Loading...
1977/12/27 77-1401 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27; 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 STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler BENEFITS AND TRAINING MANAGER: Tom Tyre ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti LEGISLATIVE AIDE: Debbie Navarra Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $531,936.35, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 174: ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY AUDIT REPORT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR 1975-76: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Arthur Young & Company audit report on the Community Development Block Grant Program funds for 1975-76, was received and filed as recommended in joint memorandum dated December 21, 1977, from the Finance Director and Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED. 174: CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY PROGRAM AREA DESIGNATION AND AGREEMENT: Request for program area and an agreement to institute a program of financial assis- tance to low- and moderate-income persons to obtain decent, safe and sanitary housing was submitted. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the total of $5,500,000 given in the report as her calculations showed it to be $5,600,000. Both City Manager Talley and Executive Director Norm Priest confirmed that the total, in fact, was $5,600,000. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the California Housing Finance Agency Neighborhood Preservation Area was approved as recommended in memorandum dated December 20, 1977, from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED. 77-1402 Cit.y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-829 for adoption. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-829: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (to terminate one year from execution) 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-829 duly passed and adopted. 158: DEDICATION OF 20-FOOT EASEMENT: (Shapell Government Housingsite) Council- woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-830 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 21, 1977, from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-830: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC PURPOSES. (E/S Emily Street, S/O Chartres Street) 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-830 duly passed and adopted. 125: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH OLIVETTI CORPORATION, CRT TERMINAL: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-831 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 20, 1977, from the Director of Data Processing. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-831: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH OLIVETTI FOR RENTAL OF PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Fire Inspection Reporting System) 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-831 duly passed and adopted. 77-1403 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 123: ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES TO REMODEL CENTRAL LIBRARY - JOE JORDAN~ AIA AND ASSOCIATES: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-832 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 21, 1977, from the Principal Librarian. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-832: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JOE JORDAN, AIA, AND ASSOCIATES CONCERNING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES IN CONNECTIION WITH THE CENTRAL LIBRARY FACILITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 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-832 duly passed and adopted.' 123: ADVERTISING SPACE ON ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD: (Coca-Cola Company) Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, referred to his report dated December 20, 1977, recommending that the City accept the proposal attached therewith from the Coca-Cola Company for advertising space on the Anaheim Stadium Scoreboard at $90,000 annually for five years. Mr. Jack Martin and Jack Atwood from Coca-Cola were also present. Mr. Liegler also referred to a letter dated December 21, 1977, from Red Patterson of the Angels relative to the matter. Mr. Red Patterson, Assistant to the Chairman of the Board of the California Angels, explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had no firm offers from anyone else higher than the $90,000. However, he stated that good business would not suggest that something be offered for first rights of refusal which they requested and were granted by the City to their sponsors at $180,000 and subsequently sell it at $90,000 without reapproaching those sponsors. Ail they were asking, as outlined in the last paragraph of his letter, was a delay of the matter in order to do so. Until such time, they would have to hold their approval which, under the contractual arrangement they had with the City, was their right. He was supportive of the Coca-Cola Company as the scoreboard advertiser, but not before making certain that Chevrolet, Continental, Chevron and Budweiser did not want to purchase the adver- tising at the new figure of $90,000. Discussion then followed between Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Talley and Mr. Patterson at the conclusion of which, Mr. Talley explained that all staff was requesting today was approval authorizing acceptance of a proposal, in principle, and if $90,000 from Coca-Cola was an acceptable level to move ahead unless a superior offer was submitted. Mr. Patterson took issue with the word superior, emphasizing that a matching offer should also suffice. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that she would not favor an equal offer. Mr. Talley wanted clarification that the Council would accept a comparable or better offer from any of the Angel sponsors mentioned by Mr. Patterson, including Budweiser. 77-1404 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor understood the point Mr. Talley was making and saw no problem in accepting a proposal from a company such as Budweiser, and the majority of the Council concurred. Councilman Roth stated the Council should give Mr. Patterson until January 15, 1978, to contact the sponsors relative to the possibility of submitting an equal or better offer for advertising rights for five years on the Anaheim Stadium scoreboard. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would second the motion if a better offer only was stipulated. The motion thereupon died for lack of a second. The Mayor stated he could not support the proposed motion because the City should proceed with the Coca-Cola proposal since it was a firm one. He then offered a counter-motion to proceed by authorizing acceptance of the Coca-Cola proposal in principle and directing the City Attorney to draft a contract accordingly, however, with the possibility that Mr. Patterson could submit a better offer within two weeks. Before further action was taken on the motion, Mr. Liegler suggested that first a representative from Coca-Cola should speak to the matter to confirm that they were, in fact, still interested in view of the intent to await further word from Mr. Patterson. Mr. Jack Atwood, representing the Los Angeles and Orange County bottleries of Coca-Cola, stated they knew the Angels would have right of approval, but did not understand there would be a delay. However, they had no quarrel at all with Mr. Patterson's request to offer the advertising to their regular outside advertisers first, as long as the amount of time allowed was not unreasonable. Mr. Atwood re- quested that the proposal be accepted subject to approval by the Angels, allowing time for them to determine whether or not their sponsors were interested and if they would make a higher offer. Mr. Hopkins clarified that it was a matter of directing the City Attorney to prepare an agreement and, to this point, there was no agreement. Thus, Council's recommen- dation to prepare documentation in order to move forward would be appropriate. Mr. Atwood then explained for Councilman Seymour how his company arrived at the $90,000 figure offered. City Attorney Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Seymour that the agreement between the City and Golden West Baseball provided the lessee shall have the right of approval of all advertising that would appear in the Stadium, and they did have the right of final approval before going into any binding agreement on advertising. If the City did not offer that final approval, then to proceed without so doing, would be a breach of the agreement which could lead to litigation. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Liegler relayed the following: staff still felt the advertising space was worth $180,000 taking into consideration the Convention Center, which advertising cost $142,000 per year with less traffic. Also, the California Angels had been kept abreast of the negotiations and their agency, KMPC, was given rights to sell the scoreboard space. The $180,000 figure was one that was received from Insight Marketing as their Judgment of its value. 