1977/11/22 77-1274
~City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
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
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry Jr.
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Thornton Piersall
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze
COMPUTER OPERATIONS MANAGER: Fred Luevano
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, minutes
of the regular meetings held October 25 and November 1, 1977, were approved subject
to typographical corrections on the meeting of November 1, 1977. 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 read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,020,562.79, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
174.123: INSTRUCTOR FOR YOUTH MURALS PROJECT - EMIGDIO C. VASQUEZ: (through
June 30, 1978 - maximum conpensation, $6,000) Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 77R-751 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
November 16, 1977, from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-751: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR ART INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
(Emigdio C. Vasquez)
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-751 duly passed and adopted.
77-1275
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
174.123: DATA PROCESSING SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMIS-
SION: Councilman Kott questioned the reduction in the monthly service fee from
$1,180 to $1,000 a month in providing data processing services to the Orange County
Manpower Commission.
A discussion followed between Council and staff, wherein City Manager Talley stated
that the Commission now had keypunch training capability; therefore, they no longer
needed that service which was charged to them at $180 per month, and the amendment
to the agreement would have no negative effect on the City. As well, labor costs
since the inception of the agreement in 1975, had not changed substantially enough
to justify an increase over the original $1,000 per month as questioned by Council-
man Seymour because the system was now more efficient resulting in less machine time
use.
Mr. Luevano, Computer Operations Manager, stated that the Orange County Manpower
Commission hired a consultant from Washington, D.C. to upgrade the system. He thus
confirmed that it was running more efficiently even though inflated costs were in-
volved and the present charge of $1,000 monthly adequately covered direct costs
and overhead burden.
Councilman Kott did not consider the reduction to be in the best interest of the
citizens of Anaheim.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-752 for adoption, authorizing Amend-
ment Two to Agreement No. H88888 (CETA prime sponsor) with the Orange County Manpower
Commission to provide a reduction in keypunch services and to extend the term through
December 31, 1977, as recommended in memorandum dated November 14, 1977, from the
Data Processing Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-752: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AMENDMENT TWO TO AGREEMENT NO. H88888 (CETA PRIME SPONSOR) WITH THE ORANGE
COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AMENDMENT TWO TO AGREEMENT 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 No. 77R-752 duly passed and adopted.
137 & 142: ORDINANCE NO. 3790: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3790 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3790: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 1.04.390
OF TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION IN
ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO BONDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. (Faithful
Performance Bond)
Councilman Kott inquired as to why some City staff members were bonded when they
did not handle money and, also, why the honesty bond coverage costs were being paid
all at one time for a four-year period coverage.
77-1276
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
First, City Manager Talley explained that the City Charter required that the
City Manager furnish a complete surety bond, and the ordinance also listed specific
titles to be bonded under the Public Employees Faithful Performance Blanket Bond.
The Finance Director recommended that the Acting City Manager title be deleted and
two additional titles be added to the list after analyzing the situation.
Relative to the payment for bond coverage, Finance Director George Ferrone explained
that by entering into a four-year program, a cost savings would be effected of
approximately 8 to 10 percent or $1,400, and also the City would be locked in on
the lower sum for four years, thus giving a two-fold advantage. His memo of
November 17, 1977, however, did not show what the costs would be on an annual
basis as compared to that for a four-year period.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-753 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 14, 1977, from the Finance Director. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-753: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING BOND AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
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-753 duly passed and adopted.
123 & 153: RETIRED EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the monthly fees for retired employee health benefit
plans, along with certain benefit modifications to the City Medical Plan for retired
employees, to become effective January 1, 1978, were approved as recommended in
memorandum dated November 16, 1977, from the Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED.
123: PERS CONTRACT AMENDMENT: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-754 for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-754: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Merger of MDS into City Contract)
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-754 duly passed and adopted.
123: J.J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN: Mr. Phil
Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, explained that State law required the
City to provide for a Noise Element and the purpose of a consultant in this case
was to develop a map for the City showing the present noise contour levels and
what they were projected to be in the future. This was very important in terms
77-1277
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
of future land planning, taking into account all various noise factors such as
machinery, freeways, overflights, etc., which would also provide for recommended
mitigating measures.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-755 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated November 10, 1977, from the Planning Department. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-755: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BEn'WEEN THE CITY AND J. J. VAN HOUTEN &
ASSOCIATES FOR THE FURNISHING OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PREPARATION OF A NOISE ELEMENT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN. ($9,275)
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-755 duly passed and adopted.
174.123: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - PROJECT NO. PMS-000S(427):
(Supplement to Master Agreement No. 07-5055) Councilman Kott offered Resolution
No. 77R-756 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 15, 1977,
from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-756: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 3 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE
AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RELATING TO FEDERAL AID PROJECTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (installation of reflective
and non-reflective pavement markers)
Roil 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-756 duly passed and adopted.
115: CIVIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION - FINANCING: Mr. Thornton Piersall, Director of
Public Works, prefaced the presentation by stating that following Council's autho-
rization to update the Civic Center Plans, staff worked with the architect and
the architect's consultant and complete staff review was made with each department
relative to space allocation. The architect also provided the Building Review
Committee with sets of plans and specifications. As a result of meeting with their
consultants, certain changes were made and recommendations given, and presently the
plans were in the final stage of completion and the City was now ready to move ahead
on the project. He then asked the architect to give a summary of items covered by
their building plan revision.
77-1278
City Hal_l~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dan Rowland, Dan L. Rowland & Associates, 1000 West La Palma, explained that
Randy Bosch of his staff was present to assist in the presentation and Mr. Bill
Uhl,LeRoy Rose & Associates, was also present. Today they would be discussing
facility changes that occurred in the last three years. Time had not been wasted
in the interim and they were thus able to embody more recent technology in the
building. It was, however, still the same "lean and hungry" facility that the
Council approved some time ago. The same allocation compared favorably With any
building in private enterprise of which they were aware relative to efficiency
and utilization of square footage. Costs would be addressed in depth, but generally
speaking, he stated that building costs were always in the same state of unpredicta-
bility, except that they would continue to rise. Some of the cost increases shown in
their most recent updated estimate were based not on fact but on what they guessed
would occur, and there was no basis for the increases at all. He referred to an
article in Forbes magazine wherein it was indicated that steel could rise by 38 per-
cent within the next couple of years. They therefore, thought it wise to reflect
that 38 percent "guess" in their figures, as well as expected increases in other
critical areas such as cement. The figures included approximately one-half million
dollars of calculated guess. If the increases occurred, they would be covered; if
not, the money would not have to be spent.
Mr. Randy Bosch, Dan L. Rowland & Associates, explained that per their agreement
with the City, they studied six basic aspects of the Civic Center Project as pre-
viously designed with working drawings and prepared specifications. Primarily,
site reorientation based upon redevelopment planning which occurred since the
original design was undertaken, provided for a 45-degree rotation of the structure
facing a newly widened Anaheim Boulevard, necessitating new area access and boundary
conditions to interface with both existing and proposed new development within the
Project Alpha area. The occupancy modification mentioned by Mr. Piersall still
worked upon the basic SUA Associates space analysis of the complex undertaken at
the beginning of the Civic Center Project design over 4 years prior, utilizing the
same square footage per occupant classification.
They did a great deal of work in the energy conservation area and the building would
now meet or exceed all of the requirements of the new non-residential building
standards which would be in effect next year for the State of California, including
the provision for solar water heating throughout the building. There was vastly
increased inflation and protection of exposed areas of the building aided by the
reorientation of the structure thus shielding those major areas. Also provided
were backup and alternative systems of controls providing for fuel alternatives and
for reduced occupancy of the building at particular times of use.
In the area of Codes, there were four areas of substantial change and update: (1)
modification in the structural design codes for seismic requirements based upon the
1976 Uniform Building Code and the City's adoption of that Code; (2) Building Code
updates with regard to occupancy and exit requirements; (3) a very important analysis
and update of the handicapped access requirements and (4) they took into account not
only Codes currently in effect, but also Code provisions planned for the coming year
in the State of California and for the forseeable future, which requirements they
intended to meet or exceed.
77-1279
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
City standards with regards to ease of maintenance and utilities provisions were
also upgraded.
Materials and systems update--since much had changed over the last few years, they
used the most modern technology available for all aspects of the Civic Center to
assure current systems and current specifications.
The last aspect was to combine previous plans which were drawn to be bid on, on a
two-phased basis into a single-phased bid job.
The cost mentioned by Mr. Rowland were the primary increases but they also had
seen over a 100 percent increase in gypsum (dry wall) in the last six months that
would vastly influence them and the possible substantial steel increase would be
based upon the settlement of the Japanese alleged dumping schemes of steel in the
United States. Other increases were caused through changes in City maintenance and
development standards within the building area such as hardware, building services,
electrical utility provisions and the like to assure a more greatly valued engineered
structure. Mr. Bosch stated, however, that although the initial cost in some areas
was slightly higher per area than originally, maintenance and operating costs over
the current life of the building were substantially reduced primarily in the mechanical
and electrical areas of the structure.
In answer to Councilman Seymour relative to square footage, Mr. Bosch stated that the
building itself contained 136,104 square feet, plus a 187,264-square foot parking
structure. In addition to the building areas, there was a plaza of approximately
100,000 square feet for public gathering areas, formal and informal access areas,
and landscaped areas which complimented the Civic Center.
Mr. Piersall interjected that they did take extra bidding time to insure keen
competition and the lowest possible bid and the approach being taken would insure
a very competitive bid.
The Mayor stated the only item that gave him concern was the Special Fund Doctrine
(SFD--Item 4 of the memorandum dated November 16, 1977 from the City Manager's
Office) especially that portion relating to the utilities and the amount set forth
under item B of $4,128,000 which, he assumed, represented Proposition A Bond Funds.
He was of the opinion that the City should not be using bond funds but instead
other revenue sources. He merely stated that as an indication of his concern as
he did not want to impede the progress of the facility, which he believed in, in any
way.
Councilman Seymour stated he had a similar concern and referred to the last paragraph
on page 3 of the November 16, 1977 report which stated, "sale of City lands can
assist in meeting cash flow requirements, but should not be used to offset the
utilities' share of construction costs." He wanted to know why.
Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins stated the intent was for that share
not to be set aside and forgotten by applying the sale of land or any other funds
or monies that might be available to finance the project.
77-1280
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated there were two ways for utilities to pay their fair
share, (1) through bonding and causing a cash flow into the Special Fund Doctrine
or (2) on a pay-as-you-go basis by paying rent or mortgage payments to or back into
the same fund. He was also very concerned as to what degree Utility Bonds would
be sold and he wanted to insure that the SFD remain as broad as possible because
new and different funding sources could be tapped as the project reached completion,
assuring maximum flexibility. In order to accomplish that flexibility, he recommend-
ed eliminating Item D, sewer funds, and inserting in its place, sale of land of
$2 million thus reducing utilities (Item B) down to $2,878,000. That did not mean
that was Utilities fair share, but instead, unless the City could find other sources
to satisfy immediate funding requirements, then the City would turn to Utilities
for that amount. His reasoning was the timing of needs of capital as outlined on
the bottom of page 2 under cash flow requirements. He contended the first facility
fund application of $750,000 was really not needed in the time period, January 1, 1978
to June 30, 1978. Thus, that amount could be slipped into the July 1, 1978 to
December 1, 1978 period and, during the same period, insert instead $2 million from
the sale of public land which could occur. In this way, the Utilities share would
be reduced to $2,878,000 not due until the January 1, 1979 to June 30, 1979 period
with the balance postponed to a future time.
Mr. Hopkins stated that two items needed to be considered, the first being the
required commitment of the City in order to pay direct costs at some point in time
which point would arise at the end of 1978 and the beginning of 1979. If land was
not sold or other resources were not available, that would be brought before the
Council at some point in time in order to assure that contractual obligations would
be made. At that time, the Council would have to take action, whether that be the
sale of Utility Bonds or other items. The Special Fund Doctrine required the City
to have the capability to fund its obligations. Land sales, which were an unknown
quantity, could not be committed to achieve that security.
Councilman Seymour wanted the City Attorney's opinion on thm matter and also, if
the City were to include the sale of land at $2 million, would such action preclude
under the Special Fund Doctrine increasing revenue sharing, going back to the original
proposal on utilities, or increasing the Capital Outlay Fund.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins explained that the City would still be obligated at
that time if the Utility Fund was not involved for approximately one-half million
dollars each quarter. Thus, cash outlay would be required in that magnitude. The
only other option would be Redevelopment Funds since revenue sharing was not received
in a lump sum but only over a period of time. Therefore, the City would have to go
to Redevelopment or Utilities at some point in time.
Councilman Seymour emphasized that he was trying to postpone that point in time in
going to Utilities for that type of bonding as long as possible. He pointed to a
number of suits pending in Washington, D.C. relative to the City's challenges to
Southern California Edison's rate increases which, if resolved favorably, would
be a way the Utilities Department could pay its fair share in cash dollars.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct, the problem being that possibility might
be years off considering the appeals process.
77-1281
--City Hall7 Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 227 19777 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour reiterated, however, that the City should remain as flexible
as possible.
City Manager Talley explained that under the proposed actions, he was suggesting
that the City knew right now where the money could be raised, but there was nothing
that said monies had to come from the areas indicated. Funds were presently
available from which the project could be funded.
Councilman Seymour clarified that what he and the Mayor expressed was a reluctance
to get locked into the Utilities share. Therefore, he was looking for a way to
know that share was there if necessary, but to be used as a last resort only. He
then asked the City Attorney's Office to answer relative to his previous questions.
Mr. Frank Lowry, Assistant City Attorney, stated that adding sale of property to
the Special Fund was something that was available and the only avenue closed was
to commit General Revenue Sharing Funds. If the Council wanted to make a broader
base Special Fund, then commit from it as time went on and as revenues became avail-
able, that would be an acceptable alternative.
Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Attorney to incorporate the Special
Fund Doctrine in the Civic Center construction contract to commit revenues from
Revenue Sharing, Utilities and Redevelopment Funds as appropriate to insure pay-
ment of the City's obligations with the following modifications: (a) eliminate
sewer fund of $750,000 and (b) insert sale of land at $2 million thus presently
reducing Utilities share to $2,878,000 with the committed balance postponed to a
future time. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Lowry suggested the following be added to the motion:
there was nothing to prohibit Council at a later time if they so desired, of adding
additional money from some other fund, exclusive of the General Fund.
The Mayor stated that was incorporated as part of the motion and would become item
F on page 2 of the staff report.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Utilities fair share, stating if it was reduced,
it was no longer the same share of the physical use of the complex.
Councilman Seymour clarified that he was not interested in disturbing the Utilities
Department's responsibility and liability, but was only trying to limit capital
requirements from them as long as possible. Sometime in the future they would
have to pay their fair share.
Councilman Kott asked Mr. Lowry if Utilities' money would necessarily involve bonding
and, if so, would the basis be Proposition A.
Mr. Lowry stated that it would perhaps necessitate sale of some of the bonds and
that the basis would be Proposition A, which funds could be used for housing and
office space for Utilities.
A brief discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Councilman Kott, wherein
Councilman Kott explained that he wanted to see the building go forward, but he was
concerned over the possibility of having to float bonds under Proposition A. He
contended if neither the bonds nor favorable rulings came to fruition on the pending
law suits, financing might have to come out of income and/or increased utility rates,
77-1282
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
and he personally would be opposed unless those two items were eliminated. Al-
though he could not suggest an alternative source of revenue, it was his under-
standing that Proposition A bonding was to be used for generation and transmission,
whereas he considered the proposed course of action merely a scheme to obtain money
to build a city hall although it was permissible legally. He suggested that perhaps
the Director of Redevelopment might be able to produce additional money that would
not necessitate the involvement of Utilities.
The Mayor was of the opinion that Councilman Seymour's motion accommodated the
concerns of Councilman Kott and pointed out that they were not making a decision
on selling Proposition A Bonds today. If that time ever came, he would oppose such
a move. The matter at hand was to set up a legal vehicle to receive those funds
whatever they may be and in whatever form.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-757 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-757: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER -
ACCOUNT NUMBER 48-4309-984-12-0000; 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 19, 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 No. 77R-757 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3791: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3791 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3791: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 1.08.065
TO ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO A SPECIAL CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND. (Civic Center)
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, transfer of
$35,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund into the Civic Center Fund was authorized.
MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Attorney
was directed to prepare an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to receive
$7,597,000 for the Agency's participation in the project. MOTION CARRIED.
77-1283
C~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The proposed motion authorizing a transfer of $750,000 from the Sewer Fund to
the Civic Center Fund was no longer necessary due to the elimination of that
amount in the initial motion offered by Councilman Seymour.
158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND RAMPART STREET -
PROPOSED AGREEMENT: Mr. David Hook, Sunset Construction, 501 North Brookhurst
Street, explained that he went to great lengths to prepare a folder containing
pertinent background information of his company (on file in the City Clerk's
Office) requested of him by the City Attorney's Office, a copy of which he
submitted to each Council Member. Mr. Hook then briefed the Council on each
of the seven categories outlined in the data, namely: (1) history and company
experience, (2) background of owners, (3) projects built by Sunset Construction,
(4) financial contributions by Sunset to the City of Anaheim, (5) calculations
showing return on $300,000 deposited in a commercial bank, (6) bank reference, and
(7) pertinent comments. He specifically emphasized that the basic difference
between the two proposals (Sunset Construction & Matlow-Kennedy Corporation) was
contained in Item 5 which he would refer to later.
Mr. Hook then read aloud the comments contained in Item 7, the essence of which
was as follows: "I asked my bank to give me an interest analysis on the $300,000
deposited as a cash deposit using the highest, prevailing interest rates today.
The analysis shows that over a ten-year span the average annual return would be
$29,014.54 yearly.
I would like to remind Council that our offer is irrevocable and is subject only
to a soJls test and the granting of proper zoning.
By contrast, the other bidder can purchase the 18 acres at $300,000 dollars less
than our offer. Then, at his option, he may elect not to carry out the lease
portion of the Stadium site. This in no way affects his title to the 18 acres."
In concluding, Mr. Hook explained it had come to his attention that he was the
only bidder on the property. He then proceeded to read the last line of the
legal advertisement stating that all proposals, together with a $50,000 security
deposit in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney must be received in the Office
of the City Clerk prior to twelve noon on November 8, 1977. He asked City Clerk
Linda Roberts how many proposals had been received postmarked across her desk.
City Clerk Roberts stated she received one on November 8, 1977, and that was
from Sunset Construction.
Councilman Seymour referred to paragraph two, sub C of Mr. Hook's (Sunset Construction)
proposal describing forfeiture as liquidated damages of the $50,000 cashiers' check.
He asked Mr. Hook if he would be willing to further amend that $50,000 good faith
deposit, rather than depositing it in escrow, having it released to the City to
be returned only upon the City's inability to meet requirements.
Mr. Hook agreed to that amendment.
77-1284
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Alan Watts, Attorney representing the Matlow-Kennedy Corporation (MKC), 1055
North Main Street, Santa Ana, first explained that relative to Mr. Hook's remarks
that his (Hook's) was the only proposal submitted, the City Clerk had on file all
biKC documentation including letters and a draft proposal of an agreement, as well
as certain financial information that was submitted well in advance of november 8,
1977. It did not seem to him, in view of the proceedings that transpired before
the Council for the last several months, that it was necessary to copy all of that
documentaion and submit it a second time.
The Mayor stated that was well understood.
Mr. Watts proceeded indicating he did not consider the Council was in a different
position than two months prior when two different proposals were before them at
that time. The two proposals however, were quite different in two principal re-
spects. The MKC proposed to develop considerably more ground in that a structure
would be built across Orangewood to develop 3.1 acres of the Stadium parking lot
and, in addition, utilization would be made of other parts of the lot under the
submitted proposal. As well, MKC would give to the City rights of approval for
all development on the 18.79 acres at Rampart and Orangewood, the structure
overcrossing Orangewood Avenue and a portion of the Stadium parking lot. Any
developer would have to rezone the property, currently under a resolution
of intent to ML, to some type of commercial zoning and meet site development
standards. That would be the end of the approval process. The MKC proposal
vested in the City additional approval powers over the type of development
proposed. He agreed with Mr. Hook that a market study needed to be made in
connection with the proposal to determine the appropriate uses in connection
with the Stadium parking lot and MKC proposed to do just that.
Secondly, relative to the economics of the situation, M~. Watts stated he would be
the first to admit that regarding the purchase of approximately 18.79 acres, Mr.
Hook's proposal was $300,000 more for that land. The approyimate differential
was $2,045,000 as proposed by MKC compared to $2,345,000 as proposed by Sunset.
