Loading...
1977/01/1877-37 ~ity H~ll~ .Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January .!8, 1977, 1:30. P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman Priest HOUSING DIRECTOR: Rosario Mattessich ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Gordon Sloan of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENTATION OF TIME CAPSULE: Sherril Bianca of Westminster Memorial Park presented a time capsule to Mayor Thom for encapsulation of memorabilia relative to the City of Anaheim. She explained that a great deal of interest had been geDerated in the project with every city in Orange County participating, as well as the County. She requested that all appropriate articles be submitted by February 21, 1977. On February 27, 1977, all capsules would be buried in a cement vault at Westminster Park to be opened in 100 years (2076 A.D.). MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held November 16, 1976, were approved, subject to corrections. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council] Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION UNanIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Financial demands against the City in the amount of $1,330,767.11, in accordance with the 1976-77 Budget, were approved. VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED CITIZENS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-17 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. P~SOLUTION NO. 77R-%7: 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 TH~ ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., RE FURNISHING MATCHING Fb~DS TOWARD THE PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED CITIZENS. 77-38 City Hall.,. Anah.eim~ .~a~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 18, .1977,. l:30.~..M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The b~yor declared Resolution No. 77R-17 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Herb Eggett, Vice-Chairman of Orange County Senior Citizens Council and Chairman of the Transportation Committee, requested that the Council consider instituting Dial-a-Ride in the City of Anaheim, as well as designating a spokesmanwith whom he could confer on such matters. The b~yor stated that Mr. Eggett should continue to work with Mr. William Vasquez, Manager, Community Services, until notified otherwise. PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES - ADJUSTING CERTAIN SALARY SCHEpULES: (Out-stationed at Centralia School District) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-18 for adoption, effective August 1, 1976. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-372 AND ADJUSTING CERTAIN SALARY SCHEDULES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS K~ywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The iy~yor declared Resolution No. 77R-18 duly passed.and adopted. EXTENSION - CALL ~'OR BIDS - WORK ORDER NOS. 1655 and 1656: (Community Development Block Grant Program area-wide water system improvement) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-19 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Ab~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-824 RELATING TO INVITING SEALED BIDS FOR WORK ORDER NOS. 1655 AND 1656. (Bids to be opened February 3, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-19 duly passed and adopted. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1977 ANNUAL DUES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, authorization for payment of the City's Leauge of California Cities 1977 annual dues in the amount of $6,248 wa~'approved, as recommended in memorandum dated January 18, 1977 from David C. Latshaw, Legisla- tive Analyst. MOTION C~RIED. 77-39 ~C_itv .,Hall, .Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977 1.:3.Q FINAL b~P, TRACT NO. 8795: Developer, Matreyek Homes, Inc; tract located on the north side of La Palma, west of Euclid containing 74 proposed RM-2400 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdi- vision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Pla~ and the City Council approved Final Mmp, Tract No. 8795, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 12, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. TRAFFIC CONTROL AT CIRCLE SEAL CORPORATION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-20 and 77R-21 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-88 PERTAINING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL AT CIRCLE SEAL COR- PORATION, t111 NORTH BROOKHURST, ANAHEIM. (Bonafide Security Services) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-21: A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING LYON PROTECTION SERVICE TO DIRECT TRAFFIC AT CIRCLE SEAL CORPORATION (1111 NORTH BROOKHURST) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-20 and 77R-21 duly passed and adopted. PLANS FOR GEORGE WASHINGTON SCHOOl.: By general Council consent, Thursday, February 3, 1977 at 3:30 P.M. in the Management Control Center, was set as the date, time and place for a joint meeting with the Anaheim City School District to discuss their plans for ttle future of the George Washington School. MODEL CONTRACT FORM - PAR~, RECREATIO~ ~ THE ARTS DEPARTMENT: (Continued from December 28, 1976 and January 11, 1977) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, proposed model contract forms for Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department were approved. MOTION CARRIED. TERMINATION OF WHOLESALE POWER SALES - NEVADA POWER COMPANY: On motion by Councilwoman Kay-wood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, report from Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt dated January 18, 1977, regarding termination of wholesale power sales by the Nevada Power Company, as reported in a recent article printed in Public Power Weekl~ was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 797-A - EUCLID STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Council- man Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-22 for adoption, awarding a contract in accor- dance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 77-40 C__itv Hall ..... Ana~e..im ~al~fo.r0ia -,~OUNCIL MINUTES ,.January 18, ~977, !:30 p.b~. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPb~NT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TP~NSPORTATION, INCLUDING PO~,~R, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE- b~NT: EUCLID STREET STREET IMPROVEb~NT, N/O SALLIE LANE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 797-A. (John W. Tiedemann Company - $8,798.95) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL b~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-22 duly passed and adopted. AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 1629 - WESTS.TREETLSEWg~ IMPRtlYEMFAN~:~ Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-23 for adoption awarding a contract in accordance with the reconnnendation of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NP. 77R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Ai{AHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALEDPROPOSAL AND AWARDING A cONTRACT TO TH~ LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ~ND ALL UTILITIES AND TP~kNSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMIN~''' ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: WEST STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT, FROM SYCAMORE STREET TO PEARL STREET, IN THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1269. (Kershaw Construction, Inc. - $13,838) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEP~ERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution' No. 77R-23 duly passed and adopted. AWARD OF WORK ORDER. NO. 12~0 - MOHLER DRIVE SEWER Ib~ROVEMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-24 for adoption awarding a contract in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES AND MATERIALS AND EQUIP- b~NT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFOrmING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC I~ROVEMENT: MOHLER DRIVE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, E/O COUNTRY HILL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1270. (Fleming Engineering, Inc. - $26,200) 77-4! City Hal!, 6naheim~California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 18, 1.977 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB S El%'r: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The b~yor declared Resolution No. 77R-24 duly passed and adopted. .PURCHAS.~ OF EOUIPMENT - 15 TRUCKS, BID NO. 3147: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, Seconded by Coundilman Roth, the low bid of McCoy Ford Company for three sub-compact pick-ups, three one-half ton pick-ups and one 10M GVW cab and chassis in the amount of $31,597.98, and the low bid of Guarantee Chevrolet for eight three-quarter ton pick-ups in the amount of $42,666.86, both including tax, were accepted and purchases authorized in the total amount of $74,264.84, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 3, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 4 LARGE TRUCKS - BID NO. 3148: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of McCoy Ford Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $50,887.31, including tax, aa recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 4, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF EgU!~MENT - 2 TURF VACUUMS - BID NO. 3174: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of Turf-Vac Corporation was accepted and purchase authorized ~n the amount of $12,086.59, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 10 1977. MOTION CARRIED. ' PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 7 SUB-COMPACT, HATCHBACK SEDANS - BID NO. 3176: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of County-wide AMC was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $26,976.88, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 4, 1977 MOTION CARRIED. · WAIVER OF FENCE REQUIREMENT - SWIMMING POOL: Request by Joel B. Gold requesting waiver of a f&nce requirement for a swimming pool on property located at 181 Cobble- stone Lane, due to an existing natural barrier, was submitted. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, request for waiver of ~he fence on the subject property was approved, as recommended in report dated January 11, 1977 from the City Attorney's Office, subject to a deed restric- ti.on or a Covenants Condition~ and Restrictions clause to require installation of a fence in the event the "natural fence" is ever destroyed. MOTION CARRIED. p~SCLOSURE - COUNCILMAN SEYMOUR: Before discussion or action was taken on the following two items, Councilman Seymour disclosed that he had a leasehold interest in property on the opposite side of Santa Aha Canyon Road from the two proposed projects, involving the lease of a small office. On the advice of the City Attorney relative to a potential conflict of interest, Councilman Seymour abstained from discussion and voting on Reclassification No 73-74-25 and Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1250. ' Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber at 2:01 P.M. 77-42 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18,.1977, 1:30 P.M. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-25, EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by Bernardo M. Yorba requesting a one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval under Reclassification No. 73-74-25, proposed CL zoning, property located at the northwest corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, a one-year extension' to Reclassification No. 73-74-25, to expire January 29, 1978, was granted, as recom- mended by the Planning Department and the City Engineer in memorandums dated January 7 and 12, 1977, respectively. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. !250, EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by David B. Israelsky, Alexander Haagen Shopping Center Development, was Submitted. The City Planning Commission denied said request with the recommendation that a public hearing be held. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the recommendation of of the City Planning Commission to set Conditional Use Permit No. 1250 for a public hearing was approved. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman seYmour returned to the Council Chamber at 2:03 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1636: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, request for rehearing by the City Council on Conditional Use Permit No. 1636 relative to allowing kitchenettes in all units was granted, subject to payment of a $50 fee to help defray publication costs. To this motion, Council Members Thom and Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the' City's insurance carrier or the Self-Insurance Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Marshall Kyle for damages purportedly sustained as'a result of a collision with a City-owned vehicle at La Palma and Imperial on or about November 3, 1976. b. Claim submitted by Larry McCant for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police during a series of events beginning October 5, 1976. c. Claim submitted by Reba S. Hoffman for damages purportedly sustained as a result of hitting a hole in the street at Katella and Humor on or about January 6, 1977. d. Claim submitted by Vicki Hawkins for damages purportedly sustained as a result of a power failure causing traffic signal malfunction at South Street and Harbor Boulevard on or about November 27, 1976. 77-43 City Hal!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18., 1977, 1:30 P,.M. e. Claim submitted by Betty J. Berleen for damages purportedly sustained as a result of power failure on or about November 27, 1976. f. Claim submitted by Peggy Clark for damages purportedly sustained as a result of a fall at or about the intersection of Olive and East Lincoln on or about September 28, 1976. , g. Claim submitted by Richard L. and Kathy M. Meadows for damages purportedly sustained as a result of a parkway tree falling onto a vehicle on or about January 5, 1977. h. Claim submitted by Vern J. Frank for damages purportedly sustained as a result of power trouble at 134 South Ridgeway, #2, on or about December 5 or 12, 1976. i. Claim submitted by Dennis Bernardi for damages purportedly sustained as a result of the loss of personal property by the Anaheim Police Department on or about December 7, 1976. 2. CORKESPON~ENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Notice of Rejection of Southern California Edison Company Application Nos. 55424 and 55764 and decision on Application No. 56822, authority for Edison to reduce its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor. b. Expo '81 World's Fair, regarding City participation in Commission plan. c. Monthly reports for November, 1976 - Electrical Division and December, 1976 - Building Division. d. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of December 29, 1976. e. Annual report for 1976 - Building Division. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLt~ION NOS, 77R-25 THROUGH 77R-3]: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 77R-25 through 77R-31, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CON- STRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVE~CENT, TO WIT: CERRITOS AVENUE ~ND GILBERT STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 795-A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC Ib~ROVE- MENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATICNS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened February 10, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO.. 77R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRETHE CON- STRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IP~ROVEM~NT, TO WIT: EUCLID STREET AND PALAIS ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 800-A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, D~WINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 77-44 ~ity...HBl%, Anabe~m~ California - COUNCIL MI~UTES-~January 18, .19..~7 .... !:30 P~M~ TH~ CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEb~NT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT- ING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened February 10, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM' FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE Tt{E CON- STRUCTION AND COP~LETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SCHWEITZER PARK PROPERTY LINE WALL IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 845; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IM]PROVEMENT' 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 February 10, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CON- STRUCTION ~ND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HASKETT BRACH LIBRARY RERC~FING, 2650 WEST BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1053; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION 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 February 10, !977, 2:00 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CON- STRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: POLICE FACILITIES REMODELING OF JAIL DETOXIFICATION AND SAFETY CELLS, 425 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WOrK ORDER NO. 9104; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PRO- FILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEb~NT 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 February 10, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R=~0: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COM- PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE AND ORT~NGETHORPE AVENL~, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 749-B. (Steiny & Company, Inc.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, ¥~TERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL A~ WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWhNG PUBLIC Ib~ROVEMENT, TO WIT: MANZANITA PARK PLAY EQUIPPfENT CONSTRUC- TION IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 794. (Magnum Contractor's Service) 77-45 _City Hall.~...A.naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January..18, ..1.977,. !:30 p.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-25 through 77R-31, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3642: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3642 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3642: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-20(1), RS-A-43,000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3642 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE .NO. 3643 THROUGH NO. 3647: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3643 through 3647, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3643: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMEND'ING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAH~IMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(76), CR) ORDINANCE NO. 3644: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE ]8 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(1) & (2), RS-HS-10,000) ORDINANCE NO, 3.643: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32. 190, SUBSECTIONS 14.32. 190.850 AND 14.32. 190.860 OF THE ANAHEIM MIINICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. ORDINANCE NO. 3646: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (No parking any time, Lincoln, both sides, from Sunkist to ECL, and on Sunkist Street both sides, Ball to Cerritos) ORDINANCE NO. 3647: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14,'32.0F THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 14.32.156 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (West side of Sunkist from Lincoln to Ball Road, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Relative to proposed Ordinance No. 3647, Councilman Roth indicated that he had received communications from people involved in release time education programs concerning the parking of their trailers for these classes. Mayor Thom explained that the matter had previously been referred to the City Manager who was working out an arrangement with release time education representa- tives. 77-46 City H,al.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18~ .1977, 1:30 P.M. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:00 P.M.) RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:05 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - THIRD YEAR. APPLICATION: Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director, recommended that the City Council approve draft Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application for Third Year Funding, there- by authorizing the City Manager to submit the City's draft for Clearing House (A-95) Review. He referred to his report dated January 12, 1977, incorporating the draft application, pursuant to report dated December 7, 1976, wherein three alternative plans, "A", "B" and "C" for the Third Year CDBG were included At the work session on the Third Year Development Block Grant Budget, January 4, 1977, the City Council approved Budget Plan "C", in principle and authorized staff to draft the proposed Third Year Application accordingly. The Mayor then opened the public hearing to obtain the views and preferences of citizens to establish a proposed application for Third Year Community Development Block Grant activities. The following persons addressed the Council and expressed the below listed views and preferences as priorities for the Third Year allocation of the Community Development Block Grant Program as well as comments pertinent to same: Mr. Richard Rosewitz, 920 C North Claudina; Mr. Keith Rosewitz, 2500 West Chain Avenue; Mrs. Albert Heckman, 811 North Pauline; Mr. Antonio Avila, 1522 West La Palma; Mr. Richard Vargas, 411 South Clementine; Luis De Los Rios, 509 Chestnut; Mr. James Rochofski, 915 North Claudina; Mr. Elisio A. Acosta, 1018 North Patt Street; Mr. Rudolfo Escalante, 710 South Philadelphia; Mrs. Gloria Lopez, 10874 Garza. 1. Elimination of slums and blight and conditions harmful to the health, safety and public welfare. 2. Move with deliberate speed on Housing Code enforcement and Sanitation Code enforcement. 3. Public improvements--alley reconstruction--~rget ~reas 1, 2, 3, and 4 with emphasis on No. 4. 4. Removal of graffiti. 5. Full funding for Youth Paint and Pick-up Program (use the $30,000.00 funded in Plan "A"). 6. Shacks in the 800 block (east side) of Pauline Street (North Street to La Palma) no plumbing or sanitation. 7. Expedite housing relocation (relocation of people). 8. Consider priorities as listed ~n report dated December 6, 1976, by the Community ~-~ Services Advisory Board. 9. Main concerm should not be public improvements but food and shelter for those in need (p~blic ~orks vs public ~eeds). 77-47 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 1:30 p.M. 10. Clean up the neighborhood but do not displace people who have lived in certain neighborhoods for many years - Mexican Americans, low income and elderly people - so they have to leave Anaheim. 11. Get the youth together and have them work to improve their own neighborhoods. 12. Absentee landlords should be responsible for the upkeep of their apartments. 13. Need for low income family housing - the City Council, all Councils withi~ Orange County and Board of Supervisors need to aggressively look at this problem. 14. Utilize any unused funds from previous years for a Multi-purpose Center. 15. If funding is not provided in the Third Year Budget for alley reconstructidn in Area No. 4, then the City should be responsible for fixing t~he alleys. 16. Mural Paintings - an alternative to graffiti. Mr. Richard Rosewitz showed slides of deteriorating and blighted conditions in Target Areas No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and reiterated the objectives of the Block Grant Program as put forth by HUD as well as the objectives of the City of Anaheim, both of which included the provision for decent housing. He emphasized that blighted conditions threatened the well being and health of the neighborhood and when the appearance of the neighborhood was harmed, then the overall reputation suffered. In order to achieve and maintain decent housing in the Target Areas, he stressed that aggressive Housing Code enforcement was necessary and in order to accomplish this goal, regular, tough, competent Housing Code enforcement and Sanitation Code enforcement was necessary as well as inspection in order to prevent bigger problems. He stated that Plan "A" and "C" provided $48,000.00 for two full time inspectors and, therefore, asked that that amount be funded. Further discussion followed wherein questions posed by Mr. Rosewitz relative to certain amounts and items in the proposed Budget were answered by staff members Priest, Mattessich and Devitt. In summary, Mr. Rosewitz indicated it would be altogether fitting that the Com- munity Development Block Grant Program move with all deliberate speed in the following areas: (1) Housing Code enforcement, (2) Sanitation Code enforcement, (3) Reconstruction of alley w~5~ and other public works, and (4) the'Youth Paint and Pick-up Program. Mr. Keith Rosewitz emphasized the need for public improvements in Target Area No. 4 and asked for action within the Third Year of funding because Federal Funding beyond the third year was dependent on the 95th Congress. It was his opinion that the program could be reorganized out of existence. He was concerned that alley reconstruction in Area No. 4 under Plan "C", approved by the Council, was not scheduled until the 1978-79 fiscal year, Fourth Year of Funding. Mr. Rosewitz indicated that if Budget Plan "C" was adopted to provide balance for all areas, it neglected Area No. 4. If the primary objective was to remove the blight and slum areas, their investment could best be protected by reconstructing the alley ways with most deliberate speed and remove the blight that exists be- cause of the deteriorating condition; secondary input was relative to Sanitation Code enforcement. He also requested that since the Community Development Depart- ment indicated some funds were not being utilized from previous year~ that these funds be allocated toward a Multi-purpose Center. 77-48 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January i8~ 1~77,. 1;30 P.M. Mr. Richard Vargas stated that he could not see eliminating other needed services to provide alley reconstruction and pointed out that under Plan "C", $616,000.00 was allocated to housing programs and $873,000.00 to public improvements, a good portion of which was being directed to Target Area No. 4. It was surprising for him to learn the alley.reconstruction was an immediate need of that area since such was not the indication at previous meetings with representative~.from the ' different area~ as well as prior public hearings. Mr. Vargas then reiterated the priorities established by the Community Services Board and listed in their report dated December 6, 1976. Mr. Vargas also commented that while he appreciated the fact that blight must be eliminated, a strong Housing Code enforcement did not have a provision whereby a landlord could be prevented from evicting tenants after improvements were made. He also noted that many landlords were also low income people. Council and staff then answered the concerns raised relative to citizen input. Councilman Seymour spoke to the problems that would be involved as a result of any aggressive Housing Code enforcement program relative to the removal and eviction of citizens of the community. He did not want to be part of any activity forcing someone out of their community and asked Mr. Mattessich if it were possible to negotiate with HUD under Section 8 - Rental Assistance Plan - wherein if rent was raised because improvements were made, the tenant would not have to absorb such an increase. Mr. Mattessich explained that not only would HUD permit such aprogram, but also that any governmental action that caused displacement would receive priority under the Section 8 Program so that adequate relocation would take place within the same neighborhood. Councilman Seymour stated that although an aggressive Code Enforcement Program would not be pursued, one would be begu~ but properly balanced so as not to force anybody out of the community. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that relative to Code enforcement, there was no legal way it could be done on a selective basis. Therefore, the low income owner/ occupant could not be bypassed because of their inability to finance required im- provements. Councilman Seymour posed several questions relative to Sanitation Code enforcement (trash clean-up in alleys and vacant lots) in combination with the Youth Paint and Pick-up Program. Mr. Priest indicated that a voluntary program was instituted fo~ lot clean-up but such a program had not yet been undertaken with Block Grant Funds although such a program could be instituted. Relative to the Sanitation Code, he explained that interior enforcement was a Health Department Program under the jurisdiction of the County. 77-49 City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour inquired as to whether or not sufficient funds were avail- able in the Youth Paint and Pick-up Program to first include the exterior clean- up discussed as well as repainting of walls where graffiti caused an undesirable environment. Discussion followed' wherein it was determined that sufficient funds were no~ available; however, the program could be expanded to include this amount although at present a specific figure could not be placed on the amount needed for such incorporation. It was conceded that clean-up of graffiti would require an ongoing program that would cost thousands of dollars to sustain. Mr. Priest indicated that there was no Budget allocation for removal or painting over of graffiti in the Project Area but, youth groups were presently being used for the purposes of upgrading housing and training and that to do a full job in the Target Area, another $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 would be needed. Mr. Vargas, in answer to Councilman Seymour, explained that graffiti was more of a social statement than anything else and it would have to be approached from a different angle such as the mural concept. As suggested by Councilman Seymour, he made a personal commitment that if additional money were allocated to the Youth Paint and Pick-up Program for needed materials to institute the mural concept, he would see to it that the graffiti condition would be improved. In answer to additional concerns expressed and questions posed by citizen input, Mayor Thom reiterated first that the Council was not advocating displacement of residents who have been living in the cen~r City for many years and that prior to instituting a~strict Housing Code Program, such a program must be facilitated very carefully. Relative to the Patt Street area, the Mayor explained that it was just a matter of waiting for the release of funds from HUD and that any relocation allocation or potentiality as questioned by Mr. Escalante, was in the Redevelopment Area Project Alpha and not in Target Areas 1, 2, 3, or 4. In summarizing, the Mayor stated that Plan "C" as proposed by the Council, most represented the original thrust of the utilization of the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds as proposed in the first year, the primary thrust being to spread the money as evenly and as broadly as possible with all facets included in their just priority. He explained sufficient funds were not available to satisfy the needs of all the people of Anaheim; the Council's ob- jective was trying to distribute the money'so that it would do.the most good for the greatest amount of people. It would not be possible to please everyone. Councilman Seymour thereupon stated that he could support Budget Plan "C" with a move of $5,000.00 out of the Housing Improvement Rebate Progra~ reducing it to $15,000.00 and moving the $5,000.00 into the Youth Paint and Pick-up Program relative to the institution of mural painting or the like. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, Budget Plan "C" was amended, reducing the Housing Improvement Rebate Program allocation to $15,000.00 from $20,000.00 and moving that $5,000.00 into the Youth Paint and Pick-up Program thereby fncreasing the allocation to $30,000.00. ~TION CARRIED. 77-50 ~i. ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977~.1:3© P.M, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 140 AND 170: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council finds that the proposed Third Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to be a continuation of the provision addressed in previous CDBG applications and is adequately covered under previous-application-related Environmental Impact Report Nos. 140, and 170. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-32 for adoption authorizing submissiom of the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Third Year Application as amended for the A-95 Review process. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THIRD YEAR APPLICATION FOR THE A-95 REVIEW PROCESS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL bIEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-32 duly passed and adopted. Relative to the commitment made at the December 14, 1976, meeting, Councilman Seymour asked Mr. Priest to speak to the temporary location for a Youth Drop-In Center. Mr. Priest explained that with regard to the interim Center, negotiations were currently underway with two owners and that it was estimated to be 120 days or sooner that an interim Youth Drop-In Center would be established dependent upon the relocation requirements of the present tenant. Councilman Seymour confirmed that such a Center would be established by May 18,' 1977, on a temporary basis. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING- VARIANCE NO. 2860: Application by Dew Construction Company, Inc., to permit the outdoor storage of boats on ML zoned property at 4640 East La Palma Avenue with code waiver of: (a) minimum front setback (b) maximum fence height (c) minimum number of parking spaces (d) required enclosure of outdoor uses The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-215 reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class ~ of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the re- quirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and, further, recommended that Variance No. 2860 be denied. 77-51 C__ity. Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Richard D. Donald, Attorney for the Applicanb and scheduled this date after a continuance from December 7 and 21, 1976, and January 4 (staff requested) and 11, 1977. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered'by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and wished t~ be heard. Mr. Richard D. Donald, 1 City Boulevard West, Suite 1900, Orange, Attorney for the Applicant, explained that his client was the third largest wholesale manufacturer of boats in Southern California and his facilities consisted of two buildings employing 18 people. He further explained that people who came to the plant did not park in front of the manufacturing premises but instead across the street where approximately 60 parking spaces were available and Used for employee park- ing as well. Relative to the front setback area, he stated that boats were not stored in that area but were one of two types: (1) boats ready to be shipped or, (2) customer boats back from warranty from dealers. Referring to the City Code, Mr. Donald viewed the problem as one of what the intent was at the time the Code was written; whether a motor vehicle was being parked in a parking spot or a car. He contended that it was a matter of aestheticsas to whether a new boat on a trailer was more eye pleasing than an automobile parked in a parking lot. Ail of the vehicles which transported the boats were licensed motor vehicles and could be parked on the street. He stated that if the vehicles were motor vehicles, then they were in compliance with the Code, if an automobile, then they did not comply with the Code. Mr. Donald also explained that the extra fence height from 30 inches to'4½ feet in the front setback was to keep trespassers from going into the boats. Relative to the required enclosure of outdoor uses, Mr. Donald stated that if the City wanted the existing fence higher than at present, they would build it higher and put in redwood slats. He further stated that his client would do whatever the City wanted done so long as the premises could be used for the boats to be placed there before delivery or for warranty work. Mr. Donald indicated that the only opposition was from Hancock Laboratories and this was due to problems on a personal basis with his client. If his client could not use that area, he stressed that the financial detriment would be great and it was doubtful that he could find other such property in Anaheim to rent or lease. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Zoning Enforcement Officer filed a notice of violation in August but the boats were never removed from the storage area. 77-52 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Janqary 18~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Donald explained, however, that he filed an appeal but it was never acted upon. Miss Santalahti explained that when a no~ce of violation is issued, if the person receiving the notice proceeds to resolve the problem or files a condi- tional use permit, Planning tries to establish the use legally and that was the status oft his matter between August and October. Council discussion with Mr. Donald revealed that both the subject property and the parking area across the street was leased for five years. He offered to provide a copy of the lease agreement on the parking area to the City. He also explained other alternatives for boat storage were explored where boats cOuld be towed down the street to have them placed in another building, but the area was full and space limited. He suggested that a one year extension of time would be helpful in order to find such space. Councilman Seymour was concerned that a variance was being requested on the basis of beauty (boat vs. automobile) and there was nothing to preclude similar requests. The City Attorney, in answer to Mayor Thom, stated that a boat on a trailer con- stitutes a vehicle and that the matter did not address itself to the boats at all. Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that the intent of the ordinance was that the space be used for parking and not for storage and from a moral stand- point the intent of the ordinance was being avoided. It was Mr. Donald's opinion that from a moral standpoint that might be so but the results would be displacement of 18 people because they would not have jobs. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that a variance goes with the land, therefore, some time limit or other condition would have to be included so that it would not be- come permanent. However, it was ascertained by the City Attorney that no time limit could be placed on a variance. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition. Mr. David Snow, Vice President of Operations for Hancock Laboratories, explained that they had no interest, intent or desire to create undue problems for their neighbors in the Canyon industrial area, but care should be taken to insure that no action occurred that would downgrade future developments or Jeopardize invest- ments that were made. Consistency must be maintained with respect to current zoning ordinances for all companies located in the Canyon industrial area. Relative to the matter at hand, Mr. Snow pointed to the fact that the front setback was being used for boat storage sometimes stacked two, three and four high on trailers, Mr. Snow stated that it would not be in the best interest of the community or the development to allow the requested variance and urged the City Council to maintain the integrity of the Canyon industrial area. ? 77-53 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 187 19777 1:30 P.M. The Mayor contended that the stacking of boats was an enforcement matter and not a determination in the granting of the variance. There being no further persons who wished to be heard, the Mayor closed the public hearing. , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class ~ of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-33 for adoption denying Variance No. 2860 upholding the action of the City Planning Commission. Before a vote was taken on the resolution, Mayor Thom explained that a variance was not necessary since the Applicant stipulated to the following: Applicant will reduce fence height to 30 inches; provide the City with a copy of the lease agreement for parking across the street or some certification of meeting the parking requirements; existing fence would be built higher relative to enclosure of outdoor uses and redwood slats would be installed; boats would not be stacked on trailers (one boat on one trailer parked in parking stall only). Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that there would be a constant enforce- ment problem. Councilman Seymour stated that he was supporting the proposed resolution for denial of the Variance as he chose to interpret the intent of the ordinance differently. He maintained it was to provide parking in the front setback area and storage of boats frustrated that intent. The Mayor interjected that he did not know how the Vehicle Code could be changed. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2860. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-33 duly passed and adopted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2870: Application by Delbert and Vivian Kinney to construct a 48-inch high fence and an 8-foot high wall on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1306 Oriole Street with code waivers of: 77-54 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, !977, 1:30 P.M. (a) maximum fence height (denied) (b) maximum wall height The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC76-226 reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Sect{on 3.01, Class ~ of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categori- cally exempt from the requirement to file and EIR and, further, recommends that Variance No. 2870 be granted, in part, subject to the following condition: 1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1; provided, however, that the fence height in the required front yard shall be a maximum of 42 inches; and that structural design plans for the 8-foot high wall in the required rear yard shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit, said wall to meet all Building Code requirements for a structural wall, as stipulated to by the petitioner. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Joseph B. Edwards, Agent for the Applicant, public hearing scheduled December 28, 1976 and continued to this date at the request of staff. ' Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and wished to be heard. Mr. Joseph B. Edwards, Attorney for the Applicant, 620 South Euclid, explained that his clients were asking for a variance from 42 inches to 48 inches on a chain link fence in their front yard which was partially constructed. He further explained that there was excessive foot traffic in the area from school children. who attended Apollo Junior High School which abutted his clients~ property. He indicated there were a number of such fences also 48 inches in height in the neighborhood and that the Kinneys wanted the additional height on their fence for the safety of the school children since they had two medium sized dogs and for their own benefit as well. It was his opinion that the fence would not spoil the beauty of the neighborhood and would not obscure the vision of the neighbors. To disallow the fence to be built to 48 inches in height was to deny the owners of the land theprerogat'ive of protecting themselves as well as the children who passed along their property. He therefore requested that the Council approve Variance No. 2870. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Edwards stated that the dogs were usually kept in the back yard butoccasionally they would get out front. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition. Mr. William Laster, 1302 Oriole Street, explained that he measured the fences in the neighborhood .and none were over 4 feet in height, but met the City Code of 42 inches. He indicated that the 48-inch high fence would not keep the dog~ from get- 77-55 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. ting out and at the same time, would depreciate the value of their property, a matter of concern to him since he lived next door. He also stated, in answer to Councilman Roth, that he was opposed to both the front fence height and the rear wall which was to be extended to 8 feet in height. Although the back wall did not impact his environment, he wanted to preclude the uneven appearance that would be caused by varying wall heights. Mr. Emanuat Vasquez Pejas, 1310 Oriole Street, an adjacent resident of the Kenn~ys, spoke in oppostion to both the front fence and the back wall. Mr. Wally Warren, Broker, 1705 Siva Street, viewed the area at nhe request of the Kinneys and determined that the building of the proposed fence would not devalue the property or detract from the neighborhood. He also explained that there were numerous chain link fences in the area, the majority of which were 48 inches high. Since the property was so close to the school and there was the danger of school children being bitten by the dogs, he was of the opinion that since the property owners were involved in extenuating circumstances, they should have the right to protect their property. In summation, Mr. Edwards stated that the variance to allow the 48-inch high fence in the front yard would not be a detriment to the neighbors as it did not affect their property or their children unless it was for their safety. Councilman Seymour interjected that if the fence were not 48 inches in height, the dogs would more than likely not be allowed in the front yard. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Discussion followed wherein it was ascertained there were fences in the neighbor- hood 48 inches in height as stated by Mr. Edwards who personally measured them. Council Members Roth and Seymour indicated they had no objection to the 8-foot rear wail but expressed concern over the proposed 48 inch height of the front chain link fence. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-34 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2870 granting waiver "b" (~ximum wall height )~thereby upholding the action of the Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2870, IN PART. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-34 duly passed and adopted. 77-56 City Hall~ Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. EXECUTIIECO~ITTEE - SCAG: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council- man Roth, support for Councilwoman Kaywood to serve as an alternate on the Executive Committee of SCAG to fill the position soon to' be vacated by Councilwoman Frances Wood of Fullerton, due~ to her intended resignation, was approved. To this motion Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. RESIGNATION - ANAHEIM LIBRARY BOARD - AMIN DAVID,. JR.: . On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the resignation of Amin David, Jr. from the Anaheim Library Board was accepted with regret. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:48 P.M,) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:00 P.M.) RESIGNATION OF FINANCE DIRECTOR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the resignation of Michael Moore as Director of Finance, effective February 4, 1977, was accepted and the appointment on an interim basis of Albert Eccles, Jr., as Acting Finance Director was ratified until a recruitment campaign is completed and a permanent appointment made, estimated to be approximately~ April 1, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. CITY-OWNED PROPERTY- 721 NORTH EUCLID: (Sewell) ~he following portion of the minutes was transcribed verbatim from a tape recording of the meeting and spread in full upon the minutes, as requested by Mayor Thom: Ta!ley: Thom: Hopkins: The second item, Mr. Mayor, is last week under a confidential package we provided your honorable body with the r~quested appraisal of the property located on North Euclid Street cur- rently occupied by a temporary structure of Heritage Bank. We would appreciate receiving instructions regarding disposal of the property from Council at this time, if you deem it appropriate. In that staff is requesting direction on this, I think it's only appropriate that the Council establish direction fairly firmly. As I articulated some time ago, because of the manner in which this is unfolded, I am now taking the position that the City should regain its entire amount expended for the pro- perty. The appraisal appraises its fair market value at some- what less than that. So my position is that the property is for sale at the amount the City originally paid for it, which is 90 some thousand dollars. Also, it is my position that the City should pursue the ongoing litigation to recover the license fees, is that what we were ......... Yes, sir, the rent due for the license agreement. 77-57 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January ~8, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Thom: Kott: Thom: Kott: Hopkins: Kott: Roth: Thom: Roth: Thom: Roth: ...the rent due under the license agreement. I would so move that staff be instructed to pursue this matter in that direction. I'll second it and I would like to see added to that the possibility of a disclaimer, and you correct me, Mr. City Attorney, if that's not the correct word. But, should there be a possessory interest tax in the future, levied against the City because of a profit-making organ- ization on the property ............ Levied against the property. Yes. It should be ........... then the people using the property should be liable for it. Yes, sir, that can be worked out in any settlement of the matter. OK. Well, the only thing I have to say, I appreciate both the Mayor and Councilman Kott's remarks of trying to get $99,400 for a piece of property that has been appraised for $70,000 ........... That's not the correct amount, Don, I think it's 91 something. Well, that's not the figure that I just got from the City Attorney. Oh, I see, you're adding to it the .... ok I see. Their past rent of $8,000 plus...so my pont is this. Ok, I think we that we can get $100,000 for a piece of property with 60 feet of frontage and 220 feet deep. It would be a miracle. And I am concerned about two things. First of all, that this Council went ahead and authorized the $1,200 - $1,300 for an appraisal when we didn't need it in the first place if we were going to determine that this was going to be the amount of money we were going to hold out for. And secondly, I think the logical buyer is Heritage Bank, and contrary to any accusation from Dr. Kott here a few weeks ago,~I don't have any financial interest in the place, don't have a nickle in deposit; but I have an interest in the taxpayer that this property be sold. And I think that really you can't dispute the appraisal that we do have on hand of $70,000, and there's no question in my mind that we should seek the $8,000 worth of back rent and, also, I think we should seek an additional couple thousand dollars and go back with a package to them for $80,000 and sell it as a logical piece of property, get it off the City's hands, the surplus property, and put it back on the tax rolls. And the reason for my concern is this -- if we sit out there with a piece of property with a tab of $99,000, I think there's going to be a long time coming before we find a buyer; but now we ~have a good opportunity here for the most logical buyer to take the property. So that's all I have to say. So I'm opposed to continuing this thing on. I'd like to see negotiation done between the City and Heritage Bank. 77-s8 Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- January ~8, 197'7, 1:30 P.M. Well, I agree with Councilman Roth on everything he said except the price. I feel that the appraisal was a waste of money. In fact, I was, I tb~nk, the lone voter against it. I think that it is of value at this polnt in time, most value, to the Heritage Bank. However, my interest'is not the Heritage Bank but, rather, the taxpayer of the community. And, as such, I don't fee! I want to sell the property for less than was paid for it 8 years ago. It's just that simple. Furthermore, there are two people sitting in this room right now at this point in time who have told me that one of the principals at the Heritage Bank said that not only don't they need the property, but the feeling is that they won't take it. Since the property adjacent to the north has been purchased by the Heritage Bank, it would seem to me if a structure is placed on that property, that it would do nothing but enhance the value of the property in question. Therefore, I find myself again with another difference with Councilman Roth, in that if this property next door is improved with a fine bank building, it would appear to me that this property could well be worth over $100,000. Kay-wood: I have to go back to two years ago when this came up again, and I know I was just as agitated, if not more so than Dr. Kott, at the very idea that the City had spent more in buying the property at $91,000 than it was worth years later, because that was backwards from anything that had ever occurred here. After delving into it completely, I was satisfied in my own mind that there had been an unwilling seller, the City wanted this property for a fire station, they felt it was the only thing necessary, and regardless of how the appraisa! was made and how far off it was, what's past is past and we use history for the benefit of history and we plan for the future on the basis of what you can do best; but you can only live in the present, and to me, I see that the difference between what the Heritage Bank plans here, if it's on only their existing pro-' perty, it will be a two-story building. If they buy this as well, it will be a three-story building. I'm not Sure about the price, but obviously a great deal more money in the assessed valuation, a great deal more money in taxes coming back to the taxpayer whom I am extremely interested in, and they would be receiving immediately on the tax rolls, again, for whatever price we can negotiate at the highest possible price, I would like to see negotiations take place so that the taxpayers can, in fact, receive taxes immediately, in- stead of taking it off the rolls. Seymour: Well, Chairman, I guess I'm the only one who hasn't spoken, and to try and stay out of the politics of what's being involved in attempt- ing to arrive at a decision, and dealing more with the facts of the situation, I'd like to offer the following to the Council. If, in fact, this sale were to be put together at or about the appraised value of this property and relative to the appraisal, I disagree with both Councilman Roth and Councilman Kott in that this was a waste of money. Had, in fact, the City Council in 1969 been' prudent in ordering a professional appraisal of the property rather 77-59 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 19.77,. 1:30 P.M. Seymour: than some bootleg fashion that they ran through the bureacracy, we wouldn't be sitting here in th~s kettle of fish we've got today. So I'm happy that we ordered the appraisal. In fact, what it tells me is that ..... and I believe it to be true ..... the property has valued at $70,000. Now, relative to the sale of this property of $70,000 and taking in essence a $22,000 bath if we were to sell it. And relative to this talk about getting it back on the tax rolls and the great benefit that's going to accrue to the taxpayer, share with me, if you will, what I consider to be the real numbers. One, you have a piece of real estate that's worth $70,000. Two, the bank says they will build an additional 10,000 square feet on their structure and, there- fore, that will provide greater assessed value of the property. Well, 10,000 square-foot office building today, you can build at $20 a square foot. That means you're going to have a $200,000 additional improvement if you sell this property. So you have a $200,000 addi- tional improvement in building, you have $70,000 worth of land; you now have a total value on the property of $270,000. In assessed value, that becomes $70,000. Based on an assessed value of $70,000, then the total contribution to the taxpayers of the City of Anaheim is $700 per year. Now that's fact, and I could be wrong a hundred dollars either way, but it's as close as any of you will figure it. If that's true, and I say it is true, it would only take us 31 years, then, of collecting taxes off that property at those figures in order to recoup the loss that we would have suffered by selling that property at less than what was paid for it. On the other hand, consider some other facts, and here's where the benefit of this appraisal report, in my opinion, is of great value to the City. In 1975, I believe, this property was appraised 'at $54,000 by a professional MAI appraiser. Today in 1977, the property is appraised at $70,000. If you figure the rate of in- crease on that property if those appraisals are accurate, and I believe them to be accurate, there has been a 29% increase in the property value, in essence, over the last two years. Now let's not assume that the property will continue to appreciate at the rate of 29% or 15% per year, let's take a more conservative estimate and look at this property and apply to it a 10% appreciation rate per year, which is not unreasonable at all. If you apply a 10% appreciation rate to that property per year assuming the value to be $70,000, and I believe it is to date, then, in fact, you'll have a property whether or not Heritage Bank ever builds anything there which, by the way, I believe, would add value. But the facts are if it just appreciated at 10% a year, then within three years that property will then have a market value greater than that which the City paid for it. So you can talk politics, you can talk about all your loyalty to the taxpayer but those are the facts and I ....... using those as the facts, then I have to support the motion not to sell that property for less than what the City paid for it. 77-60 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January.18~ ~97.7, 1:30 P.M.. Thom: Well I would, at this time .... thank you, John, for that delinea- tion of the facts...and call the roll on the motion. All "No" votes... ...The motion is not to sell the property for anything less than what the City paid for it, plus instruct the staff to continue with the litigatioa~s. There are two separate things in one motion. Kaywood: What about negotiations? Thom: That tells them what to negotiate for...not to negotiate for any- thing less than the City paid for it and, this is another subject, to continue with the litigation to recover the rents due under the license fee. Two separate things, one motion. We'll now have the roll call on the motion. Ail "No" votes -- Roth and Ka~ood: Thom: Kaywood: The motion has carried, 3-2. I would also request, please, that the City Clerk spread verbatim all of the conversation pertaining to this particular topic, in full, on the Minutes of this meeting.. Well, then, I'd like to add one further comment that where $700 a year was not considered of any consequence, I would like to know why disrupting the entire budget was ok for some people receiving a matter of 69¢ a month. Thom: Well, I'll consider that out of order. Kavwood: Well I would still like it included. Talle¥: Mr. Mayor, we will present this at an early opportunity to Heritage Bank. In the event that they elect not to purchase-the property, Would the Council set a fair rental value in the event that they wish to occupy it while the property is offered for sale to others. Thom: At the time you bring that request to us I think would be an appropriate time to set that value. Very well, Sir. SETTLEMENT - PRINTED MATERIAL - CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: The Mayor referred to a letter dated January 17, 1977, from the Chamber of Commerce attached to which was a schedule showing the amount of money owed to the City relative to the selling of printed material. He explained this was the summation of the Council's instructions to Councilman Kott and himself to work out a settlement with the Chamber, which settlement, in his opinion, was a fair and equitable one. Councilman Kott indicated that he was pleased that the Chamber acknowledged the debt as well as having worked out the rest of the services for the year on the amount of literature they had remaining. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the proposed settlement by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce for the amount of money owed to the City relative to the selling of printed material was accepted with the assurance that it was the same as proposed. MOTION CARRIED. 77-61 City~Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January .1.8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. RECESS: Councilman Kott moved to recess to 7:00 P.M., at the Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres for a public discussion relative to the Modjeska Park Community Building. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:17 P.M.) Chartres Recreatio~ Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 7:00 P.M. 222 East Chartres, A~ah~im,. Califoynia, PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Coumcil Memberm being present. (7:15 P.M.) He announced the purpose of this session is to conduct a public discussion of the Modjeska Park Community Building proposed to be built as one of the City's local public works act projects with EDA funds. He advised that the Council would first hear reports from the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, Traffic Engineer, and presentation of the schematic design plans, estimated construc- tion costs and outline specifications by the architect. Following these, the Council would hear comments from the public. MODJESKA PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING: Mr. Jim Ruth gave a brief, chronological history of the b~djeska Park Co~unity Building which was originally proposed and first con- sidered in 1959 by the Citizens Capital Improvement Committee; incorporated into the master plan for the park in 1962; again recommended by the 1968 Citizens Capital Improvement Committee; petitions containing 984 signatures in support of the building were submitted in 1974. The bond issue to finance construction failed, however, and funds were not available for construction. In the 1976-77 Budget year, architects' fees were budgeted with the'hope that State and federal fumds might be garnered for construction of this facility. When EDA funds were announced to be available for local public works acts projects, it was determined by the City staff, with approval of the City Council, to include the Modjeska Park Community Building, as it was one of the City projects which could be underway within the required 90-day period. Mr. Ruth apologized for the limited public notification of the first meeting on the }~djeska Park Community Building, which was due to the very short time period, and the fact that the City was not aware of any opposition to this project. Mr. Ruth addressed the most prominent concerns regarding the proposed building, i.e., the potential for vandalism, the number of parking spaces, and loss of open space in the park itself. He reported that there are 326 parking spaces proposed, which amount exceeds the buildings' requirement~ in the opinion of the Traffic Engineer, and this number could be increased. Modjeska Park contains just under 24 acres of land and, according to the schematics, the building would utilize approximately two acres. Vandalism problems are minimal at Modjeska Park as compared to other areas of the City, and the fact this building would be routinely maintained after 10:00 P.M., together with the additional super- vision at the park itself, would tend to decrease the incidences of vandalism. The increased cost to provide supervision and leadership at this proposed community facility is estimated at $18,000 per year, some of which w~ald be absorbed'by the existing Parks, Recreation and Arts Department staff. Based upon the City's experi- ence in the past 21 years, the Parks, Recreation and the Arts D~partment budget runs 77-62 Chartres Recreation Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 7:00 P.M. ,, , 2~,2 East Chartres, Anaheim,,California to 5% of the City's overall budget. It is not felt that the additional cost of this facility would haveany'significant effect on that amount. He outlined the various activities and programs conducted in the City's current community facilities and explained that a varied program for all age groups would be anticipated at the ~ Modjeska Park Community Building. Mr. Randy BoSch of Dan L. Rowland and Associates, Inc., Architects for the Community. Building, presented the schematic design plans, site plans, estimated construction costs, outline specifications and elevations for the Modjeska Park Community Building, using artists' renderings and plot plans. These were later displayed throughout the room for the information of the public. Mr. Paul Singer reported on a study of the proposed parking facilities for the Modjeska Park Community Building. He explained that the maximum seating capacity of the structure, if all rooms were in use at the same time, would be 1,250 people, They calculated four seats per parking space, which is a more stringent requirement than the City's zoning code which requires one parking space for every five seats in a facility of this type. With the standard at one space per four seats for 1,000 people plus 60 additional spaces for other park uses, an estimated 313 spaces would be required. The park is designed to provide 326 parking spaces, which, under the worst parking conditions, would be 5.3% over the minimum requirement, and under normal conditions would be 25% more than~the minimum requirement. With regard to the traffic impact on Nutwood Street, which street currently carries 5,400 cars in a 24-hour peiod, the proposed facility, at its peak load would add 302 cars, which is only a slight increase in the total average daily traffic during peak. hours. The peak loading and unloading of this facility could be expected to occur at other than peak hours on Nutwood Street which are between 4:00 and 5:00 P.M. and 5:00 and 6:00 P.M. (Copy of the Traffic Engineer's report dated January 17, 1977 on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Prior to opening the floor for public discussion, P~yor Thom announced that the meeting would be governed by the following rules of order: that the group in oppo- sition who requested this public hearing would be allowed to have their Spokesman address the Council first; following that, the Council would hear from one of the proponents and then the opposition again in that order, until all spokesman had been heard. ' PUBLIC DISCUSSION: During this section of the meeting, the following persons spoke in opposition to the construction of the Modjeska Park Community Building: 1) Mr. Jim Osdick, 1612 Songish Street, Anaheim; 2) Dr. Richard Thiessen, 1096 Woodworth Road, Anaheim; 3) Mr. John Turanitza, 1873 West Castle, Anaheim; 4) John Tischler, 1306 Kings Court, Anaheim; 5) Phillip Soma, 252 Brentwood Place, Anaheim; 6) Diane Misk, 1883 Chalet, Anaheim; 7) Dean Olsen, 909 South Echo Place, Anaheim; 8) Mrs. Rita Ray, 1927 West Chateau, Anaheim; 9) Mr. John Flocken, 1320 South Hacienda, Anaheim; 10) Joe Millson, 175 South Rio Vista, Anaheim. 77-63 Chartres Recreation Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 7:00 P.M. 222 East Chartres Anaheim~ California Basic reasons given in their opposition were: potential increases in traffic on the streets surrounding the park which would also increase the likelihood of accidents; the potential the building would offer-for increases in vandalism; the cost of main- taining and staffing the, building with personnel; the fact that the park is curreDtly a welcome, open green space which is utilized at its full capacity for both organized and unorganized recreational activities; that the facility and its parking area would utilize not 2 acres, but more likely 4 to 6 acres of what is currently open space.; that the park is currently saturated with vehicular congestion and is served by three streets which are not arterial highways, but 40-foot wide streets in a quality resi- dential area; that the proposed 313 parking spaces would not be adequate for an auditorium with a seating capacity of 1,000, and that a residential neighborhood is not a suitable location for such a use; that an EIR was not made available to the public; that since the opening of The Church in Anaheim which holds a conclave four times per year, there are cars parked up and down Ball and Nutwood Streets, and all types of parking areas, both public and private, are fully utilized; that the City did not inform the people living in that area of the community building planned in adequate time; that only 46 people attended the meeting held by the Parks and Recreation Department on this building; that when the residents' homes were built they were each assessed approximately $25.00 for development of a park for recreational use and not for a community building; that catering and other facilities to be provided in this build- ing are already available at the Anaheim Convention Center; that the establishment of The Church in Anaheim, which was originally approved at 12,000 square feet and built at 50,000 square feet with the originally approved amount of parking has impacted the density of the neighborhood severely and this community building would generate addi- tional cars and people; that the senior citizens neither want nor need a facility of the size which is proposed; that in order to pay for the additional costs of this facility, fees would have to be charged for classes and meals served within it, and this is not what the senior citizens have in mind; that abandoned buildings in the Project Alpha area could be renovated to serve as a community building and would be more suitable in that they are not located within a residential neighborhood and are closer to commercial transportation; that the seven schools located in the immediate area of Modjeska Park generate a great deal of pedestrian traffic and it would be dangerous to subject these children to additional increases in traffic generated by the Modjeska Park Community Building; that the Council should be reviewing ways to cut the budget and not add to the taxpayers' burden with additional buildings to maintain; that with the plans Cal Trans and OCTD have and the redevelopment project, there will shortly be ample transportation for seniors and opportunities to expand community facilities in the redevelopment project area; that the fact that federal funds become available which must be utilized within a short Period of time, does not rationalize the rushing into a decision on construction which could prove to be a mistake. The following persons spoke in favor of the construction of the Modjeska Park Community Building: 1) Mrs. Neva Parsons, 2105 West Ball Road, Apartment "C", Anaheim; 2) Chris Basom, 1593 Sim Place, Anaheim; 3) Mrs. Shirley Modiano, 1784 Niobe Avenue, Anaheim; 4) Melissa Dickerson, 2318 South Redwood Drive, Anaheim; 5) Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz Street, representing C.O.A.L. (Coalition of Anaheim Leaders); 6) Clara Vaughn, 649 South Roanne Street, Anaheim; 7) Carol McKnight, 1617 Easy Way, Anaheim; 8) Elsie Reed, 914 Fairview Street, Anaheim; 9) Earl Dahl, 1807 West Chalet Avenue, Anaheim; 10) Betty Stromquist, representing the Ana-Modjeska Players, 175 South Rio Vista Street, Anaheim. Chartres Recreation Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 7:00 P.M. 222 East Chartres, Anaheim, California Basic reasons given in support of the building were: that there is a great social need in the immediate community surrounding Modjeska Park for a building to act as a focal point and to provide senior citizens' programs and constructive youth programs as well as a meeting place'forvariou~ groups and activities; that the location of a, number of elementary, junior high and high schools in the immediate vicinity of Modjeska Park make it an excellent site for a community building to provide recrea- tional opportunities for after-school hours; that City parks are not meant for the exclusive or private use of residents living immediately adjacent to them, and should be equipped with facilities to provide recreational opportunities for the entire community; that this building has been master-planned for Modjeska Park since 1958, and all those who moved in after that date were ~ware of that fact; that there are only two sizeable meeting places available for civic and other groups in the City of Anaheim, and a definite need exists for a facility such as this which Anaheim-based clubs and groups could use; that a petition was submitted in i974 containing approximately 1,000 signatures in favor of the construction of this community building. Petitions collected and submitted just prior to'and during the meeting were presented to the Council, and at final talley, these collectively contained 719 signatures in favor and 642 signatures in opposition to the Modjeska Park Community Building. Having heard ten persons each present pro and con views on the subject, following a request from the audience for the Council to vote on the resolution, the Council determined they would permit one speaker each, pro and con, to present a summation of their positions, following which the public discussion would be ended. Mr. Gary Krieger, 3354 West Faircrest, Anaheim, representing the Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission, reported that the Commission has reviewed and discussed this project as a capital improvement but has not recommended it for construction each of the last few budget years because of the cost. However, Modjeska Park has always been identified as the place for this community facility and the commission had a great deal of support in this position in 1974. He reported that he has become personall~ aware of the need for community facilities through his involvement with Boy Scouts. Mr. Krieger stated that recreational facilities should be located where the people are, and that if the City of Anaheim rejects the funds to build this project, they will still be used but in another city and in another county. Mr. Jim Osdick, 1612 Son§ish Street, Anaheim, summmrized the position of those in opposition indicating that the Modjeska Park site is unacceptable to them; that if the senior citizens wish to conduct an active social organization, they might consider aiding the Early Childhood Education Program. He maintained that there are places which the seniors could use for meetings which are available at no cost and offered to supply a list of same. He concluded that the City should not consider spending money simply because it is available. Those who are opposed to the community center wish to retain a low-profile type of recreational activity at Modjeska Park. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for ten minues. (9:35 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9:45 P.M~) 77-65 Chartres Recreation Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 7:00 P.M. 222 East Char~.res~.Anaheim' California In response to Councilman Roth's comments that he wished to further explore the idea of placing the proposed buildingatthe north end of Modjeska Park with access from Ball Road, it was determined feasible, according to the architect, although, this would require additional civil engineering work, plus acquisition or joint venture for paving and construction of a roadway between the two schools. Mr. Jim Ruth, further, felt that although such a change in site for the building would ind~ed cause them to be on a very tight schedule, according to EDA as long as construction is underway within the 90-day period, the project could be phased and this might make it possible. In response to Councilman Roth's consideration of moVing the structure to the north end of the park, members of the audience objected that this changes the entire concept and creates the same problem on the other side of the park. In addition, Councilman Seymour commented that the relocation to the north end of the park would create an "asphalt monster"in the middle of the park. Councilman Seymour. ascertained from Mr. Ruth that out of 1,185 individual occasions for use of the City's existing public meeting facilities, at Martin Recreation Center, La Palma PArk which has a capacity of 900, only 17 of these were occasions which re- quired the full capacity with several turned away which needed more spane. He ques- tioned how much square footage should be reduced from the main meeting room of the proposed facility to create a building with a capacity for 600 persons. Mr. Bosch replied that this would require a reduction by about 40% or 2,400 square feet, and would be a matter of simply revising the size of the largest room area, retaining the basic features and sizes of the remaining meeting rooms. The largest area is the simplest in terms of design and it could be revise~ in the plans without too great a difficulty. Councilman Seymour stated that he believes it has been demonstrated there is a need for a community center in the western part of the community and, further, that he feels the center should be located in the closest proximity to the people who will use it. He noted that alternative sites in City parks of comparable size, such as Twila Reid and Brookhurst Park, are not as centrally located as is Modjeska Park, nor do they have seven schools in their immediate vicinity. He therefore stated that he believed the solution is to consider the construction of the community building at Modjeska Park, but greatly reduce the size of the multi-purpose space so as to permit plenty of activity but still allay fears in the immediate community of large, large gatherings. There would, he surmised, be a concomitant reduction in parking requirements and a reduction in construction costs of about $100,000 or better. He further suggested that the parking area be constructed on a phased basis as it is found to be needed, rather than putting in the maximum number of parking spaces initially. Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that in 1974 the City Council made a promise and commitment to the 1000 citizens who supported the Modjeska Park Community Building, that as soon as funds became available it would be built. The petition submitted at that time had the various addresses pinpointe~ and well above 90% of the signators lived within walking distance of Modjeska Park. Councilwoman Kaywood commended Jim Ruth for his ability to find ways to make things happen which were previously only talked about, and stressed that this EDA funding is a unique opportunity for 77-66 Chartres, Recreation Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 7:00 P.M. 222 Eas~ Chartres~ Aqaheim~ California the City of Anaheim to present something for the citizens to use which is not old, used and condemned. She maintained, however, that she felt the City should go forth with the plans as they were originally presented and construct a structure with the cmpability.of seating 1,000. In response to Councilman Kott, Mr. Ruth reviewed the concept of park buildings in the City parks and commented that there are four or five other park sites of suffi- cient size to accommodate a community building. Mayor Thom remarked in response to those individuals who were concerned over the lack of notification regarding this project, that this was an accelerated type of implementation of a project which had been planned for a long time; further, it was not felt that the usual type of notifications would be necessary in that so many people were in favor of the project and there was no detectable opposition; and for the lack of notification, in retrospect, he apologized. In response to comments that the park master plan had already been altered by reloca-~ tion of the swimming pool plan for Modjeska Park to Loara High School, Mayor Thom explained that some years ago the City, in cooperation wi~ the Anaheim Union High School District, was able to construct aquatic facilities at several schools at much less cost because it was a joint project. This action saved considerable tax dollars and, therefore, was an acceptable trade-off. Mayor Thom requested that staff respond to the citizens' concerns regarding an environmental impact report for the Modjeska Park Community Building project, and Mr. Thompson explained that while the California Environmental Quality Act makes a provision for environmental impact report in many instances, it also provides an extensive list of categorically exempt facilities, and the Modjeska Park Community Building does fall into that category. The State Secretary of Resources was so informed of this exemption status at the time the City applied for public works funds. Following discussion, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-35 for adoption approving the schematic design plans, estimated construction costs and oUtline specifications for the Modjeska Park Community Building, as amended, revising the size of the multi-purpose room by 2,400 square feet. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SCHEMATIC PLANS, ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONSD FOR THE MODJESKA PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING, AS AMENDED. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABS~IT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-35 duly passed and adopted. 77-67 Chartres Recreation Center - COI~CIL MINUTES - January 18, 1977, 7:00 P.M. 222 East Chartres, Anaheim~ California Councilwoman Kaywood wished the record to reflect that her "No" vote is not against the community center building project, that she is very much in favor of it, but feels that the structure should be kept at its originally intended size to accom~o- date 1,000 people in the multi-purpose room. ADJOURNb~NT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded . the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 10:20 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK