaheim was
not in accord with the AQMP as outlined and that they go on record in opposition.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was talking about the
18 items, or'the entire plan. They had received it in September, and thus it was the
second time around.
78-1607
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he was going to support the resolution. If as much effort
was spent lobbying Congressmen and Senators as was being spent lobbying Council
people from all over the State, Congress would have taken a look at the matter.
It frightened him that they would be willing to support the type of action pro-
posed which would have a large effect on the economy of the State. He thus
encouraged the Council to support Councilman Kott's resolution and suggested
that they immediately dispatch a resolution to their Congressmen telling them
that they should either extend the time or the plan for further study or revise
the whole Plan.
In case his thrust was missed, Councilman Kott reiterated that he viewed the
proposed plan as other government programs, the problem being that the symptoms
were being attacked and not the causes and unless the symptoms were attacked,
it was a waste of time.
The Mayor stated he was going to support the resolution. He felt that nobody had
given any thought, or at least it had not been demonstrated, relative to the cost
of the program. He could not believe that intelligent thinking human beings could,
with what he considered appeared to be a cavalier attitude, come up with such a
program which would place an extreme financial burden upon the City's citizens.
Ten million dollars was no small sum--it was twice the amount the property taxes
paid in the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted, however, that he had not addressed the offsetting savings
of $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
The Mayor stated there were two things wrong with that approach: (1) The government
had a way of never telling what the total cost was going to be. Typically a program
or the cost of anything escalated, but never went down. (2) When the government
talked about savings that were going to come about, most times the savings were not
realized.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that of the 18 items staff recommended on
September 26, 1978, there were only three which would have a local effect. One
was the voluntary trip reduction program, the other one was an expanded employer
carpool program and the third was an automatic traffic signal control system,
which was something the City had been doing all along, or as money was available.
The Mayor stated if SCAG or the Federal government could assure the City the Plan
was not going to cost the taxpayers any money, he would say "yes" to those items.
Councilman Overholt stated the resolution, which he would support, was the question
of adopting the entire Plan and not specifics within the plan, as well as the ques-
tion of the manner in which the plan was to be implemented and with which'the resolu-
tion took the most violent exception. He did not want the passage of the resolution
to be interpreted that the Council was against clean air. To the contrary, the
Council, if the resolution passed, was against the manner in which certain individ-
uals in Washington saw fit to try to mandate clean air for the citizens of Anaheim.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they had just received a letter from the California
Council for Environmental and Economic Balance dated December 1, 1978 which should
be read int~ the record. She then read the letter (on file in the City Clerk's
Office) the essence of which was as follows: "The Council and its members have
78-1608
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
participated fully in the preparation of the Air Quality Maintenance Plan for the
Southern California Air Basin. Our business and labor members have been particularly
active in the development of the plan and will continue to be involved as the plan
is implemented. We would urge that you approve the Air Quality Maintenance Plan
in concept, thereby acknowledging the great effort of all the planners involved to
comply with the law and with the wishes of the people of your community, who want
and deserve an improved environment and cleaner air."
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon stated that she was going to have to vote against
the resolution because she, too, felt that a sweeping "no" would say to the
government that Anaheim did not want to give input when the last time we requested
the opportunity to do so.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-763: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OPPOSING THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-763 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-764 for adoption, requesting that the
United States Congress review the entire AQMP and to put it in its proper perspec-
tive with copies to be sent to all elected representatives. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-764: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OPPOSING THE FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS IMPOSED ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
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-764 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Council
generally concurred with the findings, politics and actions in the draft 208
Area-Wide Waste Treatment Management Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
127: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION: Councilman Overholt
announced that at 1:45 p.m. during the presentation by Mr. Pruett, Jim Townsend
entered the Council side of the Chamber and handed him a document, "Notice of
Intention to Circulate Recall Petition" dated December 4, 1978, signed by
Michael F. Valenti, T. B. Catterson and Fernando V. Galaviz. He then stated that
he intended to answer the charges in the notice as provided by law.
78-1609
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated Mr. Townsend also handed another one to her with the
comment "Merry Christmas." She had not had time to open it as yet.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman RDth, minutes
of the regular meeting held October 24, 1978 were approved, subject to typographical
corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
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 $649,720.46, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT: Mr. John Dawson,
special counsel, stated that the City turned over to him after he had left their
employ a matter of Anaheim versus the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The
situation arose when the Lewis Street underpass was put under the Santa Fe Railroad
at a place where a 30-inch pipeline existed. MWD refused to pay for lowering the
pipe and the cost to the City was $81,800. The agreement was that the matter would
progress and the City would litigate to determine who would pay in the final analysis.
The basis for the litigation, which was an important aspect, was that it involved
the Stearns Rancho Reservation, a reservation for roads, ditches and the like,
reserved back as far as 1880. There had been no decision on the Stearns Rancho
and its validity until the present case. The City lost in Superior Court, appealed
to the Appellate Court and won. Not only did the City receive the $81,800, but also
the case established the validity of the Stearns Rancho Reservation. MWD asked
for a rehearing, which was denied, and attempted to go to the Supreme Court of
California and that was also denied. A check was received from MWD in the amount
of $115,421.59, including City costs and over $32,000 in interest.- He was delighted
to present it to the City, not only from the standpoint of the money aspect, but
also being.a party with the City in establishing what he, as a lawyer, considered
a very important phase of municipal law--the establishment of the Stearns Rancho
Reservation. He also submitted a copy of the judgment itself for the City Clerk.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: On motion by Councilman 0verholt, seconded by Council-
man Kott, the Council recess into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED (2:42 P.M.)
AFTER P~CESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (4:35 P.M.)
153/156: APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE P. TIELSCH, CHIEF OF POLICE~ CITY OF ANAHEIM:
City Manager Talley stated that he would like the City Council to approve, by
motion, the appointment of George P. Tielsch as Police Chief, with the appointment
to be effective January 4, 1979. Mr. Talley then briefed the Council on his
memorandum dated December 5, 1978, submitted at the meeting (on file in the
City Clerk's Office), which explained the recruitment and examination process
which started in August. He then read the list of 10 items upon which the
appointment was based (see Page Nos. 1 and 2 of the December 5, 1978 memorandum).
He concluded that it was with great pleasure to offer the appointment for Council's
approval.
78-1610
City Hal!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
~0TION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the appointment of George P. Tielsch
as Chief of Police with the City of Anaheim, pursuant to the recommendation of
the City Manager, effective January 4, 1979. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion.
Before action was taken, the Mayor stated it might be appropriate for the Council
to express individually their feelings and comments relative to the new Chief.
For his part, he had grave reservations initially relative to the process in which
the Chief was to be selected, and he had expressed those reservations especially
as they pertained to the Council's involvement in appointment of the Technical
Committee and the Citizens' Committee, which would conduct the interview process.
He remained of the opinion that the Council should have been part of that process
in appointing those committees. On the other hand, it was his opinion that the
process conducted by the City Manager was without any question a~total, complete
and very thorough process of interviewing candidates for the position. There
was no doubt in his mind that had the City Council appointed those committees,
that they would have come up with the same conclusion. Thus, he was satisfied
with the recommendation of the City Manager and with George Tielsch becoming the
Chief of Police of Anaheim. He had great confidence that the Chief would bring
to the City a new era of protection for the City's citizens.
Councilman Roth agreed with the Mayor relative to his comments on the Selection
process. He was most pleased with the five final candidates they interviewed.
He felt they were outstanding and any one could have been an asset to the City.
He was most supportive of the City Manager and the Personnel Director and
particularly the Technical and Citizens' Committees for the outstanding job that
they had done. Anaheim was very fortunate to have George Tielsch as its new
Police Chief.
Councilman Kott stated that he too had great reservations about the matter initi-
ally, but he believed that the end product showed that the various committees in-
volved did a good job under the guidance of the City Manager. The five people
Council interviewed were all very high quality and as Councilman Roth pointed
out, any one of the candidates could have been selected. However, Chief TielSch
did win out and, in his opinion, he did have some qualities that were certainly
more outstanding and better in many areas where they had concerns in the City.
He joined in stating that an excellent selection had been made, and he wished the
new Chief well when starting at his post in January.
Councilwoman Kaywood considered it amazing that the committees came up with the
exact same number one rating. In her view, she believed it was better that the
City Council was not in on the selection process so that it was not politicized
in any way. She felt it was definitely a plus with the situation they had going
on in Anaheim at the present time. She would have preferred that the new'Chief
would be coming on board with a less explosive situation in the community, but
had every confidence in his ability to handle the matter. She wished him the
very best of luck as well as to all of Anaheim.
Councilman Overholt stated it was a tribute to the selection process and Chief
George Tielsch that the Council unanimously and enthusiastically endorsed the
appointment by the City Manager of Police Chief Tielsch. He too was extremely
78-1611
City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
impressed with the five candidates they met. He felt Anaheim was to be blessed
with a man who, above all, had professional qualifications that were very high.
He was a man who had depth and breadth of experience and with personal qualifi-
cations which would bring to Anaheim something it needed. Above all, it was
nice to welcome George Tielsch back to Orange County where he started as Chief
of Garden Grove some years ago. He again commended the City Manager on his
handling of the selection process and expressed his deep appreciation to the
two committees for time they spent in deliberations and coming up with the same
decision. He concluded that they looked forward to great things and maybe a
new look in Anaheim with regard to law enforcement and he congratulated Chief
Tielsch.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-765 for adoption, relative to job
classification and schedule for the new Chief of Police. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-765: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-819 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT BY ADJUSTING THE RATE OF COMPENSATION
FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE CHIEF.
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-765 duly passed and adopted.
The'Mayor then welcomed the new Police Chief, George Tielsch.
George Tielsch, Chief of Police, stated that he was delighted to be back in
Orange County and proud and honored to be the Chief of Police of Anaheim because
it was probably one of the most desirable cities in the United States in which to
work and live. He promised to do his best to be an excellent Chief of Police for
the Council and the citizens of Anaheim.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (4:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (4:55 P.M.)
175: DISPOSITION OF LEWIS STREET UNDERPASS GAS LINE RELOCATION DISPUTE: On
motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the letter from the
Southern California Gas Company concerning the disposition of the Lewis Street
Underpass gas line relocation dispute was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1612
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS JOHN W. WEHREN: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, payment of the judgment against the City of
Anaheim in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 181097, John W. Wehren versus
the City of Anaheim, was approved and authorized. MOTION CARRIED.
169: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - STREET CLOSURE: (continued from November 7, 1978)
City of Anaheim, Community Development Department and Public Works Department,
requesting the closure of public streets and alleys between Olive Street and Harbor
Boulevard for construction of the realignment of Lincoln Avenue.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Glen Evans, 210 North Claudina, asked when the apartments next door to his,
206 North Claudina, would be torn down and how long construction~would last at
that site. He also wanted to know if the alley was to be closed at any time be-
tween Claudina and Emily Street. He was concerned about the ingress and egress
of trash trucks. As well, with the alley to be constructed between Emily and
Claudina and other streets involved, he wanted to know if walls would be placed
between the alleys and the houses along the side since his property would be
affected. He wanted to know if they would have a barrier.
A consultant on the project answered that there were no plans to construct a wall
between the alley and the house. Relative to the time of construction, it was
difficult to answer exactly how long it would take to complete the roadway connec-
tions between Emily and Claudina, but he estimated probably not more than a month
or so once it was underway. Relative to ingress and egress o£ trash trucks, the
contractor would be required to provide continuous access for all emergency and
trash-type vehicles at ail times during the construction period, and he did not
believe that there would be any interruption of service. He then asked the Rede-
velopment Agency staff to respond to the question concerning 206 North Claudina.
Mr.~Norm Priest, Executive Director, stated that although he could not identify
this specific parcel, there were certain parcels that they owned and others
which they did not own. In any case, they would be seeking acquisition and ex-
pected to have those down the first half of next year.
Mrs. Lisa Evans, 210 North Claudina, expressed her concern relative to constructing
a wall. Their house would be right on the corner with the alley and a six-lane
highway linkage right next to them with all the resultant noise and traffic, and
something should be provided as a mitigation measure.
The consultant explained there would be noise barrier walls which might be a combi-
nation of earth berm with short walls on top of them to be constructed between the
Lincoln Avenue roadway and the residential area northerly of Lincoln. The question
before was whether'walls would be constructed between the alley And the houses. It
was proposed to construct noise barrier walls between Lincoln Avenue and the alley,
but not between the alley and the houses although that could be modified.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
78-1613
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5.~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-766 for adoption, approving the closure
of public streets and alleyways between Olive Street and Harbor Boulevard for the
construction of the realignment of Lincoln Avenue. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-766: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE TO THROUGH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF CERTAIN STREETS AND ALLEYS
AT THEIR INTERSECTIONS WITH THE REALIGNED RIGHT OF WAY OF LINCOLN 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-766 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-2A: In accordance with application
filed by the Orange County Water District and Conrock Company, public hearing
was held on proposed abandonment of the City's road and public utility easement
over a portion of Fee Ana Street from approximately 590 feet south of the
centerline of La Palma Avenue to its southerly terminus, approximately 1350 feet
south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-737
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated October 12, 1978 and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment,
subject to the following three conditions:
1. That a cul-de-sac be constructed at the new terminus of Fee Ana Street
and that plans for the cul-de-sac be approved by the City Engineer prior to
construction. All at no cost to the City of Anaheim.
2. The Orange County Water District annex to the City of Anaheim the land
required to construct the cul-de-sac.
3. An easement be granted to the City of Anaheim for road and public
utility purposes over, under and across the new right of way area required
by the cul-de-sac.
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-767 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 78-2A. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1614
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-767: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ABANDOMENT. (FEE ANA STREET - 78-2A)
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-767 duly passed and adopted.
150: DONATION FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS DAY CARE CENTER PROGRAM: Mr. John P.
Morrill, President of the Anaheim Chapter of the National Association for Senior
Citizens, stated in the past they had appeared before the Council in an effort
to support the Anaheim Senior Citizens Day Care Center. It was his understanding
with the advent of Proposition 13, the program was being curtailed. He had re-
cently been to the open house of the Center and his group was very much in favor
of keeping the program on an ongoing basis. The $8,000 was being donated to keep
the program in existence through the 1978 fiscal year.
Councilman Roth asked if the donation came from the proceeds of their bingo estab-
lishment and if that was the only thing they were supporting from the proceeds.
Mr. Morrill answered that the donation was from bingo proceeds and that was not
the only program they were supporting, but they also had their own day care center.
Councilman Kott asked to what extent the program had been cut back.
Mr. Lloyd Trapp, Senior Staff Assistant, explained that their budget was cut by
$8,000 which amount would cover the subject program through the end of the fiscal
year. As a result of Proposition 13, that was one of the areas they cut in the
budget.
Councilman Overholt moved to accept the $8,000 donation to be utilized for the
continuation of the Senior Citizens Day Care Center Program. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Talley stated, he assumed the motion included setting up an account
category and increasing the budget by $8,000 to accommodate the donation in order
not to have to come back to the Council.
Councilman Overholt stated that was included in the motion.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Counciiman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized, as
recommended by the Purchasing Agent:
a. 174: Community Development Block Grant Program, Area 3, Street and
Alley Improvements - Account Nos. 25-793-6325-3070, 3140, 3150 and 3160 -
Continue award to December 12, 1978.
........... ~L~ I 'r I II IIIUI ,ii1[111 lift I IIIIIII i~ I~im I1[ 1[ I
78-1615
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilman Kott
for discussion and questions, following which no further action was taken by
the Council:
b. 160: Bid No. 3483 - Authorizing purchase of Padmounted, Three-Phase
Sectionalizing switches - Continue award to December 12, 1978.
c. 160: Bid No. 3480 - Authorizing purchase of picnic tables - Award to
R. G. Detmers and Associates - $11,636.41.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: EMKAY BUSINESS CENTER - PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 78R-768 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
November 29, 1978, from the City Engineer approving an agreement with the Emkay
Business Center providing for participation in construction of certain improve-
ments along Orangewood Avenue. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-768: 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 EMKAY BUSINESS CENTRE/ANAHEIM, A JOINT VENTURE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-768 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the appropriation
of $36,000 from the Magnolia Storm Drain Account to finance the City's portion of
the subject project was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
107/152: FEE SCHEDULES - UNIFORM BUILDING, PLUMBING~ MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL
CODES: For purposes of clarification, Planning Director Ron Thompson answered
several questions posed by Councilman Kott. In concluding, he stated that the
proposed fee schedules represented a routine and conforming rate adjustment.
Many related to fees going back to 1973, especially in the building permit area.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-769 through 78R-772, both inclusive,
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 29, 1978, from the
Planning Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-769: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-151 AND ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF THE UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE.
78-1616
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-770: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-153 AND ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF THE UNIFORM
PLUMBING CODE.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-771: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-155 AND ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF THE UNIFORM
MECHANICAL CODE.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-772: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-186 AND ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE.
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-769 through 78R-772, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
103: PROPOSED ANNEXATION - SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 7 - BAUER RANCH/ANAHEIM HILLS
AND PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VISTA DEL RIO: City Manager Talley
briefed the Council on the recommended action by staff contained in the memoran-
dum dated November 27, 1978. He explained that the Planning Commission considered
the matter the previous day at their scheduled Commission meeting. What staff was
seeking today was to advise the Council that on December 13, 1978, LAFCO was
scheduled to hear the proposed annexation of the Bauer Ranch/Anaheim Hills area
(Santa Ana Canyon No. 7 Annexation) and the proposed incorporation of the City of
Vista del Rio and to seek input from the Council relative to their wishes in the
matter.
Mr.'Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, explained that yesterday the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed overall annexation indi-
cating that they had some concern that if the area went to the new city of Vista
del Rio (VDR), it might have a strong adverse affect on Anaheim because there
would be no local control as to the proposed uses in the area. Several members
indicated if the City was to grow, it would be logical to grow in the easterly
vacant area and that area in the future would provide the City's housing and
commercial needs.
Councilman Kott stated it was no secret that he had some concerns about the
situation, not only as a private citizen and taxpayer, but also as an elected
official. He also had concern for some time revolving around a letter which
was shown to him written to Kaufman and Broad from Ashley Economic Services,
Inc., the financial analyst. He considered the letter in general to be very
demeaning to the City and its process. It seemed to be apprising a Mr. Barber
that additional costs would be involved and that Anaheim was nitpicking and
frustrating the financial impact report and the amount of money they wanted
additionally was about $1,500. The end of the letter assured Mr. Barber that
78-1617
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the "skids were greased in Anaheim" and that was the point that concerned him
the most. A copy of the letter was inadvertently sent to the Planning Depart-
ment and Mr. Schwartze had a copy. He asked him (Schwartze) if he knew anything
about the letter.
Mr. Schwartze answered that he had a letter which he believed was similar to that
which Councilman Kott described. It was received unsigned and came with a couple
of other documents to the Planning Department although he did not believe it was
addressed to a Mr. Barber, but somebody else. (In reality, the name to which
the letter was addressed was Mr. Mark Armbruster, see letter dated May 15, 1978,
made a part of the record.) He did notify the Director of Planning and the City
Manager relative to the matter. They were recently apprised that the letter
was in his possession dated early su~er or May.
Councilman Kott wanted to know whether the inference of the "skids were greased"
referred to the Planning Commission, City Council or the Planning Department.
If there was such a letter in writing even unsigned, the Council should be made
aware of it.
Mr. Talley asked if Councilman Kott would like a copy of it. He had read the
letter and was assured that there was no truth to it. He asked staff to provide
10 copies of the letter; Mr. Schwartze was not certain he still had a Copy, but
would check to see if he could find it.
Councilman Kott continued that he was at the Planning Commission meeting and con-
sidered it a joke and a sham. He heard all of the reasons given by one Commissioner
to not approve the proposal and then on the other hand it was approved. He was
disappointed with the action taken by the Planning Commission because, in his
opinion, there was no basis for it. The Planning Director was present at that
meeting and stated that instead of a 25-acre commercial site, there should be a
50-acre commercial site because of a regional shopping center, but he gave no
data supporting the idea that the area could handle a regional shopping center.
He had checked with some people who told him that a regional shopping center
would take 100 acres. As well, the plan was approved without stating what was
going to happen to the homes that were supposed to be in the additional 25 acres.
While he believed that the people who were in the business of building were entitled
to and should have their money secured and not have to wait any longer, over and
above that consideration, was the responsibility that he, as a public official,
had to the taxpayer of the community. He felt that in the best interest of the
taxpayers, before any land was annexed, they should insure that it would not cost
the taxpayers anything and he did not believe that had been demonstrated. He
then asked to address the Planning Department reports and the specific agenda item.
Mayor Seymour stated he should be provided that opportunity as he was interested
in hearing what Councilman Kott had to say relative to the Bauer' Ranch and the
action taken by the Planning Commission. On the other hand, the agenda item
referred to the annexation of some 1,265 acres, of which Bauer had 375 acres.
He believed it would be most fruitful at this time if they confined their remarks
to the question of whether or not to annex and/or under what conditions.
78-1618
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Although Councilman Kott agreed, he stated it was necessary to have a basis on
which to make a judgment and part of the information he needed to make such a
judgment was relative to the financial impact. He did not see any assurance
that the taxpayer of the City would not have to pay for annexations for the next
25 years. If they had to put a lot of money into the eastern boundary of the
City, he believed that would constitute a negative cost benefit. He did not
want the City to get into a large expenditure for an extended period of time to
accommodate a huge annexation. He did not even know if Anaheim Hills wanted
their 811 acres annexed to the City. As one elected official, he had great
respect for the people who put him in office and he did not want to give them
an additional burden.
Mayor Seymour stated he would be surprised if any Council Member would disagree
with the principle that annexation should not occur at the expense of other tax-
payers in the City. There was the General Plan which covered the entire territory
and beyond, and that General Plan was approved unanimously by the City Council. On
the other hand, since the time it was approved, Proposition 13 was approved and
that was the crux of the situation, resulting in 50 to 60 percent reduction in
property tax revenues to municipalities to provide needed services. The question
was--what type of property, what uses of the property and to what areas could
City services be provided in light of reduced property tax revenues. They did
not now have before them sufficient data upon which to make a final decision as
to whether or not a particular annexation should be made or whether a particular
development should take place once the annexation was made. He would be hopeful
that LAFCO and staff would be satisfied with at least the philosophical approach
that the City Council might adopt and he, for one, could offer his philosophical
approach to future annexations in the City--simple, he did not believe that an
annexation should be made to the City at any other taxpayer's expense. Any future
annexation into the City had to directly or indirectly carry its own weight with
the tax revenues it would generate. Thus, he could say "yes" to LAFCO and staff
that he was interested in the City of Anaheim annexing property provided it could
be 91early demonstrated that annexation would not result in a cost to the other
taxpayers of the City and provided services could be delivered to .the annexation.
If they were provided with a specific plan for development that did not measure up
to such a standard, then he would vote "no".
After a brief discussion between the Mayor and Councilman Kott which further clari-
fied the philosophy expressed, Councilman Kott asked to hear from HACMAC.
Mr. Lynn Buffington, 7055 Colombus Drive, Chairman of HACMAC, stated at the beginning
of th~ m~ting, th~ Council r~ceived what could be considered a position paper from
HACMAC relative to the matter. They had received a request from LAFCO asking for
their input as they did perhaps with a number of other groups within the City re-
garding the annexation and at the same time they were also reviewing the Bauer Ranch
proposal. They also received a copy of the EIR and their EIR Subcommittee re-
viewed that report and their paper basically dealt with the review of the EIR.
Their main concerns in the community were fiscal. They were faced with a cur-
tailment of services due to Proposition 13 and he suspected that the community
felt that services in the area were not adequate in any case. They were not
opposed to seeing additional properties annexed to the City, but it was very
78-1619
.q~ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
difficult to consider annexations when they had their school bus service reduced
by one-third, as well as constantly fighting street, sewer and water problems and
blackouts. They recognized that possibly commercial development and industrial
development might provide the tax base that would make additional annexations
economical; however, they also recognized that the population base in the area
right now was not going to support regional shopping centers and it would be
some years before that happened. They were concerned as to what would happen in
the meantime because first there would have to be residential development. There
were two items involved, the Bauer Ranch and then the total annexation of 1,200
acres, of which 260 were in the Sphere of Influence of the City of Orange and not
a part of Anaheim's General Plan. They did not see where that situation had been
addressed in any of the EIRs and what impact that might have. After sitting through
the City Planning Commission meeting yesterday along with a number of Council Mem-
bers, he too came away with a personal opinion that perhaps the City felt mandated
to make the annexation happen. HACMAC wanted to urge the Council to be cautious
in considering the financial impact because it was very important to the community
and they wanted to be certain that careful thought and study went into the matter
before any decision was made.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Secretary of HACMAC, stated that there were
approximately 365 acres of the proposed annexation that could possibly go into
the City of Vista del Rio, but the largest portion involved Anaheim Hills' 811
acres which was not considered and not petitioned to be included in VDR. Most
members of HACMAC felt they ultimately had a commitment to Anaheim Hills to annex,
but felt strongly that was where the commitment ended. The concern they had was
one of timing, and when the 811 acres would be annexed was the question. The
General Plan gave the timing at about 1985 and that was what the fiscal impact
study was based on. She reiterated, they felt the commitment was there for Anaheim
Hills, but possibly not for the Bauer Ranch.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated he wished to respond to some of the
comments made with respect to what transpired at the Planning Commission meeting
and he would speak primarily about the Commission's action as it related to both
annexation and development as well as some statements made by Councilman Kott.
When the Council and Planning Commission adopted the Plan (Alternate IIB), it was
indicated by the Cost Benefit Study to be in the vicinity of a $57 million loser
and subsequently Proposition 13 did not help. In the Economic Analysis submitted
by the developer (Kaufman and Broad, Re: Bauer Ranch) along with proposed develop-
ment it indicated several possibilities that might well alter the deficit posture
of development in the Canyon given the fact that it would mean a substantial change
in City policy. The City's Cost Benefit Study could not analyze that situation
until the Council had given staff some policy direction to be incorporated into the
Cost Benefit Study and computer model. The Planning Commission, in their consider-
ation of both the annexation and the development, felt that the development was in
accordance with the General Plan; however, they were very concer~ed about the fiscal
deficit and the Planning Commission, rather than he, indicated that they would like
additional commercial of perhaps 50 acres to help make it pay. They started to
approve the development with the commercial not being designated in a particu-
lar section. He suggested that they could not certify the existing EIR on the
78-1620
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
development as being substantially in conformance if it had 50 acres of commercial
when the EIR stated there was only going to be 20 acres. He indicated if the
Commission felt additional commercial was warranted in the Canyon, then they might
wish to take separate action on the development and direct staff to do additional
study on feasibility of commercial in the vicinity of Weir Canyon so that the
Council, at some future time, could crank that information into their consideration
with respect to land use and fiscal impact. The Planning Commission did that and
staff received that direction. The Planning Commission thus acted on the annexa-
tion which for the most part involved land within Anaheim's sphere of influence
except for a couple of hundred acres which were in the Sphere of Influence of the
City of Orange. Three general plans had been done in 1965, 1969 and 1977. They
therefore felt that the annexation was appropriate. Their primary responsibility
was land use, but given the new tool of the fiscal impact analysis and the fact
that the City's model differed so greatly from the fiscal impact 'analysis presented
by the developer, they were very concerned as to what to do to make the annexation
pay for itself if Anaheim continued to expand in the Canyon and the kind of recom-
mendation that should be made to the Council. That was the basic thrust of the
discussion and consideration. He reiterated that the Planning staff did not take
an advocacy position. They felt that planning was a political process and they
were there to provide the City Council and the Planning Commission with as much
factual information as possible because some of the decisions they made with re-
spect to land use were the most difficult and critical issues with which they
were faced.
Mayor Seymour stated with the post 13 era as it pertained to development, the
Council was going to have to deal with the question of economics which they had
not yet done because they had not been provided with the necessary information
and data. Once that had been accomplished, he felt that the Planning Commission's
role was one of planning and did not deal with the economics of the question.
Councilman Kott asked if it were not true that the Deputy City Attorney told the
Planning Commission in the work session that part of their role was financial;
Mr. Thompson answered that he was not at the work session. Councilman Kott also
asked if it was true that the Ashley Analysis differed greatly from the City
analysis.
Mr. Thompson answered that they differed substantially.
Councilman Kott then asked if that were the case and Mr. Thompson stated that
the Planning Department did not assume an advocacy role, how he could justify
carrying the project as far as he had when the scheme did not even meet with
the new type of assessment district. He felt it would be more appropriate and
prudent to first ask the City Council if they were interested in the approach
since it was new and innovative.
Mr. Thompson stated that the record would show that Council directed staff to
have an economic analysis done on the Bauer Ranch proposal. It was filed in the
same manner as any other zone change was filed with the Planning Department.
Further discussion and questioning then followed between Councilman Kott and
Mr. Thompson regarding the economic aspects of the proposed annexation and
other related issues.
78-1621
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved to direct
staff to indicate to LAFCO that the City of Anaheim was interested in annexa-
tion of the subject property including the annexation currently under the sphere
of influence of the City of Orange providing it could be clearly demonstrated
that annexation would not result in a cost to existing taxpayers of the City
and providing services could be delivered to the annexation. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Dan Salcedo, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hills,
Inc., stated that they owned in fee 800 of the 1,200 acres presently under peti-
tion for annexation to Anaheim, which was to be heard before LAFCO December 13,
1978. In the spirit of Proposition 13 and trying to avoid duplication of costs,
the Bauer people came to them and they (Anaheim Hills) signed a letter, the
essence of which indicated they were not opposing their annexation. They knew
all along that because 400 of the acres to the north which he pointed to from
the posted map were presently in Anaheim's Sphere of Influence, it was always
the expectation that hopefully that would be annexed into the City of Anaheim.
He then directed the Council's attention to the 400 acres essentially to the
south presently within the confines of the City of Orange's Sphere of Influence.
In 1955, there was a tacit understanding between Orange and Anaheim that that
acreage would be within the Sphere of Influence of Orange. Since 1955, signi-
ficant things had occurred where the growth factors of both cities had'been
altered. He then provided a chart to show the Council that the City of Anaheim
had virtually all the services available to service the area in question. The
posted chart showed that storm drains, sewer, water, electrical, telephone and
gas were available. They had talked to Mr. Schwartze and staff who were of the
belief that the service would be adequate for the kind of development they were
contemplating--minimum one-half acre estates ranging in price from $200,000 to
$250,000 a unit. Their demographics showed on a fiscal impact basis that property
in the neighborhood of $150,000 would pan out for the City.
In concluding, Mr. Salcedo emphasized, at this moment in time, what he believed
the Council was considering was nothing other than annexation and giving some
direction to staff. His suspicions were that the annexation issue was a condition
pecedent tO ultimately determining land use, the point being, by voting favorably
on the annexation, they were not abrogating their land use power. Anaheim Hills,
Bauer Ranch or anyone else who came before the Council would have to show very
specific plans and they could, at that time, determine what they were going to do
in terms of their powers of zoning. He further emphasized that they would appre-
ciate receiving some direction from the Council since on December 13, 1978, they
would be in front of LAFCO relative to the 800 acres that they owned in fee. They
very much wanted the Council to be responsive to their desires to annex those
acreages into the City. The map he presented was self-explanatory, and he noted
that time was getting short.
The Mayor stated the intent of his motion would embody in it that the City of
Anaheim utilities would better serve that acreage and that the estate develop-
ment concept they were proposing would provide a positive impact. If those
things were true, he would find the City of Anaheim very supportive of his re-
quest. On the other hand, if they were not true and the motion should carry,
then he would find that Anaheim was not interested in the annexation.
78-1622
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Salcedo then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the point of contention
relative to the map was to show the Council that the City of Anaheim was much the
better city to service the 400 acres which were in the Sphere of Influence of
Orange because Orange presently had no services available to service it. He then
described what would happen if there was need for fire or police protection in the
area. Since presently there was no extension of Serrano Avenue, it would require
those services to travel down the Newport Freeway to the Riverside Freeway and
then into the area, which was ludicrous. He was also making the assumption that
there was no problem with the other 400 acres in the Sphere of Influence of Anaheim.
At the conclusion of additional brief discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and
Mr. Salcedo, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that relative to the estate lots which
were planned for part of the acreage, she was on the Planning Commission when
Anaheim Hills was getting started, and every month she asked about, the estate lots
because those were the ones that were supposed to pay off. However, they did not
come to fruition, and she did not want to forfeit those at this time.
Councilman Kott stated that Mr. Salcedo seemed to be basing his whole thesis on
the fact that Anaheim could service the area. His concern involved the cost to
taxpayers who lived in the City now and that issue was not addressed.
Mr. Salcedo clarified that in one of his statements, he pointed out that their
demographics had shown that it would be a positive cash flow to the City when
providing residential lots that had an average price of $150,000 and that would
be the kind of property marketed in those estate lots.
Mr. Schwartze stated that he wished to clarify some items. The posted map showed
a portion of the Anaheim Hills property and Mr. Salcedo indicated that staff con-
curred with him in that it would indicate a positive flow. That would be true if
major capital expenditures were already paid for, with streets, sewers, gutters,
water, etc., already installed, and with $250,000 houses. There would be a positive
cash flow to the City on that area. He would not say that on the other area or
any other remaining area in the annexation. If the map were blank~and there were
no capital improvements installed, he would not make that statement. Those im-
provements were already in and the citizens had already paid for them--not only
the citizens~ but also developers and others had paid for those improvements.
Councilman Kott stated that he felt the chief beneficiaries of such activity were
the landowners, builders, developers and the like, and he had no problem with that.
However, if they did make a lot of money, they should pay for the cost, and not
the taxpayers. Councilman Kott then asked Mr. Salcedo why they wanted to annex
to the City as opposed to staying in the County.
Mr. Salcedo explained that it made more sense to annex to Anaheim because'the
services were already available. If they told the County they w~nted to be
in the County, the County would subsequently have to service them and the tax-
payers would ultimately have to pay the cost. He suggested to Councilman Kott
the reason they were present today was because the best way possible to keep
the cost of housing down was to avoid multiplicity and that was what they were
going to do if the City agreed the request. If utilities were already in,
it made more sense to go with the City of Anaheim.
78-1623
~City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he supported the motion because he believed it ex-
pressed the concerns of all Council Members. He was present for a part of the
Planning Commission meeting also and had an opportunity to listen to their con-
cerns, and there were many expressed relative to the economic aspect. There did
not seem to be too much dispute relative to indicating a favorable attitude toward
annexation. The motion stated that fact, as well as the fact that they were con-
cerned about the economics of the situation, and he was supportive of it.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wished to clarify for the record that they re-
ceived a copy of the letter Councilman Kott referred to and apparently he read
it quickly without a word or two in it, which changed the entire meaning. She
then read the last paragraph for purposes of clarification--"I hope, as I know
you do, that with this latest exercise, we will be able to "grease the skids"
right into the Council Chamb'er and out the other side." It did not say the
skids were greased. She also pointed out that relative to the Planning Commis-
sion meeting, anybody walking in on the middle of anything could get a different
view. Having served on the Planning Commission for three years, there was a lot
of talk back and forth in order to bring out every possibility of reaching the
best decision based on the facts received. When Councilman Kott stated he heard
all the arguments in opposition and then the Commission voted in favor, it was
not at all strange since it also happened in the Council as well. For a number
of years, they had all of the EIRs and all of the general plan amendments for the
Anaheim Hills area itself. It was assumed that it was going to be a part of the
City based on the approval of every single development that was submitted. When
the substructure was already in, it made sense to continue in that direction.
Each plan had to be considered as it was submitte4 and nothing was done in advance
on the whole thing. She also agreed with the Mayor's motion.
Councilman Roth stated he was also supportive of the motion because it spoke to
his concern relative to actual cost. What was confusing to him was the fact that
they were almost into a public hearing regarding the Bauer Ranch and other factors,
and-he was not prepared to become involved with the annexation of the Bauer Ranch
unless they had a public hearing on the cost benefits. He believed it would be
unfair to make judgments along those lines at this time. He was supportive of
saying "yes" to LAFCO Anahei~should be involved in the annexation, but it should
be clear that they were concerned about the cost.
After the Mayor clarified his motion for Councilman Kott, he (Kott) stated he
would want to have some numbers before acting favorably on the annexation. He
would be happy to see the annexation take place and make a lot of money for the
City; however, there was so much conflict in things that to him just did not make
sense and on which he had not been able to get answers that he could not vote
favorably.
The Mayor stated there was no doubt that thousands of acres between the existing
Anaheim City Limits and the Riverside County line were going to be developed one
way or the other. Their position in relation to those acres was that the City
knew they had been under Anaheim's Sphere of Influence, and it would provide
services to the annexation with the caveat that the annexation would not be a
burden to the City's taxpayers. He did not see anything that was inconsistent
78-1624
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
with that philosophy or that it planted their feet in concrete in their ability
to determine their own destiny relative to the type of development that would
take place.
Before closing, Councilwoman Kaywood commented in the event LAFCO were to decide
that the acreage would go to the City of Vista del Rio and Vista del Rio should
determine that there would be a 200- or 300-acre regional shopping center because
they had no way of supporting a city, then Anaheim would be impacted and burdened
with such development.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
173: DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TRAIN STATION AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: Mr.
Phil Schwartze confirmed for Councilman Kott that a grant under SB283 had been
approved for $280,000 to construct a basic train station platform at the Anaheim
Stadium site and the City recently applied for an additional grant of $233,000
from SB1879 for the train station construction as outlined in memorandum dated
November 29, 1978, from the Planning Department. If the latter grant did not
materialize, he presumed a train station would not be built because they had
not budgeted for, nor discussed that aspect.
Councilman Kott stated if no General Fund money was to go to the project, he
would be in favor of it.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-773 for adoption, supporting the
development and construction of a train station at the Stadium, as recommended
in memorandum dated November 29, 1978, from the Planning Department. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-773: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
EXPRESSING ITS INTENT TO BUILD A TRAIN STATION PLATFORM AT ANAHEIMSTADIUM IN
THE EVENT CERTAIN GRANT FUNDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
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-773 duly passed and adopted.
108: HEALTH SERVICE FEES FOR FIGURE MODEL STUDIO ESTABLISHMENTS: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-774 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated December 1, 1978, from the City Attorney establishing health service fees to
be paid by owners or operators of premises required to be inspected by the County
Health Officer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-774: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING HEALTH SERVICES FEES TO BE PAID BY OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF PREMISES
REQUIRED TO'BE INSPECTED BY THE COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4.31
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
78-1625
City Hall~... Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-774 duly passed and adopted.
153: REPORT CONCERNING THE PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CETA):
City
Manager Talley briefed the Council on the report dated November 28, 1978, from
the Personnel Department/CETA Services (on file in the City Clerk's Office)
addressing the issues questioned by the Mayor at the meeting of October 3, 1978.
He noted that in spite of the fact that the new CETA law was adopted October 27,
1978, he estimated it would be approximately February 1, 1979 before they re-
ceived the administrative regulations. He then further elaborated on the details
as outlined under Discussion in the noted report.
At the conclusion of Mr. Talley's briefing, the Mayor stated that he reviewed the
report, but did not believe that all of his questions were answered in light of
the m~tion he made and passed by the Council (see minutes of October 3, 1978).
A/though it was suggested that there be an 18-month tenure, it did not provide
any data to demonstrate the statistics used in the report. He questioned the
percentages contained in the report as to what would happen to that same per-
centage number being used for example--of those who participated more than 12
months, 69 percent obtained unsubsidized employment and only 42 percent did so
of those who participated 12 months or less. He wondered what the percentage
would be when pulling out all of those numbers the number of people transitioned
into full-time City positions. Also, when talking about those moving out of the
program, he wanted to know how many quit or were fired within the first six months.
He reiterated that in his opinion the statistics did not tell the full and complete
story and he wanted to see the backup data that was used to formulate the statistics.
Secondly, the report did not give an explanation on each position as to its "tem-
porary nature"; thirdly, he wanted to know the total cost of each position including
the Federal portion, indirect portion and the overage, and finally, he asked for
a quarterly report as to the success or failure of placement in the private sector--
how many people were fired or quit or were truly placed in the private sector.
Mr. Talley suggested continuing the matter one week and staff would provide the
answers to the questions posed. He noted however that when he spoke about overage,
he was always counting burden. In other words, the Federal government paid $10,000
in direct salary, plus all associated burden. Thus, when talking about overage, it
also included burden.
The Mayor stated that relative to the question of direct cost, he realized that a
percentage was set up for administrative cost and that the government paid that sum
of money. If there was no CETA Program, one of two things would happen: (1) either
a number of full-time positions would be vacated, those positions offering administra-
tive services to keep CETA going, or (2) those people would be doing something else
within the City. He wanted to know what those numbers were.
78-1626
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, con-
sideration of the CETA Program was continued for one week and the City Manager
was directed to supply the following: (1) backup data relative to the statistics
provided in his report, (2) an explanation on each position as to its "temporary"
nature, (3) total cost of each position including Federal portion, indirect por-
tion and overage, and (4) quarterly reports as to the success or failure of place-
ment in the private sector. MOTION CARRIED.
180: WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCESS INSURANCE ISSUANCE: City Manager Talley
briefed the Council on memorandum dated November 29, 1978, from the Risk Manager
recommending that the Council decline the new offer of workers' compensation
excess insurance coverage which was submitted by the Puritan Insurance Company
on November 2, 1978. The memorandum further discussed the short rate cancella-
tion that would be charged in the amount of $4,280 for cancellation of the present
Fireman's Fund policy. He did not know if that charge was reasonable for short
rating the policy; hence, it was approximately one-third of the total amount of the
policy and, therefore, requested that Mr. Parker of Continental General Insurance
(CGI) and the current representatives, Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto (AOC) be present.
Mayor Seymour requested an explanation of the short rate charge of $4,280.
Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, thereupon submitted a letter just received from
Mr. Ciocatto of AOC. He stated he would be prepared to explain the elements in-
volved in the short rate cancellation penalty which was approximately $3,238, but
presently yielded to Mr. Ciocatto.
Mr. Ciocatto of AOC explained that they went through the insurance carrier rather
than assuming anything themselves and asked them, in the event there was a cancel-
lation, what would the cost be. A date was selected, which was December 1, 1978,
for a one-month factor and they (Fireman's Fund) came back with $4,280. AOC in-
dicated that did not seem to match their typical table and asked why it differed.
Subsequently, the carrier answered it was different because a fully earned aircraft
reinsurance factor was involved. They would have to pay that and were entitled to
pass that charge on to the insured. With that factor, it made it basically econom-
ical to make any changes at this late date. He then explained for the Mayor that
Fireman's FUnd, as many others, did not take too much risk in the aircraft area.
In other words, they would reinsure with another carrier for that particular risk.
When that was done, reinsurers had fully earned factors for a 12-month period and
if any cancellation occurred in such a situation, there was no refund. He took
their word for it that, in fact, that was what they were going to do. He felt
uncomfortable asking the question and they felt uncomfortable answering it.
Mr. Ciocatto also felt he owed Anaheim an even better explanation and to make cer-
tain that was the right answer, he called the Department of Insurance Rating Bureau
and verified what an insurance carrier might do or not do relative to short rate
cancellation. He talked to Dave Patterson, Insurance Department Rating Section,
and he explained that short rate cancellation charges relating to the subject line
of insurance were not addressed in the insurance manual. It only indicated that
if an insured requested cancellation, it was at a short rate, rather than pro-rated
which meant that instead of paying one-twelfth, there would be some additional
penalty. There was specific control over how much the penalty would be. In this
case, Fireman's Fund was not trying to make it economical for the City to change.
They checked with the reinsurers and were told that the total charges involved
78-1627
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
were fully earned. Mr. Ciocatto then briefed the Council on some of the other
items contained in his letter, as well as an article from an insurance broker's
magazine explaining that there were many concerns as to how a situation such as
the one under discussion should be handled. In concluding, he stated that they
were talking about earning a very bad reputation for the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Ciocatto what their fees were in regard to the workers'
compensation excess insurance. Mr. Ciocatto answered that no fees were involved,
but only commissions. Fees were one thing and commissions were entirely differ-
ent. In this case, their commission was 15 percent on gross premiums. They
would also receive a commission on the short rate cancellation charge of $4,280--
15 times $4,280 would represent their commission.
Mr. Hal Parker, CGI, then addressed five points in the Risk Managmr's memorandum
of November 29, 1978, for clarification purposes. Page one of the report noted
that the quotation by Fireman's Fund was the lowest presented to the Council at
that time. In his opinion, that was a correct statement, but he pointed out that
they were informed on the day the matter was presented to Council that an uncon-
trolled marketing situation had again been allowed to exist in securing a quotation
on the insurance so they immediately withdrew a lower quote with a non-admitted
insurer, and he withdrew the quote on behalf of that insurer because of the uncon-
trolled marketing situation with an admitted insurer quoting a higher rate.
The second point, Page two relative to the short rate cancellation penalty, "The
City has been advised by Akasaka, Ortiz & Ciocatto that Fireman's Fund will re-
quire a short rate charge of $4,280 for cancellation of their policy, effective
December 5, 1978." A following sentence pointed out, "If a pro-rate earned
premium of $1,042 (one-twelfth of $12,500) is deducted from this charge, it is
clear that a penalty of approximately $3,238 would result." He stated that the
California Department of Insurance established by code a short rate cancellation
factor and on the subject policy, it was 19 percent and that percentage of the
existing premium of $12,500 developed to $2,375. The pro-rata factor was .082,
which developed an earned premium of $1,025 or $1,042 as used in the Risk
Manager's submission. Thus, the short rate cancellation penalty to the City
was $1,350. He continued that there was further evidence that those factors
were correct and used by the insurance industry as would be revealed in City
files wherein the Council, at the Risk Manager's recommendation, cancelled $5
million of excess workers' compensation liability coverage, the same type of
coverage, only a few months prior. It was issued through their office and can-
celled using the same California Insurance Commission short rate factor. They
checked with other companies they represented and were advised that they used
the same factor and by code, no other factor could be used. It was his opinion,
and from the information they had at this time regarding the Fireman's Fund
cancellation, that no insurer could pass on their business risk of reinsuring
and buying protection for themselves to their clients. He believed they would
find that the $2,375 would hold up as it did in the case of the earlier cancel-
lation through the Continental office.
The third point, Page two, the sentence starting, "Moreover, the Puritan rate is
based on a Workers' Compensation Rating Bureau manual rate of premium and is thus
subject to a conceivable, if not likely, increase sometime before December 1, 1979.
Thus, any manual rate increase would result in a larger Puritan premium charge and
78-1628
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
an increase in any cost differential." The California Inspection Rating Bureau
did apply for a rate increase for workers' compensation. This year it was denied
by the California Department of Insurance; however, the Department did approve
an adjustment of rates based on experience effective January 1, 1979. Of the
eight classifications the City had, five of those classifications were reduced
and three were increased. He was able, this afternoon, to calculate those
premiums, and the net result to the City for the entire year of 1979 was an
increase in a premium of 4.3 percent using the $9,000 premium quoted by Puritan,
representing an increase of $387. Using the $9,800 estimated annual premium,
it was an increase of $421.
The fourth point, "Any consideration of cancellation of existing coverage should
recognize that Continental General had ample time to produce a quotation by
October 31, 1978." In trying to ease the strained relationship, he made no com-
ments when the statement was made at the previous meeting, but at this time, it
was apparent that the facts needed to be presented. As late as October 12, 1978,
18 days prior to the expiration of the current policy, CGI had not received any
specifications, payroll information, or loss information necessary to develop a
premium quote for renewal. They called the Risk Management Office on October 12,
1978 and subsequently received a call back from the secretary advising that the
payroll for the past year was $31 million using round figures. Because of the
short time in which to get information to the insurers with whom they were working
in order to secure placement of the quote and coverage, they immediately called
all the carriers and relayed the $31 million figure. A few days later, the tele-
phone conversation with the Risk Management Office was confirmed by mail and the
letter stated that for the period November 1, 1978 through September 1978, the
payroll was $31 million. It was then that they discovered the premium they passed
on to the carriers as being an annual premium was only for 11 months. They again
called all the carriers and increased the figure to $34 million by projecting it
up to 12 months. They were then informed that the payroll would be increased the
following year by six percent and again they called the carriers and increased that
amount to $36 million. When the quotations were submitted to the Council, the
recommendation from the Risk Manager's Office made a premium comparison based
upon a $38 million payroll. At that time it was noted that the Santa Ana agent
had actually quoted a $40 million payroll. Those occurrences made it difficult
for CGI to work within a given time frame and they became the brunt of many innu-
endos and accusations, and thus he preferred not to report those facts prior to
this time.
It was obvious that their efforts to ease the strained relations were fruitless,
but he would leave the matter in the hands of the Council. Whatever they would
decide, he and CGI and other members of his organization would continue to support
civic activities and be as active as they had ever been in City affairs. However,
relationships had become so strained that they were advised recently that'the
Risk Manager considered filing a libel and slander action against CGI based upon
answers to questions and comments made in the Council Chamber. They were subse-
quently advised that the City Manager intervened and pursuaded the Risk Manager
not to consider such an action. He saw no way that CGI could continue to work
under such strained conditions, but they would again abide by the Council's bidding.
He reiterated, they would endeavor to serve the City in any way they could.
78-1629
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December .5~ !978, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Parker indicated CGI cancelled $5 million of workers'
compensation insurance on the manual formula as set forth by the Department of
Insurance. He asked in their cancellation of that policy if aircraft insurance
was included therein.
Mr. Parker answered "yes", and further explained that the aircraft insurance sur-
charge was made by some carriers who did not pick up that exposure themselves.
Fireman's Fund was in an aircraft pool and thus participated in that pool. In
the Puritan quote, the aircraft exposure and surcharge had been waived, and there
were no aircraft reinsurers, but Puritan was assuming the entire risk and there
was no premium load for the aircraft exposure.
In answer to a line of questioning by Mayor Seymour, Mr. Parker revealed the
following: Relative to there being no table or procedure for short rating,
Mr. Parker stated that the California Insurance Code being the law did specifi-
cally publish what was identified in the Code as California Insurance Commission
Short Rate Cancellation Table to be used any time an insured was carrying a policy
mid-term and it included all lines of insurance. The chart published by the
Department of Insurance was not a recommended short rate cancellation, but imposed
since it was the Code.
Although it would be speculation on his part relative to the subject matter, it
was common knowledge that any time an insurer took on a risk and had to buy re-
insurance, they had to make a commitment that could not be reduced. They would
thus be obligated to pay that premium. In his opinion, it was a business risk
that was assumed upon entering into a business negotiation.
In concluding, the Mayor asked if Mr. Parker was saying that if the short rate
cancellation of $4,280 did not stack up with the Department of Insurance charts,
it would be a violation of the law.
Mr.. Parker stated that was his opinion. The $4,280 was an 82 percent increase
over and above the short rate cancellation factor.
Mr. Talley then asked Mr. Parker, assuming that everything he said was correct,
which premium quote was the cheapest.
Mr. Parker answered that the Puritan premium, the one they were proposing, would
be cheaper and Exhibit "A" (attached to memo of November 29, 1978) illustrated
the difference as being $2,700.
Mr. Talley noted, however, that they would have to take away $421 because of the
increase that just came in so that the difference would be cut to around $2,279.
Then }~r. Parker stated the short rate cancellation would be $2,375.
Mr. Parker stated that the short rate cancellation difference was $1,350. The
$2,375 was the short rate cancellation factor earned premium and the pro-rata
earned premium was $1,025. The $1,350 figure was thus arrived at by subtracting
$1,025 from $2,375.
78-1630
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth, addressing Mr. Parker, stated that he had known him for a long
time and Mr. Parker considered himself a professional. As such, he then asked
his opinion of auctioning insurance after a decision had been made.
Mr. Parker answered that it happened occasionally, but as a professional, in
his opinion, when becoming involved in public entity business, it was essential
to always seek the best premium possible. However, he would recommend that
auctioning insurance after a decision had been made be avoided whenever possible.
He added, there was no attempt to remarket the insurance. He always opposed that,
but when they received the quote, they were advised they did have a reinsurer who
was interested in reinsuring the earlier premium. He (Parker) had advised the
Council that in his opinion, $8,000 was a fair, reasonable and just premium for
the exposure, and it was the rate for which he was negotiating.
Councilman Roth then asked if they continued on a course of auctioning insurance
after it had been placed, in Mr. Parker's professional opinion, what effects that
would have on the submission of proposals from other brokers in the future, if
any.
Mr. Parker answered that it would have a detrimental effect. It would not affect
the City as far as insurance was concerned in excess workers' compensation, but
it would be disasterous in excess liability.
Councilman Roth referring to the vast difference of opinion relative to the approx-
imate $4,000 cancellation fee wanted clarification that, in fact, the table in the
Insurance Code was absolute, and before action was taken on the matter, he suggested--'
that somebody be directed to obtain an official opinion to find out the facts be-
cause of the gross discrepancy relative to the cost of cancellation. Mr. Parker
stated that he was quoting the Code, not an opinion.
Councilman Roth noted that AOC claimed that they called the Insurance Commissioner
and-were informed there was no set amount which was contrary to what Mr. Parker
was saying.
Mr. Parker stated that was not what he understood them to say. Mr. Ciocatto stated
there was a ~cancellation table, but no set procedure for calculating the premium.
He then respectfully suggested since it was a provision of the California Insurance
Code, that the City Attorney be considered the party to look into the matter.
Councilman Roth stated he had no objection and felt that they should get to the
bottom of the two diametrically opposed statements.
At the conclusion of additional discussion between Councilman Roth and Mr. Parker,
Mr. Parker stated he concurred in that he too wanted to see the situation'cleared
up. He reiterated CGI felt that the wild accusations, innuendos and challenges
that had been passed back and forth were beginning to reflect on the professionalism
and the integrity of their organization and they felt they were at a point where
they would have to withdraw because they could not allow that to happen.
Councilman Roth stated thus far, this was the first time in discussing insurance
matters that he had not yet used the word scary, but in fact, he had to say it
every time. He was not capable of deciphering all there was to know about insur-
ance and had to rely on staff in order to make an intelligent decision. As he
78-1631
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
stated previouly, he was most interested in getting the lowest cost for the
City. He then asked for further clarification relative to the cost of cancel-
lation as it appears that the $4,000 cost was double in comparison to what Mr.
Parker stated.
Mr. Parker confirmed that he estimated the short rate concellation to be $2,375.
Mr. Talley interjected that the difference was substantial considering that Mr.
Parker was saying that the cost of insurance for the first month was $1,025 and
roughly $1,300 for the penalty and AOC indicated it was $1,000 for the first month
of service and about $3,000-plus for the penalty.
Mayor Seymour stated he believed they were finally making progress in that Council-
man Roth's idea to have an investigation was a good one. He could not agree more
and felt that a total investigation should be completed of the whole fiasco that
they had been through including the process that was used to market the particular
policy in question. If what Mr. Parker was saying relative to getting different
numbers at different times was true, while at the same time the Santa Ana firm
obtained different numbers, then something funny was going on. He wanted to get
to the bottom of the situation and thus requested to have the whole relationship
investigated by the City in order to obtain a total and complete report so as to
preclude the continuing two-hour debacles on insurance matters.
Councilman Roth confirmed, as he had done in the past, that he would not hear any
more insurance matters when it was indicated that the Council had only two hours
in which to make a decision.
Further discussion then followed between Mayor Seymour, City Manager Talley, Mr.
Love and Mr. Ciocatto revolving around dates of submittal of letters, memorandums,
etc., regarding the subject insurance, with the Mayor expressing his concern over
the fact that documentation was always being submitted to the Council at the last
possible moment which, in his opinion, was done so that it could not be verified
before it was submitted.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to inves-
tigate the subject short rate cancellation charge and further, that he investigate
the entire relationship between the Risk Manager since he joined the City, and
CGI, to insure that an unbiased approach was used and that the bidding that took
place on workers' compensation insurance was reasonable and in practice. Council-
man Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if it would be well to have the
Risk Manager respond to Mr. Parker's statements.
Mr. Jack Love stated that regarding the motion on the floor, he would find it in
order if there was to be an investigation of all of the issuances involving the
City of Anaheim since he came on board May 8, 1978. If they were looking at late
submissions and other items regarding improprieties, he suggested looking at all
matters and he welcomed such an investigation. He continued that Mr. Parker indi-
cated that the California Inspection Rating Bureau disapproved a rate increase this
year. That was true, but those in the business knew it was most likely that the
78-1632
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Legislature in January or February of 1979 would substantially increase temporary
disability maximum rates. That would, without question, probably result in a
mid-term premium increase. He estimated there would be about a 15 to 20 percent
increase that would impact the Puritan cost differential by anywhere from $500
to $800 on the short rate cancellation involving reinsurance. He knew from his
experience in dealing with aviation insurance with the City of Denver that when
he entertained the notion of cancelling a policy, he was advised by the broker
that the full amount of the premium on the reinsurance amount would be due.
Relative to the previous cancellation, he (Love) recommended to the Council
cancellation of the $5 million policy of $10 million. That was not replaced
and the reason he made the recommendation was due to the fact that, in his
professional opinion, the City did not need that amount of insurance. However,
if the Council was entertaining consideration of Cancellation, he had been
approached by a very large major brokerage firm in Orange County who said they
could give the City of Anaheim a great deal on the $4.5 million insurance over
the first $500,000 coverage. He advised them again, in his professional opinion,
that it would not be wise to do that. On other issuances, Mr. Parker indicated
that it was okay to cancel short rate excess workers' compensation insurance.
Relative to the issuance under discussion, Fireman's Fund in 1966 wrote the City
of San Diego. They subsequently withdrew from the market after being pressured
by the California Inspection Rating Bureau, but they were now looking at. that
market again. He had no doubt that if Anaheim asked them to come back next year
and write the City on the entire $5 million, they would not do it, even though
he expected them to be very competitive, if the present issue was allowed to stand.
The Mayor asked Mr. Love if he had paid the premium on the policy discussed today
prior to the receipt of the policy itself.
Mr. Love answered that he paid according to the issuance, a 25 percent deposit.
He had received a binder and it was a condition of the quotation. Mr. Parker
also had those conditions in his issuances now which he honored.
Mayor Seymour then asked for clarification relative to the specific process that
was used to bid the insurance.
Mr. Love stated that Mr. Parker indicated in a letter to him that he had been
working on the account for 45 days. As the Council would recall at the first
meeting on October 31, 1978, he indicated that he advised Mr. Parker as early
as September 18, 1978, that certain Council Members were very concerned about
late submissions. He (Parker) said at the time there was no problem. If Mr.
Parker needed underwriting information from the City of Anaheim, he could have
asked for it at that time, and it would have been provided to him. He gave Mr.
Parker loss information and if he needed payroll information, he would have seen
to it that he received that information promptly. On October 9,~ 1978, Mr. Parker
requested the information and it was phoned in to him as soon as his secretary
collected i~ and subsequently mailed to Mr. Parker on October 12, 1978. Relative
to the discrepancy in payroll information, in the urgency attempting to obtain a
quotation from the firm of AOC, he made an error in phoning in to them the payroll
information based upon the letter that his secretary had written. However, the
difference in estimated payroll of $40 million or $38 million or $36 million had
no effect upon the rate quoted and the rate was the essential element.
78-1633
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before the question was called for, Mr. Talley asked if the motion could be
separated into two parts, (1) directing the City Attorney to investigate the
short rate cancellation and (2) calling for the investigation of the entire
relationship between Mr. Love and CGI. The answer to the first part could be
supplied within a relatively short period, whereas the investigation could take
some time. City Attorney Hopkins concurred with Mr. Talley regarding the fact
that the investigation would take considerable time to complete.
The Mayor agreed to separating the motion accordingly. A vote was then taken on
the first part of the revised motion directing the City Attorney to investigate
the short rate cancellation charge. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council~mn Overholt, the City Attorney
was directed to investigate the entire relationship between the Risk Manager and
CGI as previously articulated. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mr. Ciocatto stated that an important matter to be settled
was the fact that both carriers (Fireman's Fund and Employer's Reinsurance),
requested that the balance of the premium be paid at this time. Fireman's
Fund expected payment by the delivery of the policy, and it had now been delivered.
Mayor Seymour requested that the carriers be paid since he was assured that even
if payment was made, they could still short rate the policy if necessary.
Mr. Love stated that they had received the Fireman's Fund policy, but not the
Employer's Reinsurance policy. The Mayor stated that they would pay on receipt
of the policy.
151: RADIO RECEIVER AND ANTENNA INSTALLATION AT LINDA VISTA RESERVOIR: Recommen-
dation by the Public Utilities Board that the Council approve a 5-year License
Agreement with the City of Orange for radio receiver and antenna installation at
the ~inda Vista Reservoir, was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-775 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated November 17, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-775: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND THE CITY OF ORANGE FOR A LICENSE TO PERMIT INSTALLATION AND b~INTENANCE
OF A RADIO RECEIVER AND ANTENNA ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LICENSE AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-775 duly passed and adopted.
78-1634
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123: HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR AND PUMPING STATION: Recommendation by the
Public Utilities Board that the Council approve the First Amendment to the
agreement with Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., for the Hidden Canyon Reservoir
and Pumping Station, was submitted.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-776 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 28, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-776: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH TEXACO
ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Hidden Canyon Reservoir and Pumping Station)
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-776 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, 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:
a. .Claim submitted by Allstate - District Claims Office, on behalf of Dorothy
Martin, insured, for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an
incident involving City employees (tree trimmers) at 2536 Glenoaks on or about
October 16, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Regina Blouse for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of a power line problem in the area on or about November 9, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Julia Johnson for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a fall on the sidewalk adjoining an apartment at 2103 Westport
Drive on or about July 22, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Mrs. Scott McClaFy for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a vehicle striking an unmarked construc{ion area in
the street on or about November 7, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Kathy Nieuwlandt for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as the result of a vehicle striking a deep hole in the street on or
about November 12, 1978.
f. Claim s~bmitted by Wilson Toia for personal injuries and damages purportedly
sustained as a result of the defective condition of a sidewalk on the southwest
corner of the 600 block of North La Reina Street on or about October 29, 1978.
78-1635
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
g. Claim submitted by Whaledent International, Inc., for property damages
purportedly sustained as the result of a Convention Center refuse truck
backing into a portion of an assembled exhibit on or about October 20, 1978.
h. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company on behalf of
Gordon Beckner, Jr., insured, for property damages purportedly sustained as a
result of a traffic signal malfunction on or about September 6, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of October 19 and November 2, 1978.
b. 175: Utilities Department - Customer Service Division - Monthly report for
October 1978.
c. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of November 14, 1978.
d. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of November 7, 1978.
e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of November 15, 1978.
f. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Edison
Company Application No. 58481, for authority to increase its base
rates.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour announced that he had to leave the meeting in order to preside
over the Athletes in Action program at the Anaheim Convention Center at 7:45 p.m.
Councilman Overholt stated that during Council Comments, he intended to answer
Councilman Kott's question on the matters relating to the 2-year extension of
the City Manager's contract with the understanding that if the Mayor had further
questions, he would be glad to answer those questions.
The Mayor asked to be supplied with a verbatim transcript of that portion of
the meeting. He then left the Council Chamber. (7:30 P.M.) Mayor Pro Tem
Kaywood assumed Chairmanship of the meeting.
114: CITY OF STANTON RESOLUTION NO. 78-62 REGARDING WITHDRAWAL FROM SCAG:
Councilman Kott removed the subject item from the consent calendar and asked
the City Manager to contact the cities in Orange County who had dropped out
of SCAG to ascertain what they were doing in place of SCAG. He also wanted
to know if those other cities would be willing to form some other type of
union that might include Anaheim, if the Council desired, so that the City
could proceed by another means.
Councilman Roth expressed his desire to expand on the matter even further since
SCAG was so much involved with the AQMP discussed earlier in the meeting. He
broached the possibility of having Mr. Don Hudson from Cypress speak to the
Council relative to alternatives to SCAG. He had spoken with Mr. Hudson at a
Sanitation District meeting and discussed at length some alternatives. If the
Council was agreeable, he wanted Mr. Hudson to speak to those alternatives at
a subsequent Council meeting.
78-1636
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley indicated that he would invite Mr. Hudson to speak.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, City of Stanton
Resolution No. 78-62 regarding withdrawal from the Southern California
Association of Governments was received and filed. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-777
through 78R-779, 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-777: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. ~(Dunn Construc-
tion Company)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-778: 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 GAMLIN INDUSTRIES, INC. PERTAINING TO A RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM;
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-779: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET
AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-6A, north side of Orangewood
Avenue from 1,182 feet east of to Anaheim Boulevard, public hearing set for
December 26, 1978, at 3:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSZNT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 78R-777 through 78R-779, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 3949: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3949 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3949: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
18.01.130 "LOT WIDTH" OF CHAPTER 18.01; SECTIONS 18.22.061.010, 18.22.061.020,
18.22.061.021 AND 18.22.063.010 OF Ct{APTER 18.22; SECTIONS 18.23.061.010,
18.23.061.020, 18.23.061.021, 18.23.063.010 AND 18.23.063.020 OF CHAPTER 18.23;
SECTIONS 18.24.061.010, 18.24.061.020, 18.24.061.021, 18.24.063.010 AND
18.24.063.020 OF CHAPTER 18.24, TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING NEW SECTION 18.01.130 "LOT WIDTH" TO CHAPTER 18.01; SECTIONS 18.22.061.010,
18.22.061.011, 18.22.061.020, 18.22.061.021, AND 18.22.063.010 TO CHAPTER 18.22;
SECTIONS 18.23.061.010, 18.23.061.011, 18.23.061.020, 18.23.061.021, 18.23.063.020,
18.23.063.040 AND 18.23.063.050 TO CHAPTER 18.23; SECTIONS 18.24.061.010,
18.24.061.020, 18.24.061.021, 18.24.061.023, 18.24.063.010, 18.24.063.020,
18.24.063.040 AND 18.24.063.050 TO CHAPTER 18.24, TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICI-
PAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
78-1637
City Hall~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3949 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3950: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3950 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3950: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-7, RM-1200)
116: EVENTS LEADING TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT: Councilman
Overholt stated as indicated to the Mayor before be left, he wanted to carry through
with his promise to relay his part in the events leading up to amendment of the
City Manager's contract on July 25, 1978 (see minutes that date), and he had
given the Mayor assurance that he would be glad to answer publicly any further
questions he might have. Preliminary to telling his involvement, he had previously
indicated that he felt it inappropriate to comment at all until the Grand Jury
investigation into the matter was completed. Although there had been news accounts
of the completion of the investigation, he personally had not seen any correspon-
dence from the Grand Jury to the citizens who had requested the investigation
until very recently. He thanked Councilman Kott for his efforts in getting former
Mayor William Thom to furnish to the City Clerk a copy of the letter dated November 16,
1978, from the Grand Jury addressed to William J. Thom. He thereupon read the letter
into the record (on file in the City Clerk's Office), wherein it was concluded by
the Grand Jury that there was no provable criminal act concerning the City Council
meeting on July 25, 1978 or the events prior thereto, and he subsequently submitted
that letter to the City Clerk. The prior week, he had also requested that he be
furnished with a copy of the original letter sent to the Grand Jury. The City
Clerk requested that of Mr. Thom who declined to submit it. Subsequently, the
Anaheim Bulletin furnished him a copy of the original letter addressed to the
Grand Jury.dated July 27, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth thereupon requested a copy of the letter.
Councilman Overholt then proceeded to elaborate in detail upon the events leading
up to the approval of the amendment to City Manager William Talley's contract on
July 25, 1978, the essence of which was as follows: (a verbatim transcript of
the proceedings is on file in the City Clerk's Office) From the day he had been
sworn in on April 18, 1978, there had been, in his opinion, an unwarranted and
increasing effort on the part of two members of the Council to discredit members
of the City staff publicly and particularly City Manager Talley. The City had
many problems in those first three months of his office, not the least of which
was the Officer Plummer investigation and their wrestling with the Proposition 13
impact on the budgeting process. On July 18, 1978, when Mayor Seymour was on
vacation in Northern California, an Executive Session dealing with a personnel
matter was held wherein Councilman Kott left the meeting and did not return.
The next morning, July 19, 1978, the City Manager called him to inform him that
78-1638
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
according to the Register, Councilman Kott had released the confidential con-
tents of the Plummer investigation report by the City Attorney and had made very
serious accusations toward him (Talley). Also on July 19, 1978, the City was
looking forward to the Rolling Stones Concert at the Stadium scheduled for
July 23 and 24, 1978, with an anticipated 120,000 people visiting the community,
along with related control and traffic problems. Considering the police problems
at that time, things weighed heavily that everything would go well in the next
week.
Councilman Overholt continued that he received a telephone call the afternoon of
July 19, 1978 from Councilwoman Kaywood who was then Mayor Pro Tem and the cere-
monial head of the City in the Mayor's absence. She was distressed with the
problems anticipated with respect to the rock concert and the problems which were
of concern to the Council relative to the Police Department. She was also dis-
tressed over the newspaper article in which it was indicated that Councilman Kott
had made strong accusations against the City Manager and had released portions of
a report which the Council understood would be confidential at that time. The
primary discussion was Chat the Mayor should be apprised of the situation and
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked him if he would try and get in touch with the Mayor
which he finally did. He informed the Mayor of the situation regarding the pub-
lication of inflammatory remarks by reason of the release of the report by
Councilman Kott, as well as their concern with respect to the upcoming rock con-
cert and possible disruption in the Police Department. Further in his discussion
with Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood, she stated that they had to bring an end to this situ-
ation, and he (Overholt) agreed that it was very difficult to have a city function
effectively with the type of harassment that had been going on, not only with the
City Manager, but also with subordinate members of staff. He was well aware of
the very difficult morale problems in staff, primarily because of the fact that
after he was elected and sworn in, he met with every department head in the City
and was so advised. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood indicated at that time (July 19, 1978)
that it was her thought that a contract for Mr. Talley should be considered with
a definite term, and he thought it was a good idea as well. He also stated to
her that he was giving some consideration to doing whatever it took to censure
Councilman Kott for releasing confidential information.
Later in the'afternoon (July 19, 1978) he received a call from Mr. Talley who
explained that he was very upset about the personal attack questioning his pro-
fessional competency and integrity. Subsequently, they met briefly in his
(Overholt's) office since they were both going to a reception at Hancock Labora-
tories. Mr. Talley updated him on the police/rock concert situation and that
was essentially all that was discussed on that occasion.
On the morning of July 20, 1978, he received a call from Mr. Talley who stated
he was going to brief Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood on the Rams situation. He also had
a few other matters that he wanted to discuss with him (Overholt) and wanted to
know if he could get together with him and Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood for that pur-
pose. He then met with Mr. Talley and Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood at a local restau-
rant during lunch. Mr. Talley had a number of items he wished to discuss, one
being the results of the meeting he had with respect to the upcoming rock con-
cert control, another had to do with updating Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood on the Rams
situation and the very last item had to do with his contract. It was then that
Mr. Talley informed him that he had a contract, since up to that point he did not
78-1639
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 51 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
know one existed, although it had no term. Mr. Talley asked what he had in mind
and he (Overholt) recommended that it be given given a 2-year term. Mr. Talley
asked if any options should be included, but he did not believe that was appro-
priate. He also told Mr. Talley that he was contemplating the censure move.
That afternoon, Councilman Overholt stated he called Assistant City Attorney
Frank Lowry who was in charge of the City Attorney's Office in Mr. Hopkins'
absence since he was also on vacation. He asked Mr. Lowry the proper procedure
for censure of a Council person and also indicated that he would be in favor of
some kind of a contract for Mr. Talley with a 2-year term. He asked Mr. Lowry
if he could draw up something in that regard.
The next day, Friday, July 21, 1978, he received a call from Mr. Talley who stated
he wanted to update him on the latest Rams situation. He (Overholt) suggested
that they meet for lunch which they did; however, the atmosphere was not conducive
to speaking about the contracts, and thus he met with Mr. Talley later at his
office and went through what turned out to be the final draft of the original
agreement to agree with the Rams. Mr. Lowry walked in and stated that he had
been working on the contract amendment and he had some problems which he dis-
cussed with Mr. Talley in his presence. Mr. Lowry indicated that he would work
on the contract over the weekend, and it was at that time that he (Overholt)
reminded Mr. Lowry that he would like to have his advice on what to do relative
to the censure. Subsequently, on Monday morning, July 24, 1978, he called Mr.
Lowry, who explained that the only thing necessary was to make a motion.
He then attended a meeting at the Disneyland Hotel where City personnel, Mr.
Lowry and Mr. Talley were present along with the Rams' personnel, and Cabot,
Cabot & Forbes personnel which was Preliminary to the news conference scheduled
for the next day. During a break in the meeting, he was standing with Mr. Talley
when Mr. Lowry approached them and stated that he had the amendment and asked if
he (Overholt) wanted to look at it, which he did, but subsequently declined a copy
of the contract. That was the extent of what he saw of any of the documentation
until it was presented by Councilwoman Kaywood in Council Chambers on July 25, 1978.
Prior to going into the Council meeting on July 25, 1978, he asked City Attorney
Hopkins if he was acquainted with the proposed amendment to Mr. Talley's contract
and also the fact that he had inquired regarding a motion to censure; Mr. Hopkins
stated he was aware of the situation.
In concluding, Councilman Overholt stated that the rest of the story was a matter
of public record, and he then relayed what took place at the July 25, 1978 meeting.
He made the censure motion and Councilwoman Kaywood offered the resolution to amend
Mr. Talley's contract and a debate followed with the Mayor moving to continue the
matter two weeks so that he and Councilman Kott would have an opportunity to review
the contract. He (Overholt) took the position that they did not have to ~review it
because it was very simple, stating that there was a 2-year term added to the exist-
ing contract, but with the same terms and conditions as had previously existed. The
record would show that he personally insisted that if the Mayor or Councilman Kott
wished to have more time or have the original document brought forward or to have
it further explained by the City Attorney, that was the time to do it.
He reiterated he was personally extremely concerned over what appeared to be a real
deterioration of the staff morale in the City. He hoped that after the Mayor had an
opportunity to ask whatever questions he had, they could go forward from today and
bring to the City the kind of leadership it deserved.
78-1640
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he was pleased with the explanation given by Councilman
Overholt which pointed out that the accusations that three Council Members sat
down to conspire on the contract was certainly not true. Relative to that con-
tract, as he had stated before, he never talked to Councilman Overholt, City
Manager Talley, Assistant City Attorney Lowry or City Attorney Hopkins about it.
He received one phone call during working hours in his office asking if he would
be supportive of such a contract. At that time, his concern was that something
had to be done to bring some peace, quiet and efficiency to the City, and he favored
such a contract if that would help. He never saw the contract until the Mayor
and Councilman Kott saw it at the Council meeting on July 25, 1978.
Councilman Kott stated he was expecting something more dramatic than what was re-
vealed. He believed it was a logical sequence of events that obviously Councilman
Overholt was talked into by Councilwoman Kaywood. However, relative to the Plummer
matter, two weeks before he exposed it, the agreement was that it would be exposed
in two weeks, but it was not done and that was a fact that Councilman Overholt
either forgot or did not choose to remember. Thus, he did not feel that anything
was done that was out of line. Further, Councilman Overholt made quite a point
about the rock concert, and he could not see where the Plummer matter, nor the
Talley contract would have too much bearing on the rock concert. Since he (Overholt)
apparently received a lot of calls from the City Manager, perhaps he knew something
that he did not know. Also, it was interesting to learn that Councilman .Overholt
had met with people and saw low morale indicators, and apparently knew the cause
of the problem without asking him (Kott) or other Council Members. Over the 2-year
period he had been in office, he had people come to his office to tell about the
morale problem and they came up with a completely different story than that which
Councilman Overholt presented. He felt there was no question that there was a
problem, but he was certain it was still there between the City Manager and some
people on the Council and he did not see where a contract would solve the problem.
He reiterated that he believed it to be presumptuous and silly to think that be-
cause there was a contract, everything was going to all right. Councilman Overholt
neve~ asked him about the situation and if he had been intellectually honest,
he would have done so.
Councilman Overholt responded to the issue of the Plummer report and stated that
he and Councilman Kott did not agree whether or not the Council agreed to release
the report on a certain date, and they would probably always disagree on that issue.
Relative to the contract, it was not a new contract, but only a matter of placing
a 2-year term on the existing contract which did not require study. The only
reason he brought up the surrounding circumstances was to relate the climate in
the City at the time in which he made his decisions.
Councilman Kott stated that one additional item he wanted to address was relative
to the investigation of the three Council Members. He believed that somewhere in
the newspaper, he noted that he was included as one of the persons who requested
the investigation. He wanted Councilman Overholt to know that he was not one of
the parties who requested the investigation and he did not approve of it. However,
he did not go along with the proposal, which he felt was legal, but in a sense,
underhanded. The crux of the matter was the fact that the attorney drew up a con-
tract outside of the public forum.
78-1641
Cit~; Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to clarify the situation relative to the
Plummer report in that they had initially stated it would be discussed in one
week, but when the Mayor was going to be out of town, they extended that time.
The Executive Session they had when the Mayor was absent had nothing whatsoever
to do with Plummet, although Kott informed him that it did and that was why the
Mayor was so angry on July 25, 1978. She referred to the minutes of that meeting
and noted at the time that she requested a copy of the 16-page excerpt taken from
the confidential report. When she asked that all the Council Members be given a
copy of the excerpt submitted to the press, the Mayor interjected and stated that
the Council could not force Councilman Kott into providing a copy to them, and
Assistant City Attorney Lowry stated that he would submit a copy of the full
report to the Council, but that they would not be receiving the excerpts. She
was amazed that immediately afterward on only a one paragraph document, a two
weeks' continuance was requested. She believed that her comments'in the verbatim
of that portion of the July 25, 1978 meeting (on file in the City Clerk's Office)
were as timely now as they were then. The amount of turmoil and confusion, the
confrontation politics and the atmosphere of suspicion, accusations, negativism
and the endless, costly investigations and witch hunts had to come to an end so
that the City could go forward in a positive manner with some stability and dignity
for the next two years. It was with that in mind that she had offered the resolution
amending the existing agreement between the City and the City Manager, giving him
a 2-year term on the existing contract. Also at that time, a fact which was not
generally known was the possibility that the City was in the process of losing
one of its very best department heads due to the turmoil, and the 2-year contract
changed that situation. There were very good reasons for going ahead and doing
something positive, and the hope was that it was going to be the end of the matter,
but unfortunately it was not.
Councilman Kott commented that basically what she was saying then was that the
contract really did not serve its purpose as she predicted. Councilman Kaywood
stated it did serve its purpose in that the department heads were functioning
bett~r, and she believed that morale was a little better.
106: APPOINTMENT TO BUDGET BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE: Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated
that her appointee to the Budget Blue Ribbon Committee, James Cozad, had been
promoted to a key position in his company and thus reluctantly withdrew from the
Committee. She thereupon offered the name of Mr. C. L. Gardner, Finance Director
of Rockwell, to serve. Mr. Gardner had been assigned by Mr. Cozad at the outset
to work with that Committee.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Mr. C. L.
Gardner was appointed to the Budget Blue Ribbon Committee, replacing Mr. James
Cozad. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
114: VERBATIM PORTION OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 7 AND 21, 1978: Mayo~ Pro Tem Kaywood
asked that the following verbatim portion from the minutes of November 7 and 21,
1978 be spread in the minutes: November 7, 1978--Re: The portion where Council-
man Kott was asked a question and responded that's what Bill Thom told him.
November 21, 1978--Re: The portion where the request was made to put a time limit
on the November 28, 1978, 7:00 p.m. meeting. That was prior to the scheduled
7:30 p.m. joint meeting with the Commissions and was also why the cable TV portion
was rescheduled from that date. She thereupon moved that those verbatim portions
be spread in the minutes themselves. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
78-1642
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 5~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood clarified her motion for Council-
man Kott.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
112: CITY EMPLOYEE WORK AREAS: Councilman Kott again spoke to the Ashley Economic
Services letter dated May 15, 1978, which was discussed earlier in the meeting and
which now had been distributed. While it was not signed, it did have the name of
a Kelly McDermott, and thus as he viewed the situation, there had been activity
on the matter with people calling meetings and so.on. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood had
one interpretation of the letter and he had another and to him, "greased the skids"
meant that the situation wasa pretty sure thing. It was his opinion that things
were going on in the Planning Department where people who called themselves con-
sultants would go behind the counter and make demands of the employees. He was
told that had occurred and he wanted to know how appropriate that type of activity
was and how it looks for the City and the Planning Department. They spoke of
things like dignity and decorum and he considered those to be fine terms, but there
could be dignity, decorum and betrayal all at the same time and he believed his
priorities transcended dignity and decorum. He thereupon asked the City Attorney
his opinion from a legal point of view wherein people not employed by the City or
City officials were allowed beyond the usual areas of business.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that normally areas where City employees worked such
as behind counters or a desk would only be occupied by City employees. If the
general public or consultants were invited in by a supervisor or department head
to have a meeting or to discuss an item, that would not be unusual. However, if
they were given access to confidential documentation, that could be a problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if Councilman Kott was saying that confidential docu-
ments were being shown to someone.
Councilman Kott answered that he did not say that and for the moment, he had re-
ceived his answer.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated that part of the problem, and she had seen it for
many years, was with City Hall itself. Employees did not have a normal office,
desk and chair where they could invite someone in and thus there were times when
it looked like a mob scene.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Wednesday, December 6, 1978,
at 7:00 p.m., at the Anaheim Public Library, 500 West Broadway, to discuss
Community Antenna Television (CATV). Councilman Kott seconded the motion.'
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:30 P.M.