Mr. Hook suggested the time value of the $300,000 over a ten-year period and interest
thereon would be a substantial benefit to the City. It was his experience and
opinion however, that cities generally use such funds for city operations instead
of drawing interest on the funds. Looking at the differential over the 50-year
period which bIKC proposed to lease the land, would reveal the economic benefit to
the City. He stated in actuality the value of the MKC proposal over that of Sunset
Construction was an approximate $4 million. Although there was the $300,000 differ-
ential in connection with purchase of land, if the lease of 3.1 acres at the Stadium
parking lot was considered, there was a $38,000 minimum. Taking that minimum and
calculating what it represented over 50 years and the $50,000 also for 50 years
which was what MKC proposed to pay for additional parking would give the approximate
$4 million differential in the two proposals. That did not take into consideration
in connection with the parking lot (3.1 acres), the substantial additional ad valorem
taxes in the form of a possessory interest tax which MKC would pay. He considered
those to be conservative figures. It also did not consider inflationary factors
that would be involved by way of increases in rent, and there were also adders
in the MKC proposal to the leased land.
Councilman Kott asked Mr. Watts to comment relative to the statement made by Mr.
Hook that MKC could back down on the rental of the Stadium site.
77-]285
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ ]977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts stated the answer was yes, any party to a contract at some point in
time could breach the contract, but the proposal had obligations built into it
on both parties--on the one hand for the developer to submit the plans, on the
other for the Council to approve, disapprove or modify those plans. It was
inconceivable in Mr. Watts opinion that they could propose to lease land and
pay $38,000 a year minimum to just sit on it for 50 years.
Councilman Kott asked Mr. Hook to clarify his comment that the legal advertisement
on the property did not mention the lot across the street. The copy he had did
indicate that the proposal should contain a lease concept of utilization of a
portion of the lot.
Mr. Hook explained that the advertisement did not describe any portion but merely
a concept to utilize a portion of the Stadium parking lot. It did not refer to
the amount of land, whether one acre or ten acres.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Watts and Mr. Hook when the up-front money in the
$2 million range would be coming to the City.
Mr. Watts stated that technically that would be at the close of escrow on the MKC
proposal after the approval process of the whole development which covered a long
period of time as spelled out specifically in the proposal.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Hook answered the cash would come to the City at the
end of the rezoning and a condition could be stipulated that the property had to
be rezoned for that particular use. He was amenable to having Council place that
condition on him to alleviate Councilwoman Kaywood's concern.
Councilman Roth stated, in his opinion, the Sunset Constructio~ proposal was far
superior to that of Matlow-Kennedy Corporation for the following reasons: Sunset
offered $125,000 per acre for the 18.9 acres which was $300,000 ovmr the Intermode
(MKC) proposal; they (Sunset) had no contingencies except for soil tests and zoning
and thus appeared their escrow could close within 4 to 5 months; the Sunset proposal
would permit the City to sell or lease any excess parking spaces they would have
at the Stadium which could mean an additional amount of funds available to the City
other than the $2.3 million; plus the Intermode (MKC) proposal stated "...the City
agrees the appraisal of the Stadium parking lot at $150,000 an acre...". He took
particular issue with that statement since the City never authorized an appraisal
on the lot. He agreed with Mr. Hook that the published legal notice did not specify
whether the City was looking for a proposal for development of one parking spot or
14,000; thus the notice was meaningless in his opinion.
Councilman Roth then took issue with several aspects of the Intermode (MKC) draft
proposal specifically Attachment No. 3, Schedule of Purc'hase and Rental (page 1,
paragraph 2) wherein it stated the rental price for the Stadium property was $1,000
per month commencing upon the date the developer took possession of said property
until completion of construction. He questioned what would occur if the developer
never started construction, and, as well, $1,000 was being discussed, not $38,000
or $50,000. He then referred to other portions of the agreement, in particular a
statement on page 2 of 3, paragraph D "... if the developer develops the leased
property then...". He considered that woul~--be a big "if" and on the same page
77-1286
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 227 1977, 1:30 P.M.
stated that the agreement gave Intermode the authority to advise the City the need
to use the Anaheim Stadium parking lot, emphasizing the phrase that they had the
right to advise the City on this matter. Thus, in his opinion, not obligating
Intermode or MKC or whoever the organization was, to use that parking lot which
led him to believe that they were in the same position as with Sunset relative to
the proposals.
Councilman Roth continued that he requested the City Attorney to ask MKC for a copy
of an agreement indicating that Genstar Pacific was entering into some type of
partnership with Intermode and would provide the capital for the project. Although
he had been deluged with financial statements from Genstar, he had not, to date,
seen any written agreement indicating Genstar was in partnership with Intermode.
He also noted in the Intermode agreement that it required only four signatures,
the Mayor, City Clerk, and two principals of the Matlow-Kennedy Corporation.
MOTION: In concluding, Councilman Roth stated that the MKC agreement was full
of loop-holes, and that he was greatly disappointed in City staff because they did
not make a recoranendation as to which proposal was best for the taxpayers of the
community. However, he realized the political problems that entered into giving
such a recommendation, and for this reason, he wanted both proposals evaluated
by an outside mutual consultant and subsequently have the consultant come back
to the Council with a serious recommendation as to which proposal would be in
the best interest of the City and he so moved.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Kott inquired of the City Attorney whether
or not he agreed with Councilman Roth's assessment of the Matlow-Kennedy proposal.
City Attorney Hopkins did not believe that the proposal was full of loop-holes but
deferred to Mr. Lowry on the matter since he prepared the agreement.
Mr. Lowry conceded that although the agreement might need a few corrections just
as with others, from the standpoint of a basic development document, he saw
nothing wrong with it. There was one item relative to the Sunset proposal that
concerned him however, and that revolved around the fact that the City could not
initiate the zoning, but it had to be done by Mr. Hook's development company through
the Planning Commission. If the City did so, there could be a conflict of interest
since the City Council (the City) owned the property. Mr. Lowry wanted it to be
clearly understood by Mr. Hook that he had to initiate the zoning.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Lowry to address some of the issues he raised relative
to what he considered to be loop-holes in the Matlow-Kennedy proposal and the fact
that it had many contingencies. Specifically he contended there was no guarantee at
all that they were going to utilize the Stadium property.
Mr. Lowry agreed and stated there were many if's in the agreement, but such was
not uncommon in development proposals. Further, in answer to Councilman Roth,
he explained that Mr. Hook's was just a proposal to buy some property and anyone
could submit a straight proposal on such a purchase, whereas the Matlow-Kennedy
proposal was a combination of two different documents.
77-1287
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated that real estate brokers he had talked to agreed with him
in that they would have something worth while in a proposal such as Mr. Hook's,
but they could not believe that a proposal such as that submitted by MKC existed
in 1977.
Discussion followed between Councilman Kott and Mr. Lowry relative to some additional
ramifications of the MKC agreement. Councilman Kott then stated he had no knowledge
of any political implications surrounding the matter as mentioned by Councilman
Roth. He recalled that he had asked to have others bid on the property and that
staff review all of the documentation, and then the City accept the best offer and
the one that would bring the most income to the City.
The Mayor interjected that staff had done just that and now it was up to the Council
to make a decision.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Councilman Seymour stated that the difference between
the proposals was based upon a quick, clean transaction for one sum as compared to
a proposal that could bring greater rewards over a longer period of time.
The Mayor clarified that it had been overly emphasized that the City was looking
for development on the subject property that would enhance the Stadium and incor-
porate it into the Stadium property as part of the development. That was the entire
thrust since the matter was broached.
Councilman Roth thereupon reiterated his opinion relative to the superiority of
the Sunset proposal and was adamant in the fact that he could not conceive the
possibility that the Council would not select Sunset Construction Company because
of the return of dollars. He further emphasized the point that, with the Matlow-
Kennedy agreement, they had the right not to develop the parking lot, with which
the Mayor did not agree.
Mr. Watts interjected, for the purpose of the record, he would deny that contention.
The Mayor stated that was a strong enough commitment for him to make a decision and
he thereupon moved to approve, in concept, the bid proposal of the Matlow-Kennedy
Corporation as the bid that would be in the best interests of the City of Anaheim
and that would result in the greatest financial return to the City if subsequently
given final approval and subject to the following:
1. Approval of an EIR by the Planning Commission and the City Council, indicating
no substantial adverse impact resulting from the project.
2. Approval by the City Attorney of documents as follows: (a) Corporate minutes,
resolutions and by-laws verifying the authority of the Developer to enter into the
proposed Agreements; and (b) authority to execute said Agreement.
3. Processing of application for appropriate zoning.
The motion died for lack of a second.
77-1288
City Hall_, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth reverted to his original motion and clarified for Councilman Kott
what he considered to be the political aspects of the matter. He indicated at
times it may be unfair for the City Manager's Office, the City Attorney's Office
or Public Works to make a recommendation, especially in the subject matter consider-
ing the way it had been carried on for the last several months. For that reason,
he wanted to take it out of the political arena, i.e., staff responsibility, and
put that responsibility in the hands of a private consultant. Councilman Seymour
seconded Councilman Roth's original motion for purposes of discussion.
Councilman Seymour asked for clarification of the political ramifications which
Councilman Roth suggested were present in the matter.
Councilman Roth first stated that he was in the minority from the very beginning
on the matter in which the vote was 4-1 in favor of the MKC proposal, his being
the dissenting vote and he (Seymour) constantly voted against Sunset or even
allowing them to provide a proposal. He realized also that staff worked for
three people on the Council at all times, although he was not suggesting there
had been any coercive action as evidenced by the lack of a recommendation. He
wanted to take the matter out of this realm, therefore, and give it to a private
firm.
Councilman Seymour explained that, although he seconded Councilman Roth's motion,
he did not feel that political pressure or games were involved and that staff was
so directed by general inquiries to slant a report or a contract. In this case,
it was to the contrary because staff did not do anything on the draft proposal to
make it look better, worse or indifferent. He was openly aware and admitted to
the fact he was the one who encouraged pursuit of the Matlow-Kennedy proposal based
upon the historical record of the property over the years. On the other hand, when
Council Members Kaywood and Kott joined Councilman Roth in his request to have the
matter opened to public bid which was carried on a 3-2 vote, he (Seymour) disagreed
because he felt it showed bad faith to a developer who invested a great deal
of time and money to the proposition. Now, anyone could come forth. Thus, he did
not feel the political pressure Councilman Roth seemed to feel existed.
Councilman Roth referred to newspaper reports that resulted when he originally
opposed the MKC proposal and asked that the property be put on the open market.
The feedback he received indicated he was running down a blind alley, especially
considering that Mr. Watts was also on retainer to the City of Anaheim. When
Mr. Watts asked if it would be acceptable to the Council to represent Matlow-Kennedy
in the matter, he (Roth) was under the impression that the property was going out
to public bid, thus, he had no objection to Mr. Watts representing Matlow-Kennedy.
A vote was then taken on Councilman Roth's motion to submit both proposals to an
outside financial consultant and said motion failed to carry by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Roth
Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
None
77-1289
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated he was prepared to move on Mr. Hook's proposal (Sunset
Construction) subject to some changes. He wanted to clarify first that Mr. Hook
had no objection to releasing $50,000 from escrow to the City immediately for the
City to have and hold, rather than escrow; and secondly, that Mr. Hook process an
application for appropriate zoning, with the Planning Commission and the City
Council reviewing specific plans.
Mr. Hook stated that they would release the $50,000 from escrow and the City could
have the use of the money; and also that the zoning requirement was acceptable and
they understood their role in that respect.
Thereupon, Councilman Seymour offered the same motion as articulated by Councilman
Thom with the substitution of Sunset Construction, Inc., in place of Matlow-Kennedy,
with the two added conditions as stipulated to by Mr. Hook. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour stated that relative to Matlow-Kennedy,
he felt an injustice had been done on the 3-2 vote that opened up the bidding to the
public and he felt there was a moral commitment which he already addressed. But,
having been opened up, then the Council was best guided to seek the greatest financial
return to the taxpayer of the City, thus setting aside the future potential of the
Matlow-Kennedy proposal. He also looked forward to the time when another developer
could be found to develop across the street on the Stadium parking lot, thereby not
only insuring the highest sales price on the acreage, but also the highest economic
use of that parking lot.
A vote was then taken on Councilman Seymour's motion and it carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Thereupon, Councilman Thom offered a motion rejecting the bid proposal of the
Matlow-Kennedy Corporation for the following reasons:
1. Bid was not the highest responsible and qualified bid in that proposal did not
comply with all the prescribed requirements set forth in Notice Inviting Proposals.
2. Proposal will not result in the highest dollar return to the City of Anaheim.
3. Proposal is not in the best interests of the City of Anaheim since it will not
provide for the highest and best use of the property and the greatest financial
return to the City over the period covered by the proposals submitted.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
77-1290
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
~ECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes.
(3:24 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:34 P.M.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-5A: In accordance with the application
filed by Howard Adler, Euclid Romneya Company, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of approximately 83 feet of an existing public utility easement located
east of Euclid Street, north of Romneya Drive, pursuant to Resolution No. 77R-714
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval pursuant to a report submitted
by the City Engineer dated October 3, 1977.
The Mayor 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 Kott,
seconded by Councilman Thom, 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 environ-
mental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-758 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 77-5A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-758: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT.
(77-5A, east of Euclid Street, north of Romneya Drive)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-758 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-6A: In accordance with the application
filed by William Ganahl, Ganahl Lumber Company, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a public utility easement located south of Ball Road, east of East
Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 77R-715 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin,
and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval pursuant to a report submitted
by the City Engineer dated October 5, 1977.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
77-1291
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott,
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 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environ-
mental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-759 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 77-6A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-759: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT.
(77-6A, south of Ball Road, east of East Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-759 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-8A: In accordance with the application
filed by Cass Kaifesh, MTG, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment
of a portion of an existing public utility easement located west of Blue Gum Street,
south of Gretta Lane, pursuant to Resolution No. 77R-716 duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin, and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval pursuant to a report submitted
by the City Engineer dated September 28, 1977.
The Mayor 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 Kott,
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 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environ-
mental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-760 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 77-8A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-760: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT.
(77-8A, west of Blue Gum Street, south of Gretta Lane)
77-1292
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-760 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (3:38 P.M.)
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 10107: Request by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., for waiver of lot line re-
quirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance for Tentative Tract No. 10107, a
75-unit, 79-1ot subdivision on property located south of Nohl Ranch Road, east
of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Also submitted was a recommendation by
the City Planning Commission for approval.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the
public hearing.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, waiver of the lot
line requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance for Tentative Tract No. 10107,
was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10(1) AND (2)~ AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS:
To consider amendment of Condition No. 5 of Ordinance Nos. 3480 and 3578, to provide
pedestrian accessways in the block wall located on the north property line of Tract
Nos. 7945 and 7946 to Feather and Hampstead Streets, from property on the north side
of Cerritos Avenue and west side of Walnut Street.
Miss Santalahti stated that staff had nothing further to add to their report dated
November 18, 1977 at this time.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to to be heard either in favor or in opposition
to the consideration of the subject accessways.
Mr. Robert Horn, Alta Property Management, 6905 B Oslo Circle, Buena Park, explained
that they were the management company for the Kaleidoscope Homeowners Association
who were the owners of one of the two tracts in question. The Board of Directors
requested he appear to present a petition signed by 49 homeowners in the project
asking that the accessways not be approved for the following reasons: (1) no
resident within Kaleidoscope received a notice of the meeting and it was their
understanding they should first receive 21 days' notice. (2) In three hours on
Sunday, November 20, 1977, 49 homeowners were contacted and 49 signed the petition.
If they had more time, 130 signatures could have been obtained which represented
a total membership of the association. (3) The fence was closed originally because
of the problems of dogs running onto their private parks, vandalism and the like,
and they spent approximately $500 to have the opening closed. (4) Motorbikes
were being used to go through the opening.
77-1293
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
They also considered it dangerous in terms of traffic control to reopen the
accessway because it emptied into a cul-de-sac. Further, if the school children
walked on protective sidewalks, they would only have to walk an additional two-tenths
of a mile. The association was aware that only one homeowner in the adjoining tract
objected to the children using the block wall as an accessway, but she did not approach
the board or Alta Management relative to the matter. In trying to react to their
neighbor and correct the situation, the association raised the block wall at the
rear of her property an additional two blocks making it almost impossible for any
school aged child to go over the fence. There was also one area adjoining her
block wall on one end where the developer of the other phase said he would be willing
to close it up. Through their newsletter, they also notified the homeowners to keep
their children from going over the fence. The association could not allocate
money to reopen the wall. Staff suggested in a report, the possibility of topping
the block wall with half-round blocks to guarantee the children would not go over
the fence and it was the association's contention that would be a viable solution.
They were willing to work with the problem in a disciplinary sense rather than
having the accessways reopened.
Councilman Seymour asked Miss Santalahti what happened to the mailing since Mr.
Horn indicated notice was not received of the meeting.
Miss Santalahti explained that they did, in fact, make the mailing to the property
owners and when she checked the mailing list, she noted the addresses appeared to
be those property owners in the condominium project. Miss Santalahti also stated
that staff had not contacted the homeowners association in efforts to solve the
problem, but Mrs. Nicoletti, the single-family homeowner affected by the problem,
contacted the association directly and that resulted in the association publishing
the matter in their newsletter.
Councilman Seymour indicated that he thus had been misled by staff because he was
told the City had contacted the association months ago.
Mr. Horn stated the only notice they received was through the adjoining property
owner who sent them a copy of the meeting notice.
A brief discussion followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Horn wherein Mr. Horn
indicated all of the children walking the wall were not necessarily from the home-
owners association, but could also be from adjoining properties. He reiterated
they were opposed to opening the wall and, relative to alternatives, it seemed the
suggestion from Planning to round off the top of the wall would be the most that
could be done. They also felt they could work socially with the problem and to
keep the children from the association from traversing the wall. He then explained
some of the measures they had taken to try toeliminate the problem and emphasized
that their private fence should not be opened as a solution to the problem, and it
had to be worked out within the community.
Councilman Seymour agreed but there was no doubt that the children of the people
living in the condominium project were causing the problem, and he knew this to
be true from first-hand observation.
77-1294
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Horn contended they had done several things in a constructive sense, as well as
showing good faith in raising the wall. They had gone half-way and felt it now up
to the neighbor who had the complaint to go the rest of the way. Opening of the
accessways would only bring police problems, burglaries and destruction of property.
Councilman Roth wanted to know if the City had the legal authority to go.onto
private property and force them to open the wall.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated the action would be questionable first relative
to the City's right to go onto private property and secondly regarding the source
of funds to pay for modification of the wall. The ordinance could be modified and
the resultant action would have to be on a voluntary basis of the parties themselves.
Mr. Horn stated if the decision was adverse, the Board wanted to take some other
action and they wanted to be notified so they could participate.
Mr. John Nicoletti, 1326 Chalet, stated that since the fence was raised behind his
property, the problem had not discontinued and the children from the condominiums
were still using it as a walkway to get to school. On several occasions when they
explained to the children it was a safety hazard as well as not the proper way of
getting to school, shortly thereafter he found broken beer bottles in his pool, en-
forcing rods, and stones. The solution to the problem would be to reopen the
accessways in the area of Feather and Hampstead Streets.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Nicoletti stated it was within the last week
and one-half that he saw the children climbing the fence and on one occasion they
jumpedoff and threw one of his poodles into the pool. Also, if the children fell
off thefence, they could get seriously injured since his pool area contained cactus
and stone.
Councilman Seymour stated an additional hazard was the space between the private
walls and the condominium project wall. He asked Mr. Nicoletti if he had any ideas
or alternatives to solving the problem.
Mr. Nicoletti suggested the installation of some kind of ornamental fencing or rodding
on top of the fence. He also did not consider that treating his fence alone with
such a device would deter the children from walking the wall running the length
of the project. He was not the only one affected by the problem.
Mrs. Shiley Lewis, 1346 Feather Street, explained she lived at her present address
for 18 years which was two doors away from where an opening was proposed. When the
condominiums were built, an opening was left at that location and they had problems
with dogs, children running back and forth, bicycles and motorcycle traffic. She
emphasized the day the opening was closed was a day of shear joy in the neighborhood,
and she did not want to see an opening there at all. She suggested instead that the
fence be raised.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mrs. Lewis stated that at 7:00 a.m. the noise was
unbearable with children climbing the fence at Feather, and they did wake her up.
Mr. Wade Cable, representing Fredericks Development, developers of the adjacent
tract (7946), stated they were opposed to opening the fence. Their development had
no access to the wall since homes with fences and private yards backed up along the
fence line. At Hampstead Street, there was no possibility of opening the fence
77-1295
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
because the private yard fences would also have to be opened and access would be
through the yard. Thus, at Hampstead, an accessway would not work because there
was no access from their private streets to that fence. Theirs was the last
phase of the condominium project and the site plan on that phase was completely
different than it was originally. He reiterated their phase backed up to
single-story houses similar to an Ri tract so there would be no access.
Miss Santalahti also explained for Councilman Seymour, some aspects of the site
plan on Tract No. 7946 which clarified the fact that an accessway at Hampstead
Street would be impractical.
In closing, Mr. Cable stated that their project consisted of two bedroom homes and
they anticipated only a small number of children. They also wanted to be on record
that if for any reason the fence was opened up, liability problems would be created.
He stressed they were opposed to opening the accessways.
Mr. Gerald Pyne, 1430 Chalet, stated he was opposed to the wall being opened and
suggested that an opening be put in the wall on the west side since that was where
the children went to school. However, a railroad track and storm drain was located
there and his suggestion of the possibility of building a bridge at that location
was deemed impractical.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth moved to deny the opening of accessways in the block wall located
on the north property line of Tract No. 7945 and 7946 to Feather and Hampstead
Streets, from property on the north side of Cerritos Avenue and west side of
Walnut Street. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour spoke against the motion because it
offered no relief to the problem. Although he did not disagree that the openings
be denied, he felt it incumbent upon the Council to offer a solution since they
caused the problem in closing the fence.
The Mayor agreed and he suggested some modification of the wall to inhibit biped
traffic. Only denying access did not give relief to the adjacent homeowners.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that the ordinance could be changed to include
modification of the wall. The problem, however, was the fact that private property
was involved and there would be a question of using public funds to make the modifi-
cation. If the parties involved, Kaleidoscope and Fredericks Development, would
voluntarily install the modification, it would solve the problem.
Councilman Kott stated that since the condominium project did have a homeowners
association serving some purpose, he suggested that the Council give the association
30 or 60 days to submit recommendations to solve the problem. He did not favor
government interference because it was basically a human problem.
Councilman Seymour stated that government action closed the accessways and
the result was the creation of another problem.
77-1296
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern relative to the fact that two walls
were involved, the condominium project wall and the single-family tract wall,
between which a small open space existed. She was looking for a solution or
specific modification that would not cause a fatality or injury to the children
or further vandalism.
Councilman Seymour thereupon suggested that Councilman Roth's motion for denial
of the accessways be approved, but amended to stipulate that within 30 days a
report be submitted to the Council by the homeowners association of the condominium
project as to what alternatives they might offer to modify their wall and/or within
that time show they had eliminated the problem in a social way.
Councilman Roth agreed to amend his motion accordingly.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with the amendment as stipulated.
MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor advised a very strong thrust should come from the homeowners association
because their children were causing the problem.
REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-13: Proposed CL and RS-7200 zoning on
property located at the southeast corner of McKinnon and Lakeview.
The City Clerk explained that a rehearing was requested by the applicant's attorney
for December 13, 1977, subject to the payment of a $50 fee. Since payment had not
been received, the legal notice was not published. The attorney was contacted and
he requested that the public hearing be held December 27, 1977 or January 3, 1978,
7:00 P.M. Further, payment was forthcoming.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, a public hearing was
set on the subject reclassification for January 3, 1978 at 7:00 P.M. MOTION
CARRIED. '
The City Clerk clarified that Mrs. Rose Ann Kirschman, a spokesman for the area
homeowners, would be notified accordingly.
150: CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF BOWERS MUSEUM: The City
Clerk stated that a continuance of at least one month was requested from the
Foundation for Culture and the Arts, Anaheim Beautiful, and the Anaheim Arts
Council in order to present the matter to their respective memberships.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, request for support
of the conceptual plan for the expansion and development of Bowers Museum was
continued to December 27, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AWARD OF CONTRACT - FAIRMONT BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT: (Pro~ect
No. 13-4309-741-16-0000) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-761 for
adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 15, 1977, from the City
Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
77-1297
--City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-761: 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: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT, 1693' TO 810' N/O
SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, PROJECT NO. 13-4309-741-16-0000. (Kaz Hanano Landscape~
Inc., $27,402) '
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-761 duly passed and adopted.
175.123: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - LETTER AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON - RATE DESIGN CHANGES: Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt explained that the
subject agreement was a result of negotiations on the Integrated Operations Agree-
ment. One of the continuing negotiating points was the question of under what
condition could Southern California Edison initiate rate changes. They came to
the agreement that they could change rate levels in accordance with existing Federal
Power Commission practices. Basically, if costs changed, they could file and have
a rate go into effect subject to refund. If after hearings, it was determined rates
were just and reasonable, they were affirmed or if determined by the Commission they
were not, then a refund would be in order. However, the possibility existed that
the company could change the design of the rates which would put the City at a
disadvantage economically in connection with anything it happened to be doing,
particularly in the power generation area. Thus, the agreement was negotiated so
that rate design changes could not be made effective immediately, but only prospectively
or after a certain number of years had passed. Although it was thought that simply a
letter of understanding could be exchanged, the Southern California Edison Company
was afraid that some later Council might not concur so they wanted a contractual
arrangement that would define rate design and rate level changes. The proposed
agreement was of benefit to the City of Anaheim because it restricted Southern
California Edison and not the City.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the letter
agreement with Southern California Edison Company dated November 22, 1977, for
rate design changes in connection with the Integrated Operations Agreement with
the Utilities Director authorized to execute the agreement, was approved as
recommended in memorandum dated November 4, 1977, from the Public Utilities Board.
MOTION CARRIED.
106 & 174: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE ONE CETA PROJECT EMPLOYEE:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the hiring of one CETA
Project Employee for one year to provide typing and clerical support to the Utilities
Department during development of manuals and procedures required to transfer applica-
tion of standard labor estimates to the Electric and Water Design groups and develop-
ment of an Inventory Management System, was approved as recommended in memorandum
dated November 14, 1977, from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED.
77-1298
City Hall7 Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 227 19777 1:30 P.M.
105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - CONFIRMATION OF ELECTION: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the election of Edward Mintzer and
Tom Bode, to fill unexpired terms on the Project Area Committee ending June 30,
1978 and June 30, 1979, respectively, was confirmed. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, 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 James Wren for personal injuries purportedly sustained as
a result of a fall at Anaheim Stadium on or about August 27, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustained
during placement of a sprinkler system on Mohler Drive by a City contractor on or
about October 25, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Don Chiechi for property damages purportedly sustained as a
result of voltage irregularities on or about August 9, 1977.
d. Claim submitted by Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club of Southern California
on behalf of Burson and Winifred Foster, for vehicle damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about September 2, 1977.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Lifeline Electrical Rates ad hoc Committee Resolution No. LERAHC 77-1
establishing the first Monday of each month, 7:30 P.M., Management Control Center
of City Hall, as the time and place of regular meetings.
b. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of October 20, 1977.
c. 117 & 156: Monthly reports for October 1977 - Treasurer and Police.
d. 105: Community Center Authcrity- Minutes of November 7, 1977.
e. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of October 12, 1977.
MOTION CARRIED.
114: SUPPORT OF ORANGE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 77-1736:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, request for
support of Los Angeles County Grand Jury's recommendation that the Governor appoint
a commission to study and revise the juvenile court laws through Orange County
Criminal Justice Council Resolution No. 77-1736, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
77-1299
.City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 77R-762
through 77R-765, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
reconanendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-762: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (James E. Hudley;
Richard H. Barden, et ux.; Dunn Business Parks, et al.; Canyon Plaza Shopping Center
et al.; James L. Barisic; Robert H. Fackiner, et ux.) '
123: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-763: 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
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BOYSEN PARK PROPERTY LINE
WALL CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROGRAM NO. 809-18, ACCOUNT NO.
16-4309-809-18-0000. (Granstrom Construction, Inc.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-764: 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: CONTROLLER REPLACE-
blENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTRONICS AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-263-16-2263; 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 December 15, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-765: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH NELSON DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, INC. TO REIMBURSE SAID DEVELOPER FOR INSTALLING 310 FEET OF WATER MAIN
AS PART OF THE SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE AREA OF TRACT 9375 NORTH OF
OMEGA AVENUE, 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 Nos. 77R-762 through 77R-765 both inclusive duly
passed and adopted. ' ,
134: ORDINANCE NO. 3789: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3789 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3789: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION
18.03.050 TO TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.03, SECTION 18.03.050 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
77-1300
C__iity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977, 1:30 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 Ordinance No. 3789 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-766 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
134 & 152: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-766: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS.
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-766 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3792: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3792 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3792: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-5, RM-4000, Tract No. 9933)
113: NEW PROCEDURE FOR DUPLICATING AGENDA: Councilwoman Kaywood commended the
City Clerk on the new procedure of utilizing both sides of the paper in running
the Council agenda support material.
131: ROUTE 57 FREEWAY SOUND BARRIERS AND LANDSCAPING: Councilwoman Kaywood
reported on a meeting she attended held on Wednesday, November 16, 1977, at South
Junior High School with 300 residents in attendance who lived along the Route 57
Freeway. Three engineers from Caltrans were also present. Madeline Krpan had
previously been chosen as AestheticAdvisor for the sound barrier walls and
landscaping and 18 people signed up to be on the committee, with a meeting of the
group to be held within the month. Mr. Greg Sanders, Aide to Supervisor Clark,
will coordinate the meetings. The major purpose was to obtain general agreement
on one wall, and until that point was resolved, there was nothing else Caltrans
could do relative to the sound barrier. Thus, a big step had been taken
to get everybody involved. Councilwoman Kaywood stressed that she would be working
with the project to completion--until the barriers were up and the landscaping
installed.
131: LANDSCAPING OF RIVERDALE AVENUE OVERCROSSING OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY:
Councilman Seymour gave a brief history of the subject overcrossing which abutted
a condominium project in the Santa Ana Canyon along Riverdale which had not been
landscaped since its inception. As a result, over a period of approximately two
years, sliding and erosion occurred into the condominium project and subsequently
weeds grew in the unplanted area. The City then sprayed to kill the weeds and the
spray used came in contact with some of the plants and trees growing in the project
77-1301
rCity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
and started to kill them. Last summer one of the Directors of the condominium
association Board contacted him (Seymour) and the matter was brought before the
Council. The Council instructed the Public Works Department, Engineering Division,
to initiate the landscaping program. On October 18, 1977, by a memorandum, the
City Engineer stated that they were ready to construct the sidewalk and start
hydro-seeding and irrigation of the slope. However, they were concerned as to
whether or not anything would live on the slopes where the chemical was sprayed
and subsequently they contacted GHT Laboratories in Brawley and were informed
unless the soil was further treated, it would take another six to eight years
for the chemical used,-Hyvar X (bromacil) to dissipate from the soil since it was
a very strong weed killer. The Engineering Department also indicated they would
no longer use the chemical in the future. The treatment would consist of working
a blend of activated charcoal into the top nine inches of the slope and well-watering
the slope for three to four months in order to permit landscaping to proceed, which
process would cost approximately $4,000. The watering could cause further sliding
which would have to be repaired prior to landscaping at some additional cost. There-
upon, because of the difficulties and problems caused, Councilman Seymour offered
a motion to take the necessary action using the activated charcoal process to
insure the slope would be planted as soon as possible at a cost of $4,000 to be
taken from the Council Contingency Fund and also taking steps to insure the slope
would not slide. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: HACMAC MEETING ATTENDANCE: Councilman Seymour explained that his appointee on
HACMAC, Mr. Bill Maxwell, was absent for the past six consecutive HACMAC meetings,
and he had been trying to reach him to see if he would resign, but to no avail.
After discussing the matter with HACMAC members, it was determined their whole
attendance record was not the best, approximately 9 attended on a regular basis and
the remaining 5 or 6 did not. He recommended, therefore, that HACMAC be asked
to ascertain whether they felt they would be better structured at 9 members rather
than 15, and subsequently the 9 members could be arrived at through normal attrition.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, staff was directed
to ask HACMAC if they would consider having a 9-member committee rather than 15.
MOTION CARRIED.
149: PARKING PROBLEM - PINNEY DRIVE: Councilman Seymour briefed the Council on the
background of the planning and opening of Peralta Canyon Park at which time the
citizens living in the single-family residences to the east spoke of a potential
problem on Pinney Drive. Staff did not foresee the problem, however, and since the
start of Little League Baseball when the park first opened, traffic problems be-
came a matter of course with cars parked on both sides of the street and double
parked in some instances. The first action to correct the situation was initiated
by James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, who sent
letters to all the athletic associations asking them to utilize the parking lot
instead of Pinney Drive. That being unsuccessful, an attendant (CETA employee)
was stationed at Pinney and Gerda Drives, requesting people to park in the lot.
Although that was of some success during the football season, now the soccer
season was in full swing. He then read a letter from a Mr. Dale Woodward who
lived on Pinney, the essence of which was, although the efforts to improve the
situation were appreciated, they were ultimately unsuccessful, and the problem of
the residents on Pinney had not been solved.
77-1302
Cit% Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the Traffic Engineer and James Ruth
to plan the posting of Pinney Drive for "no parking" since that action was the
wish of the residents at the outset. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood broached the problem of the residents'
guests having no place to park and the possible lack of parking spaces available.
Councilman Seymour explained that the residents were willing to sacrifice that
parking to gain peace of mind on weekends. Lack of parking space was not creating
the problem, it was merely more convenient to park on Pinney than to park in the
lot provided.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
155: HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS IN THE CANYON AREA: Councilman Roth
requested that the Planning Department work with Phil Bettencourt of Anaheim
Hills, Inc., to update the list of names of current presidents of the homeowners
associations in the Canyon area since many had changed.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 4:31 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK