1995/05/16C'rTY OF ANAHE'rM~ CAL'rFORN'rA - COUNC'rL ~'rNUTE8
M&~y 2.6 ~ 2.995
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT=
PRESENT=
ABSENTs
PRESENT=
MAYOR~ Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS= Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus
COUNCIL MEMBERS= None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK= Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK= Ann M. Sauvageau
PLANNING DIRECTOR= Joel Fick
UTILITIES ASST. GENERAL MANAGER - ELECTRIC SERVICES=
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR= Annika Santalahti
Brian Brady
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 12 noon on May 12, 1995 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3=13 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION~
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that
there are no additions to Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS=
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session=
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION~
Name of case~ In re= County of Orange, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Central District Case No. SA 94-22272~ and In re= Orange County
Investment Pools, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District No. SA 94-
22273.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION=
Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property= 2000 Gene Autry Way (Anaheim Stadium Property)
Negotiating parties~ City of Anaheim and the Golden West Baseball Co.
Under negotiation~ Price and terms
4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property= (1) 1621 Douglass Rd.~ (2) 1133 Homer St. and 1170 Anaheim
Blvd.
Negotiating parties= City of Anaheim and County of Orange
Under negotiation= Prices and terms
C2TY OF ~NAHE~N~ C~LIFORNI~ - COUNC2L ~2NUTES - X&~ ~6~ ~995
5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: 4.3 acre site located south of Katella Avenue and east of
Douglass Road (former County Maintenance Facility).
Negotiating parties= City of Anaheim and County of Orange
Under negotiation: Price and terms
6. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE
7. LIABILITY CLAIMS
Claimant: Robert and Phyllis Hangen
Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member
Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ( 3:14 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present,
and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. ( 5=12 p.m.).
INVOCATION:
The Reverend Ford R. Miller, West Anaheim United Methodist Church,, gave
the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Pro Tem Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION recognizing May, 1995 as "Clean Air Month" and supporting
the American Lung Association of Orange County Clean Air Week events.
(Grand prize winners of the Children's Poster Contest also to be
announced)
Rita Lindsay, a representative of the American Lung Association, accepted the
"Clean Air Month" Proclamation; Diana Kotler, Commuter Services introduced the
Poster Contest Winners amongst the 600 posters that were submitted. Each of
the winners was presented with a certificate:
CONTEST WINNERS~
Itzel Ramires - Mann Elementary School (unable to be present)
Tyler Rathje - Crescent Elementary School
Meg Verdel de Dios - Marshall Elementary School
Sona Visoutri - Gauer Elementary School
Lady Lynn Garcia - City of Anaheim
Mayor Daly and Council Members congratulated each of the youngsters.
PROCLAMATION recognizing May 15 - May 21, 1995 as "PoppT Days# in
Anaheim in honor of Veterans past and present who sacrificed their
lives for their country.
Dottle McCaully, Unit President, American Legion Auxiliary Anaheim Unit ~72
accepted the "Poppy Day" Proclamation accompanied by little Tamra White,
Poppygirl, who distributed poppies to the Mayor and Council Members.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNI~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16, 1995
PROCLAMATION recognizing Adelaide Price Ele~entar~ School, Sixth Grade
Class, Room 10, for their outstanding achievements with their 'Choices,
Connections, Solutions" Program.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AOAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,043,132.64 for
the ~eriod ending May 12, 1995, in accordance with the 1994-95 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the RedeveloI~nent
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. ( 5~26 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. ( 5=29 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAs
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST=
No items of public interest were addressed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS~
There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items.
MOTION~
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of May 16,
1995. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAOER/DEP~RTMENT~L CONSENT C~LEND~R:
on motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the following
items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar~ Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 95R-72 and 95R-73 for adoption
and offered Ordinance No. 5496 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance
Book.
Al. 118= Rejecting and/or denying certain claims filed against the City.
a. Claim submitted by Anne Maria Parra for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
March 8, 1995.
b. Claim submitted by Susan Warden for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 2, 1995.
c. Claim submitted by Joe Paul for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 5, 1995.
d. Claim submitted by David R. Miller for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
March 26, 1995.
e. Claim submitted by Georgina A. Ferrell for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
March 4, 1995.
f. Claim submitted by Richard Ashley for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 4, 1994
through January 4, 1995.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16, 1995
A2.
A3.
A4.
AS.
A6.
A7.
A8.
g. Claim submitted by Dora Villicana for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 30, 1995
h. Claim submitted by Robert Hangen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
October 17, 1994.
i. Claim submitted by Phyllis Hangen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
October 17, 1994.
173= Receiving and filing a Notice To Customers of Proposed Rate
Increase from Southern California Gas Company (Application No.
95-04-050) which was filed with the California Public Utilities
Commission for an increase in rates of $785,000 for shareholder
incentives for certain 1994 energy conservation program
accomplishments (such as the promotion of home energy audits,
higher efficiency gas appliances, home weatherization and other
conservation measures).
173: Receiving and filing a Notice of Filing by Southern California
Edison Company before the California Public Utilities Commission
regarding a Possible Revenue Increase Due to Construction of
Transmission Line to Serve Independent Power Producers.
173~ Receiving and filing a Notice of Filing Application by Southern
California Edison Company before the California Public Utilities
Commission regarding a Proposed Revenue Increase Due to 1995
Demand-Side Management Earnings Claim.
113: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-72~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE
THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Public Works Department.)
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Change Order, in an
amount not to exceed $79,640 to Xerox Corporation, for the rental
of one Model 5390 copier for the Reprographics program for a period
not to exceed four years.
160~ Accepting the low bid of ASSI Security, Inc., in the amount of
$21,950 for the upgrade of the security access card system for the
Police Department, in accordance with Bid $5373.
160: Accepting the low bid of Waxie Sanitary Supply, in an amount not to
exceed $50,919 for paper towels and toilet tissue as required for
the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996, in accordance with
Bid ~5378.
160~ Accepting the bid of Petrochem Marketing, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $150,000 for an estimated 73,000 gallons of polymer modified
asphalt sealer, including transportation charges, for a period of
one year, with the option to renew up to three additional years, in
accordance with Bid $5382.
123= Accepting the bid, and authorizing the execution of a Contract to
Jacobsen E-Z-GO Textron, in the amount of $353,410.20 for a three
year period beginning July 1, 1995 for the lease/maintenance of
CITY OF ANAHE~H~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL H~NUTES - ~a~ ~6~ 1995
golf care that will be utilized at Anaheim Hills and H.G. "Dad"
Miller golf courses, in accordance with Bid $5372.
Ag.
160~ Accepting the bid of Sully-Miller Contracting Company, in an amount
not to exceed $503,146.50 for a period of one year beginning
July 1, 1995, for asphalt equipment rental with an operator, in
accordance with Bid ~5381.
AIO. 184= Reviewing the need for continuing the Sixth Proclamation of the
Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency
Services on January 3, 1995, concerning the Santiago Landslide and
Pegasus Landslide in the City of Anaheim~ and taking no action to
terminate the local emergency at this time.
All. 123= Approving an Agreement with the Anaheim Union High School District
to provide Park Ranger patrols for District Schools from
May 26, 1995 through September 4, 1995.
A12. 123~ Approving an Agreement with the City of Westminster for an eight-
week lease of Anaheim's mobile recreation van for a summer
recreation outreach program.
A13. 000= ORDINANCE NO. 5496= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
CHAPTER 16.40 TO TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND PARAMEDIC SERVICES
IMPACT FEE FOR MEW AND EXPANDED DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANAHEIM RESORT.
(Introduced at the meeting of May 9, 1995, Item D1.)
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-73= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND PARAMEDIC
SERVICES IMPACT FEE FOR NEW AND EXPANDED DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANAHEIM
RESORT. ~
Council Member Zemel again expre~.~ed his concern relative to the subject
Impact Fee. (See minutes of May 9, 1995.) Since the adoption of the EIR and
subsequent mitigation measures, Disney has announced they are not going to
build Wescor but will soon announce what they will build. He feels the City is
going through a mitigation process for something that is not happening and
imposing a fee on properties around the Disneyland area based on the initial
EIR. The proposal would be a deterrent to development and does not support
property rights. It would, therefore, be prudent to put the matter off to
determine the proper mitigation measures.
city Manager Ruth. This involves more than Just the Wescot project, but also
the Anaheim Resort and the Hotel Circle project, It is setting the money
aside to mitigate the need for additional fire services. The money would be
escrowed but should no development occur, the money could be reimbursed to
those who have contributed.
Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager/Director of Maintenance. The concern is if the
money is not captured now as the area develops, when it is needed, the City
will have a shortfall for development which occurs between now and then and it
would become a General Fund obligation. Either the development pays or the
City pays as a whole. Mr. Wood then gave the background on the proposal as
requested by the Mayor (also see minutes of 5/9/95). In concluding, he stated
that the program assesses those who are creating the demand rather than
assessing people who are not causing the new demand. If delayed, the City will
not be assessing a "fair share" for development that does occur between today
C~TY OF ANAHE~ CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL ~NUTE8 - ~a~ ~6~ ~995
and the point where there is going to be substantial growth. The issue is=
(a) charge each new develol~nent and set up a reserve so when the equipment is
needed, the City has the money to fund it, or (b) not charge, allow
development to occur and then not have the funding source to procure the
equipment. The purpose of going through the extensive Master Plan process was
not to have to come back again and so that developers would know now and in
the future what to expect. The Plan said that the bulk of the improvements
would be done with TOT. It seemed improper to have existing hoteliers pay for
new demand, particularly fire protection.
There was extensive Council discussion regarding the issue wherein questions
were posed and clarifications made by staff relating to obligations under the
three Specific Plans adopted encompassing the 1,100 acres formerly known as
the Commercial-Recreation Area, as well as the consequences if the subject
impact fee is not imposed at this time.
Council Member Zemel was adamant in his belief that the mitigation measures
were based on approximately 14,000 hotel rooms or a doubling of what is
presently in the area but that the "engine" that would drive that development
has been downsized, i.e. the Disney Wescot project and, therefore, the fee may
be too severe. He wants the need to match the amount of money the City is
asking in imposing the fee and believes that action on this item should be
postponed until they know what is going to happen in that area.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the subject Ordinance and Resolution
relating to Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee be
continued for 90 days. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion for purposes
of discussion.
Before a vote was finally taken, City Attorney White clarified that if someone
does come in within the 90 days and has plans ready to approve and a fee is
not in place, no fees could be collected. To that extent, as Mr. Wood
previously explained, the General Fund would have to pick up that obligation
as long as the requirement is in the EIR.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the
following vote~ Ayes= Council Member Zemel. Noes~ Council Members Tait,
Lopez and Feldhaus and Mayor Daly.
At the conclusion of the Consent Calendar, Council Member Zemel voted NO on
Item A13.
A14. 123~ Approving the Lease Agreement with Orange County Flood Control
District~ the Sublease Agreement with Lewis R. Schmid and Judith E.
Schmid~ the Easement Agreement with Lewis R. Schmid and Judith E.
Schmid, and John O. Franklin, Trustee, Sidney E. Lewis Trusts the
License Agreement with the Orange County Flood Control District~
and the Letter Agreement with Ogden Facilities Management
Corporation of Anaheim for a ten-year parking lease for 200
additional parking spaces on the County's maintenance facility
located south of Katella Avenue.
A15. 114~ Approving minutes of the City Council meeting held April 25, 1995.
Approval of the minutes was continued one week since copies were not included
in the agenda packet.
6
CITY OF ANAHEIHv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTE8 - M&y L6v 1995
Al6. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5497: (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (communications antennas).
Joel Fick, Planning Director clarified for Council Member Feldhaus and Mayor
Daly that there presently is a CUP requirement in the other zones in the
zoning code regarding communications antennas. This would just add the
industrial and agricultural zones to the CUP provisions as well.
Council Member Tait. His feeling is they ought to encourage such facilities
since they are needed and to now require a CUP in the additional zones would
be a disincentive for anyone wishing to do so.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-72 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-72 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-73 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-73 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5496 for &doption:
AYES= MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES= MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5496 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. (Council Member Zemel voted no on
Item A13.)
ITEM B1 FROM THE ZONING /%DMINISTI~ATOR MEETING OF APRIL 27~ 1995:
DECISION DATE: MAY 4~ 1995 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
MAY 19~ 1995
B1.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3755 A~D NEGATXVE DEGLAKATXON:
OWNER: ALLAN FAINBARG, 123 West Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
AGENT: MANNY HERNANDEZ, 1195 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim CA
92806
LOCATION: 1195 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately
1.33 acres at the southwest corner of Romneya Drive and State College
Boulevard.
To permit on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine within an
existing restaurant (Paradise Cafe).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CUP NO. 3755 APPROVED for one year (ZA Decision No. 95-06).
Approved Negative Declaration.
CITY OF ANAHEI~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL KINUTES - ~&~ 26~ 1995
Council Member Lopez posed questions for purposes of clarification which were
answered by the Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti.
At the conclusion of discussion, no further action was taken by the Council on
this item.
D1.
129= CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DESIGNATION OF VERY-HIGH
FIRE-HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE:
To consider an ordinance designating a very-high fire-hazard severity
zone as recommended by the California Division of Forestry.
At the meeting of April 25, 1995, Item D1, the public hearing was opened
by the City Council, and continued to this date to consider the following
ordinance=
Public Hearing Requirements Met by=
Legal Advertising Published March 23, 1995 and March 30, 1995.
ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION)= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 16.40, SECTIONS 16.40.010 THROUGH 16.40.020,
INCLUSIVE, TO TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO
DESIGNATION OF VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES.
The Public Hearing remains open.
City Manager Ruth. Staff is requesting a continuance of the Public Hearing to
July 11, 1995.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone was present to speak to the matter~ there was no
response.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the Public Hearing to July 11, 1995 at
the request of staff. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
D2.
175: PUBLIC HEARING - CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT
NUMBERS 15; 16; 22; AND 23:
To consider, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.24 of
Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Underground Utilities,
the creation of Underground District Numbers 15, 16, 22, and 23.
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 15 - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD=
LOCATION: Underground District No. 15 consists of Anaheim Boulevard,
south of Cerritos Avenue north to Water Street, Ball Road 700' east and
west of Anaheim Boulevard, Water Street east of Anaheim Boulevard to
Claudina Street, and intersection streets, to complete the conversion
work.
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 16 - VERMONT AVENUE:
LOCATION= Underground District No. 16 consists of Vermont Avenue from
Anaheim Boulevard to 60' east of Harbor Boulevard, and Lemon Street 90'
south of Vermont Avenue.
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 22 - I-5 SEGMENT A=
LOCATION: Underground District No. 22 consists of areas adjacent to and
crossing the I-5 Freeway south of Midway Drive to the south City Limit,
to complete the conversion work.
8
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16, 1995
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 23 - I-5 SEGMENT Ds
LOCATION= Underground District No. 23 consists of areas adjacent to and
crossing the I-5 Freeway south of Crescent Avenue to north of Gilbert
Street, to complete the conversion work.
Public Notice Requirements Met Bys
Legal Advertising Published - May 4, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 3, 1995
Posting of property - May 5, 1995
Submitted was report dated May 16, 1995 from the Public Utilities General
Manager, Ed Aghjayan, recommending the creation of the subject Underground
Districts.
Brian Brady, Assistant General Manager-Electric Services/Public Utilities
Department briefed the recommendation contained in the subject report
supplemented by slides which graphically depicted the areas included in this
segment of undergrounding previously approved by the City Council on April 4,
1995 (Public Utilities Department Underground Conversion Program Five-Year
Plan). Mr. Brady also acknowledged the letter submitted by PacBell dated
May 11, 1995 attached to which was a copy of their letter of April 30, 1995
expressing concern relative to Underground District No. 22 and 23. They were
surprised to receive the letter because PacBell had attended all the meetings
on the subject. After talking with them today, he believes that the issues
have been resolved.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He again expressed his on-going concern
that in these difficult times, undergrounding of utilities is only cosmetic
and does not provide more reliable, cheaper or efficient electric service, and
cost is spread among the ratepayers. Upon hearing that the second two
segments are relatively low cost and eligible for reimbursement by Caltrans,
he would support those. He urged the Council to prioritize utility spending
and reconsider at least the first two projects.
Terry Kerr, Regional Manager, Southern California Edison. He would like to
make a part of the record the statement that Southern California Edison does
object to being included in Districts 22 and 23. It is a Public Utilities
Conunission (PUC) matter. They do have an undergrounding policy approved by
the PUC, they do not want to be included in the districts and stand prepared
to relocate their facilities' for any street widening projects at their expense
but not to pay for undergrounding.
Mayor Daly closed the Publlc Hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 95R-74 through 95R-77, both inclusive, for
adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 15 (Anaheim Boulevard).
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-75~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 16 (Vermont Avenue, Phase I).
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-76: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 22 (I-5 Segment A).
9
CITY OF ANAHEIHt CALIFORNTA - COUNCIL MINUTES - M&y 16t 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-77~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 23 (I-5 Segment D)
Ro11 Call Vote on ResoXution Nos. 95R-74 through 95R-77, both inclusive, ~or
adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS=
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS~
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 95R-74 through 95R-77, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
D3.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-95-06
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CLAYTON EUGENE SCARBROUGH, TRUSTEE, DONNA J. SCARBROUGH, TRUSTEE,
P.O Box 18957, Anaheim, CA 92817
AGENT: PENINSULA CENTER, Attn: James A. Hayes, 655 DeepvalleyDrive, Ste
125, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
LOCATION: 1400 South Douglass Road (Orange Tree Mobilehome Park).
Property is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of Douglass
Road approximately 1080 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue
with a frontage of approximately 995 feet on the east side of Douglass
Road.
Petitioner requests reclassification of the subject property from the RS-
A-43,000 (MHP) (Residential/Agricultural~ Mobilehome Park Overlay) Zone
to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 94-95-06 GRANTED (PC95-30) (6 yes votes, i vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of April 4, 1995, Item B4.
Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, James A. Hayes.
Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, James A. Hayes and Public Hearing
scheduled this date:
Public Notice Requirements Met by:
Legal Advertising Published - May 4, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 3, 1995
Posting of property - May 5, 1995
City Attorney, Jack White. This item has a lengthy history and has been
before the City Council previously. He then gave an extensive historical
overview relative to the case leading to the request before the Council
tonight, a petition for reclassification which, if approved, will remove the
Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. The City's zoning ordinance provides that no
other use can be made of the property until the overlay £9 removed and further
provides before doing Bo, it iB necessary for the applicant for the
reclassification to compensate displaced mobile home owners certain amounts as
specified under criteria provided in Section 18.92. In addition, there is a
State statute that provides, prior to the closure of the park or change of
use, that the owner prepare a Conversion Impact Report (CIR), submit it to the
Council and subsequently that the Council approve the report as complying with
the requirements of the statute and allowing but not requiring the City to
impose relocation benefits as a condition of the conversion of the park.
10
C~TY OF ~,.~'AHEI~ CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL ~NUTE8 - ~a~ ~6~ ~995
A CIR was prepared in February, 1994, hearings held by the Planning Commission
and subsequently before a Hearing Officer designated by the Council. The
Hearing Officer's recommendation was to find in favor of the information in
the report (see Report of Hearing Officer and Recommendations dated August 31,
1994). Tonight the main issues that need to be addressed are (a) who are the
persons that are displaced as a result of the proposed change of use of the
park, (b) the amount of any benefits which are to be paid which come under two
different subfindings -- (1) what are the costs that would be incurred in
moving the mobile home owners to another comparable park and (2) are there any
offsetting benefits the Council believes should be taken into consideration to
offset whatever the costs incurred are.
A recommendation has been made that is on the agenda that this matter again be
referred to a Hearing Officer. He then recounted the previous lengthy
hearings on the matter noting that the one before the Hearing Officer entailed
14 hours worth of work. One thing that could be done should the Council
decide to hear the matter at this time is to incorporate into the record of
tonight's hearing the transcript which the Council previously had before it of
the hearing held before Judge John L. Flynn (Retired). (See transcript of
hearing - August 9, 1994 - Re~ Orange Tree Mobile Home Park Conversion Impact
Report). If so, it would not be necessary to hear any testimony that was
repetitive of the testimony that was presented last year, but only new and
different testimony. The transcript will be deemed part of the record of the
proceeding. The items in the record can be supplemented by the speakers. In
addition to the transcript, the record contains CIR dated January 15, 1995 and
correspondence that was received today from the Law Firm of Hart, King &
Coldren dated May 16, 1995 that is 15 pages long with attached exhibits.
It was determined by general Council consent that the matter not be referred
to a Hearing Officer but that the Public Hearing go forward at this time.
Both the City Attorney and Mayor Daly outlined the usual procedure followed
for the presentation of testimony at a Public Hearing and asked first to hear
from the applicant or the applicant's agent.
SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS~
The City Attorney announced that it is appropriate at this time for all those
intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be
sworn in at this time.
Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise
their right hand. The oath was then given.
James A. Hayes, Attorney and Agent for Property Owners, Clayton Eugene
Scarbrough and Donna J. Scarbrough. He represents the land owners at the
property site. The former operator of the mobile home park is present with
his representative who is the long-term lessee of the property. He will be
considered a co-sponsor with them (Clayton and Donna Scarbrough). The
Scarbrough's filed a petition to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone from
the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park property which is the subject of this
hearing. They did not own or operate the park and did not close the park but
are the owners, and have been for nearly 50 years, and the lessors to
Campanula Properties. They are asking only that their petition be granted in
order to allow the eventual redevelopment of the property to conform to the
surrounding area and that they be treated fairly. The Scarbrough's tonight do
join in the brief and the comments that are going to be made on behalf of
Campanula Properties. Mr. Scarbrough has just signed and he is prepared to
submit a formal statement by Mr. Scarbrough along the lines he has related.
11
C~TY OF ANAHE~H~ C&L~FORNIA - COUNCIL ~INUTE8 - ~&~ L6~ ~995
He then deferred to the attorney for Campanula Properties who will present
their position.
Mr. Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren. Campanula is a long-term ground
lessee on the property with about 30 years left on the lease. The Council's
decision tonight as to what relocation benefits are due, who is eligible and
the amounts will impact on his client. As the City Attorney stated, the
Council has before it the full record of the proceedings that have taken place
thus far. He is also going to suggest that Ms. Talley and Mr. Evans not be
called upon to discuss the amount of the benefits, but are in a position to
rely on the record before the Council because they endorse completely the
decision of the Hearing Officer. That decision is appended to his letter
dated May 16, 1995 (Exhibit 4), attached to which are Exhibits i - 6. He then
spoke extensively to the issue of who is entitled to relocation benefits
discussed in detail in his 15-page letter of May 16, 1995, the conclusion
being that, "in order to receive relocation benefits, a person must have been
both a mobile home owner and resident of the park on January 15, 1995." He
reiterated they are willing to adopt the positions taken by Judge Flynn in his
report of August 31, 1994 rendering his decision on the matter.
city Attorney White then posed questions first to Mr. Coldren who deferred to
Jack Stanaland, Campanula Properties. The questions revolved around the
number of tenants existing in the park on July 25, 1994 and January 15, 1995
and those who would be excluded from benefits based upon the criteria
suggested, i.e., those who would be "entitled."
The following people spoke in opposition=
Edward Leion, President, Orange Tree Resident's Association. He represents a
group of residents that did not qualify or sign the Relocation Deferment
Agreement with the owner. At the outset, he urged the Council to bring a
conclusion to the matter tonight since this is the eleventh time it has been
heard. The Council last September after Judge Flynn's hearing, approved the
Judge's findings but, in his recommendation, he made no mention of amounts or
who qualified. The Council approved the findings with the stipulation that
the decision on the amount of money and who should qualify would be left to
the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission met twice to consider the
issue (5/94 and 3/95) and both times overwhelmingly decided the same way after
hours of discussion -- the residents should receive an amount which initially
was $10,000 and the last time $8,000 and those who qualify would be those in
the February, 1994 CIR or 166 families but of that, only 74 would qualify.
Mr. Coldren and Stanaland have sought to confuse the issue. He then submitted
a list summarizing the reasons residents moved out of the park. (See -
Summary of Reasons for Move - listing 9 items). That began the process that
brought the park down to 18 residents in July, 1994. Campanula caused the
residents to be displaced. Some moved even prior to that date. Therefore,
February, 1994 is the benchmark date he is recommending to the Council. He
then submitted another document entitled - Actual Relocation Steps Compared
with Allowances Mentioned in Talley Conversion Impact Report (made a part of
the record) which was considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Talley's and
Mr. Stanaland's calculations did not include these items at all. He urged the
Council to consider the date he has recommended, and the amount of money
should be what the Planning Commission decided, $8,000. No change of the
Overlay Zone is to be granted until after a relocation benefit is paid.
Bernard Pernick, former resident of Orange Tree Mobile Home Park, Space 91.
Relative to the issue of fairness, the Council should consider that the people
who moved did so not because they had planned to move, but because they were
12
C~TY OF ~N~HE~H~ C~LIFORNI~ - COUNCIL H~NUTES - ~a~ L6~ ~995
told the park was closing. If the Council does not want to consider a dollar
amount but a cutoff point, they should use the cutoff point of those who were
in the park at the time the notification went out and the CIR that was
approved was distributed. That would make for fairness. He urged that they
use the date when the CIR was issued, not the date a year later when the park
was vacant.
Larry Davenport, Space 64. He was on the list in the January 15, 1995 CIR as
one of the seven people remaining. He sold his trailer because he was told by
management to do so and to get out or the manager would close the doors on him
and he would lose everything.
Summary/Rebuttal by Applicant~
Robert Coldren. The exact same arguments made tonight were made before Judge
Flynn. He reiterated, the decision of Judge Flynn adequately addresses
relocation costs of the displaced persons which are outlined in the relocation
impact report. It states clearly the amount to be paid is $2,849. Mr.
Collins, an attorney that represented the tenants, agreed that no one who was
evicted from the mobile home park, filed bankruptcy or sold their coaches
ought to be entitled to relocation benefits. He referred to the last page of
his May 16, 1995 letter wherein they made a recommendation as to what they
think an appropriate decision of the Council should be and asked that the
recommendation be followed (see pg. 15).
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
City Attorney White. He clarified for the Mayor that ultimately the action of
the Council is going to need to be memorialized in a resolution for
reclassification which should include the language that relates to relocation
benefits finding what those benefits are, if any, and to whom they apply, if
anyone, and then reclassifying the property and making the appropriate
findings in that regard.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve removal of the Mobile Home Park Overlay
Zone for the property and including in that a finding that denial of the
reclassification would deprive the owner of all reasonable or economically
viable use of the property. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
City Attorney White. He explained for the Mayor that Judge Flynn's
recommendation related to a prior CIR. The Mayor referred to a memorandum he
(White) had written that was sent to the Planning Commission as part of the
previous hearing process before Judge Flynn's hearings. His analysis at the
time which he believes to be the same today, because the Anaheim Municipal
Code (AMC) says that the CIR is prepared to analyze the impact upon residents
that are then in the park, not residents formerly in the park, it is
reasonable to interpret that requirement as saying benefits to be paid, if
any, relate to those Persons who are tenants on the date the CIR is prepared.
In this case, two dates are involved - July 25, 1994 at which time there were
approximately 18'residents in the park, or the CIR most recently prepared on
January 15, 1995, at which time there were seven residents in the park. It
would be reasonable and supportable for the Council to determine that because
the ordinance provides that benefits are paid to persons who are required to
relocate due to the change in use or for reasons other than the change in use,
i.e., evicted for non-payment of rent, default in loan payment, coach
repossessed, or left for some other reason would not be required under the
ordinance to be paid relocation benefits.
13
C2TY OF AI~T2B~HE~H~ CAL~FORNI~ - COUNC2L ~2NUTES - X&~ 26~ 2995
He confirmed that the original CIR was prepared on July 25, 1994 and the most
recent, January 15, 1995. Sometime between July 25 and January 15, the
original application was withdrawn and then refiled.
Mr. Stanaland then explained at the request of Council Member Tait what
happened to the 18 residents between July, 1994 and January, 1995 and the
present status.
MOTION. After additional discussion relative to those entitled to relocation
benefits, Council Member Zemel moved that the date of closure of the park be
determined as July 25, 1994 but excluding from those entitled, tenants who
were evicted, lost their coaches to foreclosure, or anyone.who had sold their
coach. Mayor Daly seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Zemel stated he was at a loss on what
to do with the one remaining tenant in the park receiving free rent even
though that was not what the tenant wanted (Space 25 - Mr. K. Youngblood).
City Attorney White. That tenant will be included under any scenario that he
can see as a person who has been displaced. The tenant is still there and not
voluntarily leaving but being evicted because time expired for closure of the
park. He has not heard any testimony that says this person should not be
considered displaced. He is being evicted because the park closed, not
because he did not pay rent.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION. Mayor Daly. He moved to follow the Planning Commission's condition
on Page 8 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 20, 1995,
Item 1, but that it be modified to state that reasonable relocation benefits
as determined by Judge Flynn at his August 9, 1994 hearing. Council Member
Zemel seconded the motion.
Before a vote, the City Attorney .recommended, to avoid confusion, it would be
best to specify the amount. He has not heard anybody dispute Judge Flynn's
decision approving the prior CIR. Within that report, the amount that was
stated and the evidence presented at this hearing is $2,849 per space. It
would be helpful to staff to specify that number.
Mayor Daly thereupon amended his motion to include $2,849 net cost per space
consistent with Judge Flynn's recommendation subsequent to the August 9, 1994
hearing. Council Member Zemel was agreeable to the amendment in his second.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White. He suggested that the Council now incorporate these
actions into a resolution to be adopted by title only and he will then draft a
resolution accordingly, i.e., approving the reclassification to remove the
MoBile Home Park Overlay Zone with the finding that the denial of the
reclassification would deprive the owner of a reasonable or economically
viable use of the property, that relocation benefits to be paid to those
persons as previously enumerated in the motions of the City Council and
amending condition No. i previously approved by the Planning Commission
consistent with that determination that persons residing in the park and a
mobile home owner as of July 25, 1994 to be paid relocation benefits of $2,849
per space provided such persons meet the criteria that they had not signed a
rent deferral agreement or other relocation agreement and were not displaced
14
CITY OF ANI%HEIH~ C&LIFORNI~ - COUNCIL HINUTES - ~&~ 26~ ~995
for other reasons such as eviction, breach of agreement, abandonment,
repossession or bankruptcy.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 95R-78 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-95-06 AND INCORPORATING THE
FINDINGS THAT RELOCATION BENEFITS TO BE PAYABLE TO THOSE PERSONS AS
PREVIOUSLY ENUMERATED IN THE MOTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-78 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-78 duly passed and adopted.
Cl. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Zemel. Relative to the formation of an Investment Review
Commission which the Council recently approved, he would like to more highly
publicize the fact that the Council is accepting applications from those
interested in being on the Commission and for the matter to be placed on the
agenda in about a month'B time. City Clerk Sohl. She will work on the
request.
Council Member Zemel. Now that there is a newly constituted Budget Advisory
Commission, he would like a workshop session or discussion to talk about what
direction the Council wants the Commission to take.
It was determined that this matter would be placed on the Council agenda in
three weeks, June 6, 1995.
Council Member Zemel. Re: Annual Fourth of July Celebration/Festival in
Anaheim Hills. Due to a shortage of funds, he understands the annual event is
in jeopardy and is concerned over the possibility of losing the event. He
appealed to businesses across the City and citizens to make donations in order
to maintain this important community activity. He is not certain what can be
done by the Council but would like to make everyone aware of the situation and
gave two numbers to call for donations.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to obtain a report from staff aB to
their understanding of the status of the festival. He believes there is a
City donation to the event every year and that City staff people help to
coordinate the effort working with citizen volunteers.
*********************
Council Member Tait. He asked for clarification that the Council will have a
discussion on Measure R on next week's Council agenda.
15
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 16, 1995
city Manager Ruth. The principals from the County who the Council asked to
have speak were to call back today at 6=00 p.m. and confirm they will be
present but no word has been received.
Mayor Daly. He confirmed that the discussion will be held on May 23, 1995
whether or not there is participation from the County.
C2. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
No report on closed session actions was given by the City Attorney.
ADJOURNMENT= By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of
May 16, 1995 was adjourned.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
16