Loading...
1972/05/0272 -253 City Hall. Anaheim, California COU$CIL MINUTES Mav 2, 1972, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry Mc R ae ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Father John K. Saville, of St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATIONS: The following Proclamations were issued by Mayor Dutton and unanimously approved by the City Council: "Youth In Government Day" May 4, 1972. "Hemophilia Sunday" May 7, 1972. "Cultural Arts Month" May, 1972. "Buddy Poppy Month" May, 1972. PROCLAMATION: "Hire A Veteran Week" May 7th to 13th, was issued by Mayor Dutton, unanimously approved, and presented to Tom Voorhis, State Veterans Employment Representative, whereupon Mr. Voorhis presented a Certificate of Commendation to the City of Anaheim for their ef- forts in hiring veterans. He noted that in the early part of the Public Employment Program (PEP), Anaheim far exceeded the spirit and letter of the Congressional Ordinance on this program by hir- ing veterans for 78% and Vietnam veterans for 507. of the available positions. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Frank Campagnoni, of the City Personnel De- partment, introduced new employees attending the Council meeting as part of the City's orientation program. Mayor Dutton welcomed the new employees. MEM Approval of Minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held April 11, 18 and 25, 1972, was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Councilman Thom 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 Councilmen unless, after read- ing of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. POTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $369,703.09, in accordance with the 1971 -72 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71 -72 -35 AND VARIANCE NO. 2338: Submitted by Jerry D. Nilsson, M.D., requesting a change of zone from R -A to C -1, to construct a medical office building on R -A zoned property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, north of Ball Road, with waivers of: a. Minimum side setback. b. Residential zone boundary screening requirements. c. Minimum number of off street parking stalls. d. Maximum building height. 72-254 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -60, recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Beach Boulevard, including preparation of improvement plans and in- stallation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with stand- ard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Beach Boulevard shall be installed as re- quired 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. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Beach Boulevard for tree planting purposes. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 4. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 5. That a 6 -foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the west property line; 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 a 6 -foot masonry wall along the south property line. 6. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties. 7. That any parking area lighting proposed within 120 feet of the R- 1 property to the west shall be down- lighting of a maximum height of six feet, which lighting shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. 8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within 180 days from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant. 11. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -61, granted said variance, in part, denying Waiver "c and granting Waivers "a "b and "d subject to the following conditions: 1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71- 72 -35, now pending. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim narked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted location of subject property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Thompson reported that the Petitioner had submitted revised plans (marked Exhibit 2, Revision No. 2) this date, indicating he would comply with the Code requirement on parking, which was the only waiver the City Planning Commission had denied. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and satisfied with the City Planning Commission recommendations, to which he received an affirmative reply from Charles A. Ross, Agent. City Hall. Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in oppos- sition; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -166: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -166 for adoption, authorizing prepration of necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Plan- ning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT•THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (71-72-35 C -1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -166 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -167: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -167 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2338, in part, denying Waiver "c," and granting Waivers "a," "b," and "d," subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, amending Condition No. 2 to reflect the revised plans, as follows: "2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 (Revision No.2), 3, and 4." Refer to Resolution Book. 72-255 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2338, IN PART. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -167 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71 -72 -38 AND VARIANCE NO. 2346: Submitted by Peltzer, Sprague, Skelton, Rosetto and Peltzer, requesting a change of zone from R -A to R -3 to construct a 98 -unit, one and two -story apartment complex on property located at the southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and the Santa Ana Freeway, with waivers of: a. Maximum height within 150 feet of a single family residential zone. b. Minimum setback requirement. c. Distance between parking space and dwelling unit. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -69, recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con- ditions: 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Crescent Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Crescent Avenue shall be installed as required by 72-256 Citv Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1:30 P.M. the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public Utili- ties; 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. 2. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Crescent Avenue for tree planting purposes. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 4. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 5. That a 6 -foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east, west, and southwest property lines. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utili- 7. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in -lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That the alignment of the southwesterly property line adja- cent to the Santa Ana Freeway shall be approved by the California Division of Highways. 10. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view. 11. That any parking area lighting proposed within 120 feet of any single family residential development shall be down lighting of a maxi- mum height of 6 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. 12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 13. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro perty, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be completed. The pro- visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within 180 days from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant. 14. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspec- tions. ties. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -70, granted said variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Re- classification No. 71-72-38. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 3. That Condition No. 2, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Report of the City Engineer was submitted, recommending that Con- dition No. 9 of said reclassification be revised to read as follows: "9. That the alignment of the southwesterly property .line adja- cent to the Santa Ana Freeway and the northerly property line adjacent to Crescent Avenue shall be approved by the California Division of Highways, and that the owner of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim the right -of-way and access rights required for the future Crescent Avenue overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway as has been determined necessary by the California Division of Highways." Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject 4 -3/4 acres of property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and read the findings of the City Planning Commission. 72-257 City Hall. Anaheim. Califor .a COUNCIL MINUTES Mav 2. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. He further noted that the additional dedication required by the City Engineer's recommendation would result in the relocation of a drive- way and loss of one 2 -story unit. The Council reviewed the revised plans submitted by the Applicant. In reply to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Maddox advised that the pro- posed Crescent Avenue overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway, which would necessitate the additional dedication, would be a joint City County un- dertaking, and this would require that the City acquire all of the neces- sary right -of -way and pay for construction of the roadway. He added that it was estimated this overcrossing probably would be under construction within five or six years. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and wished to address the Council. Kenneth Nelson, Nelow Development Company, 7411 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, Agent, stated he had only become aware of the possible additional dedication requirement that morning, and felt that since it is projected five or six years in the future, the alignment may never be changed; that when he viewed the preliminary plan it appeared all that would be required was a side bank and retaining wall. He added that the only information he had was a letter saying a small corner of the property would be taken. Referring to the necessity to relocate farther to the east the proposed driveway in that area, Mk. Nelson contended this would make a more difficult exiting situation. He added that their Architect, that morning, had attempted to redesign the drive to exit at the same location as origin- ally planned, even with the requested dedication. Mr. Maddox advised he did not think that would be possible, because there probably would be a four or five -foot difference in grade from subject property to the beginning of the overcrossing. Upon request of Mr. Nelson, Councilman Pebley moved to continue the public hearing to May 9, 1972, to allow time to modify plans to reflect the recommended additional dedication. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71- 72 -39: Submitted by Lola G. Jones, requesting a change of zone from R -A to R -1 for property located on the north side of Santa Ana Street, west of Elder Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -67, recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con- ditions: 1. That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Santa Ana Street for street widening purposes. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Santa An Street, including preparation of improvement plans and installa- tion of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grad- ing and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be cour plied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; 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. 3. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Santa Ana Street for tree planting purposes. 4. That parcel map to record the approved division of subject property be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be re- corded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in -lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 72-258 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1:30 P.M. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel, provided, however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing par- cels of record and any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council for a lot split. 9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro- perty, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, above mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless conditions are complied with within 180 days from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant. 11. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 9, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject 1/2-acre of property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or her Agent was present and satisfied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission, to which he received an affirmative reply. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposi- tion; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-168: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -168 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Com mission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (71 -72 -39 R -1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -168 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC WRING CONDITIWAL USE PERMIT NO. 1291: Submitted by Mario F. and Dixie L. Sanchez, to establish a child care nursery with six or more children on R-1 zoned property located on the west side of Hampton Street, south of Cres- cent Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 49, denied said conditional use permit. Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by the Applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject property, the existing uses and zoning in the imme- date area, and brief the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He added that the City Planning Commission, in denying this application, had felt approval would constitute spot commercial zoning. r City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES Mav 2. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. 72-259 Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and wished to address the Council. Bruce Chandler, Attorney for the Applicant, advised that Mrs. San- chez has 4 children of her own, 3 of whom are in school, and he questioned under Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.64.020 whether it would be necessary for her to apply for a conditional use permit to care for 5 additional chil- dren. The City Attorney advised that if the Applicant's school-age chil- dren under the age of 14 were not at home during the entire time she cared for those other 5 children it would not be necessary to have a conditional use permit, since the Code permits a total of 6 children. In reply to Council questioning, Mrs. Sanchez advised that she ordinarily cares for children from 6 :30 A.M. to 6 :00 P.M., on a year around basis. She advised that she has been licensed for 3k years by the State to provide day care for children, and spent $16,000.00 for a 1,200- square foot addition to her home to assure ample room for these activities, carries $50,000.00 insurance on each child cared for, and keeps them confined with- in a 60 x 55 -foot backyard with a 10 x 30 -foot concrete patio. She also advised that she employes a fulltime housekeeper so that all of her attention can be given to the children. Mrs. Sanchez stated that, to her knowledge, only 6 residents of the 24 homes on her block have expressed opposition to her activity and they have indicated concern over their property values. She added that there were no complaints prior to her application for a conditional use permit. In reply to Council questioning, Mrs. Sanchez