1975/04/15City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 9:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session - Budget Session I.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood (arrived at (9:20 A.M.), Seymour and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
UTILITIES STAFF ASSISTANT: Darrell L. Ament
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. with two Council
Members present and advised that they would proceed on an informal basis with
discussion only, pending establishment of a quorum. He announced the purpose
of this meeting was to conduct initial budget review (Budget Session I).
Mr. Murdoch reported briefly on the City's current financial status; that
there is a healthy cash balance and the revenue expenditure forecast indicates
~that at the end of this fiscal year the City will be about $1,400,000 below the
amount budgeted for the year. This is the position it was hoped the City would
be in at the time the Council decided to utilize the possessory interest tax
refund and prepayment credits on Convention Center bonds to make up this portion
of the budget rather than increase the utility rate.
Mr. Murdoch noted that with the use of the possessory interest refund and
Convention Center bond payment credits, together with refraining from certain
activities in some areas, the City has been able to absorb an alarming double-
digit inflation in which the costs of goods and services has increased, and the
City is now in a relatively better cash position than at the same time last
year. He stated that the City will not be able to maintain that financial
75-333
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975, 9:00 A.M.
posture without some sacrifices and advised that service activity and demand
has increased, rather than held the line, and there is an extreme impact due to
fuel costs and the price squeeze in the Electrical Division. He reported that
he has reviewed all departmental budgets in detail and the revenue forecast as
well, and has come to the conclusion that anticipated revenue from all sources
will not stretch far enough to cover all of the desirable services indicated.
Mr. M. R. Ringer, using a series of transparencies, briefly reviewed the
City's financial status. (Copies of material presented to Council Members and
on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
In summary, Mr. Ringer pointed out that the City's cash position as of
March 31, 1975, compared to the same date in 1974, shows an increase of
$1,679,641.12. The revenue forecast through the end of the current fiscal year
shows an overall decline of 4.3 million dollars. On the expenditure forecast
for 1974-75 Mr. Ringer pointed out that there are three areas in which a
decreased expenditure is anticipated, these being salaries and wages, contractual
services, and capital outlay.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chambers. (9:20 A.M.)
Mr. Ringer then displayed serveral charts which indicated the rise in the
consumer price index and in the City's costs for such items as passenger car
tires, cast iron pipe, water meters, and patrol cars. A comparison of salary
for the City of Anaheim at "E Step" shows salary costs have increased in the
three-year period from March 1972 to March 1975 from 23.3% to 28.4%. Additional
charts show the cost of highway construction has increased on a 45% curve
whereas the gas tax funds for this construction are up only 15.7% for the same
period of time. A curve showing percentage of change over 1970 for the Anaheim
Police Department shows a graph comparison of the calls for services, part I
crimes, and number of sworn personnel.
Mr. Murdoch summarized that the situation facing the City, as far as he
has reviewed it, is that a balanced budget will be possible but with substantial
efforts on the part of the City Council, department heads, and management. In
this connection he advised that each department head has been asked to review
his operational situation and prepare a no dollar increase budget even though
this is not an acceptable approach in some areas. He advised that the approach
taken so far has been to carefully analyze capital requests and to authorize no
additional personnel anywhere in the budget.
Since the utility budget and fuel costs have such a major impact on the
City budget, Mr. Murdoch requested that Gordon Hoyt present his information and
recommendation at this time.
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING UTILITY RATE INCREASE:
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, read a prepared 17 page statement on
the subject "Recommendation for an Increase in Retail Electric Rates" and used
several charts to explain and demonstrate the various figures and statistics.
(Prepared statement and charts on file in the office of the City Clerk; copies
of said information also submitted to City Council Members.)
Mr. Hoyt's presentation briefly indicated that he recommended charges for
retail electric service be increased by increasing the fuel cost adjustment
from 0.642 cents per kilowatt hour to 0.969 cents per kilowatt hour effective
May 1, 1975, which amounts to an overall increase of 11% and will make Anaheim
and Edison rates nearly the same.
Other salient points of the presentation were that no City of Anaheim
retail rate changes have been put into effect since February 19, 1974, even
though wholesale power costs have risen enormously (Chart No. 1 illustrates the
disparity of Anaheim and Edison rates). The reasons that the Anaheim rates
have been able to be held constant during this period are: 1.) The City
Council has been able to balance the overall 1974-75 City budget without requir-
ing the entire budgeted cash transfer from the electric revenue fund to go to
the General Fund; 2.) Wholesale fuel cost adjustments were below those estimated
by Edison for many months as shown on Chart No. 3, thus enabling the utility to
75-334
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 9:00 A.M.
accumulate surplus revenues during the early months then to reduce the surplus
as the wholesale fuel cost adjustment increased; 3.) The Federal Power Commis-
sion took action on March 1, 1974, which was not anticipated when the retail
rates were established on February 19, 1974, to suspend Edison's wholesale base
rate increase for five months until August 4, 1974, and rejected Edison's
wholesale fuel cost adjustment.
The effect of these actions was to accentuate the buildup of surplus
revenues during the early months after the retail rate increase became effective,
which was then applied later as the fuel cost adjustment increased, as the
situation is shown on the Utility working capital statement for 1973-74
(Chart No. 4).
The presentation reported that a comparison of Anaheim and Edison mainte-
nance and operation activities (Chart No. 5) shows that Anaheim performs these
activities more efficiently than Edison and at less cost to the consumer. For
1973-74 Anaheim performed these functions for 59.45% of Edison's costs, which
may be translated to a dollar amount of $29.30 less per customer.
Mr. Hoyt explained the current price squeeze situation being experienced
by Anaheim because of the relationship of Edison's wholesale and retail rates.
He reported that although it has long been the policy of Anaheim City Councils
that the Anaheim retail rates should be lower than Edison's in surrounding
communities, with the situation which exists today it may not be possible to
maintain, at lease for the next few years, the desired relationship between
Anaheim and Edison rates. The reason for this is that Edison's comparable base
retail industrial rate at the present time is about 12% less than its base
wholesale rate. When fuel cost adjustments are applied, the discrepancy varies
depending on the wholesale/retail fuel cost adjustment ratio. The recommended
fuel cost adjustment increase will cause the City to about break even on the
incremental cost to high load factor customers.
Mr. Hoyt's presentation related the history of litigation in this matter
and reported the good news that on April 4, 1975, the United States Court of
Appeals ruled against the Federal Power Commission, directing them to consider
Anaheim's allegations on their merits and suggests lowering wholesale rates to
enable the municipal utilities to compete at retail with their wholesale power
suppliers. This ruling will undoubtedly allow for Anaheim's cases to be reheard
before the Federal Power Commission. He quoted the Court decision and footnote.
Mr. Hoyt added further that Anaheim cannot expect wholesale rate relief
for approximately two years from now based on the minimal amount of time it
takes to move rate cases through the Federal Power Commission to final conclu-
sion. He summarized the outlook for Fiscal Years 1974-75 and 1975-76 as follows
(Exhibit Nos. A and B, or Chart Nos. 8 and 9). The City should complete the
current fiscal year in a barely acceptable condition; inspection of similar
financial statements based on existing retail rates estimated as of June 30,
1976 (Exhibit No. B) show an unacceptable picture, since without a rate increase,
working capital would be an estimated deficit at that time of about $6,300,000
and there would be a negative cash position of $5,650,000. Mr. Hoyt advised
that Edison's estimated future wholesale fuel cost adjustments are shown on
Chart No. 10 but this does not include the effect of the President's surcharge
on imported oil or Edison's future base rate increase. In these charts the
power purchase increase is estimated to be $9,300,000 while retail revenue from
sale of power accrues only $2,370,000 - a loss of net income of about $6,930,000.
Exhibit Nos. A and B (Chart Nos. 8 and 9) demonstrate that this large amount of
money can be raised only with an increase in revenue from the sale of electric
power.
Mr. Hoyt reported that the results of operation with the recommended fuel
cost adjustment increased to 0.969 cents per kilowatt hour, effective May 1,
1975, would make the cash flow from the increase effective for the entire
1975-76 Fiscal Year. Exhibit No. D (Chart No. 12) shows the estimated financial
position of the electric utility as of June 30, 1975 assuming the fuel cost
adjustment is raised to 0.969 cents per kilowatt hour effective May 1, 1975.
Comparisons with Exhibit No. A (Chart No. 8) show that the chief effects of the
rate increase are an increase in current assets of $136,493 in cash and $251,107
in Accounts Receivable for an estimated total increase in working capital of
75-335
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1975~ 9:00 A.M.
$387,601. Mr. Hoyt noted that bearing in mind the potential pessimistic nature
of this statement, the Utility's financial position, if improved by $400,000,
would be satisfactory in his opinion.
Mr. Hoyt pointed out that Exhibit No. E (Chart No. 13) which shows the
estimated financial statements as of June 30, 1976 with the proposed rate
increase, when compared with Exhibit No. B (Chart No. 9) indicates a dramatic
change, the chief effect being seen in comparison of the working capital. In
reviewing and comparing these two statements, Mr. Hoyt cautioned that the
Council bear in mind that the retail fuel cost adjustment and base rates are
projected to stay constant during the entire fiscal year, which is not, in his
opinion, practical. These financial statements indicate that there is still no
provision for transfer of unrestricted cash to the General Fund beyond a token
amount of $150,000 in lieu of taxes, but the Utility will pay for services
rendered from General Fund departments in the amount of $875,000. This situa-
tion exists because of Edison's price squeeze. The lack of cash to transfer to
the General Fund comes about because even with an increase to raise the Anaheim
rates nearly equal to the present Edison rates, only an additional $4,980,000
revenue can be accrued while the wholesale cost of this same power will increase
to an estimated $9,300,000. The difference of approximately $4,320,000 is
about what could normally be expected as an unrestricted cash transfer to the
General Fund.
Mr. Hoyt explained the effects of the recommended rate increase on various
customer classes as shown in Chart No. 14. The average Anaheim electric con-
sumer's bill would increase about $1.50 per month or 8.2%. The average residen-
tial two-month bill would go from its present $36.62 to $39.62. Since the fuel
cost adjustment applies to every kilowatt hour used by every customer, the
percentage increase as well as the dollar increase will be more for those who
consume more energy. The rate elevation will produce an estimated 11% more
revenue in 1975-76 than present rates and except for commercial customers,
Anaheim consumers will be paying about 0.1% less than Edison charges under its
comparable rates.
Mr. Hoyt stated that his recommendation is that the only reasonable,
prudent, and acceptable solution, however unpleasant, is to maintain Anaheim's
retail rates nearly equal to Edison's during the 1975-76 Fiscal Year in order
to maintain a satisfactory financial position and this action should also
provide General Fund support, perhaps more nearly that of normal years. However,
in order to obtain rate parity with Edison, Anaheim would have to follow the
pattern of Edison rates as and when established by the California Public
Utilities Commission. Such action would take place in August, November,
February, and May of each fiscal year and would not be automatic; the City
Council would determine and establish the appropriate rates. The Utilities
Department will prepare and submit recommendations regarding these rates in
accordance with the policies established by the City Council, however the only
rate policy now in effect is that Anaheim rates should be lower than or at
worst equal to Edison's comparable rates. He urged that it would be very
helpful to the Utility management if the City Council would establish formal
goals and objectives for rate levels, sources and relative composition of funds
for capital investments and unrestricted cash transfer to the General Fund.
Mr. Hoyt described the alternatives as follows: A policy for a slower
development pace would decrease the Utility's annual need for capital; a
revision of current investment policy which calls for the Utility to make an
investment equal to the estimated cost of overhead facilities; the use of some
of the recently authorized electric revenue bond proceeds for normal distribu-
tion capital construction projects. Additionally there is the potential reduc-
tion of 1975-76 operating budget requests and non-expenditure of authorized
1974-75 budget items. However, in the opinion of the Utilities Director these
will not produce sufficient funds to resolve the current situation.
At the conclusion of Mr. Hoyt's presentation, Mayor Thom commented that
the grim predictions made by the Utilities Director, that the City of Anaheim
will have to raise electrical rates equal with Edison and not contribute anything
to the General Fund in the next fiscal year, leads him to wonder how the City
Council can justify owning the Utility to its constituency.
75-336
qity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 9:00 A.M.
Mr. Hoyt clarified that he did not say no monies will be contributed to
the General Fund, but rather that he does not know what the contribution to the
fund would be. His estimate would be, based on the wholesale fuel cost adjust-
ment, if the retail fuel cost adjustment follow these, that the Utility would
produce revenues for the General Fund in the range of $2,000,000 to $5,000,000.
He reiterated that this is the reason he suggests Council establish a policy
for rates to follow Edison at or near parity until the price squeeze is over or
until the Utility has transferred sufficient unrestricted cash to the General
Fund to support whatever level of such transfer Council feels is appropriate.
He emphasized that this is a short-term problem when compared to the lower
rates for electricity enjoyed by the Anaheim consumer for 80 years.
Councilman Seymour questioned how long ago Mr. Hoyt was aware that unless
the taxpayers were going to subsidize the Utility it would be necessary to
raise rates equivalent to Edison's and then, in addition, not expect any con-
tribution to the General Fund, and additionally whether he had at any time in
1974 prior to the bond election apprised any Council Member or the City Manager
of this information.
Mr. Hoyt recalled that the first time he mentioned the situation was when
he discussed the rate increase with Council on November 19, 1974, and he also
alluded to the fact in August of 1974 that the fuel cost adjustment on a
wholesale basis was going to be higher. He further advised that he is not at
this time saying that the Utility will have to raise rates to parity with
Edison and not expect a return to the General Fund; these figures were projected
with a raise in the fuel cost adjustment up to .969 cents per kilowatt hour and
then leaving it steady for the remainder of the fiscal year, which is not what
he recommended be done. He does not feel that Anaheim rates can be held
constant any longer, and if Council approves a fuel cost adjustment of .969
cents per kilowatt hour, the Utility cannot hold that rate constant and continue
to pay wholesale fuel cost adjustments which are higher.
Councilman Seymour remarked that his point is that the Utilities Director
was well aware of the City Council's philosophy to maintain a rate structure
under Edison, although there was never any decision made as to the percentage,
it was clear that this was to be more than a 1% differential. Secondly, the
Council was alerted by the Utilities Director that if they choose not to look
favorably on the proposed rate increases presented in August and November of
1974, the price they would pay for that action would be not to expect funds
transferred to the general fund in the original budgeted amount.
Mr. Hoyt pointed out that he also mentioned at that time that there would
be no ability to build up a bank upon which to draw in the future. He emphasized
that at no time in his presentation to the Council would it be in his interest
to deceive them.
Councilman Seymour repeated that he felt Mr. Hoyt had deceived the Council
and misrepresented the situation to them and to the citizens of Anaheim, in
particular those citizens who backed the electrical bond issue.
Mr. Hoyt recalled that throughout the long sessions conducted last summer
with the industrial community, these industrialists were informed by him that
there is no panacea for rate increases; that there will be rate increases and
many of them and that no relief can be expected from the revenue bonds to con-
struct generation facilities until some time in the mid 1980's.
Councilman Seymour observed that from his discussions with industrialists
they understand clearly that no relief as a result of generation can be expected
until 1980, but they do not understand, as he did not either, that the rate
would have to be increased to the Edison rate and then they might not expect
anything contributed to the General Fund either. He related he was under the
impression that in order to maintain the differential between the two rate
structures, the City of Anaheim might not expect anything into the General
Fund, i.e., the Utility would operate on a break-even basis, however, at least
the Anaheim rates would be lower, whereas now as he understands the message,
the City is faced with raising Anaheim retail rates to parity with Edison and
in addition receiving nothing into the General Fund.
75-337
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 9~00 A.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated that this is absolutely not a true statement~ that if h~s
recommendation is acted upon, Anaheim's retail rates would be equal to Edison
for a few weeks, until Edison receives the fuel cost adjustment which they have
requested, then the City may want to adjust rates at that level or close to it;
again on November 1, 1975 Edison may or may not receive a rate increase and
Anaheim rates can be adjusted dependent upon the situation. In late 1975 or
early 1976, the current Edison rate case will be resolved and probably in favor
of Edison. They have requested a 20% base rate increase, and whatever amount
they receive, they will be that much more than Anaheim. He emphasized that the
Edison rates are not a static condition; that they are constantly changing.
Councilman Seymour interjected that the recommendation presented this date
is that Anaheim's rates vary as well, to which Mr. Hoyt replied that this is
true but only until the Utility reaches some criteria established by the
Council. They can establish rates to accomplish Council policy.
Councilman Seymour felt it was clear that the Council was looking at a
minimum rate differential of 5%.
Mr. Hoyt advised that if Council was considering any specific rate such as
5% this was never made clear to him, he was aware of only a general policy that
the rates be slightly lower.
Councilman Seymour advised that he realized and respected the position the
Anaheim Utility faces, i.e., that the Southern California Edison Company is
taking unfair advantage of the situation. He acknowledged that the Utilities
Director has described a course of action which the City Council can take to
protect the Utility. He advised that he is of the opinion that the City Council
must persist, and the fact that the City is being pressured does not make him
negative regarding the future potential in the City's participation in genera-
tion of electricity. He noted that this is a temporary and difficult situation
but that the City has to see it through. Further he still strongly asserted
that he could not condone the fact that the Utilities Department management
misrepresented the situation prior to the bond election and that he felt and
could not blame any other Anaheim citizen for feeling likewise, that they were
sold a bill of goods.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he did not feel he had in any way~ shape or form at
any time misrepresented anything to the City Council or members of the community.
Councilman Seymour indicated that he would like to receive verification by
phone or letter from some industrialists or citizens who could state that they
understood the situation as it was just described prior to the bond election,
and if that is the case, then he would publicly apologize to Mr. Hoyt.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she recalled when the Utilities Director
proposed rate increases in August and November that she made a statement indicat-
ing she would not wish the situation to get to the point where the General Fund
would be paying for the electric utility. She noted it was clear to her at
that time that Mr. Hoyt was saying that the Utility would be in trouble if the
rates were not raised.
Councilman Seymour felt Councilwoman Kaywood was confusing two different
issues. He noted that the price which the City Council agreed to pay for
holding down electrical rates was loss of a contribution to the General Fund,
rather than the $4,600,000 budgeted originally, they agreed to take $3,800,000.
But, not once was there an alternative described, to his knowledge, that the
price which the Council would pay for not raising the rates will be ultimately
to raise the rates equivalent to Edison and in addition no monies would be
forthcoming to the General Fund.
Mr. Murdoch stressed that this is not what the Utilities Director is
saying and that his projection of $150,000 going into the General Fund only
holds true if Anaheim rates stay the same throughout the entire fiscal year as
the rates increase from the Edison Company. If Anaheim rates follow at close
parity with Edison, the City can expect somewhere between $2,000,000 and
$5,000,000 to flow to the General Fund. If Council adopts a rate somewhat less
than Edison, then they can expect a yield for the General Fund of something
proportionately less to the General Fund.
75-338
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1975, 9'00 A.M.
Mr. Hoyt stressed that the point he felt Councilman Seymour is missing is
that the wholesale fuel cost adjustment changes every 30 days and is going up,
and this estimate which is presented to the Council for review is based on a
single retail fuel cost adjustment without any change of .969 cents per kilowatt
hour. He noted that there is no way the Utility can operate and pay a wholesale
fuel cost adjustment of 1.3 which is being requested, if they are charging
.969.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that this is what she understood Mr. Hoyt to
be explaining back in November of 1974.
Councilman Seymour asked what effect it would have on the General Fund if
the Council determined to adopt a policy whereby the City of Anaheim electric
rates shall be a variance of not greater than 5% under Edison, based on the
projected fuel cost adjustments.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that a superficial look at the figures would lead him
to reply that the contribution to the General Fund would be approximately
$3,000,000. Further, he added that to answer that question adequately would
require more analysis.
Mayor Thom observed that the information Councilman Seymour was seeking
was what it would cost the City to stay 5% under Edison.
Mr. Hoyt replied that in compiling this information he is working with
future rates which are unknowns at this time which makes this a difficult
question to answer but that he would review the situation and come up with his
best estimate, which he would not guarantee since it is calculated dealing with
the unknown.
Mr. Murdoch explained that if Anaheim follows Edison with retail rate
adjustments they will be beneath Edison rates and Councilwoman Kaywood stated
that this is what she understood Mr. Hoyt to be stating, that it was unrealistic
for Anaheim to stay with a constant rate when Edison was changing their fuel
cost adjustment every month and there is no way of knowing in advance how much
it would be.
Mr. Hoyt added that he also wished to make Council aware at this time that
a letter has been received from Edison indicating that they are contemplating
a wholesale rate adjustment, and if this is granted, there is no way he can
represent that the Utility can continue; the Edison Company can price Anaheim
out of the business.
Mayor Thom commented on the 25% rate reduction promised and upon which the
bond election was promulgated, and Mr. Hoyt stated emphatically that once the
City is into generation the Utility will definitely be able to live up to that
promise.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the City is not into generation projects
as yet, and that no good purpose is served by confusing the two issues.
Councilman Seymour requested a projection be prepared by the Utilities
Department which would demonstrate the fiscal effects of maintaining a policy
of rates 5% under Southern California Edison with the Utilities Department's
best ability to project the effects for the coming year and also to provide
some alternatives such as performing this same analysis with Anaheim rates at
3, 4, 6, and 7% under Edison as well. With this information he noted the
Council can establish the policy which has been requested.
Mr. Murdoch cautioned the Council, in establishing this policy, to keep in
mind that the City is in the process of litigation which points out the price
squeeze and, therefore, the Council should be careful not to emphasize the
difference between the Anaheim and Edison rates, since this could create an
untenable position in court.
Mayor Thom advised that he is seeking a way for the City to keep the rates
some definable margin under the competition in order to justify the City owning
the Utility to the constituency.
75-339
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1975, 9:00 A.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated that in order to do that the Utility needs and has the
right to compete. He expressed confidence that the Utility will prevail~ but
if the price squeeze situation becomes tougher, the Council may be forced to
retain the Utility over a short term rough period. He advised that to his
knowlege Anaheim is the only R-2 customer whose rates are still below Edison.
There is no other municipal utility which has been able to keep the price down
through the current squeeze and he submits that Anaheim may not be able to
either.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Hoyt explained the pricing situation
in Riverside and some of the political activities undertaken in that city on
behalf of their electric utility.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the chart showing the comparative
retail rates, Anaheim and Edison, be shown once again (Chart No. 2) and asked
whether there was ever any time at which the two were the same or Anaheim rates
were higher.
Mr. Hoyt replied that once in 1964, prior to revision of the industrial
rates, these were higher. Since that time, the two rates have never been even
close with the exception of September 1973 and February, March, and April of
1974.
Mr. Hoyt related that all of the Anaheim rate increases implemented were
directly responsive to Edison wholesale rate increases. Anaheim has never, in
his ten years of experience with the Utility, increased retail rates on the
basis of inflationary factors o~ any thing other than cost of power supplied
from Edison going up. Mr. Hoyt recognized that once the proposed rate increases
are approved, the Utility will have a real job answering to the consumers,
however in his opinion, there is no other satisfactory alternative, the rates
have to be increased in order to operate the Utility.
Mayor Thom noted that the blame could be shifted to Southern California
Edison as, in his opinion, this is where it belongs.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if the City of Anaheim were to sell their
electric utility and thereby remove this competition from Edison, the situation
would be only worse. She noted that prior to the present price squeeze not
only were Anaheim rates 10% lower but an average of $3,000,000 annually was
contributed by the Utility to the General Fund, so certainly Anaheim has been
way ahead.
Councilman Seymour stated that he found no fault with the information pre-
sented this date, only with the fact that this information was not made avail-
able to him or to the public prior to this date.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she felt just the articles published over
the past year in the news media were sufficient to alert Council Members to the
fact that they could not continue to keep the electric rate down.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether Mr. Hoyt's recommendation would
necessitate changing the City retail rates monthly and what the administrative
cost impact of this would be.
Mr. Hoyt reported that keeping the Anaheim retail rate 5% under Edison
would probably necessitate a rate change every three months, Administrative
cost of such adjustment would be dependent on how the change is implemented; if
accomplished through a fuel cost adjustment, it is not too difficult; a base
rate change, however, is a fairly big job. He noted that he has some recommen-
dations to present to Council at a later date to improve the data processing
procedure currently used for handling customer billing.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the cost to establish a lifeline service
in Los Angeles which returned $1,000,000 to the elderly consumers, however cost
the City $600,000 in administrative costs. She voiced the opinion that this
makes no sense at all.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that he was speaking of an administrative cost of much
less magnitude, probably less than $5,000.
75-340
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 9:00 A.M.
REVIEW OF PROPOSALS TO BALANCE THE BUDGET: Mr. Murdoch briefly sketched some of
the methods which Council might employ to balance the budget:
Dollar Level of Current Fiscal Year Budget
$88,186,045
Factors which would impact this figure'
1. Increased costs of purchased power from Edison
2. Effect of employee salary increases previously
authorized
3. Additional cost for water supply
$6,400,000
1,500,000
450~ 000
$8,350,000
The total of $8,350,000 is compared to $7,000,000 in estimated revenue
available for expenditure in these areas, so even if it is possible to operate
at the same dollar level, there is still a shortage of $1,350,000.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that the inclusion of $1,500,000 in salary
increases is not in keeping with the concept of operating at the same dollar
level as the 1974-75 Fiscal Year and in fact the only way this $1,500,000 could
be gained back would be by a lay off.
Possible reductions: The following potential areas of reduction were outlined
by the City Manager:
1. Services and Administration (taking into account
all Arthur Young & Company recommendations to
date)
2. Stadium and Convention Center (includes both
capital and part-time labor costs)
3. Police (considered unrealistic)
4. Fire (deletes additional personnel required for
Paramedics Program)*
5. Public Works
6. Storm Drain Program
7. Public Utilities
8. Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department
(deletion of all non-State or County funded
capital)
9. Library (to proceed with construction on one
library rather than two this year and delay con-
struction so that the library will not require
personnel until the beginning of the fiscal year)
$ 443,000
215,000
900,000
307,000
680,000
500,000
810,000
2,200,000
625 ~ 000
$6,680,000
Imbalance prior to reduction
Imbalance remaining
$12,530,000
5,850,000
*Regarding the Paramedics Program, Mr. Murdoch suggested that there are
some other options for Council to consider. Namely, they may take the approach
used by the City of Garden Grove, making this a ballot proposition, i.e., a
question worded something like "Shall the City of Anaheim provide Paramedics
services and pay for them out of a tax override to cover that cost". He
reported that to pay for Paramedics service would cost the taxpayers about $.06
per $100.
Further he advised that an alternative proposal has been received from the'
Anaheim Memorial Hospital for partial operation of Paramedics. They have
offered to provide Paramedics service on an interim basis but not at the same
level as is proposed for the $307,000 budget figure. They do indicate they can
operate one unit which would cover approximately 60% of the City.
A third alternative to provide Paramedics service would be to review some
of the activities such as inspections in which the Fire service is presently
engaged, and make some changes to utilize current personnel for Paramedics
services.
75-341
City Relic. Anaheim~ Cali£ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 9:00 A.M.
Additional suggestions for budget reduction:
1. Utilization of electric bond funds for utility
purposes - generation planning functions, trans-
mission and distribution - up to $3,000,000
2. Removal of items from General Fund which would
be appropriate for Housing and Community Develop-
ment projects 200,000
3. Up grade revenue estimate 450,000
Imbalance remaining
$2,200,000
Mr. Murdoch stated that assuming the Council adopts a policy of maintaining
a rate somewhat lower than Edison and makes rate 'step increases~ it appears
this $2,200,000 can be picked up; that it is possible, with some hard decisions
on the part of the Council and some very severe reductions by operating depart-
ments, for the City to have a balanced budget.
Councilman Seymour requested copies of all information and charts displayed
by the Finance and Utilities Directors at this meeting, and these were supplied
for each Council Member.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:15 A.M.
Signed
City cler~
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri% 15~, 1975~ 1:30 P.Mi
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
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS: John Collier
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ron Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 2:05 P.M. and welcomed
those in attendance to the Council Meeting.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Thom and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"Realtor Week" - April 20 through 26, 1975.
"Better Hearing Month" - May, 1975 - to be presented to the Kiwanis Club.
"Law Day USA" - May 1, 1975 - accepted by Judge Raymond Thompson, Superiox
Court (Retired) now Professor of Law at Pepperdine Law.School.
RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION: A Resolution of Recognition declaring the week of
April 20 through 26, 1975 to be "Volunteer Recognitiom Week", was'approved by
the City Council and accepted by Mr. Lloyd Trapp of the Parks, Recreation and
the Arts Department.
75-344
.q. ity Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
b. It is recommended that each park development project be established
with a separate budget and that recording of all labor and material expended be
made regularly to those project records and a monthly report submitted to the
Parks Superintendent and Department Director describing the activities for the
month and budget status.
c. It is recommended that in-lieu fees be maintained in a separate
fund and the monies collected during one fiscal year identified in the following
fiscal year as specific purpose monies in the Parks Division budget.
4. Construction Function: It is recommended that the construction crews
charge salaries, wages, and related fringe benefits directly to all authorized
projects for the development and/or improvement of parks and that all salaries,
wages, and associated fringe benefits be removed from the General Fund portion
of the budget. This would result in an approximate one-time savings of $307,500.
5. Maintenance Function:
a. It is recommended that maintenance activity performed in support
of other City functions (public buildings, Stadium and Convention Center) be
separately identified and this support to the enterprise fund functions be
charged back to those functions as a cost, rather than being Considered a cost
of parks maintenance.
b. They believe that there is excellent potential for applying a
part-time staffing concept to the maintenance function which would result in a
reduced number of full-time positions and the use of part-time employees to
handle some of the overtime and peak load activities. This concept has been
utilized in modifying the requested 1975-76 Budget and the application of same
has resulted in a reduction of approximately $106,000 from the budget requests,
through the elimination of 19 positions (14 laborers and 5 custodians).
6. Inventory: It is recommended that there be a reduction in the inven-
tory of materials and supplies to an acceptable working level, which could
result in a one-time savings of $20,000 and continued benefit of $1,000 to
$1,200 annually. The specific method of controlling this inventory should be
incorporated into the total inventory control recommendations which will ensue
at the completion of the Arthur Young & Company Management Audit.
7. Performance and level of service: It is the opinion of Arthur Young &
Company that a formal work measurement program for the Park Maintenance Division
should result in a minimum reduction of 20% in maintenance costs for parks. It
is therefore recommended that a work measurement study, at a maximum cost of
$30,000 be conducted, which would result in an estimated minimum annual reduction
of park maintenance costs of $170,000.
8. Communications: It is recommended that each foreman submit a weekly
status report which indicates the status of any and all assigned projects,
identifies any new problems, and gives the status of problem resolutions.
9. Interdepartmental relations:
a. Parkway Maintenance - because of the extreme similarity of activity
and equipment in Parkway Maintenance Division and Parks Division, the two
Divisions could be considered for organizational combination on completion of
the Management Audit of Public Works Department. It is recommended that this
possibility be included for study as one of the task elements in the Management
Audit of Parkway Maintenance Division.
b. Mechanical Maintenance: It is recommended that the method used by
Mechanical Maintenance for arriving at repair charges be included in the
Management Audit of the Mechanical Maintenance Division of Public Works Depart-
ment.
c. Property Maintenance Division: During the Management Audit Of
Property Maintenance Division, the method of assigning priorities and follow up
on requests for work should be reviewed. In the interim, a policy statement
relative to the importance and urgency of promptly restoring parks for public
use should be issued to the Public Works Department by the City Manager's
Office.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING RECREATION DIVISION:
1. Organization:
a. That the revolving accounts (which in Fiscal Year 1973-74 amounted
to $114,000) be included as part of the budget review process.
b. That the costs incurred by Parks Division to support Recreation
Division activities be identified and charged to the program being supported.
2. Inventory: Specific methods be established to control inventory and
that these be incorporated into a City-wide inventory system and effective
inventory management practices be adopted to prevent over buying and buying too
75-343
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
The Council indicated that they were interested in the Management Audit as
a separate item.
Mr. Murdoch stated that in reviewing the ensasement plans for the Life,
Property, and Protection review, he is familiar with Mr. Hill's qualifications
to perform the Police review but that he did not recall Mr. Hewitt's qualifica-
tions being discussed previously.
Mr. LeSieur briefly explained that Mr. Hewitt is from their Sacramento
Office, was formerly a police officer with the Berkeley Police Department and
has done extensive consulting work for Authur Young & Company in the Civil
Defense type fields.
Councilman Sneegas requested a more specific definition of "extensive"
since he also is a former police officer but did not feel that he had knowledge
of fire suppression activity. He indicated that if Mr. Hewitt is going to
conduct an appraisal of the Anaheim Fire Department, he personally would like
to see something which substantiates Mr. Hewitt's expertise in that field.
Mr. LeSieur offered to provide a listing of Mr. Hewitt's credentials and
activity with Authur Young & Company.
Councilman Seymour moved that the engagement plans for the Police Depart-
ment, Disaster Services Division and Library be approved, and those for the
Fire Department held over one week for additional information. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour the Arthur
Young & Company Financial and Management Practices Audit status report for the
month of March was accepted. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT - RESULTS OF T~E MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF THE PARKS; RECREATION AND THE ARTS
DEPARTMENT: Mr. Lou Kopeny of Arthur Young & Company presented a su~m~ary of the
results of the Management Audit of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department,
as contained in the report submitted to Council Members this date. (Copy of
said report on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
The following is a synopsis of the recommendations which he presented as a
result of the review.
As a result of the study, it is the opinion of Arthur Young & Company that
the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department is, in general, adequately provid-
ing needed services to the citizens of Anaheim, but that the cost effectiveness
of the Department can be substantially improved.
I. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PARKS DIVISION:
1. They believe that the Parks function is of sufficient importance to
the City to merit it being cleanly delineated as a separate, distinct function.
They recommend that steps be taken to identify and reallocate all Recreation
activity and expenditures occurring in the Parks Division to the Recreation
Division and the Parks function be placed in proper prosPective. They believe
that the alternative of creating two separate departments to accomplish this
should be considered by Council when the total City organization is reviewed at
the end of the Financial and Management Practices Audit Program.
2. The review of the nature and extent of the activities of the Staff
Assistant to the Department Director indicates that the work required~does not
justify the position and it is recommended that this position be eliminated
from the budget completely. If a need can be demonstrated for additional staff
support beyond the capabilities of the existing staff, then the possibility of
using City interns for this purpose is suggested.
3. Parks Division - Design Function:
a. It is recommended that all parks development and improvement pro-
jects for Fiscal Year 1975-76 be identified~ reviewed and budgeted. Further
that the design effort associated with all General Fund projects be budgeted to
those projects, and those salaries and related fringe benefits be removed from
the General Fund portion of the Fiscal Year 1975-76 Budget to produce a one-
time savings. Only the design effort for Fiscal Year 1975-76 necessary to
support Revenue Sharing and State Park Bond Fund projects should be included in
the salaries and wages portion of the General Fund Budget.
75-342
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15; 1975; 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously
approved by the City Council congratulating and commending the Melodyland
HOTLINE Center and Melodyland Ranch Academy on the occasion of their sixth and
first anniversaries, respectively. Said resolution was accepted by Mr. Michael
Darrah who invited citizens to participate in their sixth year celebration and
outlined some of their on-going program activities. Mr. Darrah thanked the
Council for this recognition and presented them with literature and tickets to
the 2nd annual pancake breakfast.
COUNCIL REORGANIZATION: Pursuant to Council Policy No. 111, ~he City Clerk
announced that this was the date and time established for reorganization of the
Council and thereupon announced nominations were in order for Mayor Pro Tem of
the City of Anaheim.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Councilman Seymour for the Office of Mayor
Pro Tem and further moved that nominations be closed. Councilman Thom seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour was declared elected Mayor Pro Tem unanimously.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held March 18,
1975, were approved, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Thom. 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.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount of $803,725.57, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY STATUS REPORT ON WORK PERFORMED DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH:
Mr. Jim LeSieur of Arthur Young & Company presented the status report on their
activities as of March 31, 1975, as follows:
Utilities Management Audit is on schedule and will be presented the latter
part of this month or early in May, 1975.
Reports on the results of the Management Audit of Data Processing, Personnel
and Research and Budget were presented to Council during the month of March.
Report on Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department will be presented this
date.
Mr. LeSieur introduced two new projects: Life, Property, and Protection
which will review the organization, policies, procedures, and operations of the
Police and Fire Departments and Disaster Services Division; and review of the
Library Department.
Mr. LeSieur commented that the Library review will take into consideration
the fact that two new libraries have been approved for construction and the
impact of this growth upon the Department will be analyzed.
Engagement plans for the Life, Property, and Protection Services and
Library Department Management Audits were submitted with this report as Attach-
ment "A".
Mayor Thom inquired whether work engagement plans had been prepared for
the Management Audit of the Golf Courses as authorized at the meeting of March
25, 1975.
Mr. LeSieur stated that the Arthur Young & Company, in conjunction with
their financial audit, will render an opinion on the City's enterprise accounts,
including the two golf courses. He inquired whether the Council wished the
Authur Young & Company to address the Management Audit separately'from this
financial audit which will take place as of June 30, 1975.
75-345
Ci.t~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15; 1975; 1;90 P,M,
soon. The implementation of this recommendation will result in a one-time
saving of approximately $10,000 and a continuing benefit of $500 to $600 annually.
3. Storage area: It is recommended that large, bulky, and expensive
items currently taking up storage space be identified and alternative methods
such as short-term leasing of the equipment be evaluated.
4. Performance and level of service: It is recommended that part-time
area supervisors consolidate their areas into four or five geographical sections
of the City with these supervisors having responsibility for all or most of the
activities promoted within their area. This should result in one less area
supervisor, less travel time, and better control, a savings-of approximately
$3,000 annually.
5. Communications:
a. It is recommended that each area supervisor submit a weekly status
report which indicates the status of ali programs, identifies new problems and
gives the status of problem resolutions.
b. It is further recommended that the Director of Parks, Recreation
and the Arts Department attend one staff meeting per month to review the pro-
grams and any problems.
At the conclusion of Mr. Kopeny's presentation the Mayor asked if Council
Members had any questions or wished to comment on the Arthur Young & Company
findings and recommendations.
Councilman Sneegas questioned the area of the report which mentioned that
the cost to repair a piece of equipment exceeded the original cost of the unit,
and Mr. Kopeny clarified that this was not actually the case, the item was not
repaired three times, but appeared to be, because the repair charge was listed
in three places. This indicates a mechanical problem in the computer program.
Councilman Sneegas commented that although the report indicates the level
of Park Maintenance to be acceptable, he would classify it as exceptional.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that in discussing proposals for the Management
Audit it was made rather clear that the City would expect to receive an indica-
tion of cost for implementation of the recommendation submitted and unfortunately
this appears only in one area in this particular report. Consequently he-remarked
that he feels the City should ask what the costs would be for carrying out the
additional record keeping for the in-lieu approach and status reports and other
changes recommended. He emphasized that these costs should be included.
Mr. Murdoch questioned the item that 40% of the Parks Design Section's
activity was devoted to requests from other agencies and upon being informed by
Mr. Kopeny that this 40% was used for review of plans for such projects as the
Civic Theatre and Peralta Adobe, Mr. Murdoch stated that these type of projects
were always considered in the same category as Parks.
Mr. Kopeny indicated that he was not challenging the validity of the
Design Section performing these tasks, only the fact that the time used on same
was not so identified.
Regarding the recommendation that $307,000 in wages and fringe benefits
and $30,000 for inventory reduction be removed from the General Fund and charged
against individual projects and then shown as a one-time savings, Mr. Murdoch
was skeptical that this could actually be considered a savings. He requested
that the assumption that this is a savings be held off and the recommendation
considered during the budgetary process.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that he strongly feels it is important to have
functions which are of a similar nature or which are cooperative activities
under one department head. In his experience separation of Parks and Recreations
functions creates considerable difficulty in scheduling and use of facilities
for activities as well as fostering a lack of cooperation.
Mr. John Collier concurred with Mr. Murdoch's remarks regarding the separa-
tion of the Parks and Recreation functions. He advised that this concept has
been attempted and in most cases the problems were insurmountable and the Depart-
ment was once again combined. He voiced appreciation on behalf of his Depart-
ment for having been able to work with Mr. Kopeny of Arthur Young. & Company.
He indicated, in reply to the Mayor, that he agreed generally with the report,
with the caveat against splitting of the two functions of Parks and Recreation.
75-346
City Hall:. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that during the discussion two areas of question
were raised which he would like clarified prior to implementation of recommenda-
tions, these being 1) that the cost factors involved in modifying the accounting
system be identified, 2) the clear identification of the $307,000 which is
listed as a one-time savings.
Councilman Sneegas voiced concern regarding whether the various funds to
be reallocated and subsequently counted as savings would eventually be charged
and further noted that he found it difficult to digest a report as complete and
lengthy as this during its presentation.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the City Council accept the Arthur
Young & Company report on the results of the Management Audit of Parks, Recrea-
tion and the Arts Department and further that they consider the implementation
of the recommendations contained therein at the regular Council meeting of
April 22, 1975. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS -
RESEARCH AND BUDGET GROUP: The City Manager submitted a report on implementation
of the Arthur Young & Company recommendations for the Research and Budget
Section originally presented to the Council at their meeting held March 25,
1975.
Mr. Murdoch advised that it will require Council action to transfer the
Budget function to the Finance Department.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council authorized the transfer of $5,358 and one employee from Research
and Budget Section (Budget function) to the Finance Department. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - MOTHER COLONY HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD - REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE: A list
of necessary and desirable work to be performed at the Mother Colony House for
preservation, maintenance, and restoration, prepared by Sarah Fay Pearson,
Chairman of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board, was presented to the Council
Members for authorization.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the list has been reviewed by staff and all
projects listed with the exception of the printing of picture postcards would
qualify for expenditure under the funds provided through stock dividends for
maintenance and operation of said facility. The printing of the postcards
could be taken care of through a different portion of the budget.
Councilman Thom moved that the Mother Colony House Advisory Board be
authorized to expend funds in accordance with the list of projects submitted up
to a maximum amount of $7,000. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - SEWER AND UTILITY SERVICES TO PROPERTY LOCATED ON SAVANNA STREET IN THE
CITY OF BUENA PARK: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, the request of Mr. Bill Rossworn for sewer and utility services to
property located at the westerly terminus of Savanna Street in the City of
Buena Park was continued to the meeting of April 29, 1975 and the City Clerk
requested to so notify the residents living within said area in which the~
project is proposed. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - FAIRMONT BOULEVARD GENERAL ALIGNMENT: To consider the
establishment of the general alignment of Fairmont Boulevard from Santa Ana
Canyon Road to Canyon Rim Road.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of October 29, 1974, to study
further proposed alternate alignments; and continued from the meeting of
November 19, 1974 to ascertain whether or not any developer would be interested
in the Del Giorgio property and wished to propose an alignment; continued from
the meeting of March 4, 1975, to allow time to review additional alternatives
to be submitted by the affected property owners.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chambers. (3:20 P.M.)
75-347
City Hail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Clerk advised that reports have been submitted from the Engineering
Division and Fire Department. Also submitted was correspondence from Maynard S.
Reynolds, P. O. Box 515, Yorba Linda, California, 92686, dated April 14, 1975,
urging the Council to adopt the modified D-2 alignment which he submitted.
Mr. William Devitt, Assistant City Engineer, reported that they recommend
the Council adopt Alternate No. D-2 for the general alignment of Fairmont
Boulevard, which would provide a hillside secondary pilot roadway with two
travel lanes, one in each direction, a 14-foot landscaped median and full
embankments.
Mr. Devitt related the history of public hearings and informational meetings
at which this general alignment was discussed. At three of these meetings the
affected property owners were involved together with the Canyon Area General
Planning Task Force. The Task Force has recommended adoption of Alternate No.
D-2 as proposed by the City Engineering staff and/or a modified Alternate No
D-2. '
Councilman Seymour return to the Council Chamber. (3:25 P.M.)
Mr. Devitt reported that Alignment No. D-2 is basically a mutation of the
C, C-i, and C-2 versions which were previously reviewed with the Council. A
modified version of D-2 has also been prepared and submitted by one of the
affected property owners, Mr. Maynard Reynolds. Review of this modified align-
ment by staff indicates that it would increase the project cost by approximately
$115,000 because of the additional length of the roadway, additional earth
work, and increased right-of-way required, plus it would create the need for
one additional traffic signal and median opening on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Mr. Devitt, using the various alignment exhibits posted on the~wall of the
Council Chamber including the modified D-2 alignment, explained each alignment
in detail and how each parcel of adjacent property would be affected.
In reply to Mayor Thom, Mr. Devitt advised that an environmental impact
report for this segment of Fairmont Boulevard would be necessary, and some work
on same has been started, but it cannot be completed until there is some assur-
ance as to where the general alignment is proposed.
Mr. Watts concurred with Mr. Devitt's statement that the adoption of a
general alignment is a necessary first step prior to determining the exact
nature of the funding of the project. When the Council made a definite commit-
ment to proceed with a precise alignment an environmental impacg report would
be required. Adoption of a general alignment does not commit the Council to
proceed with the project.
Mayor Thom left the Council Chamber. (3:30 P.M.)
As requested by Councilman Sneegas, Mr. Devitt advised that the closest
homes to the proposed road alignment in the Broadmoor Tract would range from
approximately 150 to 600 feet from the roadway to the rear property line and
that because of a modification to produce this alignment a severance of approxi-
mately 4 acres of property was created which is proposed to be offered as a
wilderness or park area, and there also might be an additional area to
acquired by the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour invited any interested members of the audience to
come forward and view the three-dimensional topographical display of the proposed
hillside pilot road.
Mayor Thom returned and Councilman Pebley left the Council Chamber.
(3:35 P.M.)
Mr. James Maddox advised that the Engineering Division has spent many
hours in preparation and deliberation of the general alignment for Fairmont
Boulevard. They have received opinions from traffic engineers with a collective
50 years of experience, which indicate that an arterial or secondary roadway is
needed at this location. In addition he called attention to the letters received
from the Chief of Police and Fire Chief indicating the desirability of this
roadway.
75-348
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975,. 1:30 P.M.
Prior to opening discussion to the public, the Mayor assured the audience
that the Anaheim City Council has received a quantity of written communications
from people living in the affected area giving their opinions on the proposed
alignments.
Councilman Seymour clarified that although the recommendation of the
Canyon Area General Planning Task Force was unanimously the D-2 or modified
D-2 alignment and the hillside pilot road with 14-foot landscaped median and
full embankment, the Santa Aha Canyon Homeowners Association were diametrically
opposed to the roadway as was the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association and
these two associations are represented on the Task Force.
The hearing was opened for public discussion of the proposed alignment for
Fairmont Boulevard and 14 persons addressed the Council, approximately one-half
in favor and one-half in opposition, stating their positions briefly as follows:
1. Mr. Ronald Bevins, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Attorney repre-
senting Pierre Nicolas.
Basically Mr. Bevins indicated that they were not generally opposed to the
alignment recommended by the City Engineer, although the most favorable align-
ment for Mr. Nicolas' property would be C-1. (Councilman Pebley returned to
the Council Chamber. 3:43 P.M.) Their concern is that a decision be made at
this time, although they do have a problem with the City's right-of-way acquisi-
tion policy, which suggests that Mr. Nicolas dedicate all the necessary right-
of-way from his property and the City in turn install the roadway and street
improvements. Mr. Bevins stated that Alignment No. D-2 would require a dedica-
tion of 2.46 acres from Mr. Nicolas' property plus a severance of about .09
acres, or almost 2~ acres which constitutes 18% of his property. Mr. Bevins
indicated that they do not feel this is fair and would suggest and urge that
the Council adopt a policy on right-of-way acquisition whereby Mr. Nicolas
would dedicate one acre in return for full street improvements and be compensated
in a reasonable amount for the remainder of the right-of-way which is necessary
to construct the road.
2. Mr. Phil Joujon-Roche, 1040 Via Vista, spokesman for the Santa Ana
Canyon Property Owners Association.
Mr. Joujon-Roche stated that this association is opposed to the roadway
despite the fact that their representative on the Task Force voted in favor of
the D-2 or modified D-2 alignment recommendation. Also, the representative
from the Santa Aha Canyon Improvement Association, Mrs. Dinndorf was absent at
the time this vote was taken, and, therefore, he felt that the opposition at
the Task Force was grossly understated.
Mr. Joujon-Roche submitted a petition with approximately 64 signatures
from homeowners in the Mohler Drive area who are opposed to construction of
Fairmont Boulevard from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Canyon Rim Road because of the
irrevocable adverse impact this road would have on the environment of the
existing and future hill and canyon area residents.
Mr. Joujon-Roche noted that the stated purpose of Fairmont Boulevard is to
provide for traffic circulation and he suggested that this purpose would.be
better served in a more cost effective manner and with less disruption to the
environment by the circular loop arrangement formed by Serrano Avenue and Monte
Vista Drive.
Mr. Joujon-Roche indicated, in reply to Councilman Seymour, that he felt a
majority of the homeowners would not be as opposed'to the immediate construction
of Monte Vista, and that he felt the Serrano/Monte Vista loop would serve as a
viable alternative, if built immediately in lieu of Fairmont.
3. Mr. Garry Johnson, 6172 Saddle Tree Lane, Yorba Linda.
Mr. Johnson was representing the Del Giorgio property and advised that in
order to develop this property a decision must be made by the Council and
requested that the Council either establish an alignment or delete it from the
Arterial Highway Master Plan. He advised they favor the D-2 alignment.
75-349
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTE§ - April 1S~ 1975~ 1;30 P.M.
4. Mrs. Mitzy Ozaki, 1122 Timken Road, Anaheim.
Mrs. Ozaki discussed the concept of the north-south street serving the
hillside areas and quoted from the Anaheim General Plan (Page No. 65) that the
design of street systems in residential areas should discourage the use of
through and non-residential traffic, yet provide the residents with adequate
access. She was of the opinion that a four-lane highway would encourage outside
traffic and would cause a destructive and negative impact to. the hill and
canyon area. She felt that this proposed roadway should be designed to serve
the residents only.
Mrs. Ozaki further described and cited statistics regarding the major
disasters which could strike the area, flood, fire, and earthquake, and voiced
the opinion that a four-lane, north-south road would not be needed even in
these situations. She stated that her opposition to the proposed hillside
pilot is that the full embankment plan will provide the area needed to widen
the roadway to four lanes which, in effect, indicates to proposed developers to
proceed because their future needs can be accommodated. In conclusion, she
advised she favored a two-lane roadway with a center median, and urged the
Council to reevaluate their policy and to provide just the roadways which are
needed to service the area residents.
5. Mr. Arthur Whizzin, Agoura, California.
Mr. Whizzin stated that he owns property in the area which is unaffected
which ever way the decision goes. He noted that he first learned of Fairmont
Boulevard in 1965 when he purchased his property. He related that the roadway
has been on the Arterial Highway Master Plan for quite some time and further
that he did not think an area could be considered rural when it contains
residential subdivisions. He was in favor of the road because he felt it very
important not to have a locked-in community which would increase the danger to
residents in the instance of fire and related an incident in similar terrain
which had disastrous consequences.
6. Rod Bolton, 6314 Via Estrada, President of the Broadmoor-Northridge
Homeowners Association.
Mr. Bolton submitted a petition which he stated contained the signatures
of 310 Anaheim residents in opposition to Fairmont Boulevard based on the
negative environmental impact on the area. He related that he has attended
several meetings on this subject and has received information which is mislead-
ing such as three different sets of traffic projections for the road which has
progressively' decreased. He noted that part of the stated purpose of the
roadway is to provide travel access to the north and noted that out of the 310
people who signed the petition, 11 travel to the north. He observed that the
future residents of the area would most likely also work and travel in a south-
erly direction. It is the position of this association that the Council's
decision should not be which alignment to use but whether or not to adopt an
alignment at all. They suggest no Fairmont Boulevard is necessary.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Bolton stated that the alternative
presented by Mr. Joujon-Roche, the Serrano-Monte Vista lOop would also be
acceptable to his association.
Later in the meeting at the conclusion of the public hearing, Mr. Bolton
noted that the Broadmoor-Northridge Homeowners Association is not represented
on the Canyon Area General Planning Task Force which voted in favor of the D-2
or modified D-2 alignment.
7. Sue Callaghan, 1055 Del Giorgio Road, Anaheim.
Mrs. Callaghan advised that she owns and lives on a one acre parcel which
cannot be expanded or developed, but that she is in favor of Fairmont Boulevard
because there has to be access to permit other property owners to develop their
land.
8. Mr. Eugene Borowicz, 941 Paseo Fiesta, Anaheim.
75-350
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Borowicz advised that his home overlooks the proposed Fairmont Boulevard
alignment. He related some of the discrepancies in information related to
homeowners in the hill and canyon area which he learned of while circulating
the petitions asainst Fairmont Boulevard.
Mr. Borowicz stated that using the City Traffic Engineer's maximum density
projections, if the roadway is built at its maximum 80-foot width to accommodate
57,000 plus trips per day, using the ultimate density of 12,500 trips per day
he estimates that 10 years from now the proposed Fairmont Boulevard-road would
be used to only 21% of its capacity. He stated that the people living in this
area purchased their home because they did not want downtown Anaheim at their
doorstep, they wanted a rural atmosphere.
Regarding the potential fire hazard, Mr. Borowicz observed that the City
planners are not willing to project the density necessary for that area to con-
struct a permanent fire station rather than the temporary structure at Canyon
Rim Road and Nohl Ranch Road. He stated that the new tracts of homes in the
hills have sprinkler systems and other fire retardant precautions and that in
the event of fire, he would estimate that because of the prevailing winds, it
would travel in a westerly direction and the only access road he could justify
for fire purposes would be one which travels southerly.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Borowicz advised that he feels there
is also no need for Monte Vista. He would recommend, aside from a southern
access, that Weir Canyon Road be completed because there is already a freeway
interchange.
9. Mr. Sam Gaylord, Del Giorgio Road, Anaheim.
Mr. Gaylord pointed out that the area under discussion does not constitute
the largest cul-de-sac as previously stated, but rather that title would more
appropriately fit the Mohler loop area. He noted that none of those residents
in the Mohler Drive area have ever complained of their access situation to his
knowledge. He was of the opinion that the only purpose for Fairmont Boulevard
was for the development of Anaheim Hills property.
Councilman Seymour agreed with Mr. Gaylord that it is true Fairmont is
necessary for the 6,000 homes already approved for the area and stated that it
is not accurate to compare these against some 100 dwelling units with approxi-
mately 270 inhabitants living in the Mohler loop area.
10. Mr. David Green, 1081 Del Giorgio Road, Anaheim.
Mr. Green advised that he owns the property labeled "8" on the alignment
exhibits. Mr. Green also urged a resolution of the matter. He indicated that
he is personally opposed to the road; that he purchased his home in May of 1974
and if the road does go through he will sell his property. He noted that the
construction of Fairmont Boulevard will not alleviate the cul-de-sac condition,
the only true relief would be with a southern access or with the construction
of Monte Vista. He indicated he would be in favor of either of these two
latter alternatives, but considers Fairmont Boulevard a waste of money.
11. Mrs. Diane MacMillan, 6690 East Paseo Cancion, Anaheim.
Mrs. MacMillan stated that from the beginning the homeowners and taxpayers
have received inaccurate information regarding Fairmont Boulevard from City
employees. She cited that when the size and alignment of the proposed road
were protested they were told that the City had to comply with certain criteria
on design, speed, and size in order to meet the A.H.F.P. Master Plan. However,
these criteria were modified in March to permit two lanes rather than four.
She thought this indicative of the kind of manipulations to which the homeowners
have been subjected. The traffic projections have been revised three times in
the last three months and the stated purpose of the road is to serve the futare
residents of Anaheim Hills, however, at a Task Force meeting the representative
from Anaheim Hills reported that they would not reach full development for at
least ten years. Therefore, she felt that if the road will not be needed for
ten years, the alignment of same is premature at this time.
75-351
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1975, 1~30 P.M.
Mrs. MacMillan stated that the City of Anaheim has submitted this project
for A.H.F.P. funding as a priority project and evidently have demonstrated the
need for the road to the County. She inquired then why the City cannot demon-
strate this need to its homeowners and taxpayers. She stated that she could
not understand how this could be a priority project when it will ultimately
serve and benefit future residents. She concluded that she felt there is a lot
more involved with the construction of Fairmont Boulevard than is being told to
the citizens.
12. Mr. Reid Gustafson, representing Broadmoor Homes,'17802 Irvine
Boulevard, Tustin.
Mr. Gustafson advised that he was not going to take any position on the
proposed alignments but that they do wish to go on record, that if Council does
take action to adopt one of the alignments proposed, that Broadmoor would favor
the roadway be designed as a two-lane road with a median strip as indicated on
the mockup display. In addition to the tree planting in the center median,
they would request two additional rows of trees be planted on either perimeter
of the road so that the roadway would be screened from view of the homeowners.
They further would prefer that the road be constructed without street lights
or, at least not a line of street lights going down the canyon.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Gustafson advised that he was not
aware of the reason that homeowners in the Broadmoor tract were not notified of
the possibility that Fairmont Boulevard would be constructed adjacent to that
tract, since he has only been with the firm a short while.
13. Mrs. Ann Bien, Paseo Del Norte, Anaheim, expressed her concern regard-
ing certain information submitted at a Task Force meeting which she felt indi-
cated some property owners were being intimidated in order to obtain their
approval of the proposed alignment. *
14. Mr. Maynard Reynolds, 20770 Santa Ana Canyon Road, one of the property
owners affected by the Fairmont Boulevard Alignment.
Mr. Reynolds stated that the proposed Alignment No. D-2 without modifica-
tion would remove his property from consideration by developers. Using the
exhibit prepared and posted on the wall he explained the advantages of the
modified D-2 alignment which he had submitted.
Council discussion with some of the speakers indicated that Councilman
Sneegas was of the opinion that the alignment and construction of Fairmont
Boulevard is at least two years late and that for every year the Council delays,
there will be more and more opposition to it from those people moving into the
area. Councilman Sneegas noted that if this section of Fairmont Boulevard had
been built prior to construction of the Broadmoor homes, then those individuals
who purchased the houses would have either accepted the road or would not have
bought in that area.
Councilman Seymour indicated empathy with those individuals who stated
they had received conflicting and constantly changing information regarding
this project and with the lack of credibility which this would generate.
However, in this matter he advised he has received sufficient information and
numbers, as well as opinions from the County of Orange and Cities of Villa Park
and Orange indicating that there is a need for Fairmont Boulevard to serve the
future residents who will live in the tracts of homes which have already been
approved by this and previous Anaheim City Councils. He noted that if there
were declared a moratorium on building at this time, then perhaps the area
could get by without Fairmont Boulevard, if Serrano Avenue were extended.
Councilwoman Kaywood found it very interesting that people living in the
Anaheim Highlands tract had signed the petition against Fairmont Boulevard,
since they had appealed to the Council for relief from exactly the opposite
situation because realtors had promised them two accesses to Santa Aha Canyon
Road. ** The circulator of the petition admitted many misstatements and
exaggerations to obtain signatures.
The Council Members determined they had received sufficient testimony on
the subject from the public, and Mayor Thom declared the public hearing closed.
Garry Johnson answered from the rear of the room on behalf of his wife that the
statement was untrue; the comment was misinterpreted by Mrs. Bien.
* ** See Minutes of May 27, 1975, 1:30 P.M., Page No. 75-481, "Minutes".
75-352
C,ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15; 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that he could see the need for a two-lane road
but it has not been demonstrated to him that four lanes are necessary, although
he would be agreeable to acquiring the right-of-way for same and leaving it as
open space in order to preclude homes or other developments being built and
thereby causing potentially greater problems in the future. He felt it imper-
ative that the decision to widen to four lanes be brought back to the people
since they are the ones who must live with and use the roadway. Therefore,
Councilman Seymour questioned whether the City Attorney could delineate some
legal method which would enable the people who live within a certain general
geographical area to make the decision as to whether a road would be widened or
not.
Mr. Watts counseled that although there are methods which would accomplish
this, he could not advise of any way to bind a fUture Council to handle the
situation in that manner.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-187: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-187
for adoption, approving the D-2 General Alignment for Fairmont Boulevard from
Santa Ana Canyon Road to Canyon Rim Road, as recommended by the City Engineer
and Canyon Area General Planning Task Force, said roadway to be a hillside
secondary arterial, pilot road with a 14-foot landscaped median, two-travel
lanes one in either direction, and full right-of-way acquisition for ultimate
embankments; further that this resolution declare the intent of the City Council
that there will be no paved access from Fairmont Boulevard to Mohler Drive, but
a fire access only; and further that this resolution declare the intent of the
City Council that a public hearing be held prior to the appropriation of any
funds for the widening of Fairmont Boulevard to four lanes.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE GENERAL
ALIGNMENT OF FAIRMONT BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON A MAP ENTITLED EXHIBIT D-2 FROM
SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD TO CANYON RIM ROAD AS A HILLSIDE SECONDARY ARTERIAL PILOT
ROAD WITH 14-FOOT LANDSCAPED MEDIAN; DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THAT THERE WILL BE NO PAVED ACCESS FROM FAIRMONT BOULEVARD TO MOHLER DRIVE; AND
FURTHER THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD PRIOR TO ANY WIDENING OF FAIRMONT BOULE-
VARD TO ITS ULTIMATE WIDTH.
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-187 duly passed and adopted.
At the conclusion of the public hearing Mayor Thom thanked the citizens
for attending and sharing their opinions and concerns with the City Council.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - REAL PROPERTY
TRANSFER (SECTIONS 18.02.045 AND .046) - REQUIRING THAT REAL ESTATE SALES PERSONS
SUBMIT COPIES OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS: Because of
several incidents related to the Council during the public hearing on the
General Alignment of Fairmont Boulevard regarding erroneous and misleading
information being given to prospective home buyers in the hill and canyon area,
or no information at all, Councilman Seymour proposed that the City Council
amend the Anaheim Municipal Code to require that all sales persons at new
housing developments be required to have a prospective buyer sign a statement
at the point of sale that he has received and has read a copy of the Anaheim
General Plan. ~
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the Task Force has also considered the
matter of real estate sales personnel making false statements and that a sugges-
tion was offered that a map or copy of the Anaheim General Plan, which clearly
depicts the location of roads, schools, etc., be posted on the wall of the
sales office.
75-353
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Attorney was instructed to draft an ordinance for submission to the Council
which would require some assurance be provided that at the point of sale of
residential property, the purchaser has been provided a copy of the Anaheim
General Plan and has read same and further requiring that the Anaheim General
Plan map be posted on the wall of the sales room. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 15 minutes. (5:45
P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. He thereupon turned Chairmanship over to Mayor Pro Tam Seymour and
left the meeting. (6:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1520: Application by State Industries,
to permit a private tennis facility in the ML Zone with the following Code
waivers on property located at the northwest corner of La Mesa Street and
Kraemer Place was submitted together with application for Exemption Status 'from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report;
a. Minimum front setback.
b. Minimum landscaped setback.
c. Maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-50, recom-
mended that the Council declare subject project exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report and granted the requested use, denying
waivers "a", "b", and "c", subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That sidewalks shall be installed along Kraemer Place and La Mesa
Street as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That street lighting facilities along La Mesa Street shall be installed
as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public
Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of
Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the
above-mentioned requirements.
7. That the petitioner shall submit the proposed tennis court lighting
system plans to CalTrans (California State Department of Transportation) for
approval.
8. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 and 2; provided, however, that the proposed tennis facility shall be
constructed in accordance with the site development standards of the ML Zone.
9. That Condition No. 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to
the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year
from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission or City Council may grant.
10. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested by
Councilwoman Kaywood at the March 25, 1975 meeting and public hearing scheduled
this date.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the proposed location, surrounding land uses and
zoning. He advised that the applicant has submitted revised plans since the
Planning Commission hearing which have eliminated the necessity for all or
75-354
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
nearly all of the requested waivers. He reported that the use proposed would
be 14 tennis courts and a clubhouse with 39 parking spaces provided. Mr.
Roberts called attention to the Planning Commission's concern regarding the
impact of the lighting from this proposed facility on cars traveling along the
Riverside Freeway, which prompted their recommendation for Condition No. 7
above.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the original conditional use permit granted
on subject property was for a motel and other industrial buildings. She voiced
her concern that the City Council preserve the integrity of the industrial area
and not set a precedent which would be difficult to change.
Mr. Arthur Haskell, Chairman of the Board of State Industries, advised
that the area is highly over built with industrial buildings, noting that there
are immediate to the east of subject property 83 industrial units of which one-
half now have tenants. He noted that his company sold a portion of their real
estate holdings in this area to Ramada Inns (3.6 acres) and in conjunction with
that sale made a seven year non-competition agreement with their business for
food-drink and lodging. State Industries submitted their plans for a grill
which will essentially be a one-man operation, serving breakfast, soft drinks,
and sandwiches in connection with the tennis courts and the Ramada Inns Corpora-
tion has approved same.
Mr. Haskell reviewed the changes made to the plans since the Planning
Commission hearing which essentially were to reorient the plot plan, placing
the clubhouse nearer the southerly end of the property adjacent to the Riverside
Freeway.
Discussion ensued regarding the effects of the proposed lighting on the
cars traveling on the Riverside Freeway and how Council could condition its
approval in accordance with CalTrans requirements. Mr. Haskell stated that the
tennis establishment is proposed to have a dark green canvas installed around
the entire perimeter, 14 feet high and he further stipulated that all lighting
would be installed below that level.
Mr. Nick Harlega, who assisted in preparation of the plans, indicated that
at the original hearing the objection to the lighting was because the courts
were very close to the freeway. He noted that the revised plans show the
courts further removed from the freeway, at least 150 feet back and the club-
house nearer the freeway.
In response to Councilman Seymour's concern regarding the variance from
required landscaped setbacks which appeared to be necessary, Mr. Roberts
related that the revised plan indicates parking spaces 20 feet deep, whereas
the Code requirement is 19 feet and a driving aisle of 26 feet and the Code
requirement is 25 feet; with the additional space gained from these areas he
voiced the opinion that there would be no need to encroach into the required
landscape setback and, therefore, the applicant could withdraw all three waivers
originally requested.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
§neegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council either
in favor or in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1520; and there being
no response, he declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-188: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-188
for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1520 subject to the revised
plans submitted, waivers "a", "b", and "c" no longer being necessary, subject
to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission amended as follows:
7. That all exterior lighting shall be directed downward so as not to
cause a hazardous condition to the motoring public along the Riverside Freeway
and that said lighting shall be reviewed one year from the date of this resolu-
tion to determine whether a lighting problem exists.
75-355
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ !975~ 1:30 P.M.
8. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
No. 1 Revision No. 1, and Exhibit No. 2; provided, however, that the proposed
tennis facility shall be constructed in accordance with the site development
standards of the ML Zone, and further provided, that the proposed tennis court
lighting shall not exceed the height of the 14-foot high canvas material on the
surrounding chain link fencing.
10. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be com-
plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1520, IN PART.
Roi1 Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-188 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2671: Application by John Molinaro to construct a
mini-warehouse in the M-L Zone on property located west of the Santa Ana Freeway
and Riverside Freeway exchange, with the following Code waivers, was submitted
together with application for exemption status from the requirement to prepare
an environmental impact report:
a. Maximum number of free-standing signs.
b. Maximum sign area.
c. Permitted sign location.
d. Minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-43 reported
that the Director of Development Services has determined that the proposed
activity falls under the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, of the C£ty of
Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and
is, therefore, categorically exempt; further, the City Planning Commission
granted Variance No. 2671 in part, denying waiver "a", granting waivers "b" and
"d" conditionally and waiver "c" for a period of one year, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director
of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
4. That no water or electrical service, other than~overhead lights (llOV),
shall be provided in the mini-warehouse units, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
5. That the proposed metal buildings shall be constructed in accordance
with the City Council Metal Building Policy.
6. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1, 2 and 3; provided, however, that the enclosed mini-warehouse units
along the southeast and southwest property lines shall be constructed with ten-
foot (10') wide garage-type doors, as stipulated to by the petitioner; and
further provided that only one (1) free-standing sign, with a maximum sign area
of two-hundred (200) square feet, located a minimum of forty-five feet (45')
from the adjacent State of California property line~ shall be constructed~ as
stipulated to by the petitioner.
7. That Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, above-mentioned~ shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
8. That this variance is granted for a mini-warehouse use only, and any
new use of the property shall be subject to approval by the Plan~ing Commission
and/or City Council and the structures and number of parking spaces shall be
required to be brought up to the minimum standards of all Codes adopted by the
City of Anaheim.
75-356
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apr.~l 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
Mr. Calvin V. Gross, Partner, E-Z Storage Company and public hearing scheduled
this date.
The City Clerk submitted a note received earlier in the meeting from
Kenneth W. Griffith, Senior Planner, City of Buena Park, advising that he was
present to speak on this item but had to leave to attend another meeting. The
note further requested that the City Clerk refer to the letter previously sent
under date of February 6, 1975, which still expresses the current thinking of
the Buena Park City Council on this matter. (Copies of this letter had pre-
viously been furnished each Council Member.)
Mr. Roberts described the location of subject property, its northeasterly
boundary being the Santa Ana Freeway and westerlY boundary the Anaheim/Buena
Park city limits. The parcel consists of 2½ acres of land on which the applicant
proposes to construct a mini-warehouse facility with four waivers from site
development standards, three of them pertaining to signs. There are eight
buildings proposed in this project with a floor area in access of 67,000 square
feet. Three of the buildings would be two story, the second story portion to
be constructed of metal. Based on the gross area of the project, Mr. Roberts
stated that 67 parking spaces would be required and the applicant is proposing
8.
Mr. Roberts reported that this parcel of property has been the subject of
boundary negotiations in the past between the Cities of Anaheim and Buena Park,
but the property still remains within the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Roberts acknowledged the concern expressed by the City of Buena Park
in their letter dated February 6, 1975, which is also incorporated in the staff
report on Variance No. 2671. Said letter indicates that the City of Buena Park
requests: (1) The development be denied. (2) That any development of the
property shall be compatible with the comprehensive general plan and the
development standards of the City of Buena Park. (3) That any utility services
from the City of Buena Park will be predicated upon the annexation of the
subject property to that City and upon approval of development plans by the
City of Buena Park.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if the applicant wished to address the City
Council.
Mr. Calvin Gross, Partner, E-Z Storage Company which develops and operates
mini-warehouses, related that last October his firm received approval of a
conditional use permit from the City of Buena Park to construct a mini-warehouse
facility on 2.87 acres of land located at 8251 Orangethorpe Avenue, which is
diagonally across the street and to the west of subject property.
Mr. Gross related that in talking to lenders while seeking financing for
their project it was brought to their attention that because of the many applica-
tions for mini-warehouse facilities, the area may shortly face the situation of
being over built. Mr. Gross stated that his firm felt their investment was
somewhat protected in Buena Park because of the rigid development standards and
the extra costs which are associated with being in Fire Zone 1. They believed
these two factors would discourage competitors.
Mr. Gross described the locations of existing mini-warehouse facilities
including some which are comtemplated by Del Properties, the proposed developer
of subject property. He concluded that it would be more prudent of Del Prop-
erties to construct at the other locations they have under consideration. He
noted that the City of Buena Park stated that any utility services to this
property would be predicated upon annexation of the property to that city. He
related some of the problems which Del Properties has encountered in attempting
to receive utility services from the City of Anaheim, namely the need to run a
water line 1700 feet along a railroad right-of-way.
Councilman Pebley informed Mr. Gross that he felt the City Council should
consider an application such as this on its zoning merits only and not on
economics. He voiced the opinion that Mr. Gross' entire presentation was
chiefly directed towards controlling or restricting competition t° his own
business. He stated that this was entirely against his philosophy and the
spirit of free enterprise.
75-357
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15;.1975; 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the City
Council.
Mr. Fred Walters, representing Del Properties and agent for the property
owner, concurred with the comments made by Councilman Pebley. He related that
he did not think competition is a valid reason to appeal a project. Mr.
Walters related that once he supplied some assurance to the City of Anaheim
Planning Commission that this property could be served with utilities by
Anaheim, the Commission approved his project.
Mr. Walters advised that he first attempted to obtain utility services
from the City of Buena Park but since he was unable to accomplish this, he is
willing to accept the additional expense required for his property to receive
utility services from the City of Anaheim. He estimates that it will cost
$20,000 to connect water service alone.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Walters described the reasons he felt
it would not be economically feasible to develop his project in the City of
Buena Park, primarily, because of the additional construction cost related to
being in Fire Zone 1.
Councilman Pebley voiced the opinion that if Mr. Walters' firm is willing
to pay the additional expense to receive utility services from Anaheim and
build to the Anaheim Site Development Standards, he would like the City of
Anaheim to receive the benefits from this project, which according to Mr.
Walters, will have a total development cost of $450,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the subject property is located
within the Buena Park sphere of influence and would be a nuisance for Anaheim
Fire and Police Departments to service. She further noted that this property
is separated from the City of Anaheim by tWo freeways and a railroad track.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the Council
and there being no response, he declared the hearing closed.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council ratified the determina-
tion of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity falls
under the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, of the City of Anaheim Guide-
lines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact
report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Pebley offered a Resolution for adoption granting
Variance No. 2671 subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour declared said Resolution failed to carry by reason
of a tie vote.
Councilman Seymour advised, for the developers clarification, that while
he respects the right of an individual or company to make decisions regarding
the investment of their capital, he also must respect the wishes of the City of
Buena Park, since in turn he expects their City Council to exhibit a mutual
consideration for the City of Anaheim. He advised that he feels this type of
relationship with an adjoining city, which the majority of the City Council has
been attempting to uphold, is more important than the tax dollars to be accrued
as a result of this project.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas the deci-
sion on Variance No. 2671 was continued to the next regular meeting April 22,
1975, for consideration by full Council. MOTION CARRIED.
75-358
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
1072: Submitted by Clarence McNees to consider a request for an extension of
time on the uses granted under said conditional use permits.
The City Planning Commission granted a one year extension of time retro-
actively from October 7, 1974 to October 7, 1975 for Conditional Use Permit No.
1063 and from November 4, 1974 to November 4, 1975 for Conditional Permit No.
1072 subject to certain conditions.
These conditions were protested by the applicant's Attorney, Marjorie Mize
LeGaye, at the Council Meeting of March 25, 1975, and reveiw of action taken by
the City Planning Commission subsequently requested by Mayor Thom, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas the
public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1063 and 1072 was continued to
the meeting of April 22, 1975 as requested by the applicant's Attorney in her
letter dated April 11, 1975. Councilman Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - DOUBLE CHECK RETREAT - SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: Request of Mr.
Vincent B. Dailey, P. O. Box 662, Garden Grove, 92642, on behalf of Double
Check Retreat to solicit funds in the City of Anaheim from date of approval to
60 days hence, was submitted together with reports from the City Attorney,
Police Department and License Division.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
request of Double Check Retreat to solicit funds within the City of Anaheim for
a period of 60 days was approved subject to the recommendations of the City
Attorney that the applicant furnish a list of names and addresses of all persons
who will be in any manner engaged in the work connected with the solicitations
of funds in compliance with Section 7.32.020.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Councilman Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
TRACT NO. 7422 - APPROVAL OF FINAL FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS: Final floor plans
and elevations submitted by Grover C. Brown, Jr. of Lan Ron Enterprises, Inc.
for Tract No. 7422 were presented for Council consideration together with
recommendations from the Development Services Department that subject final
plans and elevations be approved as submitted. Tract No. 7422 is proposed for
RS-5000 construction on property located east of Imperial Highway, between the
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way to the north and La Palma
Avenue to the south.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas final floor
plans and elevations and site plans for Tract No. 7422 were approved, as
recommended by the Development Services Department. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
"no", Councilman Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood advised that her "no" vote is in opposition to the
5,000 foot lots proposed.
TRACT NOS. 7288 AND 7875 - REQUEST TO WITHHOLD RELEASE OF FOUR GRADING AND STREET
IMPROVEMENT BONDS: Correspondence submitted by Mary Ann Javelera, Assistant
Vice-President, Calprop Corporation objecting to the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department's compliance with the Rancho Yorba Homeowners Association request to
withhold the release of four grading and street improvement bonds filed in
conjunction with Tract Nos. 7288 and 7785 was continued for consideration at
the meeting of April 22, 1975, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by
Councilman Pebley. Councilman Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
TRACT NO. 8455 - FINAL FLOOR PLANS~ ELEVATIONS AND FENCE PLANS: The final specific
floor plans, elevations and fence plans submitted by Westfield Development
Company for Tract No. 8455 proposed to be constructed on 15.6 acres on the
south side of Canyon Rim Road, approximately 1200 feet east of Nohl Ranch Road,
were approved as recommended by the City Planning Commission, on motion by
Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. Councilman Thom absent,
Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour advised that he abstained from voting on the foregoing
motion because he occasionally has business dealings with the Westfield Develop-
ment Company.
75-359
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-189 - AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT {SELECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF ON-SITE WORK LOCATIONS):
Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-189 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL BY DISTRICT'S COORDINATOR/INSTRUCTOK OF
THE SELECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF ON-SITE WORK LOCATIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBEKS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour declared Resolution No. 75R-189 duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-190 - C.E.T.A. PROGRAM BUDGET MODIFICATION: Councilman Sneegas
offered Resolution No. 75R-190 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT (C.E.T.A.) BUDGET MODIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR APPROVED ACTIVITIES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour declared Resolution No. 75R-190 duly passed and
adopted.
PROPOSAL FOR INTERIM MOBILE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT - ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: The
City Manager presented the Council with proposals for interim mobile intensive
care units proposed by Anaheim Memorial Hospital. The City Manager suggested
that this item be considered during the budget planning process.
REPORT - PARKS AND RECREATION - REQUEST OF DR. ATHERTON FOR A CHANGE IN PARK
ACREAGE STANDARDS AND IN-LIEU FEES: Report from Mr. John Collier on the Parks
and Recreation Commission consideration of Dr. Atherton's petition asking that
required park dedication by developers be increased from 1½ acres to 4 acres
per thousand population andfor an equitable means of determining an in-lieu fee
for park land be established, was submitted together with a note left by Dr.
Atherton earlier in the meeting indicating he had a satisfactory discussion
with Mr. Collier, but had to leave the meeting before the Council reached this
item on the agenda.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
CHANGE OF NAME - LA PALMA RECREATION CENTER TO MARTIN RECREATION CENTER: On
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas the City Council
authorized a change in name from "La Palma Recreation Center" to "Martin Recrea-
tion Center" as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their
regular meeting of March 20, 1975. Councilman Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-191 - EMPLOYMENT OF FINANCIAL CONSULTANT - ELECTRIC REVENUE
BONDS FOR GENERATION FACILITIES: On report and recommendation of the Utilities
Director pursuant to his memorandum dated April 8, 1975, Councilman Sneegas
offered Resolution No. 75R-191 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
75-360
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ .1975~ 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT EMPLOYING WAINWRIGHT & RAMSEY INC., AS FINANCIAL
CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF ELECTRIC
REVENUE BONDS PERTAINING TO THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN POWER SUPPLY RESOURCE§
BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Wainwright & Ramsey, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour declared Resolution No. 75R-191 duly passed and
adopted.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Watts advised that according to
legislation enacted two years ago, the electric bonds would be required to be
offered for sale at public bid and consequently an Anaheim citizen who wishes
to purchase same would have some knowledge of the sale from the public notice,
even though the offer may be made to a group of underwriters.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-192 - EMPLOYMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANT - ELECTRIC REVENUE
BONDS FOR GENERATION FACILITIES: Mr. Hoyt stated that his memorandum dated April
8, 1975, recommending employment of R. W. Beck & Associates as Engineering
Consultants for the electric revenue bond program covers the subject adequately,
however, he wished to emphasize that the cost indicated therein of $40,000 is
the estimate for work to be performed for the first bond issue only. If there
are later issues, these costs would be in addition to this $40,000.
In reply to Councilman Seymour's concern that the contract appeared not to
have a price ceiling, Mr. Hoyt pointed out that page four indicates that it is
estimated that the total amount to be paid to the engineers will not exceed
$40,000; sums in excess of this amount would require approval by the City
Council.
On recommendation of the Utilities Director, Councilman Pebley offered
Resolution No. 75R-192 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
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 R. W. BECK AND
ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING ADVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF
POWER SUPPLY RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour declared Resolution No. 75R-192 duly passed and
adopted.
Councilman Sneegas left the C0uncii Chamber. (7:20 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - WORK ORDER NO. 830 - PARKWAY MAINTENANCE OFFICE BUILDING ADDI-
TION - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONTRACT COMPLETION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR
UNAUTHORIZED SUBSTITUTION OF A SUBCONTRACTOR: The City Clerk read the notice of
public hearing and Order to Show Cause issued to Orange County Environmental
Developers, Inc., 2550 South Fairview, Santa Ana, 92704, giving notice that ·
public hearing would be held this date to determine whether said company should
be assessed a penalty under Government Code Section 4110 for the unauthorized
substitution of a subcontractor in connection with Work Order No. 830.
75-361
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
In addition, revised reports from the City Engineer recommending an exten-
sion of 27 working days be granted, extending the contract completion date to
December 2, 1974, with assessable liquidated damages of 70 calendar days at $25
per day for a total sum of $1,750, was submitted.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if Orange County Environmental Developers,
Inc. was represented and wished to address the City Council.
Mr. Paul Hindson, representing Orange County Environmental Developers,
Inc. stated that they oppose the liquidated damages~ assessment, stating they
believe this to be unfair because of the controversy regarding the toilet
partitions. We advised that they did not intentionally substitute a subcontrac-
tor for the painting portion of the job, but rather there was some confusion at
the time that the bid sheets were prepared and the wrong subcontractor was
listed. Further, one of the reasons for late completion was the inability to
obtain materials needed for the standing metal partition screens.
Discussion was held between Council, City Engineer, and Mr. Hindson regard-
ing the liquidated damages to be assessed and Councilman P~bley offered a
compromise of 35 days at $25 per day, to which Mr. Hindson agreed and stipulated
to payment of these damages on behalf of his company.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council granted an extension of 27 working days with assessable liquidated
damages of 35 days at the rate of $25 per day and, further, waived a penalty
assessment for unauthorized substitution of subcontractor. Councilmen Thom and
Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each CouncilMember and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim submitted by John J. Clark for damage sus-
tained to mobile home purportedly as a result of actions of the Anaheim Police
Department, on or about March 4, 1975, was denied as recommended by the City
Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2412 - Requesting the earnings
limitations under Social Security be repealed.
b. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County - Headline
Synopsis of Major ICC Actions in March 26, 1975 meeting.
c. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Application of Greyhound
Lines, Inc. (Western Division), for an order authorizing a statement increase
in intrastate passenger fares and express rates and Greyhound Lines, Inc.
(Western Division), Las Vegas-Tonopah-Reno Stage Lines, Inc., Orange Belt
Stages, a corporation, Peerless Stages, Inc., and Vaca Valley Bus Lines for an
order authorizing a statewide increase in interline express rates - Notice of
Hearing.
d. Santa Aha River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commission - Progress Report -
2/1/75 - 3/28/75.
e. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County:
Stanton Resolution Nos. 75-13, 75-14, 75-15, and 75-16
Huntington Beach Resolution No. 4045
La Palma Resolution Nos. 75-8, 75-9, 75-12, and 75-13
Fountain Valley Resolution No. 7278
Irvine Resolution No. 407
Costa Mesa Resolution Nos. 75-23, 75-29, and 75-30
La Habra Resolution No. 2424
f. Community Redevelopment Commission Minutes - March 19, 1975.
g. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of March, 1975 for the
Customer Service Division.
h. City of South E1 Monte - Resolution No. 75-1778 - E.xpressing and
urging opposition to Senate Bill 95.
i. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - March 13, 1975.
Councilmen Thom and Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED.
75-362
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-193 AND 75R-194: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
Nos. 75R-193 and 75R-194 for adoption in accordance with the reports and recom-
mendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar
Agenda:
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-193 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Lloyd E. Klein, et ux.; Hallcraft Homes, Inc.; Raymond G. Spehar, et al.;
Joseph Edward Troesh, et ux.; Martin Ronson; Aurella B. Martinez; Robert C.
McGinnis, et ux.; Richard H. Pebley, et ux.; Raymond J. Reim, et ux.; Virginia B.
Herrera; Alejandro Barreto Reval, et ux.; Arlene A. Meeks; Thelma V. Steinborn;
Carl G. Schlegel, at ux.; Elbert C. Duncan, et uX.; Lupe Perez; Ella M. Jacobs;
Henry H. Herrera, et ux.; Rhea R. Sparling, et al.; Pedro R. Penaflor)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-194 - WORK ORDER NO. 750-A: 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: THE GROVE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 750-A; 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 DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - May 15, 1975, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas and Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 75R-193 and 75R-194 duly passed
and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-195 - WORK ORDER NO. 851 - RIO VISTA PARK: Councilman Pebley
offered Resolution No. 75R-195 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: THE RIO VISTA PARK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 851; 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 DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - May 15,
1975, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas and Thom
·
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-195 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-196 - AWARD OF CONTRACT~ WORK ORDER NO. 847: Prior to action
on award of contract, Work Order NO. 847, Mr. Murdoch notified the Council that
the low bid received is considerably in excess of the funds provided for this
item in the bud§et. He noted that the orisinal rough estimate for ~his project
of $4,000 was drawn up before any designs were prepared. After completion o£
the design, the project was reestimated at $8,500 but the low bid received was
actually $10,500. He advised that if Council wished to proceed with the contract
award as recommended, that a transfer of $6,500 be authorized from the Council
Contingency Fund.
75-363
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 197.5~ 1:30 P.M.
TRANSFER - COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded
by Councilman Seymour, the City Council authorized the transfer of $6,500 from
the Council Contingency Fund to cover the balance necessary for Work Order No.
847 which is in excess of the $4,000 budgeted. Councilmen Thom and Sneegas
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-196 - WORK ORDER NO. 847: Councilman Seymour offered Resolu-
tion No. 75R-196 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PRO-
POSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING
OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECES-
SARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: FIRE STATION
NO. 5 ADDITION TO APPARATUS ROOM, 1154 NORTH KRAEMER AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 847. (James P. Reid - $10,500.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas and Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-196 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3414: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3414 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24 (18) - ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas and Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3414 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3415: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3415 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3392 AND ENACTING
A NEW ORDINANCE IN ITS PLACE PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No parking any time - La
Palma Avenue north side from West Street to 600 feet west of West Street, on
south side from West Street to 450 feet west of West Street)
ORDINANCE NO. 3416: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3416 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-58 - RS-7200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3417: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3417 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30 (5) - RS-7200)
APPOINTMENT - DR. JOSEPH E. BUTTERWORTH~ PARK AND RECRF~ATION COMMISSION: On
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council
appointed Dr. Joseph E. Butterworth as representative of the Anaheim Union High
School District to the Park and Recreation Commission, replacing Molly McGee,
for the term expiring June 30, 1977. Councilmen Thom and Sneegas absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
75-364
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - cOuNcIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
APPOINTMENT - MR. CONNIE MELTON, JR. - PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council appointed
Mr. Connie Melton, Jr., to serve as the Magnolia School District representative
to the Park and Recreation Commission, replacing Dr. Joseph E. Butterworth for
the term expiring June 30, 1978. Councilmen Thom and Sneegas absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:45 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk