1985/08/2061
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Art Daw
IGR OFFICER: William Sell
LIEUTENANT, TRAFFIC BUREAU: James Thalman
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Clark Robb, United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
i19: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
Authorized by the City Council:
"Municipal Treasurer's Week," August 25-31, 1985.
"Seat Belts Work Month in Anaheim," September 1985.
The Treasurer's Week proclamation was accepted by City Treasurer, Mary E.
Turner, and the Seat Belts proclamation was accepted by Edward Sullivan,
District Manager, Automobile Association.
119: PP~ESENTATION - BEACH BOULEVARD SUPER STREET PROJECT STATUS UPDATE:
Councilwoman Kaywood, liaison representative to the subject project,
introduced Mr. A1 Hollinden, member of the consultant team, Orange County
Transportation Commission and Lisa Mills.
Mr. A1 Nollindan briefed the Council on the ~tatu~ of the Baach Boulevard
super street project which involved ten cities and the County of Orange, 40
major intersections and 39 links of roadway throughout the course of the study
with various improvements planned for each of the intersections. The end
result would be a much better flow of traffic and accommodation of many more
cars in an efficient manner especially during peak hours. In Anaheim, the
project,involved three major intersections and parts of four of the road links.
Lisa Mills, Project Director, Orange County Transportation Commission then
briefed the Council relative to specific impacts that would occur in the City
followed by a closer look and explanation of the model that was set up in the
645
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 k.M.
Council Chamber. The three major intersections in Anaheim involved Ball Road,
Orange Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. The most viable option at Ball Road would
be to widen the intersection which could impact one of the structures on the
south east corner with minimal impact on the other three legs. No improvement
options were slated for the Orange Avenue intersection. At Lincoln Avenue, it
would be necessary to have a grade separation and widening of the intersection
at street level. At this time it did not appear to be cost effective to build
a grade separation. When the Commission returned to the Council in November,
their staff and City staff would recommend that the intersection be widened at
grade level with a need to acquire some right of way on three of the four
corners. The one final improvement, probably the most critical improvement of
the entire study, was the need to either restrict parking during peak hours or
eliminate parking on Beach Boulevard all the way from Main Street in
Huntington Beach north to the 91 Freeway in Buena Park enabling the restriping
of Beach Boulevard to eight through lanes. The feeling from the general
public was not to eliminate parking entirely but during peak hours only. The
first action would be to restripe Beach Boulevard to eight lanes to carry the
65,000 cars expected in the vicinity of the Lincoln Intersection.
After Mr. Hollinden and Ms. Mills answered questions posed by Council Members,
Mayor Roth thanked them for their presentation and stated the Council would
look forward to a further report on the project.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,018,814.22, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 85R-365 through 85R-373, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No.
4640 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management.
a. Claim submitted by Teagen Nobel Clive for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 20, 1985.
646
City Hall~ Anah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
b. Claim submitted by Bruce Anthony Victor for personal injury and
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
June 14, 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Susan Dickinson for personal injury sustained due
to actions of the City on or about July 8, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Jean K. Wade for bodily injury and property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 27, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Manual Murphy for bodily injury and property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 8, 1985.
f. Claim submitted by Edgar William Lochrie for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 11, 1985.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of July 11, 1985.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of July 18, 1985.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Report dated July 1985.
d. Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of July 11, 1985.
3. 170/123: Approving the assignment of special facilities (pumps and
reservoirs) reimbursement agreement with Chaparral Development Corporation to
Municicorp, relating to Tract No. 10617 in the Anaheim Hills area.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with San Lorenzo Nursery Company, to
provide 25 parking spaces on the Anaheim Stadium west parking lot No. 2, from
6 a.m. to 2 a.m. of the following day, Monday through Friday, for a term of
one year, with revenue to the City of ~125 per month.
5. 123: Authorizing the Human Resources Director to execute a Maintenance
Agreement with Ralph Anderson & Associates, at a cost not to exceed $15,000,
to provide ongoing maintenance of the Engineering/Inspection job class series
classification and compensation study, for a term of 1 year.
6. 144/155: Approving the negative declaration for an ordinance establishing
procedures in connection with a major thoroughfare and bridge fee program.
(Ordinance No. 4640)
144: S~tting the date for the public hearing for the Eastern-Foothill
Corridor Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program and supporting documents
for the first City Council meeting following the effective date of the
enabling ordinance (Ordinance No. 4640). (Suggested date: September 24,
1985, 1:30 p.m.)
106/144: Authorizing the transfer of an amount not to exceed $3,960 from
647
BO
City H~11t A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Council Contingency Funds into Account No. 01-132-6101, to cover the estimated
cost of advertising associated with the public hearing.
7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Bow Toy and Wai-Ping Toy, to provide 5
two-bedroom and 1 three-bedroom affordable rental units in an apartment
complex to be located at 3633 West Ball Road, in accordance with conditions of
approval of Variance No. 3463.
8. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Prado Corporation to allow
encroachment within the right of way of Serrano Avenue and Old Hidden Canyon
Road for construction and maintenance of a private storm drain and sanitary
sewer. (84-8E)
9. 139: Opposing pending Federal legislation proposing the inclusion of
local government employees within the provisions of Medicare and/or Social
Security Systems and authorizing the Mayor to communicate this position to the
City's elected representatives in Washington.
10. 109/140: Authorizing the City Manager to make application to the
California State Library Board for a grant application through the Major Urban
Resource Library (MURLS) in the amount of $14,610, for the period October 1,
1985 through September 30, 1986.
11. 123: Authorizing the Library Director to execute an agreement with the
Digital Equipment Corporation at a monthly cost of $2,342 to service computer
equipment used in connection with the Library Circulation Control System, for
the term September 16, 1985 through September 15, 1985.
12. 153: Reappointing Mel Miller to the Private Industry Council, for a 2
year term to expire August 1, 1987.
13. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to American Hi Lift Corporation, in the amount of
~27,507 for one electric self-propelled articulating boom.
14. 160: Accepting the bid of The Hertz Corporation in the amount of
$33,682.56 for four used 1984 passenger vehicles; and National Car Sales, in
the amount of ~74,051.60 for eight 1984 used passenger vehicles, in accordance
with Bid No. 4235.
15. 160: Accepting the low bid of Prolite Inc., in the amount of ~19,254.26
for Scott Pressure Pak Breathing apparatus, in accordance with Bid No. 4238.
16. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-365: 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 WORK. (Finding and
determining that public convenience and necessity require the construction and
completion of a public improvement, Harbor Boulevard Street, Water and Sewer
Improvement, Broadway to Ball Road, Account Nos. 12-793-6325-E3760,
11-790-6325-E0580 and 52-606-6329-02246, FAU Proj. No. M-M0005(4), FY 84-85;
and opening of bids on September 19, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
648
57
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
17. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-366: 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 WORK. (Finding and
determining that public convenience and necessity require the construction and
completion of the Olive Hills Reservoir Cover Construction, Account No.
53-620-6329-02749; and opening of bids on September 26, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
18. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-367: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (NOBEST, INC.)
(Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Nobest, Inc.,
in the amount of $14,391 for the Palm Street/Midway Drive Drainage
Improvement, Account No. 26-791-6325-E1380)
19. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-368: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE BROADWAY SEWER AND WATER
IMPROVEMENT, ANAHEIM BOULEVARD TO HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(CHANGING TIMES ENTERPRISES, INC.) (Awarding a contract to the lowest and
best responsible bidder, Changing Times Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of
$277,608, for Broadway Sewer and Water Improvements, Anaheim Boulevard to
Harbor Boulevard, Account No. 46-792-6325-E2150)
20. 000/167: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-369: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A REVISED SuHEDULE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES. (Adopting
a revised schedule of traffic signal fees)
21. 152/101/124/135: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-370: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-331 IN CONNECTION
WITH SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS. (Amending Resolution No. 84R-331, in connection
with designated Family Foresome employees to be representatives for small
claims actions)
22. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-371: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE I~atMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NO. 30 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY. (Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 30 with the Agency to receive
funding in an estimated amount of ~1,445,000 for engineering and construction
improvements for the traffic circulation in the downtown Project Alpha Area.)
23, 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-372: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
24. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-373: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #3500-24).
25. 146/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4641: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PROVISIONS OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PAPdIING
RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON PORTIONS OF FLOWER STREET AND CRESCENT
AVENUE. (Amending Section 14.32.158 by adding Subsection .060 thereto and
amending Section 14.32.190 by adding Subsection .2230 thereto, pertaining to
parking restrictions and prohibitions on portions of Flower Street and
Crescent Avenue)
649
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auzust 20, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-365 through 85R-373:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-365 through 85R-373, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 85R-369:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-369 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
173: HELICOPTER TRAINING SESSIONS OVER URBANIZED POPULATION CENTERS:
Submitted was reported dated August 12, 1985 from the Intergovernmental
Relations Officer, Bill Sell, recommending that the Council request the Army
Air National Guard and the United States Marine Corps to investigate alternate
helicopter training routes that avoid densely populated centers of Orange
County and authorizing the Mayor to communicate that position to the cities
elected representatives in Washington and officials in the Pentagon. (A
sample letter was included with the report).
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern over alternate routes that may be used
since all of West Anaheim was very densely populated. Senator Cranston's
suggestion using flight simulators to reduce the number of actual flights had
a great deal of merit. She wanted more study on the issue before acting. If
simulators could cut down on flights she would prefer to see that happen
before changing flight patterns again. Alternate flight patterns over more
dense areas would not be an improvement.
Mayor Roth stated he was going to support the action with great reluctance.
He attended several meetings in Congressman Danneymeyer's Office attended by
ranking commanding o££icers o~ the Los Alamitos Army Reserve. The problem
surfaced because of complaints from the City of Orange. He also asked staff
to research complaints received in Anaheim from the Police Department or any
other Department in the City. Five had been received in the last month on
helicopter noise which could also include police helicopters. The Army
Reserve was dependent upon not only their own flight personnel, but also on
enlisted personnel. If their operation had to be moved to a remote area, the
pool of enlisted men would be non-existent and thus it would hamper the
Reserve Program since that Program fed off highly populated areas. The
Military Establishment was doing everything possible to abate the noise and a
great deal of action was taking place.
Councilman Bay explained that he lived in the Los Alamitos flight pattern as
did Councilwoman Kaywood and the complaints he heard were not limited to
650
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
helicopters but also jets. He was concerned over the possibility of a crash
in a heavily urbanized area. Noise and the safety factor were prime
concerns. As long as the problem of the flight pattern was going to be
analyzed, the whole matter should be considered. He did not believe it was
the Katella Corridor at all, but the north east flight pattern. He was in
support of the action but recommended taking a look at the whole picture of
what was occurring at Los Alamitos over the last three years compared to
before that time when it was relatively quiet.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the additional questions be taken into
consideration.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 85R-374 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-374: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM URGING THE DISCONTINUATION OF ARMED FORCES HELICOPTER TRAINING MISSION
OVER DENSELY POPULATED PORTIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-374 duly passed and adopted.
142/112: ORDINANCE NO. 4642 - REHEARING PROCEDURE: City Attorney Jack White
explained the proposed changes to the rehearing procedure resulting as a
response to concerns expressed by Council Members ( see his report and
recommendations dated August 13, 1985). He also read an addition to the
request for rehearing and Declaration of Merit Form now used by petitioners as
follows: "The petitioner acknowledges that any rehearing granted by the City
Council will constitute a de novo hearing, vacate the original decision, and
authorize the City Council to a--~irm, reserve or in any manner modify its
original decision."
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4642 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4642: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION
.090 TO SECTION 1.12.100 OF CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO REHEARING.
170/156: POLICE FACILITIES EXPANSION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT C:
Councilman Roth moved to approve the waiver of a parcel map for the Police
Facilities Expansion Capital Improvements Project C, authorizing the City
Attorney to execute a certificate of compliance relating thereto and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a grant deed from the City to
the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation as recommended by the City Attorney
in his report dated August 16, 1985. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay voted No. MOTION CARRIED.
651
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO LIBRARY BOARD: Appointment to fill terms expiring
June 30, 1985 on the Library Board, 4 year term, to expire June 30, 1989.
This matter was continued from the meetings of August 6 and 13, 1985.
Councilman Pickler nominated Elizabeth Schultz; Councilman Overholt nominated
Earl Dahl.
Councilman Pickler moved to close nominations. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A unanimous vote was cast for the reappointment of Mrs. Schultz and Mr. Dahl
to the Library Board for the term expiring June 30, 1989.
105: MOTHER COLONY HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD: To discuss terms, membership, and
vacancies on the Mother Colony House Advisory Board. This matter was
continued from the meetings of August 6 and 13, 1985.
Councilman Overholt nominated Earl Dahl to serve on the Board.
City Clerk Sohl explained that there were five members of the Mother Colony
House Advisory Board which the Council expanded to seven some years back but
the Board had been functioning with five members since that time. This was an
opportunity for the Council to have seven members if they wished.
Councilwoman Emywood questioned the advisability of having one person serve on
two Boards or Commissions; Councilman Overholt explained that he asked Mr.
Dahl if he could serve on both and he said he could do so. Councilman Roth
moved to close nominations and cast a unanimous ballot for Mr. Dahl.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Bay asked that the matter be continued to
give the Council more time to fill what appeared to be two vacancies. There
may be other people interested in serving on the Board and he would like to
know before nominating any.
Councilman Bay moved to continue appointments to the Mother Colony Advisory
Board. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Councilman 0verh01t was opposed to a continuance. If there was opposition to
Mr. Dahl serving that should be stated.
The balance of the Council Members had no objection to continuing the matter.
Councilman Bay explained that his motion had nothing to do with approving Mr.
Dahl or not; Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that she had no opposition to Mr.
Dahl.
A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance to September 10, 1985.
MOTION CARRIED.
It was also determined that Mr. Dahl's nomination would still be on the floor.
652
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
City Clerk Sohl stated she would also advertise that positions on the Board
were available to be filled.
108: POOL ROOM PERMIT APPLICATION: Councilman Roth moved to approve a Pool
Room Permit application submitted for Billiard Tung, 512 S. Brookhurst for 5
pool tables as recommended by the Chief of Police. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
155: NEGATIVE DECLARATION - TIMKEN ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT: Approving a
negative declaration for the construction of a sanitary sewer within and
adjacent to Timken Road between Mohler Drive and 489 feet southeast of Mohler
Drive. This matter was continued from the meeting of August 6, 1985.
The City Clerk announced that letter dated August 20, 1985 was just received
from J. E. McNames relative to the subject.
Mrs. Mitzy Ozaki, 340 South Timken Road, addressed three items; Timken was a
private road and a complaint in the past was that each time the City had
initiated a project, the road was never put back in original condition. The
residents wanted assurance that would be done so that the private residents
would not have to continue bearing additional costs. The second issue was
access to the area by use of a private driveway. Dionne Hesketh, the renter
of the home involved in the private access, had stated that the City, as far
as she knew, had not obtained use of that road and thus there was the question
of liability using a private driveway. If the road was to be used, at present
it was heavily rutted and would have to be leveled to be usable. Further, the
normal path of rain water at the present time was over Timken Road and down
the other side. If there was now going to be construction on the hillside
there was the possibility of mud and silt going over the roadway. She
suggested that there be a storm drain placed underneath the road to preclude
problems in the future.
Art Daw, Design Engineer, stated it was the intent of the Engineering Division
upon completion of construction of the sewer in Timken Road that the trench be
resurfaced and the entire roadway repaved within the limits of the
construction. The roadway would be restored back to better or equal
condition. He also clarified the following: (1) Relative to the private
road, if there was a problem with access, Engineering could include in their
specifications that prior to starting construction, the contractor would do
whatever grading was necessary to provide a suitable access. (2) Relative to
permission to route traffic across a private driveway, Mr. Bruce Bowman of his
office had discussed the matter with Mrs. Hesketh. It was the City's intent
to request right of entry to permit access over the driveway but that had not
yet been done pending approval of the negative declaration. (3) Relative to
water flow over the existing road, it was not the intent to change the
existing condition. Engineering would include in their specifications that
the contractor will either use a mesh or mulch or some other means not
thoroughly defined at this time to reduce the erosion. They would also either
seed or hydro-mulch the area to restore the natural vegetation as quickly as
possible.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve a negative declaration for the
construction of a sanitary sewer within and adjacent to Timken Road between
653
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Mohler Drive and 489 feet southeast of Mohler Drive. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
139: ACA7 (MOUNTJOY) - EXCLUDING POLITICAL PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN NONPARTISAN
ELECTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to continue the subject until the Council
had an opportunity to read the documentation requested of the
Intergovernmental Relations Officer at the meeting of August 13, 1985 just
submitted. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
172: NORTHEAST ORANGE COUNTY CIRCULATION STUDY (NEOCCS): Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 85R-375 for adoption affirming the findings of the
NEOCCS Study. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-375: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REAFFIRMING THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE NORTHEAST ORANGE COUNTY
CIRCULATION STUDY (NEOCCS).
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked that if adopted, the resolution be
sent to the Mayor and Council Members of the City of Orange, Villa Park and
Tustin. Assuring that the NEOCCS Study findings were implemented was very
important to the future growth in the Canyon Area. It was imperative that the
Council support the study which was adopted in 1978. Orange County Planning
Commission recently reaffirmed a position on support of that study.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the NEOCCS Study was important even at
the present time and not dependent on future growth.
Councilman Overholt reiterated his request for an update by staff on what
transpired relative to the NEOCC Study from its inception to present. Ail
Council Members should be fully informed in order to be able to answer
questions and concerns of citizens.
Mayor Roth stated that the Council should have a position paper on the issue
as soon as possible since it was such an important issue now with the ROAR
Organization, one of their larger issues being that Imperial will never be
extended beyond its six lane stub going south of Nohl Ranch Road. It was
going to be an issue of political significance in all elections in the
future. He felt it was imperative at this point for the Council to again
affirm their strong support for the plan and to assist the elected body in
Orange would be going to be dealing with the matter in the next week or two.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-375 duly passed and adopted.
151: WHOLESALE FURNITURE DISTRIBUTORS--QUITTING BUSINESS PERMIT: George
Levine, Wholesale Furniture Distributors, requesting a 60-day extension of
654
51
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
time for a Going Out of Business Sale, in accordance with Code Section
4.68.040, for Wholesale Furniture Distributors, 709 East Lincoln Avenue.
Submitted was a report dated August 9, 1985 from Planning/Business License
recommending granting a 60-day extension.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the 60-day extension of time in accordance
with staff recommendation. MOTION CARRIED.
149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4636: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4636
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4636: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN EXCESS OF TWO HOURS IN THOSE PARKING
LOTS ADJACENT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CENTRAL LIBRARY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4636 duly passed and adopted.
Police Lieutenant Thalman confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
ordinance did incorporate clauses to issue permits to employees of both the
Library and Police Departments and also recognized the permits presently used
for employees using the Civic Center parking structure.
144/142: ENABLING ORDINANCE - MAJOR BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE FEES - ORDINANCE
NO. 4640: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4640 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4640: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
17.08.432 TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING
A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4640 duly passed and adopted.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, reported in answer to
Councilman Bay that the only update he had relative to the matter was that the
County would also be having the second reading of the enabling ordinance this
week and was holding a public hearing the same week as Anaheim was holding
theirs.
173: SETTT.~MENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OVER THE JOMN WAYNE AIRPORT AIRLINE ACCESS PLAN: Councilman Overholt read a
portion of the letter dated August 19, 1985 sent to the Orange County Board of
655
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Supervisors by the Mayor - Re: Settlement agreement between Orange County and
the City of Newport Beach over the John Wayne Airport Air and Access Plan
wherein a majority of the City Council (Councilman 0verholt being the one
abstaining Member) urged the Board of Supervisors not to enter the subject
settlement agreement. He also referred to letter dated, August 12, 1985
(received August 14, 1985) from Mr. R. L. Johnson of the Douglas Aircraft
Company urging the Council to adopt a resolution to be sent to the Board of
Supervisors, "...in support of our quiet MD-80 (Aircraft) and urging them to
assist on reaching a solution on the John Wayne airport issues that will best
serve the interest of ALL of Orange County both economically and
ecologically." He was not aware that the matter had ever been discussed at a
Council meeting. He then gave his stand on the issue noting that he had
always been supportive that John Wayne Airport, until there was something
better, should be used based on its potential because it was important to
Anaheim's tourist and hotel business. When Mr. Joe Irvine was present before
the Council the last time, he (Overholt) explained that if the expansion
continued without consideration of the people in the take-off pattern, he was
going to "get off the wagon".
Councilman Overholt then read other portions of the letter written by Mr.
Johnson concluding that it did not sound like he (Johnson) knew much about the
impact and further, if Douglas was state of the art, they ought to develop
quieter engines just as Boeing had. The letter came to the City from a
manufacturer of a product, to influence the Council and inturn the Board of
Supervisors in what they were doing in litigation with the City of Newport
Beach involving that airport. To say that the City should be unconcerned
about the people who were subject to the noise of take-offs was total
corporate irresponsibility and irresponsibility for the City of Anaheim to
take such a position. The 0verholt family had a place in Newport Beach in the
take off pattern of airport since the date the Martin Brothers opened that
airport many years ago and he would invite anybody to come down and listen.
It was unfair to that beach area to continue to ignore the impact. If there
was a continuing need for an airport in the County, John Wayne was not going
to fill that need.
Mayor Roth explained the events leading up to the letter written by the
Council supporting the Douglas position. The Council received Mr. Johnson's
letter the day after the last Council meeting which required action prior to
today's meeting. Anaheim was vitally concerned and dependent upon good
transportation to the area. Rather than take action on his own, he asked the
City Clerk to ensure that each Council person had the opportunity to read the
document and if the majority felt they were in concurrence, he asked the Clerk
to prepare a letter for him to sign and submit to the Board of Supervisors. A
letter was received from the City of Cypress as well along with a copy of
their resolution which they had already sent to the Supervisors supporting the
Douglas'position. He understood how sensitive the issue was and when he
testified at the County relative to expanded flights at John Wayne Airport, he
respected the opposition as well.
114: SISTER CITY COMMITTEE REQUEST TO BECOMB PART OF CITY UMBRELLA: Mayor
Roth referred to letter dated August 13, 1985 from Robert Anthony, Anaheim
Sister City Committee, which he had first discussed with Mr. Anthony whose
656
49
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
concern was that the Sister City Committee, at no cost to the City, be placed
under the umbrella of one of the City functions, probably under the Public
Information Office (PIO). They were looking for a liaison with PlO. Both the
Anaheim Arts Council and Anaheim Beautiful were under the City umbrella. He
(Roth) discussed the matter with the City Manager and the first question of
the City Manager was how much it was going to cost the City. He asked that
the matter be placed on a Council agenda in the future for discussion and
action.
It was determined that the matter would be discussed at the Council meeting of
September 10, 1985.
Councilman Bay felt it was also time that the Council had an overview and a
review of the organizations within the City umbrella from the standpoint of
liability, non-profit tax reports and the report chain through the City and
who was overseeing those organizations. They should be done at a time
convenient for staff.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be
held with the City's Attorneys to discuss the following:
To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to
Government Codes Section 54956.9(a), to wit:
To consider such other matters as are orally announced by the City
Attorney or City Manager prior to such recess unless such motion to
recess indicates any of such matters will not be considered in closed
session.
c. Significant exposure to litigation - 54956B.1.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:45 a.m.)
AFTER ILECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:50 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2695 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION .'
APPLICANT:
Thrifty Oil Co.
1000 Lakewood Boulevard,
Downey, CA. 90240
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales
and off-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property located at 2801 West Lincoln
Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-175 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2695.
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision by the applicant.
657
5O
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 9, 1985.
Posting of property August 9, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 9, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 22, 1985.
The City Clerk announced that letter dated August 14, 1985 from Mr. A. W.
JohnsOn of Thrifty Oil had been received requesting a continuance and as
confirmed by telephone that morning, they were requesting a one week
continuance to August 27, 1985.
After a brief Council discussion regarding an appropriate date for continuance
for full Council action, Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public
hearing to Tuesday, September 24, 1985 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HFARING - VARIANCE NO. 3495 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Roger R. Dittmann,
1270 East La Palma,
Anaheim, CA. 92805
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RM-1200 to RM-3000, to
construct a 7-unit affordable condominium complex on property located at 1262
East La Palma Avenue, request for waiver of Council Policy No. 543, pertaining
to density bonuses, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of
parking spaces, (b) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (c) maximum site
coverage, (d) minimum front setback, (e) minimum recreational-leisure area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-171 denied the Conditional
Use Permit and the Planning Commission also recommended denial of the waiver
of Council Policy 543 if the Planning Commission findings are reversed.
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal by the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication ln Anaheim Bulletin August 9, 1985.
Posting of property Ausust 9, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 9, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 8, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Nanette Leuschel, Public Affairs Consultant, working with
Yoldash Development, 21 Russell Lane, Laguna Nigual.
She was present today with Mohammad Rezazadeh, Vice President
Yoldash, Massoud Monshizadeh Project Engineer for the site at
1262 East La Palma, to ask the Council to consider three things
- that the proposed development, a sum total on both the 1260
658
City Hm11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
and 1262 East La Palma is a quality development, it is
affordable offering pride of ownership to at least seven more
families, and the waivers requested are reasonable. There was
an unfair analysis at the Planning Commission because the
Commission chose to analyze 1260 East La Palma alone without
consideration of the entire project. The petitioner is asking
that the Council consider the whole project. Yoldash came to
the City in good faith proposing a project that was less intense
than the zoning in the area, or apartment houses. The Planning
Commission agreed to down zone the area but denied the variance.
Massoud Monshizadeh, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia.
He spoke to the type and affordability of the development, the
quality being the same as that of the eight units which Yoldash
is already building at 1260 East La Palma, this being the fourth
project he has built in the City of Anaheim. The previous
development was approved by the Council approximately two years
ago. The units will range in price from $105,000 to $110,000
and the affordable units are $97,000 which was the price agreed
to with the City's Housing Department. This was a very high
quality development. It is not possible to proceed with the
project on the basis of only six units as suggested by
Councilman Pickler. There is a driveway which belongs to the
eight adjacent units but must be viewed as a driveway to be
utilized by both projects. He had a share in the first project
(the eight adjacent apartments at 1260 East La Palma) and Mr.
Rezazadeh owned seven of the units and is also a partner in the
seven subject units. He (Monshizadeh) did not own any part of
the seven proposed units. Before concluding, he reported that
12 letters had previously been submitted at the Planning
Commission hearing in support of the project.
Nanette Leuschel.
She elaborated upon the numbers relating to the project (i.e.,
parking spaces, lot area per dwelling unit, maximum site
coverage, etc.) the staff analysis called Staff No. 1 upon which
the Planning Commission relied involved only the one parcel.
(She was working from a flip chart containing the numbers which
she was briefing). The developer suggested that the entire
project be considered or Staff No. 2 as if there were 15 units
starting all over again. Another way was to look at the parcel
at 1260 East La Palma plus the driveway. Using the three
different analysis, she showed resultant waivers for each (see
Issue Paper, Anaheim City Council Meeting, August 20, 1985, an
appeal of the denial of Variance No. 3495 which basically
contains the information given in Leuschel's presentation). In
concluding, she felt a reasonable position would be to consider
the entire project, either the Yoldash analysis or Staff No. 2
and under either of those, maximum site coverage is not needed
resulting in a density bonus above the maximum allowed of 7
percent, Yoldash, or 29 percent Staff No. 2 analysis of the
entire project.
659
48
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
All 7 units are 3 bedrooms totalling 21 bedrooms and also with a
request for a waiver of one parking space. She is concerned it
is possible to have two families or two couples living in a 3
bedroom unit and actually have 4 cars. A parking waiver can be
serious.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Reedy Blanchard, 515 Century Drive (Buttonwood off of Sycamore).
He is in Joint tenancy in the property with his aunt at 1280
East La Palma. He has seen the area gradually being run down
because of lack of maintenance and age. There is a need for
affordable low cost housing for younger residents. He urged
approval of the project since only new construction will
refurbish the area.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. The previous
analysis made included the adjacent parcel which is not a part
of this property. In connection with that, all the waivers
being requested today even with 6 units and probably with 5
would still be required. Of the 5 waivers, the two unable to be
evaluated are the site coverage and building setback on the
front. If one unit was eliminated there is a possibility that
might also eliminate those two waivers. Three waivers will
still be necessary, density, minimum lot area per unit, possibly
minimum recreational leisure and site coverage may or may not be
a waiver. Permitted Code is 4.7 units on the subject project
rounded off to 5. Relative to the number of apartment units
that could be placed on the parcel, in the strictest sense,
under Code it would be 14 units per acre for condominiums and a
potential of 36 for apartments so that the potential density for
apartments would be somewhere in the area of two times as many
assuming they could meet the appropriate site development
standards. The parking is an identical requirement.
Councilman Bay.
The joint use of the driveway seems to be the key to the land
usage. Looking at the project from a standpoint of all one
development and the similarity to both sides, he wanted to know
if density wise what percentage bonus would the City really be
giving if this were all one project.
Anuika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
The current piece before the Council is approximately 43 percent
above Code in terms of density. The existing project is at 25
percent and the two combined are approximately 33 percent which
would still necessitate the Council waiving their policy. It
660
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
would have been possible to build condominiums with apartment
zoning. The zoning would permit development of less intense
land use than permitted under the underlying zoning. They
would, however, have to file a tract map on the project. The
standards would be identical as RM-3000 zoning even if developed
in RM-1200 zoning.
Relative to density bonus, with the two parcels combined, the
bonus request is 30.4 percent instead of 25 percent as stated in
Council Policy. Otherwise, it would be 49 percent on the
subject property alone.
Jack White, City Attorney.
Relative to the possible Joint use of the driveway, that can be
made a part of the CC&R's for the projects or an individual
recorded agreement that would only relate to the use of the
driveway, a joint agreement, or it could be done simply with an
easement.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Ever since the Council rearranged the number of maximum units
permitted for condominiums, the Council had made a policy that
25 percent was going to be the absolute maximum allowed and they
adhered to that strictly. If the zoning had not been changed
and it was apartment zoning RM-1200 with the units requested, it
would not be setting a precedent or breaking the policy set to
not go over that 25 percent. She is also concerned that with 21
bedrooms 17 parking spaces would be unacceptable.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect om the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the waiver of Council Policy 543
reversing the Planning Commission denial. Councilman 0verholt seconded the
motion.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood and Bay
None
Councilman Pickler asked for clarification on the motion. He subsequently
changed his vote to "no" unless the developer decreased the project to six
units.
661
4.6
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay.
Since it was going to require a revote on the motion, he
questioned Council Policy 543 and asked for clarification from
staff; Annika Santalahti confirmed the policy was one where the
Council agreed to and established a 25 percent limit on density
bonus which was totally consistent with State Law. If providing
25 percent affordable, the City shall allow a minimum of 25
percent density bonus.
Councilman Bay.
Agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood's concern about breaking the
standing policy but favored condominiums in the subject area
over apartments to get some home ownership in the area. He
needed to know the least change that would pull that density
bonus down to 25 percent, i.e., both sides being one
development; Miss Santalahti clarified it would have to be 5
units.
Massoud Monshizadeh.
Reaffirmed that he could not live with a 5 unit project and the
project would be lost otherwise. The Council would then
undoubtedly be faced with an apartment project which was already
being discussed by developers who had approached him.
Mayor Roth then asked for the vote, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, approving the waiver of Council Policy 543.
Councilwoman Kaywood was under the impression that the motion
was voted on and lost two to three; Councilman Overholt took
exception to that since the vote was negated.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on that motion waiving Council Policy 543:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood
None
Jack White, City Attorney, clarified that waiver being minimum lot area per
dwelling unit is the only waiver relating to the density bonus under
Government Code 65914. As to the other ~our, the resolution would be
incorporating the findings as set forth in the staff report relating to
finding exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
property. The Code had incorporated in it language that the density bonus is
defined as meaning only variances from the minimum lot area per unit. The
condition set forth in the staff report under Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations includes a requirement that the joint use driveway be
established and an easement be granted to cover that, which will be adequately
covered by imposing the Interdepartmental Committee conditions. That easement
would be in perpetuity.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-376 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3495, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, subject to
662
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations 1 through 23. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-376: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3495.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-376 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay asked that the chart showing the past precedents also show a
note next to the subject project so the Council does not forget it was
combined with another parcel resulting in a 30.4 percent density bonus this
being the second exception to the Policy.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She wanted that to be clear for any further developers coming in
especially where down the street if they were going to quote the
subject action and request the same kind of density bonus.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:59 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:12 p.m)
179: CONTINUED REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2460~ 2461 and 2462:
APPLICANT: Riviera Mobilehome Parks, (a Joint venture),
300 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To add, amend or delete conditions of approval of
Comditional Use Permit Nos. 2460, 2461 and 2462 on proposed RM-1000 zoned
property located at 300 West Katella Avenue. CUP 2460, to permit a 17-story,
852 room hotel; CUP 2461, to permit two 14-story office complexes; CUP 2462,
to permit two 180-unit condomin~um towers.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 relating to the subject conditional use
permits was certified by the City Council at their meeting of January 24, 1984
as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act along
with the Statement of Overriding Consideration.
HEARING ~ET ON:
Council meeting of February 28, 1984. Review requested by Councilman Pickler
and rehearing granted by the Council relative to certain requested amendments
at the meeting of April 3, 1984 and continued from the meetings of May 15,
June 5, July 24, October 9, November 27, December 18, 1984, February 12,
March 5, April 16, May 7, May 14, May 28, June 4, June 18, June 25, July 9 and
July 16, 1985, to this date (see minutes those dates).
663
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 2, 1985.
Posting of property February 1, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 31, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the Planning Department/Planning Division dated
December 11, 1984 and February 26, 1985; Staff Report from City Attorney's
Office dated February 6, 1985 and April 8, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, 100 So. Anaheim Boulevard,
representing the owners of the Riviera property, formerly the
Riviera Mobile Home Park.
Mr. Farano submitted and read a statement outlining the position
of his client as of August 20, 1985. He reported he had met
with the Fujishige family and their attorney on August 19, 1985,
with the following results: the Fujishige Family would dedicate
the property for the storm drain and an "L" shaped road built to
ultimate width with full improvements, i.e., all utilities,
curbs and gutters. Improvements such as moving the existing
house on the property, installation of a fence, etc. to allow
continuance of the agricultural activities to be made with no
financial commitment indicated on the part of the Fujishige
family for their share of these expenses now or in the future.
The statement which was read presented three alternatives for
the Riviera Project:
(1) that conditions which require Riviera to obtain real
property interests for the construction of the Clementine and
Convention Way extensions be deleted.
(2) that the City undertake the condemnation proceedings to
acquire the real property interest necessary to allow the
project to proceed, and the roadway be constructed by the City.
Both Riviera and the City to be reimbursed for the road upon
development of the FuJishige property. Riviera would construct
the storm drain and receive reimbursement. Riviera would pay
$500,000 in settlement of the City's requirements for off-site
improvements.
(3) Permit the Riviera project to go forth without the street
improvements on Clementine and Convention Way. Riviera would
install the storm drain; pay to the City the sum of $500,000 in
full discharge of offsite improvements of Clementine and
Convention Way, said funds to be used in part for the
modification of the Harbor-Katella intersection set forth in the
EIR and balance of the payment retained by the City for future
use. In this manner the Clementine and Convention Way
improvements would only become necessary at the time that the
Fujishige's property is developed. Riviera would convey any
rights of reimbursement to which it would be entitled for street
extensions to the City and would be reimbursed for development
of the storm drain.
664
41
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Farano was of the opinion that alternative 3 is the optimum
route for the Council to take.
OPPOSED-
Roger Grable, Rutan & Tucker, 611 Anton, Costa Mesa, Attorney
retained by the Fujishige family to represent their rights in
this situation. Mr. Grable emphasized that the Fujishige family
entered negotiations under threat of condemnation and not
willingly. They retained traffic engineers to evaluate the
alternatives and to develop a proposal fair to all. He
submitted these proposals in a letter dated August 19, 1985.
Most of the provisions are acceptable to the Fujishige family
with the exception of the issue of reimbursement. In view of
the value of the property they are dedicating and the disruption
of their agricultural operation and disruption of potential
development of the site they do not feel it is fair for them to
be required to reimburse for any portion of the improvements if
the roadway goes through their property.
There is a significant point of contention on the value of his
client's property. His client's contention is that it is worth
one million dollars per acre and the Counsel for the applicant
believes the value would be established at closer to ~30,000 per
acre based on the Fresno vs. Cloud Case. His position is that
this case is an aberration as it is a Court of Appeals case and
if challenged will not be upheld, particularly in this situation
where the roadway is not necessarily required for development of
the Fujishige property. Further the property is under a
Williamson Act contract which specifically requires that it be
considered at its highest and best use and not as agricultural
property in determining its value.
Mr. Dick Schmid, Williamson & Schmid, 17782 Skypark Boulevard,
Irvine. Employed by the FuJishige Family to review the cost
estimates prepared by the City of Anaheim in conjunction with
Riviera development. He indicated disagreement with City
estimates which were based on 1977 plans. His calculations for
full improvement of the roadway from Harbor easterly to
Clementine and Clementine northerly to the Riviera site come to
~§§2,000 or 1.3 million i£ you add a 35% contingency. He
submitted his written estimate.
There being no further public input, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
Statement made August 20, 1985, by Floyd Farano.
Cost Estimate prepared by Williamson & Schmid of full
improvements Clementine and Convention Way.
Letter dated August 19, 1985, from Roger Grable, Rutan and
Tucker.
Memorandum dated August 19, 1985, from Jack L. White, City
Attorney.
Site Plan prepared by Williamson & Schmid showing "L" shaped
intersection.
665
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
W. O. Talley, after receiving the information from Mr. Farano
that his client would not be prepared to pull building permits
for at least a year, and certainly not within the next 90 days
and further that the first phase of construction would most
likely be the office building, recommended the following course
of action to the City Council:
Due to the fact that the City Staff believes that Clementine and
Convention Way roads are required for the Riviera project, and
the minimum acceptable roadways would be pilot roads, in order
to allow the Riviera project to go forward, the City Council
should direct staff to prepare a precise alignment of the pilot
roads and report back in 90 days to the City Council with a
recommendation on that road alignment, being prepared to move
forward with the condemnation for the road at that time. Once
the cost of the road is determined by a Court of Law and
construction of the project has been bid, and construction costs
are available to the Council, then the Council should determine -
what the fair and equitable share of this project is for
Riviera, without any maximum amount or ceiling being placed on
it. If the cost is prohibitively high, the City may elect to
take a down payment and allow Riviera to make incremental
payments with interest at the City's investment rate for the
balance.
Any portion of the acquisition or construction costs which
relate to the Fujishige property should be assigned to that
property and if and when that property is developed a condition
would be established that they pay for their part of the
investment at that time. It is not recommended that the Council
change their standing policy of requiring the developer to front
the cost of development improvements by either accepting payment
in lieu of these requirements or by placing a cap on their
required investment.
Mr. Talley stated that the difference in this recommendation and
what has been discussed previously, is that the City would be
willing to take up a portion of the initial improvement costs
for the Fujishige property, which i8 not ready to develop a8
yet, these to be reimbursed, with interest, at the time that
property eventually is developed.
It was pointed out that the City Staff is aware of the
difficulty with the above recommendation outlined by the City
Manager is that the developer has an unknown cost prior to
beginning the development. As explained by Jack White, the cost
of the improvement would depend upon which theory the Court uses
to determine the value of the Fujishige property taken in the
condemnation -- its potential highest and best use, or its
current agriculturally zoned use.
666
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Overholt.
Inquired whether Mr. Farano and his client would be willing to
have the City's powers of eminent domain assigned them, to
proceed at their expense and risk.
Mr. Farano responded that they were originally willing to accept
this in conjunction with obtaining easement rights for the storm
drain but in view of the Fujishige's contention that the
property is valued at one million dollars per acre would not
accept that risk. They would reconsider if the Fujishige's
would agree to the ~30,000 per acre figure.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Questioned whether taxes and penalties would be excused for the
entire Fujishige property or only that portion taken in
condemnation.
Response was that only the portion under-condemnation would be
excused and taxes and penalties would be assessed against the
balance of the property at the time the property was removed
from the Agricultural Preserve Agreement.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Questioned what the difference in acreage to be taken would be
if the "L" shaped intersection were used instead of the "T"
shape.
Response was that the "L" shape required 5.5 acres and the "T"
shape is estimated at 6.5 acres for a difference of one acre.
Councilman Bay.
Noted that Mr. Farano had on several occasions indicated the EIR
which the City had adopted requires only modifications to the
Katella and Harbor intersection, and that the extension of
Convention Way and Clementine be undertaken at a later time.
Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, and Gary Johnson,
City Engineer responded on behalf of the Traffic Engineer that
the public record clearly indicates these are required roadway
extensions to support development in this area, citing comments
included in the EIR itself.
Councilman Ben Bay.
Questioned what risks the City might face should the Council
adopt resolutions approving the conditional use permits in
question and allowing the projects to move forward, and then not
go forward with the condemnation.
Jack White responded that the Council can abandon the
condemnation proceedings at the cost of having to pay court and
other costs incurred. If the developer were unable to satisfy
the conditions of approval of his Conditional Use Permits, he
would be back before the Council, who would have to determine
whether or not to amend these conditions.
667
4O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
In further response to Councilman Overholt, who inquired as to
then what if the Council chose not to amend the conditions,
Mr. White advised that the Council would then have a developer
with approved permits, having conditions unable to be
satisfied. Court decisions indicate that in order to be
enforceable a condition would have to be one which the developer
is capable of performing.
COUNCIL ACTION:
On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council
approved an amendment to the conditions of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460
and 2462, and approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 on rehearing to reflect
the staff recommendations set forth by Mr. Talley; and authorizing and
directing the City Attorney to prepare and return to City Council for adoption
resolutions reflecting these actions; and authorizing and directing staff to
prepare the precise road alignment to be returned within 90 - 120 days.
MOTION CARRIED. (Councilman Bay abstained from voting on the motion.)
The City Attorney reported that he would return the resolutions to the Council'
Members for their consideration at the meeting of September 17, 1985.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:36 p.m.)
Leonora N. Sohl,
City Clerk
668