stated she had re- moved a chainlink fence covered with ivy because her neighbor to the rear had objected to it at a Planning Commission meeting. She added that if ever there were any neighborhood problems as a result of her activities, she would resolve them if the neighbors would approach her on them. Mrs. Sanchez stated it was her opinion children were better cared for in a residential neighborhood atmosphere than on such busy streets as Euclid with the minimum required 4 -foot fence. Mayor Dutton asked for a show of hands of people in the audience who were in support of the application. Approximately 10 persons responded, and the Mayor asked that one person act as spokesman for the group. Kathie Meyers, 542 North Hampton Street, refuted the City Plan- ning Commission finding that granting this application would constitute spot zoning, since the Anaheim Municipal Code permits this activity in a residential area if a conditional use permit is obtained. She also disagreed with the City Planning Commission finding that the activity would be "detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim," and expressed the opinion that the Ap- plicant actually was performing a good service for the citizens by provid- ing good care for the children of working parents. Mrs. Meyers further stated she felt Mrs. Sanchez had contributed to the property values of the homes in her area by the addition to her home. Mrs. Lee Forrest, of the Orange County Welfare Department, advised that her department is the licensing agent for the State, and anyone who cares for an unrelated child must be licensed to do so. She noted that there presently are approximately 700 such licensees in Orange County, car- ing for about 2,400 children, and that about 125 of these homes are in Ana- heim, caring for approximately 400 children; that only licensed day care centers are permitted to care for children under 2 years of age; that since there are no such facilities offered by the City or County, parents either must use the services of these day care centers or drop their employment and depend on Welfare to support them. 72- 260 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Mrs. Forrest stated that licensed day care centers are closely sup- ervised by her department. She advised that they issue licenses to care for 3 children other than the licensee's, and are permitted to issue a special license for up to 10 children if the required zoning is granted. Mrs. Forrest stated that she had thoroughly investigated the Appli- cant's operation and found both the quality of care and facilities qualified her for a special license. She added that she had found the children cared for by Mrs. Sanchez were clean, well -fed and happy, and recommended the re- quired conditional use permit be granted. Councilman Pebley asked if Mrs. Forrest would issue the special li- cense if the Council granted subject conditional use permit, subject to re- view in two years. Mrs. Forrest replied that all licenses issued by her department are reviewed yearly. In reply to Council questioning, Mrs. Forrest stated she felt care of the 5 children requested by Mrs. Sanchez would keep her busy and she would not recommend approval of a license for a larger number. Mayor Dutton asked for a show of hands of opposition, and approxi- mately 8 persons responded. He requested that one person be appointed spokes- man for the group. Chester Kelley, 510 North Hampton Street, presented two letters in opposition from neighbors who were out of town. He stated he lived directly across the street from the Applicant and objected to the proposed activity because of the increased traffic and noise it generates from early morning to late at night. He added that he had noted more than 10 cars at a time dropping children at this residence. Mr. Kelley stated he understood Mrs. Sanchez' next -door neighbor also was planning to operate a day care facility and, in fact, had been caring for some children, which, together with Mrs. Sanchez' operation, had practi- cally doubled the traffic on that dead-end street. He objected to the additional traffic since parents had to drive into the street to drop off children, back up and turn around and then exit the way they had entered, which created traffic hazards for the 50 -some chil- dren living on the street, as well as additional noise. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Kelley stated the only time there seemed to be excess noise from Mrs. Sanchez' operation was in the sum- mer when her own children also were home; that there have been times when parents had not picked up their children until 10:00 P.M. Mr. Kelley added he feared that if subject conditional use permit was granted, there may be applications for additional home business opera- tions in the area. Responding to Council discussion, the City Attorney advised that the City allows Mrs. Sanchez to provide day care for 5 children under the age of 14, including her own,without a conditional use permit, and as each of her children reached 14 she would be able to care for one more child; however, since her family already consists of the legal family unit of 6 persons, (mother, father and 4 children), she would not be permitted to pro- vide overnight care for any outside children. evidence. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to present new and different Luke Mentzer, 510 North Harcourt Street, whose property adjoins Applicant's at the rear, stated he was a teacher and the noise from the children disturbed his peace and quiet. City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972, 1 :30 P.M. 72-261 He presented a petition purportedly containing 42 signatures of property owners on Harcourt Street and Hampton Street, opposing the appli- cation. Mayor Dutton invited the Applicant to present a short rebuttal. Mrs. Sanchez presented a notarized letter from Sandra F. Opitz (the next -door neighbor who reportedly also wished to operate a day care center) stating the only outside children she had cared for were those un- der Mrs. Sanchez' care when she by necessity had to be away from her home, and that she had no desire to operate a day care facility of her own. Replying to the.complaint about additional noise during the sum mer months, Mrs. Sanchez stated she preferred to keep her own children at home along with their playmates, which did make a good many children in her backyard. She also stated that the mother of one child she cared for had worked different shifts and sometimes had to pick her child up later in the evening. In reply to Council questioning, Mrs. Sanchez advised she re- ceived from $20.00 to $30.00 per child per week for her care. Councilman Pebley invited the Applicant's Agent to again address the Council. Mr. Chandler advised that the Applicant intended to notify by let- ter the parents of the children she cared for that they must drive slowly on her street, avoid excess noise and carry sufficient liability insurance. The Mayor invited one of the persons opposing the application to also address the Council briefly. Betty Luis, 523 North Hampton Street, presented 2 additional let- ters in opposition from area homeowners on vacation. She stated they had purchased their home because the street dead ended at the golf course and they felt it was safe for their children; how- ever, some people traveling their street to drop off children had been driv- ing excessively fast and carelessly in-her opinion, jeopardizing the safety of children and adults alike. Mrs. Luis advised that her hours of employment were from 4:30 P.M. to 1 :30 A.M., so her children would not have to be cared for by others, and she felt other mothers could do the same. It was determined sufficient evidence had been presented, and Mayor Dutton declared the hearing closed. Councilman Stephenson stated he did not feel a residential area should be used for more than the State license allowed and caring for 2 children besides the Applicant's 3 other children under 14 years of age was sufficient. Councilman Dutton stated he felt such a day care center in a resi- dential area provided a better atmosphere than on a commercial street, and it was his opinion the Applicant would be fulfilling a need and necessity for working mothers who must have their children cared for outside the home. Councilman Sneegas, noting the amount of opposition expressed, stated he felt perhaps granting a request for a conditional use permit to allow the care of one'additional child would lead to further requests for additional children. RESOLUTION: Councilman Dutton offered a Resolution for adoption, granting said conditional use permit for a total of 8 children, under the age of 14, including the children of the Applicant, subject to the Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations and further subject to review within one year. 72- 262 City Hall: Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley and Thom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None Councilman Pebley stated he felt 8 children under the age of 14 was excessive. The Mayor declared the foregoing Resolution failed to carry. RESOLUTION NO, 72R -169: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -169 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1291 for a total of 7 children, irrespective of age and including the Applicant's children, sub- ject to the following Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, and fur- ther subject to review within one year from this date: The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -169 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: Councilman Stephenson moved for a 5- minute Recess. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:20 P.M.). 1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. That the existing structure shall be brought up to minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical, and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 3. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolu- tion, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of 180 days from the date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the City Council may grant. Refer to Resolution Book. Roll Call Vote: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson,Pebley, Thom and Dutton USE NOES: COUNCILMEN: None PERMIT ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None NO. 1291. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present with the exception of Councilman Stephenson. (3:30 P.M.). DIM= DANCINN PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by William G. Roberts, for dinner dancing place permit to allow dancing nightly from 9:00 P.M. to 2 :00 A.M., at Coronado Lounge and Restaurant, 1274 South Magnolia Avenue, was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by David Hernandez, on behalf of Club Defensa Unida, for permit to conduct public dance May 20, 1972, at Carpen- ter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue, from 9:00 P.M. to 1 :00 A.M., was sub- mitted and granted on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and that five private security officers be hired to police the dance, as recommended by the Chief of Police. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Stephenson entered the Council Chambers, (3:32 P.M.). AKAIWIM FOUNDATION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS HORACE MANN SCHOOL LEASE AND "BUCK BAG DAYS Request of B.W. Jordan, President of the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts, was submitted that Anaheim sign the lease with the Anaheim City School District for the Horace Mann School, proposed for a Cultural Arts Center, and also proclaim May 13 to 16, 1972 "Buck Bag Days," for a fund- raising campaign. Said request originally was submitted at the April 25, 1972 meeting, and deferred to this date at the request of Mr. Jordan. 72-263 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1:30 P.M. Mayor Dutton invited a representative to address the Council. Mrs. Mary Jones, member of the Board of Directors, advised that the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts formed in 1971 with 8 mem- bers and expanded to its present 25 for the purpose of raising funds to renovate Horace Mann School for use as a Cultural Arts Center, as required by the City Council prior to its signing a lease for the school, has raised a total of. $36,750,00 in cash and pledges to this date, which they feel is sufficient to do the necessary renovation to allow the building to be put to use. She added that the Foundation, however, is of the opinion the obligation of the Foundation is greater than that of raising the funds required by the City Council for renovation, and thus has formed seven committees to raise funds for renovation plus support and operation of the building, one project of which is the proposed "Buck Bag Days." The Foundation wishes to be independent of the City on this project with the exception of the City's current commitment. She added that they already have received requests to use the building from 30 groups. Mrs. Jones asked that the City Council authorize signing of the lease on Horace Mann School at this time so that volunteer groups can be- gin renovation work. Councilman Pebley stated he would approve signing the lease at this time,however, he felt the Council- appointed Cultural Arts Commission should be responsible for supervising the building and any renovation work and for administration of the Center itself. Mrs. Jones stated she felt that inasmuch as the Cultural Arts Commission was included in the Foundation membership, along with other Anaheim citizens, the responsibility would better be that of the Founda- tion. Councilman Dutton stated he wanted to know who would be respon- sible for operation, planning, etc. of the proposed Cultural Arts Center and also physical evidence by the Anaheim citizens that they desired this center before he would approve signing the lease, particularly in light of the letters of opposition received, and thus it was his opinion the "Buck Bag Days" project should take place first. Mrs. Jones stated she felt the citizens supported the project, but were waiting for the lease to be signed as proof that there would be a Cultural Arts Center before committing themselves. She added that it was the intention of the Foundation to finance the operation of the Center, and at no time has the Foundation felt it was a City obligation, other than those agreed to originally, such as the parking lot. In her opinion, if they could start the renovation it would motivate much more support. Councilman Dutton asked if the Foundation had the necessary cash to do the renovation work that the lease requires within six months. Bernard W. Jordan advised that additional monies had been re- ceived this date, and thus there was $22,075.00 in cash and $16,675.00 in five -year pledges on hand, for a total of $38,750.00, and it was felt the proposed "Buck Bag Days" project would bring the cash on hand figure to well over the $30,000.00 felt necessary for immediate renovation. He added they hoped to have sufficient funds to move well into many of their second -phase operations and be assured of operating funds for a three to five -year period. tion: Mr. Jordan named the following committees formed by the Founda- Architectural and Construction to get the initial job done and continue on in other responsibilities as money provides. 72-264 City Hall, Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Center Utilization will determine by whom,'hen and how the Center is to be used and how various areas will be utilized. tion. Center Operations will work in conjunction with Center Utiliza- Personnel to see that necessary personnel is provided and screen- ing and interviewing people who would be handling the Center. Finance or Campaign an ongoing controller and provider of the necessary funds to operate the Center. Furnishing and Equipment to determine the needs to make the Cen- ter usable. Councilmen Pebley and Thom stated they felt the Foundation should be permitted to go ahead in view of the support evidenced by City organiza- tions and residents. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Jordan advised that plans call for volunteer help to provide a substantial amount of the early operation; however, it is estimated $25,000.00 per year would be necessary to operate the facility thereafter and employ a professional to supervise operations; that fees would be charged for rental of rooms and for admission to exhibits to produce revenue, and requests already have been received to conduct art, ceramic, lapidary and dance classes. He added that it thus would be neces- sary to conduct permanent fund- raising activities. Mrs. Jones advised that a survey conducted for the Foundation in- dicated the potential for the Center would be between $50,000.00 and $100,000. Mr. Murdoch stated the survey (Arts Management Associates) had not been consistent in its projection and also had set forth some items that were infeasible, and this may be the cause of some of the existing confusion about expense and revenues. Referring to Councilman Pebley's suggestion that the Cultural Arts Commission assume the responsibility for the Center, Mr. Murdoch noted that the Commission is advisory to the Council and as such cannot assume the re- sponsibility for operation or maintenance; however, their membership in the Foundation is a separate function since the Foundation is a private corpora- tion. The City is the agency responsible to the School District and the Foun- dation would be Agent for the City. Councilman Stephenson stated he did not feel $30,000.00 was a suf- ficient sum to warrant signing the lease and suggested the "Buck Bag Days" project be undertaken first. Mrs. Jo Ann Barnett displayed one of the "Buck Bags" to be used for their proposed fund- raising campaign and advised that volunteers would solicit contributions in shopping centers, the California Angels would be requested to proclaim May 14 "Buck Bag Days" and allow solicitation of the attendees, and every effort would be made to contact every business in Anaheim on Busi- ness and Industry Day, May 15th, that service clubs would be contacted and final efforts would be concentrated at the.Carrousel of Anaheim at the Con- vention Center on May 16th. Mr. Murdoch noted that although. it is not a normal procedure, the Cultural Arts Center could be operated on an entirely volunteer basis if suf- ficient funds are not available in the future; that the Council should deter- mine to what extent it wished to commit the City in any eventuality. Mr. Jordan stated he felt the most desirable relationship would be for the Foundation to contract with the City for operation of the Center so that the City could retain control, since it is liable under the lease agree- ment; that the Foundation is now prepared to operate the facility and provide the financing for operation. ,MOTION:, Councilman Thom offered a motion to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the lease for Horace Mann School. Council discussion fol- lowed, wherein it was determined an operational agreement should be approved prior to signing the lease. 72 -265 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1922. 1:30 P.M. The City Attorney stated that in order to prepare an operational agreement, he would need information as to what functions the groups de- siring to rent space at the Center would perform, as well as other infor- mation. Mrs. Jones advised a broad program of activities projected for the Center has been prepared and will be furnished the City Attorney. Councilman Pebley stated he would like a bid on the cost of de- molishing Horace Mann School in the event the Cultural Arts Center does not succeed. MOTION: Councilman Thom amended his foregoing motion to authorize the May- or and City Clerk to execute the lease between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim School District for Horace Mann School as soon as the City Council approved an operational agreement. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. APPOINTMENT GREENBELT ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE: On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, Councilman Sneegas was appointed to the Greenbelt Organization Committee to represent the City Council, as requested by Supervisor Ronald W. Caspers in correspondence dated April 17, 1972. MO- TION CARRIED. APPOINTMENT GREENBELT PROGRAM PLAN COMMITTEE: On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley, Parks and Recreation Director John Collier was appointed to the Greenbelt Program Plan Committee as a member of the City's technical staff, as requested in correspondence from Supervisor Ronald W. Caspers in correspondence dated April 17, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. APPOINTMENTS ANAHEIM GREENBELT COMMITTEE; Request of Supervisor Ronald W. Caspers dated April 17, 1972,that the City Council appoint 5 citizens to the Anaheim Greenbelt Committee was submitted. Donald Douglas, 1500 West Broadway, appointed to the Committee of 100 in 1970 to study the Greenbelt, asked if this committee would continue on now that their original assignment of submitting proposal on the Green- belt plan to the Board of Supervisors was completed. Mr. Douglas was advised that that committee still is in existence. Ronald E. Roluffs volunteered to serve as a member of the Ana- heim Greenbelt Committee. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, appointments were deferred to allow each Councilman to select one appointee and obtain his consent. MOTION CARRIED. PABKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT: On motion by Councilman Thom, se- conded by Councilman Pebley, Dr. Joseph E. Butterworth was appointed as Magnolia School District representative on the Anaheim Parks and Recrea- tion Commission for the unexpired term of B. Donald Pedersen, ending June 30, 1974, as recommended by the Magnolia School District Board. MOTION CARRIED. SPIIAL SAL LTA= TOWNS HOUSE COLONIAL SHOP: Request of George J. Spittle was submitted for a 30•day supplement to his special sales license for close- out of business which expired May 5, 1972, together with report of the City Attorney's office station no objection and City Treasurer stating no objec- tions, subject to payment of required fees. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom, a 30-day supplemental special sales license was approved as recommended,to expire June 5, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. JOINT MEETING ANAHEIM LIBRARY BOARD: Request of Mrs. Elizabeth J. Schultz, Library Board Chairman, was submitted for a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the problems of providing adequare library facilities and services to Anaheim residents. 72-266 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES Mav 2. 1972, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Schultz advised the Board was prepared to meet with the City Council at their convenience. By general Council consent, a joint meeting was scheduled for 10:00 A.M., Tuesday, May 16, 1972, as a Regular Meeting adjourned from the May 9, 1972, meeting. ASSEMBLIES OF GOD REVIVAL TENT: Request of Reverend F.A. Wilson, on behalf of the Assemblies of God, was submitted to hold religious services in a 60 ft. by 90 ft. tent to be erected south and west of the southwest corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard, (Gulf Oil property), from May 2 to June 10, 1972, together with report of the Development Services Department recommending that, if approved, the Council may wish to require that the proposed tent be inspected by the Fire Department, that dust control be provided by water- ing, that portable rest rooms for'men and women be provided, and that ade- quate insurance be obtained. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson advised that he understood the applicant has arranged to use the medical center pro- perty to the west for additional parking facilities. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom, request was approved subject to compliance with Council Policy No. 605, which encompasses the Development Services Department recommendations. MOTION CARRIED. AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO.1239: Upon recommendation of the City Engineer, Council- man Dutton moved award of contract for Work Order No. 1239 (Walnut Canyon Sewer Improvement, Phase II) be continued to May 30, 1972. Councilman Ste- phenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CLUBHOUSE FACILITIES ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: The City Manager reported that the low bid for construction of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course Clubhouse was approximately $317,000.00; however, further discussion with the low bidder and elimination of some items has lowered that cost to $286,243.00, which is $36,243.00 above the $250,000.00 provided by the Grant Corporation in their sale agreement with the City. Mr. Murdoch noted that $30,242.00 of this cost would be for golf cart storage facilities, which was not provided in the Grant Corporation agreement, but which is deemed necessary. He advised that in review of specifications and plans for the Clubhouse facility, it was determined that to eliminate any additional items would result in additional maintenance costs to the City. He therefore re- commended that the $36,243.00 needed for completion be included in the 1972- 73 budget, $30,242.00 for the golf cart storage facility and $6,001.00 as the City's obligation in accepting the gift of the Clubhouse from Grant Cor- poration. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, $36,243.00 was approved for inclusion in the 1972 budget for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course Clubhouse facility, as recommended by the City Manager. To this motion Councilman Thom voted "No;" Councilman Pebley abstained on the basis and same reasons that he had abstained from voting on the purchase of this property. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIMS AGAINST TIE CITY: The following claims were denied, as recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Claim submitted by Floyd Stockwell, for purported personal pro- perty damages sustained as result of a City employee backing into his parked car, on or abaft March 31, 1972. b. Claim submitted by Bethel Roberts, for purported personal pro- perty damages sustained as result of car driven by Anaheim Police Officer striking her car from the rear, on or about April 13, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. City Hall, Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINJTES May 2. 1272. 1 :30 P.M. CUIRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom: MOTION CARRIED. 72-267 a. Greyhound Lines West NOTICE With regard to Application No. 52591 filed with the Public Utilities Commission, re increased fares. b. City of Seal Beach Resolution No. 2091 Agreement to set aside a substantial portion of the additional monies it will receive from the one percent (1 sales tax attributable to the sale of gasoline for co- ordinated County -wide efforts to environmentally enhance transportation. c. Izaak Walton League of America Resolution To support im- plementation of the Santa Ana. River Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan. d. Anaheim Public Library Board Minutes March 20, 1972. CORRESPQNDENCE ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION TRANSMISSION FACILITIES: Public Utilities Commission Orders for Instituting Investigation on the following were submitted: a. Case No. 9365 Investigation on the Commission's own Motion into the Planning, Construction, Operations, Practices, Aesthetics, and Economics of Overhead and. Underground Transmission Facilities of all Elec- tric Public Utilities in the State of California. b. Case No. 9364 Investigation on the Commission's own Nbtion to adopt statewide plan and schedule for the undergrounding of all electric and communication distribution systems in proximity to State Scenic High way, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 320. The City Manager stated that the material and information re- quested of each respondent on these two items will entail considerable work on the part of the City, and he questioned whether the Public Utili- ties Commission has the authority to make these requirements. On recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman Dutton moved the City Attorney's office be authorized to appear before the Public Utili- ties Commission on behalf of the City of Anaheim in connection with these two actions. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3031: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3031 for adoption. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3.36 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 3.36.015 RELATING TO LICENSE FEES AND PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR BULK VENDING MACHINES. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: Refer to Ordinance Book. Roll Call Vote: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3031 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3032: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3032 for adop- tion. Refer to Ordinance Book. Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None Sneegas None AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.160 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RESTRICTED PARKING 3:00 A.M. TO 6:00 A.M. (Clementine Streets, on both sides, from Lincoln Avenue to Chestnut Street.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3032 duly passed and adopted. pp 7 2- 268 Roll Call Vote: City Hall. Anakeim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3033: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3033 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68 -69 -49(2) R-3) (Tract 6824) AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3033 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE J0. 3034: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3034 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-16 C-1 (SC) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3034 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3036: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3036 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 BY RESCINDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS AND ADDING SECTION 14.32.272 IN THEIR PLACE. ORDINANC1 J0. 3037: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3037 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68 -69 -32(1) R- 2- 5,000,Tract 7676) ORDINANCE NO. 3038: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3038 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-118(4) C -1) ORDINANCE NO. 3039: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3039 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63- 64- 62(13) R -3) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMRIISSION APPOINTMENT: Mayor Dutton appointed Joseph A. Cano to the Community Redevelopment Commission for the unexpired term of Stanley Pawlowski, ending June 30, 1972. The foregoing appointment was ratified by the City Council. ORDINANCE MO. 3040;,- EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONS: A proposed Ordinance on Em- plmyer- Employee Relations was submitted for Council consideration, and rep- resentatives of the various employee organizations were invited to address the Council on the subject. 72-269 City Hall. Anaheim, California COUNC,pL MINUTES Mav 2. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Jan Hagan, President of the Firemen's Protective League of Ana- heim, stated his organization disagreed with the statement in the April 25, 1972 letter from the Personnel Department that subject Ordinance ful- fills the principal objectives of the Meyers- Milias -Brown Act, primarily because of the exclusion of any mention of an impasse procedure. He added that the Meet and Confer phrase denotes collective bargaining; however, it was felt an impasse procedure should be included to insure both nego- tiating parties shall have arbitration rights. Mr. Hagan noted that 36 cities in Southern California with populations of over 75,000 have implemented the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, 70% of those having provided for mediation and fact finding, and a major- ity of the counties have implemented the Act, with 737 of those having mediation and fact finding, and his organization felt Anaheim should join those cities by including an impasse procedure in this ordinance. He advised that his Association offered an alternative method used by some cities, such as Torrance, whereby if the parties reach an impasse, either side may request mediation through the State Conciliation Service, and if the mediation fails a fact finder may be requested to lis- ten to both sides and make a recommendation. In the event both of those procedures fail, the City Council would make the final decision. In response to Councilman Dutton's remark that he did not want to delegate Council authority where issues such as wages are concerned that could affect the tax base, the City Manager stated that mediation attempts to get the parties together and makes suggestions, just as does a fact finder, but the final authority rests with the City Council. Replying to Councilman Stephenson, Mr. Hagan advised that the costs involved in an impasse procedure usually are borne by both parties. Larry Hutchison, President of the Anaheim Police Association, introduced John Harriman, Attorney, as their representative. Referring to impasse procedure, Mr. Harriman advised that the Meyers- Milias -Brown Act provides for mediation, the cost of which is to be borne equally by all parties; that a mediator has no authority to force anyone to make a suggested decision. He stated that the Police Association also recommended some form of impasse procedure be included in the Ordinance; although it was felt the theory was included in the Ordinance by the provision for conciliation relative to makeup of a proper unit. Mr. Harriman stated he felt the objective of the Ordinance was to promote good relations between the employee and employer; however, the employee organizations evidently feared the Ordinance would diminish the effectiveness of the organizations as a group. He stated one objection was that an association recognized such by having in meet and confer sessions would not now be recog- nized as a result of this Ordinance and have to qualify again; however, he understood the Personnel Department has issued a subsequent statement to the effect that these organizations would be recognized. The City Manager advised that this had been an item of discus sion with all of the employee organizations, and had been inadvertently omitted in the original draft of the Ordinance, but now is included. Mr. Harriman stated that the second objection of the Police As- sociation was with respect to the definition of "Employee, Management," (item (g), page 2), wherein it states: "Means (1) any employee having significant responsibilities for formulating and administering City poli- cies and programs, including but not limited to the City Manager, depart- ment heads, assistant department heads, division heads, assistant division heads, administrative staffs, police captains, police lieutenants, fire battalion chiefs, and such other officers and deputies as may be designated by the City Manager; and (2) any employee having authority to exercise 72-270 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2. 1972, 1:30 F.M. independent judgment to appoint, transfer, suspend, lay -off, reinstate, pro mote, demote, dismiss, assign, reward, or discipline subordinate employees, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action." He added that there no longer is an objection to a Police Lieuten- ant in this category, as previously had been the case; however, it was his opinion a Police Sergeant, such as Mr. Hutchison, would have many of the cri- teria of the second part of that definition, and if Mr. Hutchison was not considered "Employee, Management," the Association would have difficulty having someone with meet and confer experience as their representative. Mr. Harriman expressed the opinion that if a patrolman is in some position where he could manifest some independent judgment, he could be con- sidered "Employee, Management." Referring to Section (f) on page 2, "Employee, Confidential," Mr. Harriman stated they hoped that category would be limited to information concerning the meet and confer process as opposed to normal, every day run- ning of the Police Department. Mr. Harriman noted that beginning with the fourth line in Section 1.06.040 on page 3, defining "City Management Rights," wherein it states "The rights of the City Management include, but are not limited to, the ex- clusive right to consider the merits, necessity or organization of any ser- vice or activity provided by law, or administrative order; this phrase duplicates one in the Meyers- Milias -Brown Act except that it says "executive" order rather than administrative; the second portion of that section, wherein it states, "determine the mission of its constituent departments.... "etc., was deemed better placed in the Meet and Confer section. He added the Po- lice Association would prefer this section to state only, "As it is defined in the Meyers- Milias -Brown Act." Mt.-Harriman, in reply to the City Manager, advised he felt much of Section 1.06.040 should properly be in the Meet and Confer Section, so that neither party could stop the other from discussing a problem, although it may be that one simply would not discuss. He added that one fault of the Meyers- Milias -Brown Act is that the next step after refusal by one party to discuss an item is a court ac- tion, which is not as productive as working it out together or having some other procedure set up. Mr. Harriman noted another objection of the Police Association is to the last section on page 6, referring to the establishment of appropriate units, wherein it states: "(a) Management employees shall not be included in the same unit with non management employees for the purpose of meeting and conferring, nor may they represent such employees on matters within the scope of representation." He noted there is no objection to the last part oo that paragraph that states Management employees may not represent non management employees; however, the first section that he interpreted to mean that Management em- ployees may not be in the unit for purposes of bargaining, was felt to be an improper restriction on the rights of employees if they desired to join an association and be represented by that association. He cited as an ex- ample a jailer, who is not a sworn member of the Police Department, but whose duties are peculiar to the Police Department, and thus it is felt they should be allowed to be represented by the Police Association, and the clerks and typists who occasionally serve as matron and perform some police services also should be represented by the Police Association. John O'Malley, Staff Representative for the Anaheim Municipal Em- ployees Association, stated the A.M.E.A. endorsed the remarks of the Police and Fire Association representatives and presented a letter from John H. Sanders, President of A.M.E.A., dated May 2 1972, expressing objection to the lack of impasse procedure in the proposed Ordinance and submitting a recommended revision. 72-271 City Hall. 4naheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES May 2,, 1972. 1:30 P.M. The letter also set forth proposed revisions for Section 1.06.030 and 1.06.040. The letter concluded with the statement that the A.M.E.A., with the exceptions noted in subject letter, withdrew the unimplemented sugges- tions presented on August 2, 1971. Mr. O'Malley, referring to the concern expressed earlier by the Council on final determination, stated their suggested wording could be amended further to where the City Council could have a multiplicity of options that there could be an impasse procedure where the City Council could take any one of the suggested methods for utilizing that without having to go immediately to arbitration. Personnel Director Garry McRae stated they had had discussions with the representative organizations all through the preparation of this Ordinance and feel the Ordinance as presented now represents the thinking of all parties. Referring to an impasse procedure, Mr. McRae stated he felt me- diation was possible within the framework of this Ordinance as now presen- ted. He added it was his opinion that to have mediation included as a step in the Meet and Confer process mitigates the obligations of the par- ties to such agreement. He further stated that Fact Finding, which employs the techni- que of a third party to evaluate the arguments and make recommendations, also assumes a neutral position on the part of the City Council, whereas it was his opinion the City Council was the policy- determining body for the management team in the Meet and Confer process; that communication between the management team and City Council or between the employee or- ganizations and employees is the responsibility of those persons at the bargaining table and fact finding tends to remove that responsibility and thus -defer the decision making process. Referring to binding arbitration, Mr. McRae stated that, although some cities employ this procedure, he could not recommend it since he felt it completely abrogates the responsibility of the parties to reach an agree- ment. The City Attorney, replying to discussion on fact finding, ad- vised that this is not precluded in the proposed ordinance since the City Council has authority to order it, although the bargaining parties them- selves cannot; however, if the two parties come to a talk impasse, they may mutually agree to mediation. He added that an impasse procedure also can be ordered by the City Council. In reply to Councilman Thom, Mr. Geisler advised that if an im- passe procedure is built into the proposed ordinance, it then could be possible for either party to utilize that to the point of never accomp- lishing anything. Councilman Thom stated that in conversations with some employee organizations, they had alleged that management takes an impasse position immediately in discussion. Mr. McRae acknowledged that that position has been taken on the point of binding arbitration, to which they are opposed. Mr. Mur&ch noted that in negotiations a few years ago, State Mediation representatives had offered to mediate something they had just started discussing and had had no indication mediation would be necessary; that the matter was solved between the two bargaining parties. He stated he felt negotiations in the past have been successful for both parties, and he did not think an impasse procedure was necessary. Councilman Sneegas commented that he felt the Meyers- Milias- Brown Act was driving management and employee organizations farther apart rather than closer together, as originally intended. 72-272 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MUTES Mav 2. 1972. 1:30 P.M. In reply to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. McRae advised it was his opinion the proposed Ordinance complies with the spirit and the letter of the Meyers Milias -Brown Act. Brown Act. Councilman Thom stated he would like to review the Meyers- Milias- Councilman Stephenson declared he would not delegate to anyone any authority of his as a representative of Anaheim where money, taxes, etc., are concerned,. and, as long as the Council is the fact finding body that makes the final decision, he saw no reason to go through the expense and time- consum- ing processes of mediation and fact finding. ONDINANCE NO. 3040: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3040 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 1.06 RELATING TO EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONS. Mr. McRae stated that the Ordinance was written to attempt to avoid the problems confronted in 1970 over who represented whom; that the essential purpose of the Ordinance is to provide a reasonable and appropriate means of representation so that the City management representative is not forced into a position of making unilateral decisions in the middle of negotiations about who represents whom. Councilman Sneegas stated he felt there was a discrepancy in the proposed Ordinance in that it is supposed to fulfill the principal objectives of the Meyers- Milias -Brown Act, promoting the improvement of employer employee relations by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of City em- ployees to join organizations of their choice and be represented by such or- ganizations in their employment relationships with the City; yet the Ordinance says somebody else is going to decide who is going to represent whom. He added that he felt the jailers, secretaries and other Police Department employees should have the right to be represented by the Police Association if they so desire, and thus it was his opinion the proposed Ordinance did not fulfill the purpose for which it was intended. Mr. McRae noted that the Police Association at this time is not ac- cepting membership from non -sworn Police employees. Mr. Murdoch stated there was some urgency that the Ordinance be fi- nalized within a reasonable time, and thus he recommended that the Council re- view the proposed Ordinance the coming week and convey to him any changes they would like made so there could be an amended first reading of the Ordinance at the next meeting if any changes are to be made. FREEDOM i HOMER WALK: The City Clerk submitted report of the Police Department relative to the request made at the April 25, 1972 meeting for permission and proclamation for a 30 -mile Walkathon, Nay 13, 1972,for the purpose of raising funds for the American Freedom From Hunger Foundation. Also submitted was request made to the Parks and Recreation Depart- ment for permission to use La Palma Park Stadium in connection with the pro- posed Walkathon, and report of the Parks and Recreation Department that the City's cost for this request would be $49.50, plus clean-up. In reply to Council questioning, the City Attorney advised that the 107. limit is for collection cost and not' administrative cost, and .thus the intent of the Applicant to use 15% of funds received for administration cost would be permissible. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom, the requested Walkathon was approved, subject to final arrangements with the Police Dspartasnt and with the Parks and Recreation.Dspartment for use of La Palma Stadium and a proclamation was authorized therefor. To this motion, Council- men Dutton voted "No, .stating that although he thought the students should be cad tlnrst dam for their involvement in this project, he did not approve of their intended disburSament Of the funds received. TI0I CARCIED. City Hall, Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES Mav 2 19 }2. 1:10 P.M. The City Manager stated that such requests ordinarily are better handled by submission to the City Clerk so they can be processed through regular channels. TRANSFER OF CONTRACT: The City Attorney reported that Grissom Johnson, Inc., have formed a separate entity named Signal Maintenance, Inc., to handle traffic signal maintenance which previously was a function of E.D. Johnson Company, a division, and have requested that their contract with the City of Anaheim be changed accordingly. Upon reommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman Stephenson moved that t he contract with E.D. Johnson Company for traffic signal maintenance be technically.transferred to Signal 'Maintenance, Inc. Coun- cilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. gamma= Councilman Stephenson moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:35 P.M. 72-273