77-1405 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -December 27~ 19.77~ 1:30 P'M' It was only until recently that the Angels took on another competitive product which would perhaps, be advertised on their radio network, namely 7-Up. Mr. Liegler felt the Angels had been given every consideration to try to sell the space. He did not know if the Angels were under the impression that they had to reach $180,000 or less or $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000. The salesman's efforts were based on a commission and he would sell for whatever he could get. The sales- man did contact all Angel advertisers, but Mr. Liegler did not know for what figure since that information had not been forthcoming to subsequently present to the Council. Councilman Kott stated he did not see any conflict or confusion regarding the matter since the City had something to sell and someone wanted to buy it. Al- though he agreed, as pointed out, that the Angels had the right of approval, he did not believe it was their responsibility to find a lessee since it was the responsibility of the City to do so. He then complimented Mr. Liegler on the job he had done in finding Coca-Cola and negotiating with them to this point although he felt the advertising was worth more. Councilman Kott thereupon seconded Councilman Thom's substitute motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood inquired as to when the rights were given to KMPC to negotiate and for what length of time. Mr. Liegler stated it was about a year prior when Mr. Autry asked that KMPC be given those rights and then he (Liegler) waited approximately four to six months. They did have a letter from KMPC stating that they chose not to sell the advertis- ing for the City after that wait. Mr. Patterson also took issue with the use of the word "given"--they offered to help to try to sell, but no rights were given with that sale that they did not already have. At the $180,000 figure, they found no takers. Thereafter, final letters were sent out to obtain their sponsors' refusal, again thinking in terms of $180,000. Now the advertising was being sold for $90,000 and their advertisers had not been reoffered the rights. That was the major reason he was asking for a delay--to see if any of their advertisers were interested st the $90,000 figure in which case the City would not lose any money, and they would give their approval. The Mayor reiterated his substitute motion, recognizing in the body of the motion that Mr. Patterson could be back in a couple of weeks with a counter-offer before final execution of the agreement. That was understood and so stipulated. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a motion to amend the substitute motion, stating in the event Mr. Patterson returned with an equal or better offer, that that offer be accepted. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. The Mayor stated that Councilman Seymour would have to offer a substitute motion because he would not accept an amendment to his motion. Thereupon, Councilman Seymour withdrew his amendment and stated he would vote in opposition because (1) he did not believe the Angels had been given the same oppor- tunity that Coca-Cola had been given and (2) he was not convinced that advertising sold 10 years earlier for $100,000 should be sold today for $10,000 less. 77-1406 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the substitute motion as articulated by Councilman Thom and carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None By general consent, the deadline for execution of the contract was set for January 17, 1978. 101: CALIFORNIA ANGELS REPORT: Mr. Patterson stated that 1977 was the most success- ful year financially for the City relative to its contract with the Angels in spite of the fact that the ball club lost money because of acquisition of top players. In rental, they paid $313,362; concessions, $424,639, and parking, $276,083 for a total of $1,014,084 paid to the City. 123: RENEWAL OF VARIOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP HEALTH PLANS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 77R-833 through 77R-839, both inclusive, for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated December 21, 1977, from Garry McRae, Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-833: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 12, 1977, FOR EMPLOYEE DENTAL CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-834: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 12, 1977, FOR EMPLOYEE MEDICAL CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND SECURITY HEALTH PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-835: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 18, 1977, FOR EMPLOYEE MEDICAL CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND GENERAL MEDICAL CENTERS HEALTH PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-g36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GROUP MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICE AGREEMENT OF' JULY 1, 1977, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND HMO CONCEPTS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-837: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF MAY 10, 1977, FOR EMPLOYEE MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 77-1407 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P..M.~ RESOLUTION NO. 77R-838: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A RENEWAL AGREEMENT WITH FAMILY HEALTH PLAN, INC. FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID RENEWAL AGREE- MENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1978. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-839: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO %ME AGREEMENT OF APRIL 19, 1977, FOR PREPAID DENTAL CARE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREE- MENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-833 through 77R-839, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 123: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - EMPLOYEE GROUP VISION CARE BENEFITS: Councilman Kott explained the reason he voted "no" on the resolutions covered by agenda item No. 7 and would vote "no" on item 8 was because, in his opinion, both items were "rip offs" to the taxpayer and there was very little benefit to the recipients. Relative to vision care, the proposal did not direct itself to any catastrophic vision problems such as a detached retina or cataracts where insurance was really necessary. It was not needed for eyeglasses, since the average person, due to physiological changes or age, required glasses around age 40 and changes occurred every three to five years. The proposal would authorize new glasses and frames every year. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that catastrophic eye disease would be covered under medical and hospital insurance. She further stated many people do need new glasses and examinations annually and compared it to dental check-ups. Councilman Kott then stated if that were so, as a representative of the taxpayer, he would thus not favor the option to purchase new glasses every year. Mr. Tom Tyre, Benefits and Training Manager, stated that medical problems would be covered under the medical insurance program and that the request for proposal would cover vision care, essentially glasses, not treatment of eye diseases. Councilman Roth asked the City Manager to speak to the matter since it involved labor negotiations and fringe benefits. Mr. Talley stated in the 1977 negotiations certain changes were made, and the City agreed to provide certain services, including vision care, as well as covering re- tirees more completely. In return, the employee groups agreed to extend deductions from $50 to $100, but they specifically wanted annual examinations, lenses and frames covered in the program. Thus, in essence, the bargain for vision'care was being delivered. IL answer to additional questions by the Council, Mr. Tyre clarified that an employee could now have an examination performed by an ophthalmologist if there was a problem, but not merely a routine examination. Present plans did not cover a refraction type problem, and the proposed plan was a capitation program. 77-1408 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott reiterated his opposition to the proposed program and his belief that it was not in the best interest of the taxpayer or the employee. Further, if the present plans already covered ophthalmic examinations, the vision care program was not necessary, and as well, the average person did not need glasses and frames every year. Councilman Seymour suggested that input be solicited from employee associations as to what they interpreted the proposal to mean. If, in fact, it was not in the City's best interest, the Council would not be doing their duty. On the other hand, they had an obligation to the employee associations to deliver what was previously negotiated. Mr. Talley explained that the week of February 6, 1978, the proposal would be reviewed with the employee associations and four weeks later, a report would be submitted to the Council. Thus, if the program was consistent with what was bargained for, staff would be advised at that point. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the solicitation of proposals for employee group vision care benefits was continued until such time as written comments from the employee associations on the RFP were obtained. MOTION CARRIED. 137/156: LIFE INSURANCE FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE PEACE OFFICERS UNIT: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the establishment of the Anaheim Police Association Life Insurance Trust Fund was authorized, in principle, to provide life insurance for employees in the Peace Officers Unit and other dependents, as recommended in memorandum dated December 21, 1977, from the City Attorney and Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED. 153: CREATION OF NEW CLASSES - POLICE OFFICER HELICOPTER-PILOT-SENIOR MASTER INTERMEDIATE AND POLICE OFFICER HELICOPTER-PILOT-SENIOR MASTER ADVANCED: Council- man Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-840 for adoption as recon~nended in memorandum dated December 19, 1977, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-840: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR THE NEW JOB CLASSES OF POLICE OFFICER- HELICOPTER PILOT-SENIOR MASTER INTERMEDIATE AND POLICE OFFICER-HELICOPTER PILOT- SENIOR MASTER ADVANCED. (effective October 14, 1977) 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-840 duly passed and adopted. 123: CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN - CPHP: (Psychological health care benefits for Peace Officers Bargaining Unit) Mr. Talley explained that the subject plan was also bargained for and the benefits were unique only to CPHP, thus they did not go out to bid. The important part of the plan was the fact that a Police Officer could secure the needed services without knowledge of the employer. Currently, there were a number of people with full medical disabilities, not strictly medical, bu~ with psychological aspects and anything that could be done to encourage members of that Bargaining Unit to seek care at any time at their option would be in the City's best interest. If the problem became so advanced that the Officers would have to take a 77-1409 1:30 P.M. City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ . fully paid medical retirement which had occurred, the City's cost exposure was tremendous. Further, in all aJudication, the assumption was always for the employee and against the City regardless of the circumstances. Mr. Tyre interjected that the program would encourage an officer to seek medical care without having to go through Worker's Compensation which was the only avenue at the present time. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-841 for adoption as recommended in memo- randum dated December 2, 1977, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-841: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 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-$41 duly passed and adopted. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Improvement of Cerritos Avenue from State College to Anaheim Boulevards and State College Boulevard from Cerritos Avenue to 300 feet south of Cerritos Avenue. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. 153: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Improvement of Lincoln Avenue from State College Boulevard to East Street. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.. 144: AHFP 1978-1979 FISCAL YEAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-842 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 20, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-842: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM CERTAIN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. (1978-1979) 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-842 duly passed and adopted. 77-1410 City H.a. ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 131: LANDSCAPING OF SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE RIVERDALE AVENUE OVERCROSSING OF RIVERSIDE FREEWAY: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, report of the City Engineer dated December 21, 1977, on the subject landscaping project was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 149: PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO PERMIT UNOBSTRUCTED STREET SWEEPING: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, report on parking restrictions from the City Engineer dated December 21, 1977, to permit unobstructed street sweeping was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 123: O.C.F.C.D. AGREEMENT NO. D-77-141 EAST RICHFIELD CHANNEL (FACILITY NO. E01S01): Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-843 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 15, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-843: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE EAST RICHFIELD CHANNEL FLOOD CON- TROL FACILITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 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-843 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE USED STREET SWEEPER: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, purchase of a used 1970 Mobil street sweeper from Nixon-Egl± Equipment Company in the amount of $3,500, plus sales tax, was authorized as recommended in memorandum dated December 15, 1977, from William Lewis, Street Maintenance Superintendent. MOTION CARRIED. 112: PIER I IMPORTS VERSUS CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL.: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Orange County Counsel was autho- rized to defend the City in Pier I Imports of California versus County of Orange, City of Anaheim, et al, as recommended in memorandum dated December 23, 1977, from the City Attorney's Office. MOTION CARRIED. 158: SUNSET CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL - ORANGEWOOD/RAMPART STREET PROPERTY: Council- man Kott stated that when the proposal on the subject property was being discussed, financial statements were requested from both the Matlow-Kennedy Corporation (MKC) and Sunset Construction, the latter company's proposal having been accepted. To date, after two requests, no financial statement had been received from Sunset, and Councilman Kott asked the City Attorney to advise what could be done at this time. City Attorney Hopkins explained that upon direction of the Council, he sent a letter to both MKC and Sunset requesting them to submit financial data and also authoriza- tion concerning their power to enter into agreements with Anaheim. Mr. Hook of Sunset appeared before the Council and presented a brochure which contained some financial data which the Council reviewed. Subsequently, additional data was obtained from Mr. Hook pertaining to the requested authorization, as well as corporate documents from the Secretary of State, which were submitted to the City Clerk and given to the Council. Mr. Hook considered that the documentation was satisfactory to the Council. 77-1411 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977; 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott asked Mr. Hopkins if the data was a financial statement for the purposes of doing business with someone. Mr. Hopkins stated it was not an accounting or balance sheet giving assets and liabilities, but it did contain some information giving the financial status of Sunset. Councilman Kott stated since it was his motion to place Sunset in the running for the property, if nothing could be done at this point in time relative to escrow, he would be opposed to granting any type of zoning that would lend to their develop- ment of that property unless a financial statement was submitted. Council discussion followed revolving around Sunset's non-compliance relative to the requested financial statement wherein Councilman Roth emphasized that it was merely a matter of contacting Mr. Hook and asking for the information. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would again send a letter to Mrl Hook requesting a financial statement on Sunset Construction, but it did not affect escrow. 150: CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF BOWI~Rg MUSEUM: (continued from November 8 and 22, 1977) Based upon input received from various organizations interested in cultural and arts activities, Councilman Seymour moved to deny support for the expansion and development of the Bowers Museum. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that the communications sent to the pertinent organizations was not new and different, since a couple responded with regard to solicitation of funds from Anaheim. That was not a part of the original request and never had been. City Clerk Roberts responded that the communication was the same in all instances and solicitation of funds was not included. Councilwoman Kaywood explained she was not arguing for or against, but she was con- cerned that the same people received the same information, and yet three interpreted it as a request for financial support. Mayor Thom suggested that what happened was that some people pursued the matter further than what had been presented to the Council because ultimately if Bowers did get the requested support from the cities in Orange County, they would subsequently request funds from the Board of Supervisors. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the League of Cities, at their November meeting, voted to approve the plan in concept. However, since Anaheim was not a voting member, the City could not offer any input. Councilman Kott stated that he called several directors who were intimately familiar with the business of the museum and they had a different interest than that of Anaheim. It was his belief that those interests did not encompass Anaheim's interests or the cultural groups contained therein. He also referred to a letter dated December 20, 1977, from Mrs. Diann Marsh wherein she pointed out that Bowers had auctioned off the ModJeska piano, as well as other items of interest to the historical background of the City. 77-1412 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that staff look into the matter and if the museum held any further materials donated by Anaheim residents, that they not be allowed to auction them off without first notifying the donor. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion denying the requested support. MOTION CARRIED. 170: REQUEST - ANAHEIM VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - AMENDMENT TO CC&Rs FOR TRACT NO. 5438 (GRAMMERCY PARK): (continued from November 29 and December 13, 1977) Mr. David Hansen, Attorney, explained that he talked to the City Attorney's Office and they recommended against the subject request. He explained however that the association voted, by over 90 percent, to amend the CC&Rs. He understood the City was requiring the association to maintain a contingency fund to assure theCity that the land would be maintained after the primary lender left. He did not know if the City Attorney's Office was cognizant of the fact that in January a new law was passed by the State which required each of the homeowners associations to main- tain adequate reserves and maintenance funds. What the association was now faced with was the payment of their own maintenance fees, maintenance of adequate reserves for problems that might come up as mandated by State law, as well as being forced to maintain the contingency fund required by the City. In his opinion, the City's requirement was a duplication of the State law and it would be appropriate for the City to defer to the State requirements. He, therefore, requested the matter be referred back to the City Attorney's Office so that he might have an opportunity to discuss the situation further. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that he had never spoken to Mr. Hansen, but Deputy City Attorney Jack White did so and indicated to him (Hansen) that a check had been made with the Engineering and Planning Departments to ascertain if any problem existed. In researching the file, documents were located going back to 1966 which indicated it is the City's consistent and regular policy not to recommend approval of elimination of contingency funds, and there had been no change since that time. The City Council, however, could authorize removal of such a contingency fund, but only they had the authority to do so. He recommended against any change removing the fund because it was an additional security available assuring that after the primary lender was no longer involved, there were funds to continue the maintenance of the project. He would be happy to discuss the matter with Mr. Hansen if the Council so desired. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Anaheim Village Homeowners Association request for an amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Con- ditions and Restrictions for Tract No. 5438 (Grammercy Park) was continued for 30 days. MOTION CARRIED. 153: RETIREMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION (PERS): (continued from December 13, 1977) City Manager Talley stated that staff did solicit input from employee organizations relative to the subject and upon seeing an opportunity to get into the area of benefits provided by the City, they formed a special retirement committae. Inasmuch as the City would be investing at a conservative estimate of $30 million in that area in the next five years with approximately $50 million in Sacramento presently, rather than surrender what he considered an important management right, he would withdraw his request. He maintained it was the City's responsibility as to how the program was carried out, as well as its cost effectiveness. 77-1413 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 271 1977; 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated he read the letter from the employee organizations and could see nothing wrong with their suggestion that they participate with management in re- viewing the proposed contract for consultant services since it was appropriate that they protect their vested interest. He supported their solution to the matter which was to evaluate the present program concurrently with management. He was concerned about authorizing an agreement with a consultant because it could be interpreted that the Council was leaning in the direction of the consultant because they authorized payment of a large sum for the consultant to come up with a recommen- dation. Mr. Talley reiterated withdrawal of his request. No further action was taken by the City Council on this matter. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Kott. (3:10 P.M.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-7A: In accordance with application filed by Kerry W. Lawler and Associates, public hearing was held on the proposed abandon- ment of an existing sanitary sewer easement located along the west side of Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 77R-783, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated October 31, 1977, was submitted recommending approval of the abandonment. Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require- ment to file an EIR. Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-844 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 77-7A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-844: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-7A, west side of Douglass Road, south of Katella Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom None Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-844 duly passed and adopted. 77-1414 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott entered the Council Chamber. (3:15 P.M.) 167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CONTROLLER REPLACEMENT AT INTERSECTION OF NORTRONICS AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE: (Account No. 10-4309-263-16-2263) In accordance with recom- mendation of the City Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-845 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-845: 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 EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: CONTROLLER REPLACEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTRONICS AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-263-16-2263. (Grissom & Johnson, Inc., $7,843) 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-845 duly passed and adopted. 105: YOUTH COMMISSION - APPOINTMENTS TO FILL FOUR VACANCIES: Councilman Seymour moved to reappoint the three encumbent youth commissioners, (Chris Basom, Nancy Bounds, Lorrey Adams, as well as Christine Daniels. Before any action was taken on the motion, the Mayor stated he had no problem with Councilman Seymour's motion other than the fact that the Youth Commission did not have an ethnic balance although he realized that much diligence had been expended in that direction. He could support the three encumbents if the other appointee represented an ethnic minority. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Mike Martinez was a member of the Youth Commission; the Mayor, however, indicated that since the Mexican-American popu- lation in Anaheim was approximately 20 percent, there should be over one member of that community represented on the Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood first expressed her preference for conducting another group of interviews as previously had been done when the Commission was created. Secondly, she favored the idea of giving others the opportunity of serving on the Commission and suggested that those who had served could instead lead the various committees that worked with the Commission. Accordingly, she recommended reappointing Chris Basom to the Commission, with Nancy Bounds and Lorrie Adams working on a committee. She also questioned the fact that Christine Daniels was only 13 years of age and the minimum age stated in the by-laws was 14. It was confirmed however, that Miss Daniels turned age 14 on December 16, 1977. Councilwoman Kaywood also commented on the fact that no schools were listed next to the names on the list submitted. She then pointed to some of the qualifications of Christine Murphy, Andy Exler and Tilly Contreras which would make them excellent candidates for appointment. 77-1415 City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to reappoint Chris Basom to the Youth Comm~s- sion for the term ending December 31, 1979, dependent upon his being a registered voter since he was 18 years of age and the by-laws so required. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Later in the meeting it was determined that Mr. Basom was a registered voter.) Councilman Seymour moved to appoint Lorrie Adams to the Youth Commission. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Christine Murphy to the Youth Commission. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Seymour moved to appoint Christine Daniels to the Youth Commission. The motion died for lack of a second. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by' Councilman Thom, Tilly Contreras was appointed to the Youth Commission for the term ending December 31, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour moved to reappoint Nancy Bounds to the Youth Commission. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Thom moved to appoint Denise Castro to the Youth Commission. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that unless the Council went back to interviewing, which she considered to be a better procedure, then it would be more prudent to make appointments from the list of top ten names recommended by Intergovernmental R~lations in their memorandum dated December 22, 1977. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint And~yExler to the Youth Commission. Council- man Kott seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Kott NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Roth and Thom Councilman Thom moved to appoint Sherry Lynn Sauvageau to the Youth Commission. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth Councilman Thom moved to appoint Lorraine Ramos to the Youth Comm{ssion. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Thom moved to appoint Joe Rangel to the Youth Comm{ssion. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Both 77-1416 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Debbie Navarra of the Intergovernmental Relations Office explained that their staff interviewed all 24 applicants and reviewed their qualifications and personal attributes. Based on that review, they chose seven of the most qualified applicants, along with three incumbents, and submitted their names, as well as their applications. They did not include the applications of the remaining 14 applicants, but names only. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Ted Williams was appointed to the Youth Commission for the term ending December 31, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Christine Daniels was appointed to the Youth Commission for the term ending December 31, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 59-60-18 - REQUEST TO REMOVE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS: Request by David S. Collins, to remove deed restrictions and limitations on the use of property located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, north of Vermont Avenue and to amend Condition No. 5 of Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1491. Mr. Collins was present to answer any questions. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, removal of deed restrictions and limitations of the subject property and amendment to Condition No. 5 of Ordinance No. 1491, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated December 21, 1977, from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3808: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3808 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3808: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CItY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 1491 RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. F-59-60-18. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds by the Purple Heart Veterans Rehabilitation Services, for house-to-house solicitation of usable household items for sale in Purple Heart Thrift Shops, for a 60-day period was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds from the World Church of Truth, Inc., for phone and door-to-door solicita- tion of funds, December 7, 1977 through February 7, 1978, was denied since investi- gators were not able to locate the World Church of Truth at the various addresses furnished. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1574 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Oneta P. Biddie, Vice-President, Matreyek Homes, Inc., for an extension of time to construct a 263-unit mobile home park on property located south of the Riverside Freeway, west of Euclid Street, together with a recommendation from the Zoning Division, was submitted. 77-1417 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977; 1:30 P.M~ On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the subject request for extension of time was granted, retroactive to December 9, 1977, to expire June 9, 1978, as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Edward Hocking for personal injuries purportedly sustained while attending an event at Anaheim Stadium on or about September 11, 1977. b. Claim submitted by Loadholtz Rubber Company for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about N~vember 14, 1977. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 114: City of Lomita Resolution No. 77-72 opposing the housing distribution proposals of the Southern California Association of Governments. b. 175: City of Burbank Resolution No. 18,189 urging the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to make a positive recommendation to the State Legislature regarding the construction of the Sundesert Nuclear Plant. c. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of November 17, 1977. d. 117: Monthly report for November 1977 - Treasurer's. e. 114: City of Laguna Beach Resolution No. 77.146 endorsing the Tin-Cup Campaign Reform Ordinance. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 77R-846 and 77R-847 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-846: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (E.E.S.A., a co-partnership, et al.; State College Anaheim Center; The Euclid-Romneya Company; Champion Interna- tional Corporation; Ame~lia H. Sanchez; Apidgian Construction Co., et al.; Muffler Masters, Inc.; James A. Liberio, et ux.; Robert D. Wiens, et ux.; Adolfo L. Saldivar, et ux.; William K. Howard, et ux.; John C. Jones, et ux.; Evelym M. Allard; Fernando Madrid Holguin; Jack Nelson, et al.) 77-1418 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-847: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 38-4855-985- 20-0893; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 26, 1978, 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 Nos. 77R-846 and 77R-847 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 5, 1977, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-29, VARIANCE NO. 2980 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10178: Submitted by Koizumi International, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-4000 to establish a l-lot, 9-unit condominium subdivision on property located at 3539 West Savanna Street with code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC77-269 and PC77-270, granted Reclassification No. 77-78-29 and Variance No. 2980, and approved Tentative Tract No. 10178, and granted negative declaration status. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-32: Submitted by Western Playcare, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 on property located on the south side of Orange- wood Avenue, west of Spinnaker Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-271, granted Reclassi- fication No. 77-78-32 and granted negative declaration status. 3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-33: Submitted by Eddie J. and Zoe Ann Corrales, for a change in zone from RM-2400 to RM-1200 on property located at 314 S. East Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-272, granted Reclassi- fication No. 77-78-33, and granted negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2969~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10032 (REV. 1) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 205: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a'41-1ot, 38-unit, RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located south of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Hillcrest Drive with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-265, granted Variance No. 2969, in part, approved Tentative Tract No. 10032 (Rev. 1) for a 39-1ot, 36-unit subdivision and certified EIR No. 205 as being in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act. 77-1419 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1977, 1:30 P.M. 5. VARIANCE NO. 2981: Submitted by Margaret M. Dobroski, to permit a second single-family residence on RM-2400 zoned property located at 736 Pauline Street with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-273, granted Variance No. 2981 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1779: Submitted by Suresh and Rita Gandotra, to permit solar collector panels on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 6715 Swarthmore Drive. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-268, denied Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1779 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1780: Submitted by C. Darle Hale, Howard H. Hungerford and Robert R. Allen, to permit a van conversion facility on ML zoned property located at 3663 East Miraloma Avenue with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-276, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1780 in part, with denial of the waiver and subject to review in one year, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1781: Submitted by Grove Street Associates, to permit an auto painting facility on ML zoned property located at 1198 Grove Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-277, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1781 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemp- tion determination. 9. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10147: Submitted by Alfred D. and Josephine Paino, for a 1-iot, 5-unit RM-4000 condominium subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property located on the west side of Hayward Street, north of Rome Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10147. No action was taken on the foregoing items thus, the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1761(READ¥.~ AND VARIANCE NO. 2976(READV.): Request by Beth Adams, Ltd., to permit a retail art sales facility on ML zoned property located at 131 West Katella Avenue with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC77-274 and PC77-275, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1761 and Variance No. 2976, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the art sales facility had a portable box sign that was bigger than some buildings and it was, in her opinion, a blatant disregard of the entire sign ordinance. She could not find, in the Planning Commission minutes or on the agenda, any indication of when the sign would be removed. She requested that it be removed immediately or the matter would be set for a public hearing. 77-1420 City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti stated the applicant had a 22-day appeal period and thereafter they would have a reasonable amount of time to remove the sign, probably two weeks to a month. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted the reasonable amount of time to be much more specific. Miss Santalahti assured Councilwoman Kaywood that staff would pursue the matter and the sign would be removed. No action was taken by the City Council. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10168 AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted by Orange Crest Corporation, for a 3-lot, RS-HS-10,000(SC) and ll-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the south side of Rio Grande Drive, northeast of Canyon Woods Road. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10168, approved the request for removal of specimen trees and granted negative declaration status. Councilman Kott asked staff whether or not the tree ordinance was complied with in this particular case. Miss Santalahti stated that the removal was not significant in proportion to the total number of trees. She further stated that the horse trail question was also resolved in terms of the correspondence received from the Riding and Hiking Trails Committee. The developer indicated his willingness to provide a horse trail in accordance with what the committee asked. Additionally, the horse trail had to be finally resolved in accordance with what the developer promised at the time of approval of the final tract. No action was taken by the City Council. VARIANCE NO. 2466 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Richard Bradshaw, Kiely Corpora- tion, for an extension of time to Variance No. 2466 to establish a professional-office complex on industrial zoned property located on the south side of Katella Avenue, east of State College Boulevard. The City Planning Commission approved the extension of time to Variance No. 2466 to expire January 18, 1979. Councilman Kott noted that the variance was originally granted in January 1973, and it was stated by the applicant in the report that since his application for variance, no changes in the property or the surroundings had occurred since the time of approval. Miss Santalahti explained there were no changes that would significantly affect the use, and the development of the area had proceeded with industrial and commercial uses similar to the proposal. Councilman Kott also noted that none of the conditions had been satisfied such as tree planting fees, installation of sidewalks, driveways along Katella and the like. Since five years time had elapsed, he considered it to be speculation. 77-1421 City Hall~ Ar~.heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 .P.M. Miss Santalahti explained that if the variance was denied, the applicant could file another variance with the City which would probably be granted in accordance with the general development of the area. Subsequently, a great deal of paper work would have to be processed, ending up at the same point as today. If there were changes in the area, it would be a different matter. Councilman Seymour explained that he would be concerned if an extension of time was requested and the City had changed their codes dramatically; that would be an appro- priate time to re-evaluate the request. However, if staff time and energy was being saved in this case, it would be better to approve the extension rather than sending it through a public hearing. No action was taken by the City Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1593 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by G. J. Lindquist, Don Greek and Associates, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1593 to permit a motel-restaurant-coffee shop complex on property located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, south of the Riverside Freeway. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1593 to expire February 18, 1979. Councilman Kott questioned the extension of time, which situation was similar to that of Variance No. 2466. No action was taken by the City Council. 123: ORDINANCE NO. 3803: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3803 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3803: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. (City and MDS merger) 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. 3803 duly passed and adopted. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 3804: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3804 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3804: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMADDING NEW C~%PTER 18.88 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN OPEN SPACE ZONE. 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. 3804 duly passed and adopted. 77-1422 .~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3805: Councilman Roth abstained from voting because he lives in Tract No. 8515. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3805 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3805: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(21), RM-2400, Tract Nos. 8515 and 8516) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3805 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3806: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3806 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3806: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(19), RS-HS-22,000) Roll Call Vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3806 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3807: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3807 for adoption'. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3807: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-41(1), RS-HS-iO,O00, Tract No. 9752) 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. 3807 duly passed and adopted. 155: RIDING & HIKING TRAILS IN THE CANYON AREA: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a letter received from Dione Hesketh, member of the Riding and'Hiking Trails Committee, relative to trails in the Canyon area. She (Kaywood) emphasized that during the existence of the Task Force, it was made very clear that trails would go through that area. Apparently, Mrs. Hesketh felt there was some problem with some City departments not cooperating or possibly not understanding the situation, and the co~nittee was concerned that the trails would not materialize. She, therefore, 77-1423 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCI~ MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. requested staff to investigate the matter. Also enclosed with Mrs. Hesketh's letter was a copy of an article from Horseman Ma~azine on the trails in Fullerton. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the article would also give some better direc- tion to staff and she wanted them to assure the acquisition of open space in the Canyon area for trails to enhance the development of the trails system. 123: MAN-IN-WASHINGTON: Mayor Thom announced a meeting of the Consortium Cities, Wednesday, January 4, 1978 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Garden Grove Community Center for the purpose of giving the Mayors an opportunity to meet with the candidate believed by the City Managers to be most qualified to assume the responsibility of the Man-In-Washington. The Mayor said that inasmuch as he did not believe in the program, he would not attend. It was agreed by general consent, that Councilman Seymour would attend the meeting. RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing on the proposed widening of Brookhurst Street from Guinida Lane to Katella Avenue. Council- woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:45 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilmen Seymour and Kott. (7:00 P.M.) PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (entered at 7:10 P.M.), Kott (entered at 7:05 P.M.), Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall INNOVATIVE PROJECTS MANAGER: Robert Herr INNOVATIVE PROJECTS STAFF: Skip Tollock and Jerry Krabel 169: PUBLIC HEARING - WIDENING OF BROOKHURST STREET: Proposed widening of Brookhurst Street from Guinida Lane to Katella Avenue. Mr. Robert Herr, Innovative Projects Manager, first gave a progress report on the Innovative Projects Program which was established by a grant from HUD and implemented to develop advanced planning for street modification and/or improvements. Mr. Herr also briefed the Council specifically on the proposed project (see minutes of December 13, 1977) and gave a slide presentation showing a cross-section of the three proposals A, B and C which they pursued out of the many alternatives considered and which were presented at both meetings conducted with property owners. Also depicted from a wall map were typical sections of alternatives considered earlier in the program (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) but eventually eliminated. The proposals and alter- natives were as follows: PROPOSALS: A. 96' right-of-way, no parking on either side B. 108' right-of-way, parking on both sides C. 120' right-of-way, parking on both sides ALTERNATIVES: 1. 100' right-of-way, parking on west side only 2. 100' right-of-way, parking on both sides, solid double striping 3. 100' right-of-way, parking on both sides, solid double/double.mtrip 77-1424 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. (copies of proposals and alternatives dated December 27, 1977, on file in the City Clerk's Office). Mr. Herr then continued his presentation in more detail, working from a plan view map showing the three proposals in the area of Brookhurst involved, from Guinida Lane to Katella Avenue and the impact each would have on the area. He then stated that Plan A would cost $1.1 million; Plan B, staff recommendation, $1.3 million, and Plan C, $3.1 million which costs included right-of-way and construction. The Mayor thereupon asked for a show of hands of those interested residents in the Council Chamber who favored Proposal A--there were none; Proposal B--there were seven; and Proposal C--approximately 14. Approximately five indicated that they did not favor any one of the proposals offered. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Robert Willing, 10651 Brookhurst, briefed the Council and for those residents who had not attended the previous meeting on the presentation that he made at that time (see minutes of December 13, 1977), the main point being that the residents were not too pleased with any.of the alternatives. They were concerned over what would happen to the area fronting Brookhurst after the installation of the proposed wall, causing it essentially to become a blighted area. Mr. Willing explained that he had passed out a questionnaire the previous night to some of the affected residents and received it back today (on file in the City Clerk's Office) asking residents under Section A of the questionnaire, their feelings about Plan B recommended by staff and under Section B, their feelings related to alternates. The questions basically pertained to the wall, the concrete median, whether they planned to live in and keep their residences indefinitely, estimate of damages for loss of resale value, widening of the rear alley for parking if the street was widened and a wall installed, the taking of one side or the other, consideration for eventual commercial use, and other related questions. The questionnaire was circulated to those residents located in the center section of the proposed widening and represented approximately ten to fifteen percent of those who would ultimately be affected. The main sentiments generally conveyed by the questionnaire from the residents on both the east and west sides of the street were as follows: most residents did not like the wall where it was planned to be installed; the majority did not favor the raised concrete median; most'planned to live in and keep their home as a residence, but many felt the area would eventually go commercial; most did not favor expanded alley parking as an alternative; there was no strong sentiment indicating that the residents felt their neighbor's land across the street should be taken instead of their own, but that one side or the other should be acquired instead of right-of-way from each. This differed from Mr. Herr's conclusion that those who attended the second homeowners' meeting voted for taking of the opposite side of the street, rather than their own. Councilman Seymour questioned the inconsistency relative to the fact that the majority of residents questioned indicated they were going to live in the area for some time, yet they also wanted the area to eventually become commercial. Mr. Willing stated that more than half considered that the value after widening would definitely be a commercial value. 77-1425 City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. In answer to a question from the audience relative to his plan preference, Mr. Willing stated he was personally concerned about the wall and very much against the center median. He contended Plan B would establish the area as a second-rate devalued residential neighborhood. He expected to use his land (west side of the street in the County area--second residence in from the corner) for a professional office. The wall and the median would thus be detrimental to his ever selling his property. The following people spoke to the proposed project giving the below listed reasons for either their opposition to certain aspects of the project or related comments thereto, as well as their preferred alternatives: Mr. Burton Sullivan, 10631 Brookhurst, contended that the input given to the Innova- tive Projects staff was very limited and there was no liaison between that group and the homeowners. If the City was interested in receiving additional information or possible alternatives, it should consider establishing such communication. He maintained there had been suspicion, resentment and, at times, hostility and nothing particularly constructive came from the two meetings held with the homeowners. Mr. Sullivan continued that all three plans, A, B and C, left a great deal to be desired. In Plan B, if another 6 to 8 feet were taken from the front of the houses on the east side, the result would be disasterous. The reason for taking that property would be to allow parking and, in his opinion, it was not advisable to park on Brookhurst. He recommended as an alternative, that the City buy the property on the alley side instead of that fronting on Brookhurst and make it a dedicated portion. He suggested that the City-owned strip along the high tension wires could be widened and the street opened up since the alley running from Harle to the high tension wires was a dead-end. The fence could then be opened up and access would be available to the City property through the alley. With necessary access and right-of-way, parking would then be possible in the back especially if the fences were moved in. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Sullivan stated he did not suggest that alternative at the meeting because he had not thought about it at the time. As well, many people at the meetings did not want to commit themselves because if they did so, it might be construed that they were willing to do something. In conclusion, Mr. Sullivan stated that there was, in fact, a great deal of'traffic and something needed to be done, but the proposals offered were not adequate. Also, on Plan C, if adopted, assistance from the County would only be given to buy the land needed for the widening and nothing else. Mr. Herr interjected that letters were sent to the homeowners at the outset with a total of 8 mailed altogether. The first two letters asked for suggestions and although quite a number were returned, the response was not sufficient. Thereafter, they made phone calls and went out to speak to the homeowners. He maintained they had probably gone further in this instance to get together with the property owners than had ever been done before. Mr. A1 Pritchard, 10431 Brookhurst, (professional office on the County side) wanted again to confine his remarks to the cost figures as he did at the previous meeting. He could not understand or rationalize them and felt that not enough had been done in trying to minimize those figures. There was nothing in the EIR suggesting what 77-1426 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. could be done with the excess land under Plan C. He emphasized that development of that land would substantially reduce the cost of acquiring the property. He maintained that a shortsighted approach was being adopted that would lead to a project that would have to be re-engineered and redone in 10 to 12 years with attendant escalation in costs. Mr. Pritchard then suggested that the alley could be made into a street with construction of a second level of commercial office buildings, giving the necessary visibility from Brookhurst Street, and parking could be accommodated below the structures. He further suggested that some of the lots could be combined to satisfy square footage requirements. It was his opinion that the EIR should not have indicated that nothing could be done with the excess land because it had the potential to become a highly developable, valuable piece of property. In concluding, Mr. Pritchard stated that the installation of a block wall would be ruinous from a business point of view because all visibility would be lost from Brookhurst Street. Mr. Russell Karon, 10571 Brookhurst, stated that at the homeowners meetings 80 to 90 percent favored Plan C. Plan A was inadequate because it would be obsolete in five years and Plan B had some merit only to a certain degree. He then referred to the project undertaken and completed by Garden Grove in widening Brookhurst to the south and recommended that Anaheim also undertake a first class project and build something to be proud of. That could be accomplished with Plan C. Mr. Nick Canales, 731 West Cerritos, expressed his opposition to all three plans and reiterated his main concerns given at the December 13, 1977 meeting, specifically the noise level in his home and how adversely impacted he would be under any circum- stances. He suggested if houses were taken, that they be taken on the east side, but unless something could be done relative to his home, such as making it commercial, there was nothing else he could do with it. He also confirmed that his house was presently up for sale. Mr. Walt Eastland, 2172 West Lullaby Lane, stated that he did not see much value in any of the proposals as far as the east side of the street was concerned. In Plan C, a cut would be taken right into his property eliminating a tree and moving a wall in toward the corner of his garage; Plan B would move the proposed wall within 9 feet of his house, adding to the existing noise intrusion; Plan A would result in the creation of a hazard due to the proposed location of the wall because drivers could not see to make a turn. Mr. Keith Dobbs, 1644 Brookhurst, favored the taking of houses on one side or the other. He maintained it would be disasterous for living conditions to take 18 feet off from his side (east side). He stated that at the meetings they were led to believe that whatever the majority wanted would be implemented, and it was his belief that they all decided the houses ought to be taken from one side of the street or the other. At a subsequent meeting, however, they were told it was too expensive. He also expressed his concern over the $2,000 to $3,000 that would be paid for taking 18 feet of frontage which, in essence, would make the lots for three or four blocks illegal lots. It seemed more appropriate to take the property from the west side because it would be more economical. In concluding, Mr. Dobbs stated he had lived on Brookhurst for 20 years and he saw no difference in the volume of traffic flow even after the widening in Garden Grove. 77-1427 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jim Packer, 2175 Lullaby Lane, stated he lived at his residence for 22 years and he favored Plan C if any at all. Land should be acquired on one side or the other to do the Job right, and Anaheim should be able to do as well as Garden Grove. He conceded that a larger street was needed, but could not see the need to destroy both sides of the street to attain it. He went from house to house, talking to and obtaining signatures from homeowners on the City side of the street only, and no one wanted to see the street widened on both sides. Mr. Marvin Barab, owner of commercial property from 1701 to 1717 Brookhurst, stated he did not favor any of the proposals. Relative to Plan C, he, as well as the approxi- mate nine shop keepers and business people in that area, were not in favor because of the drastic cut that would be taken into the already very limited parking space for the small shopping center. Mr. Jim Ivy indicated he had an interest in 10581 Brookhurst, and having attended all of the meetings and listened to all the alternatives, he considered the situation to be typical where politics and personal interest were concerned. On many of the proposals, all property owners would be hurt, including the City, because the widening done under the proposals, with the exception of one area, was going to take away from property values on each side of the street; the City would be affected by loss of taxes. If everyone expressed themselves, he believed it would be unanimous that they were interested in maintaining as much value in their property prior to the proposed widening and thereafter. Mr. Ivy then referred to the action taken by Garden Grove in widening Brookhurst. When it was finally decided that all of the houses on the east side would be taken, they gave back twelve feet to the people on the west side. Thus, their houses were worth $10,000 more than before the street was widened, along with the installation of improvements such as sidewalks. He maintained that Anaheim could be as successful with the proposed project as Garden Grove. Mr. Brady Woodward, a Garden Grove resident with a business at 10461 Brookhurst, stated the City should take property on one side or the other. Also, when he found out that the block wall would intersect the eave of his office building, he became quite concerned. Mr. Mike Hunter, also a resident of Garden Grove, explained that he owned the resi- dence at 2173 Harle, rented by a tenant who had a car go through his wooden fence after hitting a tree. He pointed out in Project Plan B the block wall fence would come within six or seven feet of the residence and even now it was difficult for his tenant to sleep since the bedroom window faced the street. Mr. Hunter favored taking property on one side of the street or the other. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth noted that Alternate 2 showed no median strip in the center which would save anywhere from 10 to 14 feet, depending on the plan. Therefore, he wanted to know how much property would have to be taken from both the east and west sides of the street under Proposal B. 77-1428 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Herr stated 8 feet would have to be taken from the east side and 12 feet from the west. Councilman Kott pointed out that people were basically unhappy with ali of the plans, thus the most practical approach might be to take one side of the street or the other only, or drop the plan entirely. He noted also the comments relative to discrepancies in the EIR which had not yet been answered. He suggested that staff go to Garden Grove to ascertain what they had done since theirs was a successful venture and they were faced with the same problems. If the project was to be done, it should be done right. He also did not understand why the wall was necessary since most of the other major streets did not have one. Mr. Herr explained that Proposal C would not require a wall and that it was strictly for noise attenuation under Proposal A and B. Councilman Seymour agreed that the project should be done right and in order to get it filed with the County so the City could qualify for their share'of the funding, he would prepared to state the City would take property from the west side only along with an alternative that would accomplish that. He believed, however, that the City could go a step further and a great opportunity presented itself not yet uncovered. Noting the depth of the lots on the west side, he recommended taking property from the west side with the possibility of deeding back some property on the east side, as Mr. Ivy stated was done in Garden Grove, and subsequently search for a creative architect with expertise in taking left-over pieces of property and laying out some low-style type commercial on the west side. Buying the property would enable parcelization and with the availability of an alley running farther west, there was a possibility of creating some circulation through the area, restrict- ing parking on Brookhurst, but providing ingress and egress off Brookhurst to the newly developed long parcel, and providing parking in the rear as had been done else- where in the City. If creative planning was done relative to redevelopment of the westerly side, the project could be made more economically feasible than leaving op'en space, while at the same time leaving an environment for residents on the east side. He believed such a plan could be accomplished. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know where the money would come from to purchase homes on the west side since the County would not participate in such an acquisi- tion. Councilman Seymour reiterated first that he would not favor the project unless it was done right. He would rather live with the substandard condition than do half the job. Secondly, he wanted to have some advice from a qualified architect or land planner as to what costs the City might resell the property for on the west side for commercial development, the results which might reveal that it was not costing as much in the final analysis. He first wanted to see the matter placed on the appropriate calendar in the County for funding and subsequently moved to engage some consultants to lay out, in essence, a redevelopment plan for the west side. Mr. Herr explained that early in the program they did what Councilman Seymour was suggesting and the main reason Plan B was chosen over Plan C was basically because of the excess land and the County's indication that they would only purchase what was required under the AHFP Program. He confirmed, however, that no outside con- sultants were involved when discussing the possibilities of developing the excess land as articulated, but basically only City staff was involved, including the Planning and the Parks, Recreation and Arts Departments. 77-1429 City Hall~ An~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Dec-tuber 27~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour was interested in engaging people outside of the bureacracy as he maintained that the City had to go through that process to find out what the resale value would be. He was not suggesting that it would now be profitable, but the burden would perhaps be less than first anticipated. Mayor Thom clarified that the Council was saying, in essence, disapprove A and B and not approve C just yet. Councilman Seymour confirmed that it would not be approving Proposal C in its finality, but a matter of informing the County (1) that Anaheim wanted to initiate the project and (2) it wanted to do it by taking land on the west side with the understanding of what would be involved in taking the excess land. Mr. Thornton Piersall, Public Works Director, stated if the Council did decide, they could submit Proposal C to the County with a letter of modification indicating that during the period of study and preparation, the City wanted to analyze the programs outlined. The Mayor asked if the letter could state, that the City did not anticipate taking any land from the east side of Brookhurst at all because that was basically what the Council was saying. Mr. Piersall confirmed that would be part of the proposal and in the time between now and the evaluation of the AHFP project, they would gather together supplemental information to ascertain costs, as well as talk to County staff since County area was involved. Councilman Seymour noted the obvious need to put a package together with the County wherein the property would become annexed to the City. Mr. Piersall was confident that they could accomplish the submittal and subsequently be in process for evaluation. The Mayor stated, as he understood, the tentative motion would be to adopt Plan C to be submitted to the County with a letter of modification showing no acquisition on the east side of Brookhurst with future developmental plans to be prepared for the west side and authorizing the Director of Public Works to sign the document. Councilman Seymour clarified that was the intent of his motion. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 8:40 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK