The URL can be used to link to this page

1975/03/117 5-204 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975; 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed all those in attendance to the Council meeting. RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: The following Resolution of Condolence was .read into the record and a period of silence was requested by the Mayor in memory of Mr. A. J. Schutte, former Councilman and Mayor of the City of Anaheim: "WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Council was saddened to learn of the passing of Mr. A. J. Schutte on March 7, 1975; and WHEREAS, Mr. A. J. Schutte served diligently and faithfully as a Planning Commissioner, City Councilman and Mayor for a period extending almost 20 years; and WHEREAS, the expertise, imagination and courage of Mr. A. J. Schutte con- tributed greatly to the rise of Anaheim as a leader in its many fields of endeavor, and to its orderly growth during one of the most explosive population expansions in history. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Council does express its sorrow and condolences to the family and loved ones of this capable and respected civic worker, and extends to them its gratitude for their sharing of the time and talents of Mr. A. J. Schutte with his grateful friends and neighbors. AUTHORIZED by the Anaheim City Council this llth day of March, 1975. ATTEST: /s/ Aloha M. Hougard CITY CLERK, CITY OF ANAHEIM /s/ W. J. Bill Thom W. J. BILL THOM, MAYOR /s/ John Seymour JOHN SEYMOUR, MAYOR PRO TEM /s/ Miriam Kaywood MIRIAM KAYWOOD, COUNCILWOMAN /s/ Calvin L. Pebley CALVIN L. PEBLEY, COUNCILMAN /s/ RALPH G. SNEEGAS RALPH G. SNEEGAS, COUNCILMAN" FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: The Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held February 11, 1975 and Adjourned Regular Meetings held February 10, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. and February 17, 1975, were approved, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour. 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 reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. 75-205 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $3,527,406.17, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved. ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY - STATUS REPORT ON FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AUDIT: Mr. Jim LeSieur of Arthur Young & Company submitted a report which briefly sum- marized the progress on the overall project during the month of February, 1975, specifically that reports were presented during this month on Audit Planning and Communications; that reports will be presented this date regarding the findings and recommendations of management review in Personnel and Data Processing; that report on Utilities Department is scheduled for presentation in early April; that Research and Budget review is complete and report will be presented following review with the Assistant City Manager and Audit Steering Committee; and the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department review is on schedule. ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY - REPORT ON MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: Mr. George Lundberg of Arthur Young & Company presented the report to Council on results of the Management Audit of the Personnel Department. He described the purpose of this review was to determine if the Personnel Department is operating in an effective manner and providing personnel services and support to City departments and employees. Generally, Mr. Lundberg summarized that they find the department is effectively performing many personnel functions while others are receiving minimal attention. He stated that the department does not provide adequate administrative direction nor does it exercise adequate control over all personnel-related activities of the City, and this is primarily due to a lack of a clear, established understanding between the City Council, City Manager, and Personnel Director as to the desired level and scope of the services which should be available to departments and employees. Additionally, the Personnel Department has been operating in a reactive mode, the current levels of service being reflec- tive of how the City Manager views the various personnel functions. The following are the general recommendations presented by Arthur Young & Company at the conclusion of their review: 1. That the City develop a departmental policy directive which defines Council, City Management, and Personnel Department philosophy toward providing centralized personnel services. 2. Develop a pay policy which will assess the need of the City as to maintaining its current position, i.e., of paying the highest salaries in the County for most benchmark classifications. 3. Conduct a comprehensive classification and salary study which would improve internal and external equitability of compensation. 4. Establish a centrally administered employee performance appraisal system which would effectively relate pay to individual performance and pro- ductivity. 5. Improved training programs with specific emphasis on first line super- vision. Mr. Lundberg related that while short-term cost savings have not been identified, the Arthur Young & Company believe that if these recommendations are followed substantial savings will occur in employee salary costs in the long term. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mayor Thom referred to the recom- mendation that the City Manager and Personnel Director select a qualified organization to conduct a comprehensive classification and salary study and indicated that he would assume from this recommendation that the present organi- zation, i.e., the Anaheim Personnel Department, is not qualified to perform this study. He noted this would lead him to consider whether or not the entire Personnel function should be contracted out. Mr. Lundberg replied that he did not mean to imply that there is not a level of competency in the department which could maintain such a job classifi- cation system, however, because of the quantity of work associated with the proposed job classification review, he did not think it could be accomplished by the present Personnel Department unless some current functions are reassigned or additional persons employed. As far as contracting for personnel services is concerned, he stated that this approach would have to be assessed in full detail, but considering the scope of personnel services provided currently, he thought it might be difficult to obtain an outside service to render the total function. 7 ~-206 Hail, Anaheim, California - C()iJNCIL M[N[JTES - March ]]?_0.975, .1:'.,0 ~-'.lq. In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Lundberg indicated that the cost of such a job classification study, predicated upon its inclusion of an update on the entire salary system and performance appraisal measurement, would be in the magnitude of $80,000 to $100,000. Mr. Murdoch pointed out that an additional advantage of contracting for such a job classification study would be that this outside firm would not be involved in the negotiating process which does, in fact, set up a conflict situation. Mr. Lundberg concurred and noted that if the classification plan is main- tained on a regular basis, an external study would probably not be necessary unless there is a major reorganization or change in the City which would have an impact on these classifications. Councilman Seymour asked if Mr. Lundberg had any idea of the financial savings which might be created from such study, and Mr. Lundberg replied that if as part of this project a pay position was developed by the City establishing what its policy would be, the savings realized from that and the classification plan could be in the neighborhood of one-half million dollars annually. He reported that according to their survey the City of Anaheim, compared to other entities in the Orange County public sector and in private industry, is in the number one pay position for 90% of its classifications. Councilman Pebley noted that as a result of this job classification and wage study, it may be determined that certain Anaheim City employees are over- paid and perhaps salaries should be cut back. He stated that such study would be worthless unless the City Council is willing to proceed with such cutbacks of salaries. Mayor Thom pointed out that Council could also opt to hold the line on salaries so as not to proliferate an existing incompatible situation. Mr. Murdoch commented that he felt the report carries some excellent recommendations which should be implemented, however, he pointed out it is also very important for Council to recognize the significance of some of the recom- mendations. For example, if the Council does allocate funds for expenditure on a position audit and salary schedule review, they should be aware that to follow through on the resulting recommendations may mean a somewhat different policy from that which the Council has followed in the relatively recent past, since adjustments in employees' salaries have been on an "across-the-board approach". He noted that the potential savings from the Arthur Young & Company recommendation are in identifying what the jobs actually are and what the appropriate scale should be when weighed against the private and to some extent public labor market. He noted that this procedure was used for many years by the City of Anaheim. In reply to Councilman Seymour's question as to when the City shifted its pay policy to the "across-the-board approach", Mr. Murdoch indicated that this occurred when the various employee associations and labor unions came into the picture. He stated that it is possible to change the approach although it would not be easy. It would necessitate that prior to reaching a wage agree- ment, the City would have to investigate what the labor market really pays for various positions and then decide whether the City of Anaheim should pay above, below or at that wage. Further 5~r. Murdoch pointed out that measuring produc- tivity in this same relationship of salary to performance is also contrary to the "across-the-board approach". He pointed out that the performance appraisal system is somewhat difficult to administer, but not impossible, and that it becomes more and more difficult as Federal and State legislation is enacted pertaining to the meeting and conferring and bargaining procedures. Mr. Murdoch questioned whether the recommendation for a position audit and salary schedule review included an investigation of performance factors which might be measured and their impact on the salary schedule, to which Mr. Lundberg repl. ied affirmatively, and added that it would be timely to conduct performance measurement evaluation along with the position audit. Mr. Murdoch noted that the recommendation states that this job classifica- tion audit should be completed prior to September of 1975 so that the informa- tion can be utilized in wage negotiations which conclude in mid-October and stated ne assumed that Arthur Young & Company feels this goal to be obtainable. 75-207 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lundberg remarked that he felt the position audit could be completed in six months' time. Mr. Murdoch then pointed out that Council will have to make a decision on such an appraisal as soon as possible. Councilman Seymour stated that he found the report to be very significant and on review of this, it indicates to him that what the Personnel Department is doing they are doing a good job of, but what they are not doing should be included as part of their function. The reason for this discrepancy being that the City Council has not adopted a pay policy nor a philosophical posture regarding employees' compensation and consequently the City Manager has not instructed the Personnel Department in these areas. Councilman Seymour further stated, in reference to Councilman Pebley's earlier remark that if the City Council does adopt a position of undertaking a job classification, as well as performance analysis, study with expenditure of $80,000 to $100,000, they had better be well prepared to make the "hard nose" decision necessary to .implement the ultimate recommendations. Councilman Seymour indicated that he felt it is mandatory that the Council adopt such a strong position, but at the same time be completely fair to the City employees, i.e., that the employee be compensated to the degree he would be if working elsewhere in a community of commensurate size, in private enter- prise in a similar capacity and further that he be treated fairly to the extent that if the job classification study reveals that a salary should be lower than it actually is, that no reduction be made but rather a freeze be placed on that individual's salary. He recognized these are hard decisions to make but indi- cated that he personally is prepared to do so. He briefly indicated that he was disappointed and discouraged and made it clearly known at the first budget discussion, that not one department head in the City indicated they had gotten the message set forth by the Council to create efficiencies and cut costs. He further pointed out that he is prepared to infiltrate the ranks to ascertain why department heads will not cut their costs, and, if necessary, replace those who refuse to economize. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the City Council accept the Arthur Young & Company report on results of the Management Audit of the Personnel Department and immediately call for proposals to undertake the job classifica- tion and performance study as recommended. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Mayor Thom indicated he concurred with Councilman Seymour's remarks, but that he is disappointed that this study could not be completed in-house, although he appreciates the fact that such a study could put the Personnel Department in a tremulous situation as it relates to negotiations with employee organizations. Discussion regarding the capabilities and capacity of the Personnel Depart- ment to accomplish the recommendations of Arthur Young & Company including maintenance of the job classification system ensued during which Mr. Murdoch cautioned that Council be careful in their expectations, noting that certain areas of the Personnel Department function were consciously minimized in order to increase coordination and place emphasis on other duties. Councilman Seymour stated that in reviewing the report he came to the conclusion that the'Personnel Department could implement the Arthur Young & Company recommendations because they will revise their philosophies and objectives as a result of these recom- mendations and will be curtailing or deleting services which are superfluous, i.e., services which are nice to have but not absolutely necessary. In reply to Council questions, Mr. Garry McRae stated that he perceives the Arthur Young & Company recommendations as follows: 1. They have recommended that the Personnel Department modify its organi- zation to assure that some things, i.e., the recruitment and placement program, do not get put aside during negotiations. 2. To his knowledge, Arthur Young & Company has not recommended that the Personnel Department stop doing anything that it is presently doing. 75-208 ('J::~; H~!].l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March liD 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. McRae pointed out. tt~at his department is currently putting three or four man years into labor relations - employee relations activities. He stated that he would be interested in knowing if it was the intent of the Arthur Young & Company recommendation that Council draw the conclusion that certain services be deleted. Councilman Seymour read from the Arthur Young & Company report the state- ment that due to a lack of clearly defined goals and objectives, a reactive posture has been adopted by the department which has contributed to a perceived degree of indifference on the part of some personnel, and he asked the Personnel Director what this statement tells him. Mr. McRae stated that it means to him that the City has abrogated its responsibility to have a training program; minimized the emphasis placed on supervisory training; deemphasized the safety program and maintenance of the job classification plan since 1969. The reorganization of the department suggested is that personnel work within a framework of 18 positions whereas they currently have 16. These two additional positions were allocated last year for the purpose of maintaining the classification plan. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chambers. (2:25 P.M.) Further discussion ensued during which Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the Personnel Department could probably achieve all of these things but not simulta- neously. He indicated that the safety program was one of the items sacrificed in order to meet what was interpreted as the first priority of the City Council. He stressed that this is the type of direction which needs to be discussed with the City Council at budget hearings. Councilman Seymour asked the Personnel Director whether or not he could achieve the things recommended by Arthur Young & Company with present staff. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chambers. (2:29 P.M.) Mr. McRae replied that he felt the Personnel Department could meet the level of service required by the Arthur Young & Company report if it is recog- nized that the available manpower will primarily be spent on Category I items as shown in the report and additionally, recognizing that not much time will be spent on training either now or in the immediate future. Further, some of the programs now assigned to Personnel Department would have to be assigned else- where in the City. Mr. McRae pointed out that the list of items which has deterred the Per- sonnel Department from more traditional responsibilities is a very real one. He referred to the analysis of comparative staffing levels performed by Arthur Young & Company which indicates that the City of Anaheim Personnel Department has a staffing ratio of .59 per 100 employees, whereas other personnel depart- ments are substantially higher. Further that the comparison of Personnel Department functions indicates that the City of Anaheim Personnel Department spends 26% of its time in labor relations, whereas the typical amount is 7%. In reply to Councilman Seymour's request for a direct "yes" or "no" answer to his question, Mr. ~IcRae explained that this is not possible since the Arthur Young & Company recommendations did not address the question of how much empha- sis should be placed on training, affirmative action and safety. He stated that the Arthur Young & Company representative advised him that these are basically a determination of how much resource the municipal corporation wishes to allocate, which is a management judgment they did not want to make for the City. He stated that he hoped the Council would sit down with him and work out an allocation of resources within the 18 position Personnel Department framework for the 1975-76 Fiscal Year, then, of course the Personnel Department can meet its commitment within that perimeter set by the Council. Councilman Seymour related that he had asked the same question at the Audit Steering Committee, and the reply from Arthur Young & Company was a direct "yes" without any hedging. 75-209 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. McRae stated that his request for the 1975-76 Budget both before and after the Arthur Young & Company review is essentially the same, and the only reason he has to qualify his answer is due to the failure of the Arthur Young & Company to set forth what the various levels of service should be. He stated that he personally concurs with them that it would not be appropriate for them to do so. He explained that these service levels are a function of time and money and should be determined internally. Mayor Thom called for a vote on the foregoing motion. Prior to voting on said motion, Councilman Pebley sought assurance from the remainder of the Council that once the monies are spent on the job audit and salaries review, the Council will be firm in its decision to hold the line. Mayor Thom indicated that he would not be in favor of cutting a salary if it is found to be higher than the prevailing industry and public sector wage, but rather would favor holding it at the same level until it becomes equated with what is being paid in the labor market. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that while she also felt no employee should receive a cut in pay in this situation, that, the position be reflected to show a lower beginning salary so that a new person hired for that position would begin at the lower salary level. Mayor Thom called for a vote on Councilman Seymour's foregoing motion to accept the Arthur Young & Company report and immediately call for proposals to undertake the job classification and performance study, said motion having been duly seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT - ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY RESULTS OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE DATA PROCESSING DIVISION: Mr. Roger Hoff of Arthur Young & Company submitted reports to Council containing the results of the Management Review of the Data Process- ing Division. The objective of the review was to measure the effectiveness of the division in meeting the informational needs of the City and further to determine methods to improve operation of the division and to identify cost reductions. Mr. Hoff summarized that the overall conclusion from the review is that the division has not, over the past few years, satisfied the City informational needs. Arthur Young & Company believes that there is significant correctional action required, some of which has already been initiated as a result of changes in management. He described the scope of the review conducted. Mr. Hoff presented the following recommendations with respect to management of the Data Processing Division: (Listed are only those recommendations ver- bally reported at the meeting, for complete recommendations with justifications and in detail, see Arthur Young & Company report on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 1. To consider elevation of Data Processing to departmental status, possibly with the inclusion of several other existing City functions incorpor- ated into an administrative services department. (It is further recommended that this particular recommendation not be implemented until the City audit is complete since there may be several organizational changes forthcoming.) 2. Realignment and reallocation of duties and responsibilities within the department. 3. Develop a comprehensive job accounting system to appropriately allocate costs between the City and MDS. 4. Data Processing budget development should be initiated with existing work load on "current business" basis. All subsequent developmental efforts should be separately estimated and budgeted. 5. Employees within the Data Processing Division should be given regular and useful performance evaluations. 6. Investigate alternative sources of equipment. (A potential savings of approximately $18,000 to $33,000 was identified by replacing existing disc sys- tems with alternate equipment.) 7. Consider installation of automatic fire protection equipment in com- puter room. 75-210 CitE Hall~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975~ !:30 P.M. 8. Revision of those programs currentl, y run in ~m~,lation mode to more efficiently use current computer resources. 9. Designate one position (rather than two as currently) to be responsible for scheduling production on the computer for both the City and MDS. 10. Improve communications with user departments by monthly reporting. 11. Completion of an E.D.P. Master Plan should be given highest priority. Mr. Hoff pointed out that without an E.D.P. Master Plan Arthur Young & Company cannot comment on the appropriateness of staffing levels or computer resources of the division. He indicated that they also believe that there is a requirement to develop this master plan for establishment of priorities based on cost/benefit analysis and this would provide the basis for determining whether or not certain developmental projects should proceed. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Murdoch commented that the report does not say very much regarding the facilities management approach to Data Processing and since there may be some substantial employee incentive problems to carry out the recommendations outlined by Arthur Young & Company, he indicated that he would like additional clarification as to Arthur Young & Company's position on the facilities management approach in the future, once the E.D.P. Master Plan is complete. He stated that if Arthur Young & Company and the City Council are not convinced of the capability of an in-house opera- tion as the right approach to data processing, perhaps this division should not be wasting their time at this point. Mayor Thom recognized that he had spoken openly and had emphasized since the results of the Ernst & Ernst report were made known in 1970, that he has favored using any approach possible to place Data Processing into the private sector. Mr. Murdoch further pointed out that one of the specific requests of Arthur Young & Company was to review the possibility of contracting or using the facilities management approach for the City's data processing needs. He indicated that if their conclusion is that the facilities management approach has potential for the City, he would prefer to deal with that recommendation directly at this point. Mr. Hoff indicated that Mr. Murdoch's position presupposes that the Data Processing Division will compare unfavorably with the facilities management approach. He advised that the potentiality or fear of facilities management coming in and taking over a data processing operation exists all the time. He stated that management should be constantly evaluating to see if there are alternative approaches to satisfying that function. He stated that since the division has not been running efficiently in the past and there are no specific proposals upon which to evaluate the advantages or disadvantages of a facilities management approach, this cannot be analyzed at the present time. He summarized that the Arthur Young & Company point of view on this issue is that although they have serious reservation about utilization of facilities management within the City and certain other organizations, this does not mean that they can discount the approach entirely. Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council accept the Arthur Young & Company report and approve the recommendations therein listed. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Thom complimented the Arthur Young & Company for a fine job on the report and indicated that he personally felt strongly that Data Processing is one of the functions which could be accomplished more efficiently in the private sector. Councilman Seymour agreed with the Mayor's comment, and further commended Arthur Young & Company, who were certainly aware of his and the Mayor's opinions in this matter, on their straightforwardness and honesty in preparation of this report. COMMENTS ON PROPOSITION "A" - ESTABLISHMENT OF CHARTER AMENDMENT TASK FORCE: Councilman Seymour referred to comments made by himself at the meeting of February 25, 1975 regarding the placement of a Charter Amendment on the ballot which would embody the principle that profits received from generation of electricity would be passed back to the consumer in the form of lower rates. 75-211 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Since passage of the $150,000,000 bond issue has now placed the City of Anaheim in the business of generating electricity, he felt it imperative that the City Council take the necessary steps toward assuring the citizenry that they will receive these profits from generation of electric power[ He pointed out that he was not referring to those profits presently received from distribution and budgeted in the General Fund since this would necessitate an increase somewhere else in order to support budgetary requirements. However, he emphasized that not one cent has yet been received from power generation, and those are the profits he feels should be identified and passed back to the consumer. The method to accomplish this he felt is to establish a committee, composed of some of those individuals who were active, both for and against the Proposi- tion "A" ballot measure, which committee would be charged to: 1) recommend specific language to be used in this proposed Charter Amendment and 2) write the argument in favor of the proposed amendment. For membership on the commit- tee, Councilman Seymour proposed the following names: Mr. Richard Lytle of North American Rockwell, Mr. Joe White of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Mr. James Townsend, Mr. Clyde Haugen of Delco Remy, Mr. James Webb of Pacific Telephone Company. The Mayor invited comments from any of those named individuals present in the audience. Mr. Joe White agreed that the only method which would insure the savings being passed to the consumer is through the Charter Amendment. Mr. White further wished to make a statement regarding the series of meetings conducted by City management during the last week of February, 1975, prior to the March 4, 1975 election, which he alleged were for the sole purpose of convincing City employees of the management's position in a political issue. He contended that this must be in violation of a City ordinance and constitutes a misuse of public funds. He requested that the Council institute an investiga- tion of this occurrence and request recommendations, or he would instigate further investigation by the Grand Jury or State or Federal levels of government. Mr. James Townsend stated that he would be happy to serve in any capacity on the committee proposed by Councilman Seymour. Mr. Townsend wished to further comment on the use of the Anaheim Newsletter as a political tool. He read a letter received by him from the City's Public Information Officer prior to the March 4, 1975 election, inviting him to submit an article, as the acknowledged leader of the opposition to the bond proposition, which he understood was to be printed in its entirety under his byline in the Newsletter. However, he asserted that the article when ultimately printed in the Anaheim Newsletter was rather a news type story which incorpor- ated his comments and also supplied answers to same. He indicated that he highly resented the editorializing of the article and the use of the Anaheim Newsletter in this manner. (Mr. Townsend submitted a copy of his original article for Council's information which was reviewed by the individual members.) Mr. Townsend further pointed out that this edition of the Newsletter was dissem- inated strategically shortly before the date of the election. Mr. Townsend further indicated his opposition to the use of City facilities and taxpayers' money to conduct the type of meeting which he personally wit- nessed, just four days before the election. He contended that the film clip used was identical to that being used by proponents of the proposition and the graphs and charts were more detailed; the entire presentation being one sided. Councilman Seymour stated that he would not favor the use of the Newsletter as a political tool and will as a matter of fact during the forthcoming budget hearings seriously question the justification of the City's expenditure for this news vehicle. However, he noted that the information which he read in the local newspapers regarding the positions of the Anaheim City Council Members on this same Proposition "A" was editorialized. He added that after reading the statement just submitted by Mr. Townsend, and in recalling what he had read in the Anaheim Newsletter, it seemed to him that although Mr. Townsend's words were softened, they were not changed. 75-212 Regarding the attendance by City employees at a meeting, he indicated that he had not seen anything of the material presented, but felt that if these meetings were conducted as an informational device and no City employee was told or coerced into actively campaigning in favor of the bond proposition, he could see nothing wrong with using that vehicle for conveying information.. He voiced the opinion that a City employee should be made aware of the facts as to what is going on because more often than not, he will be approached for informa- tion by citizens who are aware that he is a City employee. In order to assure that the employee can intelligently convey the information, it is necessary that the management take the time to provide that information to him. However, if it was, as Mr. Townsend suggested a "sales job", then he would certainly not concur with the decision to conduct same. Mayor Thom stated that he could substantiate Mr. Townsend's comments to the extent that he was present at one of these meetings and although there evidently were meetings scheduled also at 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. that date, when he returned at that time, there was no meeting being conducted. Mr. RichardLytle stated that he would be delighted to serve on the task force committee to prepare the Charter Amendment. He pointed out that the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce in October and November unanimously went on record in favor of such a Charter issue as part of their original support of'Proposition "A". Further the committee which he worked with, Consumers for Lower Cost Electric- ity, also were equally in favor of such amendment. Mr. Watts pointed out that this could prove to be a very difficult measure to word and further that there are only two election dates left in 1975, one in May which seems rather soon and the other in November which would seem to be a better target date. Councilman Pebley indicated he would be in favor of a Charter Amendment to return profits from generation to the consumer, however, he would not wish to see those funds budgeted in the General Fund derived from distribution profits which help to keep the Anaheim property tax rate at its current low level, included in this amount to be returned to the consumers, since this might increase property taxes and thereby cause problems for individuals on fixed incomes. Mayor Thom pointed out that it is certainly possible to clearly identify and differentiate the amounts received from generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical power. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it must be understood that the cost of power and utilities is on the increase and will continue to increase and while the citizens of Anaheim will receive the benefits from generation profits, the Council must also encourage conservation of electricity. She suggested that the profits ultimately derived from generation be reflected 50% towards reduction of electrical rates and 50% to the General Fund to support budget requirements, Councilwoman Kaywood further noted that she had requested a report on the possibility of establishing a "life-line" service for senior citizens or people on a fixed income which would enable them to have a minimal utility rate for minimal amounts of electric and water, so that these people are not forced to live without the basic necessities. Councilman Seymour moved that the following named individuals, if willing, together with staff assistance provided by the City Attorney and Utilities Director, be appointed to serve on a task force which will report back to the City Council prior to July 1, 1975, with a recommendation for the wording of a Charter Amendment proposal on the ballot, which would provide that the profits received from generation of electrical power be returned to the consumers in the form of lower electrical rates: Clvde Haugen, Delco Remy; Joe White, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Richard Lytle, North American Rockwell; James Webb, Pacific Telephone Company and James Townsend. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. COMMUNITY HOUSING ASSISTANCE: Councilman Seymour introduced the subject of com- munity housing assistance, noting that the City Council has been made aware of the crucial need in the City of Anaheim for housing and housing assistance to certain members of the community. He cited figures compiled by the Development 75-213 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975, 1:30 P.M. Services Department, in preparing information for the Community Development Act, going back to 1970 when the National Census indicated that in Anaheim a total number of 9,761 households fell short of their needs for housing in one or more of the following categories: 1. Substandard housing as defined by lack of indoor plumbing. 2. The structure in which they resided was more than 30 years old and had a value of less than $10,000. 3. Their annual income was less than $10,000 and within that income, they were paying more than 25% for housing. Councilman Seymour pointed out that the reason he is bringing this to the attention of the City Council is his concern for the plight of the elderly per- sons in the City of Anaheim. He stated that out of the 9,761 households men- tioned, 2,086, or 23%, of the total figure were those of elderly persons. These citizens face a serious problem as substantiated by the letters he has received. He gave as an example a senior citizen in the City of Anaheim who is totally reliant on social security may receive benefits in the amount of $250 per month, however if that individual is required to pay $100 to $125 per month of this amount for housing, then there is not much left over with which to purchase food. Councilman Seymour stated that he had investigated a number of letters which he had received and has learned that numbers of these elderly people do not have food to eat and exist on either all starch diets or, if they can qualify, on the one hot meal per day provided by "Meals on Wheels". Councilman Seymour stated that the City of Anaheim has long overlooked its opportunity to meet the needs of the elderly, as their housing problem might be resolved to a great degree if the City were to either form its own housing authority or join the Orange County Housing Authority which would make these Anaheim citizens eligible for Federal assistance. He pointed out that in fiscal year 1974-75 the Federal government made available $1.225 billion for this type of assistance. Therefore, he indicated that his purpose in bringing the matter up is to determine whether or not the Members of the City Council wish to: 1. Adopt a philosophical position which endorses the concept of bringing Federal assistance for housing into the City. 2. Set the matter for public hearing as early as two weeks from this date. Mayor Thom concurred with the sentiments and proposal set forth by Councilman Seymour but inquired whether staff would be able to put such a pro- posal together and prepare and publish the necessary legal notices in two weeks. Councilman Seymour advised that since Mr. Fernald has had experience with the Orange County Housing Authority, he had requested that he be present to provide any general information which Council might wish at this time. Mr. Fernald submitted an informational memorandum on this subject to the Council Members and pointed out that on Page No. 2 of this memorandum there are three alternate options listed and that Council may choose to set up the housing authority in either of the following ways: 1. Contract for membership with the Orange County Housing Authority. 2. Create a separate housing authority for the City of Anaheim. 3. Create a combined housing authority and redevelopment agency. In reply to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Fernald voiced the opinion that of the three options, combining the housing authority with redevelopment agency is the most efficient inasmuch as the same types of staff are needed in both agencies, and this combination allows a more effective use of personnel. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council set for public hearing as soon as possible the establishment of a housing authority within the City of Anaheim. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that most of these elderly people lived very productive lives and set aside certain amounts for retirement, however, the extremely high inflation rate, which no one could have foreseen, has reduced their means to the extent that they now only exist in substandard conditions. 75-214 City Hall~ Anaheim, CalJ. fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March ]1, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywond loft the Council Chamber. (4:00 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSEMOVINGi Application submitted by John Krajacic requesting ~ special permit to move a structure from Snow House Novers yard, 11611 Westminister Boulevard, Garden Grove, to 1900 West Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim. Said application was continued from the meetings of August 20 and September 17, 1974 to allow the applicant an opportunity to purchase a better grade move-on house. A further maximum six-month continuance was granted at the meeting of January 21, 1975, with the understanding that the application could be heard sooner than that date, if the applicant located a suitable structure. Report was submitted from the Development Services Department recommending that the subject request for house move-on be approved. Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to the proposed house move-on. Mr. William L. Richardson, 1922 West Cerritos, stated that he personally contacted seven of the ten homeowners located within 300 feet of the proposed site for the move-on and these property owners were all in agreement with him that the City Council should not permJ, t the applicant to place a structure on that property which will down grade or lower the market value of any of the existing homes. He submitted a petition containing signatures of those home- owners in agreement with this position. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chamber. (4:05 P.M.) Mayor Thom read from the Development Services Department report a descrip- tion of the proposed move-on structure and pictures of the house were reviewed by Council. It was noted that the Development Services Department sta~e~ when relocation and landscaping are completed, the structure will be compatible with existing homes in the area. Mrs. Rena Silverman, 1883 Lullaby Lane, stated that she has personally known Mr. and Mrs. Krajacic for 15 years and is not at all hesitant to make the statement that she is 100% sure that this home will be finished in such a manner that she will be more than proud to have it in her neighborhood. Mr. John Krajacic addressed the Council and assured them that the house he had found would be more than suitable. Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-119: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-119 for adoption, granting the requested housemoving permit, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSEMOVING PERMIT TO JOHN KRAJACIC (1900 West Cerritos Avenue). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-119 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 75-215 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. 1. DINNER-DANCING~ POOL ROOM~ AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits were granted subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Dinner-Dancing Place Permit for the French Quarter, 919 South Knott Avenue, for dancing nightly from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (Stuart Feuer, Applicant) b. Pool Room Permit for six to eight (for retail sales) and eight (for commercial use) pool tables for The Billiard Works, 645 North Euclid Street. (Andee C. Mennealy, Applicant) c. Amusement Devices Permit for three pool tables to be located at Mimi's, 3148~ West Lincoln Avenue. (Gary P. and Marilyn J. Oelrich, Applicants) 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Airport Land Use Comanission - Minutes - February 20, 1975. b. Riverside County Board of Supervisors - Proposed new national cemetery for California. c. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council: Westminster Resolution No. 1633 Los Alamitos Resolution Nos. 717, 719, and 720 Fullerton Resolution No. 5841 Stanton Resolution Nos. 75-5, 75-6, 75-7, and 75-11 Laguna Beach Resolution No. 75.32 Irvine Resolution No. 329 d. City of Westminmter - Resolution No. 1642 - Earnings Limitation under Social Security Act. e. City of Orange - Resolution No. 4101 - Expressing opposition to Senate Bill 275 regarding the Collective Bargaining Act for Public Employment. f. City of Fullerton - Notice of Public Hearing - Reclassification of property. g. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of January, 1975 for the Police Department, Water Division, and Electrical Division. 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 138 - PUBLIC HEARING DATE: The date of March 25, 1975, 2:30 P.M., was set for public hearing for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 138 - to consider amending the Anaheim General Plan relating to the area generally located between Romneya Drive, State College Boulevard, La Palma Avenue, and Acacia Street. MOTION CARRIED. DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by Mr. Albert P. DeMascio for Dinner-Dancing Place Permit to allow dancing nightly at Smilin'Sam's Inc., dba Seven Arches Burger and Bourbon, 125 North State College Boulevard from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., was granted subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR: Resolution Nos. 75R-120 through 75R-123: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution Nos. 75R-120 through 75R-123, 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. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-120 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Southern California Industrial Prop., Inc.; Robert Brkich, et ux.; Earl John Aguilar, et ux.; Lois V. Swank, et al; James D. Madison, et ux.; Earl D. Novarro, et ux.; Warren W. Doller; Forest Lawn Cemetery Association; Jed Development, Inc.) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-121 - ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 74-18E: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAAND NORMAN VASQUEZ (74-18E). Said permit approved subject to conditions recommended by the City Engineer. 75-216 Cit~: ~tatl, Anaheim, Cali. fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-122 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE, WORK ORDER NO. 721-B: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFOR- ~2NCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC I~IPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF RIVERDALE AVENUE AND TUSTIN AVENUE, IN THE CITM OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 721-B. (Smith Electric Supply) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-123 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE, WORK ORDER NO. 845: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND' WATER, AND THE PERFOR- MANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE SCHWEITZER PARK GRADING IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 845. (Harold S. Edmondson) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-120 through 75R-123, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-124 - WORK ORDER NO. 847: Said item was removed from the Con- sent Calendar Agenda for report from the City Engineer. The City Engineer referred to his informational report dated March 7, 1975, noting in particular that the proposed extension of the fire apparatus room will result in a lesser setback on Kraemer Avenue than required by Code. Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-124 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FIRE STATION NO. 5 ADDITION TO APPARATUS ROOM, 1154 NORTH KRAEMER AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 847; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT- lNG THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - April 10, 1975, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-124 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held February 19, 1975, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized the actions pertaining to environmental impact requirements as recommended by the Planning Commission and sustained the actions taken by the City Planning Commission in connection with the following applications (Item Nos. 1 through 6). 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS: As recommended by the City Planning Commission, the City Council ratified the determination of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activities in the following 75-217 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. zoning petitions fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 or 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact report. Variance No. 2673 Variance No. 2675 2. VARIANCE NO. 2673: Submitted by William T. Messengale, to construct a bedroom addition on RS-5000 zoned property located on the east side of Anchor Street, north of Simmons Avenue, with Code waiver of: a. Maximum coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-39, granted said variance subject to conditions. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2675: Submitted by Stuart D. Noble, to establish a photography studio on CO zoned property located on the south side of Ball Road, east of Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of: a. Permitted uses. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-40, granted said variance for a period of two years, subject to conditions. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS - GRADING PERMITS: The City Planning Commission recommended that the Council declare the projects in the following applications for grading permits exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report: a. Grading permit for single-family residence at 701 Peralta Hills Drive. b. Grading permit for industrial building site at 4820 East La Palma Avenue, in the Northeast Industrial Area. c. Grading permit for disposal site on the southwest corner of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. d. Grading permit for single-family residence at 6475 Mohler Drive. As recommended by the City Planning Commission, the City Council finds that the projects in the above mentioned grading permits will have no signifi- cant effect on the environment and are, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION (TRACT NO. 8678): In con- nection with proposal to construct a multiple-family residential development con- sisting of 77 units in 10 structures on 3.47 acres located northwest of the inter- section of Miraloma Avenue and the Orange Freeway (Tentative Tract No. 8678) the City Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council declare subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. The City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. 6. APPROVAL OF FENCE PLANS (TRACT NO. 8514): Submitted by George R. Saupe, VTN, for approval of fence plans as required in connection with approval of the tenta- tive tract map. RS-A-43,000 zoned property is located adjacent to the southeast shore of the Walnut Canyon Reservoir and northwest of the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road and contains 41 proposed RM-2400 lots. The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved the fence plans as sub- mitted for Tentative Tract No. 8514. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7587~ REVISION NO. 1 (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 145 AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-28): Anaheim Hills, Inc., owners. Property is located on the west side of Hidden Canyon Road, south of Serrano Avenue and contains 34 proposed RS-HS-22,000 lots. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, action on Tentative Map, Tract No. 7587, Revision No. 1, was continued to be considered in conjunction with E.I.R. No. 145 and Reclassification No. 74-75-28. MOTION CARRIED. 75 -218 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM: The following action taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held February 19, 1975 pertaining to Conditional Use Permit No. 1513 was removed from the Consent Calendar and submitted sepa- rately for City Council information and consideration: Conditional Use Permit No. 1513 - Application by William Remland for permit to allow on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located north and east of the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard was submitted together with application for Exemption Status from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-38, granted said conditional use permit and further reported that .the Director of Develop- ment Services has determined the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 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 E.I.R. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the advisability of permitting ingress and egress to this property on Orange Avenue as indicated on the plot plan, as it appears there is not sufficient space. Mr. Maddox advised that he had learned of Councilwoman Kaywood's concern in this regard just this morning and that he did have the Traffic Engineer research the subject. He presented an aerial photomap of the subject intersec- tion which logged ail accidents which had occurred between 1973 and 1974, and none were shown as resulting from subject driveway. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the deter- mination of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, 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 environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. No further action was taken by the City Council. CONTINUED REQUEST - APPROVAL OF SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310: Site plans and elevations submitted by Harry Rinker, Imperial Properties and Freeway Commercial Properties for develop- ment of parcels located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway and presently zoned CL (SC) were presented together with excerpt from the City Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1975 recommending that said plans and elevations as submitted by Imperial Properties for the easterly portion of subject property be determined to be in conformity with the original concept plans; and that the site plans and elevations submitted by Freeway Commercial Properties for the westerly portion of subject property were deter- mined not to be in substantial conformance with the original concept plans. This matter was continued from the Council meeting of February 18, 1975 to allow both parties (Imperial Properties and Freeway Commercial Properties) an opportunity to draft an access plan which would adequately serve both parcels without access to Imperial Highway. Mr. Fernald displayed five different conceptual plans for arrangements of buildings, parking and traffic access prepared by himself and reported that he attended the meeting held between these two developers. He indicated that following this series of meetings, there is still no accord between the two parties as to which site plan should be used. Mr. Fernald described the five exhibits and explained the rationale behind each. He noted that these are meaningful in that they illustrate that there is a solution which can be obtained for these two parcels. He pointed out that two of his concepts were designed as if the property were under one ownership, and the others in reply to Mr. Rinker's concern that traffic from Freeway Commercial Properties not filter across and in front of the buildings on his parcel. Mr. Fernald stressed that a shopping center should be designed for the ultimate convenience of the people who will use it and that if it is attractive and convenient, it will be successful. 75-219 City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March il, 1975, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Pebley noted that on each of the designs displayed by Mr. Fernald it appears that the easterly parcel was furnishing substantial square footage in driveway access for the adjacent westerly property. Mr. Fernald replied that the square footage is approximately the same in all plans drawn to date and that a financial arrangement on behalf of this consideration could be a matter of negotiation between the two property owners. Mr. Harry Rinker posted the exhibit of his site plans as approved by the City Planning Commission on February 3, 1975 with an overlay. He reported that the only changes to the site plans from those submitted to the City Planning Commission are indicated on the overlay. These are that the distance between the westerly edge of the block of buildings and the free-standing building on his property has been increased from 30 to 38 feet thereby providing an open vista and wider access to the Freeway Commercial property. The second change is that the planters shown along the northern boundary of his parcel have been deleted since it is expected that this will become a permanent road when the property adjacent and to the north becomes available. Mr. Rinker related, for the benefit of those Council Members not present the last time this matter was discussed, a brief zoning history of his parcel and the subsequent steps which he has taken to comply with the conditions of approval. (See Council Minutes of February 18, 1975, Page Nos. 75-155 through 75-161.) Mr. Rinker reviewed and discussed the various conceptual designs prepared by Mr. Fernald for integral development of the two parcels and explained that his architect has done many, many studies, providing similar and/or identical concepts, but each of these was found unsuitable primarily because of the requirements imposed by their potential major tenant, Albertson's Food Market. In connection with the demands for access from his parcel by the Freeway Commercial Properties, Mr. Rinker indicated he felt these to be some of the most unreasonable he has ever encountered in a zoning case. He emphasized that when the State Division of Highways placed the parcel adjacent and to the west of his up for bids, in order to avoid exactly the situation which has occurred, his company demanded that the State describe the access available to that property both with hash marks indicating no access on Imperial Highway or Santa Ana Canyon Road on the plot plan and further with a recital which he read to the Council. He pointed out that everything possible was done to make the condition of the property known to those bidding. Mr. Rinker was of the opinion that this additional access across his property is being sought not to increase the square footage of the proposed buildings on the Freeway Commercial property, but rather to obtain a better rent structure. Mr. Rinker presented the hypothetical situation that Freeway Commercial Properties was granted access with curb cuts on both Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road and pointed out that this parcel would still have no access eastbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Rinker contended that Freeway Commercial Properties has a better access situation with his plan. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out to both parties that the last time this matter was discussed, after approximately two hours of a Council meeting were spent on it, it was requested that the parties involved not return until a proposal to settle the dispute was prepared. Mr. Lewin of Rutan & Tucker, Attorneys representing Freeway Commercial Prop- erties, posted the plot plan proposed by his client on the wall and stated that their position is basically the same as previously stated, i.e., Freeway Commer- cial Properties are entitled to the same rights of development as any other prop- erty in the area and consequently if the City wishes to grant a specific access point to Mr. Rinker's property from Santa Ana Canyon Road, they should receive equal treatment in their request for an access point onto Imperial Highway. Councilwoman Kaywood remarked to Mr. Lewin that the Council has gone over this same request several times, and it was made very clear during the last discussion on February 18, 1975 that no access rights would be granted from this particular property to Imperial Highway because of its proximity to the freeway on-ramp, and inherent danger. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that she could never approve a plan for this type of access as it constitutes a death trap. 75-220 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lewin stated that his client agrees with that concept and are willing to accept and work with any of the four plans labled "2", "3", "4", and "5" which were prepared by Mr. Fernald. He further pointed out that according to document stamps on the documents transferring the title of Mr. Rinker's property, he paid only $.57 per square foot in December of 1973 for his parcel. Mr. Lawin stated, recognizing that the basic problem from the public interest viewpoint is that the property is owned by two people, that his client in order to resolve the matter, is willing to make a public offer on a buy-sail arrangement for $2.00 per square foot, cash in 60 days, i.e., either party may purchase from the other on these same terms. The Mayor reminded Council that the matter before them at this time is for approval of site plans and elevations for both parcels. Mr. Harry Rinker clarified that he purchased his property 11 years ago on a lease-hold arrangement for $25,000 per year, plus taxes, for 10 years and then paid the $.57 per square foot indicated by Mr. Lewin. Mr. Fernald noted that if Council considers approval of Mr. Rinkar's site plans, some consideration should be given to the fact that there will be traffic going through the shopping center parking area to reach the Freeway Commercial Properties parcel, and perhaps some kind of easement to accommodate this flow should be provided. Mr. John Collins, representing Albertson's Markets on the West Coast was recognized by the Mayor and he indicated that his firm is very interested in this piece of property although they realized from the beginning it would be difficult to develop because of the lack of access from the major street. He stated that they intend to place a 40,O00-square foot market at this location, prototypes of which service 25,000 to 35,000 customers per week. This store will generate a great deal of traffic, and they feel it necessary that they have the controls mentioned over the traffic flow, parking add satellite tenants in the shopping center. He related that his firm, in concert with Mr. Rinker and the architect, has drawn at least 50 or 60 plot plans, some of which were similar to those presented by Mr. Fernald, and has not found one which would be suitable. He noted that they have been very selective about this site, and it will possibly prove difficult for them to maintain adequate service at the store because of the access restrictions. Mr. Lewin inquired of Mr. Collins whether the Imperial access requested by his client would be of any help in improving the access situation for their proposed store to which Mr. Collins replied that they would never envision an access point in such close proximity to a freeway ramp. Mr. Rinker summarized his position and requested that the Council., if they approve his site plans, levy deed restrictions against the Freeway Commercial property to preclude a supermarket and theater. Mayor Thom indicated that sufficient evidence had been heard and closed the public discussion. Councilman Seymour summarized his position as stated previously, that the motion for continuance was solely for the purpose of allowing the two property owners to work out a solution which would be beneficial to both and also to the citizens of the City in general. Obviously, no real dialogue has taken place in this regard and the matter is in the same stalemate position as it was on February 18, 1975. He indicated he was prepared to move for approval in accor- dance with the City Planning Commission recommendation if the City Attorney could assure him that such action would not result in a risk to the City in the event of a lawsuit over access rights. The City Attorney counseled that as far as access to Freeway Commercial Properties is concerned, the term should be distinguished; i.e., concerning access to Imperial Highway, and he was of the opinion that it was questionable as to whether or not the City Council could even grant access to same from the Freeway Commercial property; as far as the Santa Ana Canyon Road access was concerned, Freeway Commercial Properties may or may not have a 20-foot wide access. Further, in regard to deed restrictions requested by Mr. Rinker and the Albertson's Food Market representative, Mr. Watts was of the opinion that such would not be possible since the property is already zoned to commercial uses. 75-221 qity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~. 1975~ .1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour explained that he is not particularly happy with this solution and feels that there is a better one, however, short of condemnation of the property, which he would not favor, it seems the only approach available to the Council. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the site plans and elevations as submitted by Imperial Properties for the easterly portion of subject property be approved as amended on the overlay; and those submitted by Freeway Commercial for the westerly portion be disapproved in accordance with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. Prior to voting on this foregoing motion, Mr. Paul Singer directed Council's attention to a driveway shown on the Imperial Properties site plan which indi- cated curb cuts onto Via Cortez and appeared to be directly adjacent to the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Cortez. Councilman Seymour indicated that he did not recall this particular drive- way being approved previously. Mr. Rinker stated that this has been shown on all plans since the original one approved by Council. He explained that it is meant to be used for service station egress only and pointed out the design of same with barriers which would prevent traffic from utilizing this driveway for anything but exit from the service station. Mr. Roberts reported that the last plan approved by the City Council did indicate a driveway at the location indicated by Mr. Rinker. He further explained that this has been of concern to Development Services Department staff from the outset. He advised that the staff report to the City Planning Commission states that the City's policy with regard to streets intersecting on Santa Ana Canyon Road requires that the intersection of any other private street or drive shall be 300 feet back from Santa Ana Canyon Road. Councilman Seymour reviewed the site plan with Mr. Rinker. Mr. John LeFevre, representing Imperial Properties, stated that their traffic engineer has had many meetings with Mr. Singer and he was under the impression that if the plans were revised to block the through traffic from use of the driveway with a planter as is shown, this would alleviate the City Traffic Engineer's concerns. Mr. Singer stated that this is an improvement over the original plan, but still does not conform to the original intent regarding driveways adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road which was established with the knowledge that 9,600 cars per day are anticipated on that road. He stated that he could not in good conscience say that a driveway at that point would be the safest exit. Councilman Seymour amended his foregoing motion to approve the plans sub- mitted by Imperial Properties with amendments shown on the overlay, but with deletion of the exit from the service station onto Via Cortez. Councilman Pebley withdrew his second, stating that he felt the driveway would cause no additional problems. Councilman Thom seconded Councilman Seymour's amended motion. Prior to voting on the matter, Councilman Seymour wished to make the point that when beginning with a planning concept such as was done with Santa Ana Canyon Road and the prime property for commercial use comes close to prostitut- ing that concept, either the Overlay Zone is totally incorrect or the developer is trying to press for every advantage he can get. He voiced the opinion that if the planning concept is inappropriate, then it should be discontinued, but certainly it should not be disregarded on the first project along Santa Ana Canyon Road. He further advised Mr. Rinker that he personnally would not be in favor under any condition to the granting of an access point from the service station onto Via Cortez since this prostitutes the planning theory and, further, because it will only increase and enhance demands for the same type of consider- ation which the Council will receive from other developers. 75-222 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom called for a vote on the amended motion to approve site plans and elevations as submitted by Imperial Properties for the easterly portion of subject property in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendations, amended as shown on the overlay submitted this date to increase the size of the access easement between the buildings and to delete the planter on the northern boundary, and~ further~ deleting the curb cut from the service station onto Via Cortez; and disapproving the site plans submitted by Freeway Commercial Prop- erties for the westerly portion of subject property as not being in substantial conformance with the original concept plans. (Said motion was seconded by Councilman Thom.) MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was very much concerned that this prime corner property not become the unfortunate site of spiteful tactics in develop- ment, especially since deed restrictions are not possible. She urged those involved to use some intelligence in their planning and to create a viable project for all involved, including the residents. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (5:43 P.M.) REPORT - STATUS OF TEMPORARY TRACT SIGNS - SANTA ANA CANYON AREA: Report dated March 11, 1975, from Development Services Department, Zoning Division, regarding methods to be implemented to enforce the recent sign ordinance amendment and City Council decisions relative to off-site tract signs in the Santa Ana Canyon area, and outline of the status of said implementation as of February 28, 1975, was submitted for City Council information only. Mr. Ron Thompson stated that if Council is in accord with the procedures described, Development Services Department will continue to implement same. The Council, by general consent, indicated agreement with the methods pro- posed. Councilwoman Kaywood further pointed out that the use of certified mail, rather than registered-return receipt requested, costs approximately one- third as much and should be used if at all possible. REQUEST - SEWER AND UTILITY SERVICES TO PROPERTY LOCATED IN BUENA PARK: The City Clerk submitted request dated March 6, 1975 from Mr. William Rossworn that Anaheim utility and sewer services be provided his property located at the westerly terminus of Savanna Street in the City of Buena Park. (Said property was the subject of Buena Park Variance No. V-714 which was denied by the Buena Park City Council.) Councilman Pebley moved that the City of Anaheim provide sewer service and utilities to subject property. Mr. C. E. Camp, 3603 Savanna Street, Anaheim, was recognized by the Mayor and he advised that the only objection which the adjacent residents have to this proposal is that if the applicant wishes to proceed they feel he should place the entire cul-de-sac on his property rather than one-half as is presently indicated on the plans. He noted that the present plans call for one-half of the cul-de-sac to be provided from the two adjacent properties when these develop and this permits Mr. Rossworn to profit at the loss of the adjacent properties. In reply to Mayor Thom, Mr. Watts stated it would be possible to subject the City's supplying of services to the requirement that the applicant place the entire cul-de-sac on his property. Mr. William Rossworn, .10412 Greenbriar Road, Santa Ana, stated that he felt the plan to place one-half of the cul-de-sac on his property and one- quarter of it on each of the adjacent properties when developed was the only fair way to accomplish this project. He advised that requiring him to place the entire cul-de-sac on his property would preclude his being able to build the proposed project. He indicated that since he originally purchased this property, he has already had to reduce the number of units from 29 to 24. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Anaheim residents on this particu- lar street have made it clear that they do not wish to develop their property but rather want to retain the rural atmosphere of the street. She indicated that she has always been against forcing premature development of property. 75-223 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.March 11, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Rossworn reiterated that he is requesting utility hook-ups without restriction. Councilman Pebley withdrew his previous motion. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the requested sewer services and utility hook-ups be provided to Mr. Rossworn's parcel, subject to the condition that he place the entire proposed cul-de-sac on his property. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. To this motion, Councilmen Sneegas and Pebley voted "no". Councilman Seymour absent. The Mayor declared that the vote on the foregoing motion resulted in a tie vote and advised that the matter would be considered at the next regular Council meeting by the full Council. FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 8828: Developer, William Lyon Company. Tract located north of Oran§ethorpe Avenue, west of Imperial Highway, containing 17 RS-5000 zoned lots. The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved and that required fees have been paid. Bonds for tract improvements Within Tract No. 8828 were posted in conjunction with Tract No. 7416 on October 24, 1972 and approved by the City Attorney's Office. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, Final Map, Tract No. 8828 was approved as recommended by the City Engineer. To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-125 - EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT KILLION~ GOLF PRO - SCHEDULING OF STARTING TIMES ON WEEKENDS, HOLIDAYS AND TOURNAMENTS: On report from the City Manager, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-125 for adoption, authorizing the extension of an agreement with Mr. Robert Killion to schedule starting times on weekends, holidays and for tournaments at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course for an additional 60 days. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ROBERT KILLION EXTENDING THE TERMS THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. ($120 per month) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-125 duly passed and adopted. REPORT ON STATUS OF REQUEST - KINGSMEN DRUM AND BUGLE CORPS: The City Manager submitted a report from the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, dated March 10, 1975, regarding the status of implementation of Council's direction given at the meeting of February 25, 1975, in connection with the Kingsmen Drum and Bugle Corps' request. Councilman Pebley left the Council Chamber. (6:06 P.M.) AMENDMENT TO AETNA LONG-TERM CITY EMPLOYEES' DISABILITY POLICY: Mr. Garry McRae reported on a weakness detected in the City Employee fringe benefits package, specifically, in the long-term disability insurance policy which provides for a certain amount of guaranteed income to disabled employees. Currently, in the event an increase in benefits is granted by the Social Security Administration or by the employee's pension plan, that increase would not go to the employee but rather to the insurance company. He outlined the necessary amendments to adjust the situation so that the employee would receive the additional benefits awarded and recommended that the Council approve same. rll I, ,I I I I 75-224 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 11~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council approved and authorized an amendment to the Aetna long-term disability policy, effective April 10, 1975 to incorporate the Modified Governmental Benefit Freeze and further, approved an amended premium rate of 85¢ per $100 of basic wages. Councilman Seymour absent; Councilman Pebley temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chamber. (6:08 P.M.) REPORT ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT CONTRACT TO DE-POOL: Memorandums were issued to Council Members, and it was determined that this matter would be discussed at the next regular meeting with a full Council. POTENTIAL PARK PROPERTY ADJACENT TO TRACT NO. 7787: The City Attorney reported that a method has been arranged for purchase of property on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road adjacent to Tract No. 7787, said property currently being used for agricultural purposes, which Council indicated they felt should be developed as a park. Documentation will be presented for Council action shortly. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-126 - 1995 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION STUDY - HIGHWAY ELEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR ANAHEIM: On report and recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-126 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE 1995 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION STUDY AS THE HIGHWAY ELEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-126 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-127 - AUTHORIZING UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7UT-5028 WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-127 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT- ING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-5028 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-127 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3407: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3407 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.32, SECTION 7.32.010 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO SOLICITING OR CONDUCTING ACTIVITIES TO RAISE FUNDS FOR CHARITIES. ORDINANCE NO. 3408: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3408 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69 (70) - ML) 75-225 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March ~, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3409: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3409 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF'ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-64 (10) - ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3410: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3410 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-24 - RM-1200) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:15 P.M. City Clerk