Loading...
1985/09/24101 City ~a11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 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 O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING: Norman J. Priest CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson DIRECTOR, PARKS, REC. & COMMUNITY SERVICES: Chris Jarvi PARKS SUPERINTENDENT: Jack Kudron ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT PLANNER: Mary McCloskey TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Darrell Ament Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Catholic Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION: The Mayor and City Council Members presented eleven City Employees with Certificates of Achievement for their participation in the Employee Involvement Program resulting in awards for their suggestions. 119: INTRODUCTION: Mayor Roth introduced Officer Max Kolbeck, a visiting Police Officer from Germany, here on an exchange program for police officers. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the Anaheim Firefighters Association, upon their being the No. 1 Fire Association fundralser in the State with a contribution of $7~000 for the Jerry Lewis Telethon. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: "International Integrity Day in Anaheim," September 24, 1985. 119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Dee Noble, President of the Anaheim Arts Council and Julie Mayer, Chairman of Art in Public Places 712 :02 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Committee of the Anaheim Arts Council for a donation of $5,000 to the Parks Department. 106: MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council authorized and increased appropriation for Pearson Park by $5,000 and increased Revenue Account No. 16-820-3199 by the same amount. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held August 27, 1985. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Roth abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 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, un_less 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 $2,089,026.28, in accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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-410 through 85R-422, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4652 for First Reading. i. 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 Leslie Lee Fahrenkrog for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 12, 1985. b. Claim submitted by Rosemary Bretz for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 5, 1985. c. Claim submitted by Richard L. Bare and/or Para-Scope Productions, Inc. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 2, 1985. d. Claim submitted by Grady Wofford for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 28, 1985. e. Claim submitted by Steven J. Swaim for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 16, 1985. 713 99 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. f. Claim submitted by Michael Armes for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 26, 1985. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for August 1985. b. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of July 23 and September 10, 1985. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of September 4, 1985. 3. Approving the following applications in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. 108: Public Dance Permit, E1 Torito Restaurants, Inc., for Who Song & Larry's, 2020 East Ball Road, on September 29, 1985, from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. b. 108: Public Dance Permit, E1 Torito Restaurants, Inc., for Who Song & Larry's, 2020 East Ball Road, on October 6, 1985, from 6:00 p.m to 11:00 p.m. c. 108: Public Dance Permit, E1 Torito Restaurants, Inc., for Who Song & Larry's, 2020 East Ball Road, on October 27, 1985, from 6:00 p.m to 11:00 p.m. 4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the one month ended July 31, 1985. 5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the North Orange County Regional Occupational Program in an amount not to exceed ~51,397 to permit NOCROP to administer the Job Training Partnership Labor Market Information Project for the period July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. 6. 160: Accepting the low bid of Amfac Electric Company in an amount not to exceed $32,279.33 for 3,960 feet of 15KV, 750 KCMIL, XLP cable, in accordance with Bid No. 4242. 7. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-410: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ANDALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALT. WORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE MODIFICATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM AT THE KATELLA SUBSTATION. (Accepting the completion of construction of Katella Substation Water Improvement, Account No. 55-485-6430-01031, Simtch Construction Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 8. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-411: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL 714 100 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24; 1985~ 10:00 A.M. PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LEMON STREET STORM DRAIN IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Accepting the completion of construction of Lemon Street Storm Drain Improvement, Account Nos. 24-791-6325-E1290, 17-791-6325-E1290 and 51-606-6329-0224, John T. Malloy, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 9. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-412: A RES0LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINATJ~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WATER IMPROVEMENTS OF WELL SITE NO. 14 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Accepting the completion of construction of Water Improvements on Well Site No. 14, Account No. 53-619-6329-02329, Subgrade Construction Corp., and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 10. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-413: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF bT.T. WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PONDEROSA PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Accepting the completion of construction of Ponderosa Park Play Equipment Equipment, Account No. 25-818-7105-18060, Hondo Company, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 11. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-414: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 35 FOR RIGHT OF WAYAND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THEANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 35 with the Agency in an amount not to exceed ~150,000 for reconstruction of crosswalks in the downtown area of Project Alpha) 12. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-415: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 37 FOR RIGHT OF WAYAND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 37 with the Agency in an amount not to exceed ~90,000 for the resurfacing of Kraemer Boulevard from Crowther Avenue to the south City limit) 13. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-416: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 42 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIMREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (Authorizing Cooperation Agreement No. 42 with the Agency in an amount not to exceed $225,000 for the construction of a median in Harbor Boulevard from Broadway to South Street) 14. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-417: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-268 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY. 715 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. (deleting the classifications of Civil Engineer--Design, Civil Engineer--Field, Civil Engineer--Office, and Traffic and Transportation Engineer, effective September 27, 1985) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-418: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-267 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (adding the classifications of Civil Engineer--Design, Civil Engineer--Field, Civil Engineer--Office and Traffic and Transportation Engineer, effective September 27, 1985) 15. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-419: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-58 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITH FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS. (adding the classification of Part-Time Police Officer-Detective, Schedule B 1620, effective October 4, 1985 through April 3, 1986 and as Schedule B 1668 effective April 4, 1986 through October 9, 1986) 16. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-420: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-268 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY. (creating the classifications of Drafting Supervisor X SR04 and Engineering Support Services Supervisor X SR05, effective September 20, 1985) 17. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-421: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIMAPPROVINGAND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT R~IATING TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. (Authorizing the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between First Interstate Bank of California as Trustee and Assignee of Anaheim Stadium, Inc., in connection with the $10,290,000 Certificates of Participation Issue modifying the insurance provisions thereby increasing the Certificates from A- to A bond rating status) 18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-422: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. 19. 123: ORDINANCE NO. 4652: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING ANAMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. (Authorizin$ an amendment to the contract between the City and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, to provide for a reduction of benefits for future local police members) Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-410 to 85R-415 and 85R-417 through 85R-422: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-410 85R-415 and 85R-417 through 85R-422, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 716 95 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 85R-416: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-416 duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 175/123: REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - WCS INTERNATIONAL: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, secondary reimbursement agreement with WCS International for construction of a 10-inch secondary water main crossing State Highway 91, east of Glassell Street, was authorized. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held September 4, 1985, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2714: Application submitted by Priscilo and Pilaf C. Panganiban, to expand a board and care facility for a maximum of 12 developmentally disabled persons and construct a second story addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 804 North Magnolia Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-202, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2714, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2715: Application submitted by Anaheim Hills Development Corp., to permit an unmanned public utility remote switching station for Pacific Bell on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 7295 East Columbus Drive. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-203, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2715, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT NO. 2717: Application submitted by Robert K. Walker, Jr., et al, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 100 South MagnoliaAvenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-204, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2717, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2708: Application submitted by Scenic Corridor Industrial Park, to retain an automobile restoration and repair facility and an automobile and jet boat repair facility on ML(SC) zoned property located at 5612 and 5620 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-201, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2708, and granted a negative declaration status. 717 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985, 10:00 A.M. The City Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Frome Investment, owners of the subject property, and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. End of Planning Commission Information Items. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4653: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4653 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4653: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS AND SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 18.21, 18.24, 18.25, 18.26 AND 18.27 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (excludes private streets from lot area calculations for single-family zones) 179: DISCUSSION--PROPOSED BILLBOARD SIGN ORDINANCE: Request of Floyd L. Farano of Farano and Kieviet, lawyers, representing Regency Outdoor Advertising Company, was continued from the meeting of May 28, 1985, and again from July 16, 1985 at the request of the petitioner. Petitioner Floyd Farano referred to the proposed ordinance submitted in May and noted previous discussions on the issue were continued to allow the applicant an opportunity to discuss problems with City staff, and determine whether there was support for the proposal within the sign industry. Applicants and representatives from outdoor advertising companies met with City staff on August 22, 1985 and as a result of that meeting the sign industry was now in a united position concerning sign provisions with the exception of Foster and Kleiser and Jay Kingry of Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising. He referred to his letter dated September 20, 1984 and read the included "resume of proposed billboard ordinance", containing the sign industry's suggestions for the proposed ordinance, and requested that the Council instruct staff to prepare a new sign ordinance reflecting the suggestions offered. Council Members briefly discussed the proposed ordinance as currently submitted, Councilman Pickler noting that 7 out of 9 members of the Billboard Industry now were in accord. He felt the proposal would place some controls while generating revenue to the City. Mr. Farano pointed out that Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising had no signs in the City at the present time. He compared the existing and proposed ordinances and advised that a 1200 square foot freeway oriented billboard would generate $2,400 a year to the City. A total of 30 billboard location along the freeway would become available including 11 currently in place. Councilman Overholt inquired what benefit the proposal would be to the citizens. Mr. Farano replied that people are motivated by advertising to purchase goods, which together with the revenue realized would benefit the financial stability of the City. In addition, the ordinance would provide a means of controlling billboards and signs within the City. 718 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood inquired if there had been any change to the State of California position on landscaped freeways. Mr. Farano noted that one of the provisions in the proposal was that the freeway signs should conform to the State landscaped freeway requirements. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the issue. Rob Verman, Foster and Kleiser, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, reported that Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising does have one billboard in the City on Brookhurst Street south of the Interstate 5. Foster and Kleiser are opposed to any change in the existing sign ordinance, as the proposal would reduce the number of sites available to them and would require excessive tax payments to'the City. Regarding proposed reduction in numbers of signs at intersections, he suggested that a billboard request granted would require removal of one at an intersection. Donald Day, owner of property at 301 Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance would benefit Regency Outdoor Advertising Company but be detrimental to property owners. He briefly reviewed his application for billboard on his property which had been denied 3 years ago, and because the proposal would prohibit two freeway billboards directly across from one another, any new request of his would be denied again. Sherry Tilton, 1731 Workman, Los Angeles, Ca. 90031, of Gannett Advertising, stated Gannett concurs with the concept of the ordinance proposed by Mr. Farano, and feels the citizens of Anaheim would benefit therefrom. They further support the establishment of the revised Business License fee structure, and currently are interested in increasing the number of billboards along the freeway. In response to question by Councilwoman Kaywood concerning proposed exchange of signs at a corner for a new billboard request, Ms. Tilton stated it was a viable possibility. She noted that due to attrition, billboards are lost; Gannett favors six signs allowable at corners, and feels that the City would be protected under the new ordinance by the requirement for a conditional use permit for each individual application. Councilman 0verholt asked what caused Gannett Advertising to reverse their original position on the proposed ordinance. Ms. Tilton pointed out that originally there had been no study nor input from City staff; after reviewing the results of that study and the report, Gannett was supportive of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Fred Guido, Gannett Outdoor Advertising, Los Angeles, stated that although he could not speak for those companies opposed to the proposed ordinance, Gannett would not be prepared to remove any of their existing signs within the City, since the number of billboard locations is diminishing. Where new developments are going in, landscaping added to City streets, etc. they were losing locations which they were unable to replace because of physical constraints; they believed that the ordinance would provide safeguards. 719 93 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24, 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay stated that the proposal should be referred to Planning and Zoning staff and the City Attorney for review and preparation in ordinance form, to be brought back to Council with all alternatives. Further, at that time, a public hearing should be scheduled. Councilman Overholt was of the opinion that Councilman Bay's suggestion would be premature; that the City should not proceed until all of the industry can come to an agreement. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved that Planning and Zoning staff and the City Attorney consider the resume submitted, and then submit an ordinance to the City Council giving alternatives, and public hearing scheduled to discuss the proposed Ordinance. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. To this motion, Council Members Overholt and Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 173: PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY REQUEST: Request of Plaza Transportation Company for an extension of time for jitney service to Anaheim Plaza was withdrawn by the applicant, and no Council action taken. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4651: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4651 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4651: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON RICHFIELD ROAD, NORTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4651 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4654: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4654 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4654: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Reclass. 84-85-24, RM-1200, 114 No. East Street) RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City Attorney for the following purposes: a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). (i) Goldenwest Baseball Company vs. City of Anaheim Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46 b. To consider such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney or City Manager prior to such recess unless such motion 720 94 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. to recess indicates any of such matters will not be considered in closed session. c. To consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss matters as outlined, and a lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:27 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:00 p.m.) 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2695 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Thrifty 0il 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. was continued from the meeting of August 20, 1985. This matter 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. In accordance with request by Thrifty 0il Company, applicant, Councilman R0th moved that public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2695 and Negative Declaration be continued to October 29, 1985., at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Mr. Myung Soo Chun briefly addressed the City Council as a private citizen, relative to the number of existing stores selling beer and wine. Mr. Khanh Ton, owner of Lindale Market at 2806 West Lincoln Avenue, came forward to state that there were several off-sale beer and wine facilities existing nearby, and to add another would be detrimental to his business. MOTION CARRIED. 721 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 176: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 84-20A: Emhart Industries, Inc., to abandon an easement for drainage and pipeline purposes extending from Olive Street to Orange Street located south of Water Street. This matter was continued from the meetings of August 13 and September 10, 1985, to this date. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, public hearing on Abandonment No. 84-20A was continued to October 15, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. at the applicant's request. MOTION CARRIED. 144: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AREA OF BENEFIT AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM: To consider the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program, including establishment of (1) the boundaries of the area of benefit, (2) the estimated costs, and (3) the method of collection of costs to the area of benefit and fee apportionment. HEARING SET ON: Adoption of the enabling ordinance August 20, 1985, at which time the date and time were set for public hearing on the fee program and Joint Powers Agreement. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 10, 1985. Legal Notice posted in Civic Center August 10, 1985. Mailing of notices to property owners within 300 feet on September 13, 1985, approximately 12,000 notices mailed. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director briefed the staff report dated September 16, 1985 which recommended: (1) that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration for associated documentation necessary to establish development fees for funding construction of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor; (2) that the City Council establish the area of benefit and the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor; (3) that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the "Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency" and approve a memorandum of understanding regarding the City's participation in the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Fee Program; (4) that the City Council appoint a member of the City Council to be the City's representative and voting member on the Board of Directors of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency and appoint a member of the City Council to be the alternate representative. Mr. Fick recalled that the items to be considered this date are the product of more than one year's work by City staff members and Anaheim City Council Liaison members designated to work with the County of Orange and Orange County 722 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Transportation Commission staff, which effort has resulted in consensus documents prepared among affected agency representatives. The documents presented for consideration this date will establish two areas of benefit entitled Zones A and B, with proposed fees as follow: Zone A Zone B Single Family Multiple Residence Non-residential $1,295 $ 920 755 $ 535 $1.80/~q ft $1.05/sq ft Mr. Fick explained that it is of major importance to note here for any residents present at the hearing that this fee program will not affect existing commercial, residential or industrial properties, or the remodeling or reconstruction of same. Mr. Fick noted the status of the process to put this Program in place in the cities of San Clemente, Orange, San Juan Capistrano and the County of Orange. EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Letter dated September 23, 1985 from Robert M. Galloway, Senior Vice President, Kaufman and Broad. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: OPPOSED: Mr. A~med, 1841 E. Adams, Orange Ca. Stated he owns property in Zone B which would be affected by the proposed fee program. He opposes same on the basis that he felt existing property owners should share in the cost, or these improvements should be financed through State gasoline taxes, rather than assessing costs against new construction. He also was of the opinion that the proposed fee program is a scheme through which the County was generating funds to pay for litigation against him. OPPOSED: Mr. Beltzer, 5061 Stony Canyon, Yorba Linda Calif. Opposed because the extension of Miraloma would go through his property and require that out of his ten acres, he would dedicate 1-3/4 acres. Felt that the boundary of the area of benefit should be established at Lakeview, or his property should be excluded from the program, as it will be unfair to have to compete with properties in Placentia, when that City is not participating in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. OPPOSED: Daniel Holden, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, attorney representing the Etchandy property located at the northwest corner of Miraloma and Lakeview. Mr. Holden concurred with Mr. Beltzer that the boundaries of the area of benefit should be adjusted to exclude properties to the west of Lakeview. These properties are a substantial distance away from the actual area 723 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. to benefit; these property owners have already paid property taxes and will be taxed again when they develop their properties. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Council Members Bay and Roth both commented on the overwhelming need for traffic relief in the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors, and the fact that alternative methods of financing (Proposition A- one cent sales tax) have failed. CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION: Councilman Bay noted that because a number of political entities are involved in creating the Program, that actions are being taken over a period of weeks or months to effect the establishment of benefit zones and fees. It was consequently of concern to the Council to establish an effective date for collection of fees with building permits. The suggested date was six weeks from the date of this meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-423 for adoption, establishing the area of benefit and the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor. Refer to Resolution Book. 144/000: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-423: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF BENEFIT AND THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. 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-423 duly passed and adopted. 123/144: AUTHORIZING JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT: On motion by Councilmember Roth, seconded by Councilmember Pickler, the City Council authorized a Joint Exercise of Powers agreement with the County of Orange and the Cities of Irvine, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Aha, Tustin and Yorba Linda, creating the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor 724 City Hall~ Anahetm; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Agency and approving a Memorandum of Understanding relating to participation in the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Fee Program. MOTION CARRIED. 144/000: ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE OF FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR FEES: On motion by Councilmember Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the effective date for the fees established by Resolution No. 85R-423 for residential, industrial and commercial developments in both Zones A and B, was determined to be 60 days from the date of this meeting. MOTION CARRIED. 144/114: COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY: On motion by Councilmember Roth, seconded by Councilmember Pickler, Councilman Ben Bay, who had served up to this point as the Council's Liaison to the development of this program, was appointed the representative and voting member on the Board of Directors for the City of Anaheim. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilmember Roth, seconded by Councilmember Kaywood, Councilman Irv Pickler was appointed the Alternate Representative to the Board of Directors of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-37~ VARIANCE NO. 3486 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Ralph W. and Virginia G. Maas, c/o William R Froeberg 3553 Camino Mira Costa, Ste. F, San Clemente, CA. 92672 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct a commercial shopping center on property located at 901 South Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-180 and 181 granted Reclassification No. 84-85-37 and Variance No. 3486, EIR negative declaration, recommended be granted. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by the James D. McGuigan, attorney for the applicant. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 13, 1985. Posting of property September 12, 1985. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 13, 1985. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 5, 1985. In accordance with request by the agent for the applicants, Councilman Roth moved that public hearing in Reclassification No. 84-85-37, Variance No. 3486 and negative declaration be continued to October 15, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 725 gl City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24; 1985~ 10:0o A.M. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3497 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Robert Ferrante 3171 Campus Drive Irvine, Ca. 92715 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To expand an existing commercial center on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5565 to 5595 East Santa Aha Canyon Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum landscaped setback. (denied) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-182 granted Variance No. 3497, in part, denying waiver of minimum landscaped setback, EIR negative declaration recommended be granted. HEARING SET ON: Request by Councilwoman Kaywood. PUBLIC NOTICEREQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 13, 1985. Posting of property September 13, 1985. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 13, 1985. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 5, 1985. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Mr. Michael K. Erazier, 4712 Tucana, Yorba Linda, GA. 92686, authorized agent for the applicant, was present to answer Council Members concerns. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilwoman Kaywood. Concerned about overbuilding on the property with insufficient parking, as pointed out in the staff report by the Traffic Engineer. She inquired whether the parking spaces were for compact cars, and felt a precedent would be established by utilizing the public street (old Santa Aha Canyon Road) for parking purposes. Mr. Frazier stated that it had been proposed to use the street for parking by agreement, however, the Planning Commission subsequently determined there was a surplus of parking spaces on the property and the Traffic Engineer revised his opinion. When offices are vacated between 5 and 6 p.m., more parking becomes available for the existing dinner restaurants, and expansion plans prepared provide 80 percent of the Municipal Code Parking Requirements. STAFF INPUT: Traffic Engineer Paul Singer reported that the traffic study had been addressed to an additional phase of development which was not now contemplated; without that phase, there is a surplus of 726 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985, 10:00 A.M. parking, and the plans do provide sufficient parking even during lunch and dinner. The Code allows 25 percent of the parking spaces to be for small cars, and these spaces seem to be utilized in industrial and office environments; he recommended that the street not be used for parking, indicating that he was not opposed to the possible abandonment of that street. City Attorney Jack White briefly reported on exploration by staff of a possible agreement with developers to allow the public street to be utilized for public parking, with the applicant providing certain maintenance; however, the Planning Commission decided not to enter into that arrangement. IN FAVOR: No one was present to speak for or against subject Variance. CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERNS: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-424 for adoption, upholding the action taken by the City Planning Commission, approving Variance No. 3479, subject to the conditions and findings of the Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-424: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3497. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, 0verholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-424 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (3:14 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:20 p.m.) 727 19 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985, 10:00 A.M. 179: JOINT WORK SESSION~ PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Chairman Ken Kessee called to order the Joint Work Session of the Public Utilities Board with the City Council. PRESENT: ABSENT: Ken Keesee, Dale Stanton, Richard Haynie, Joe White, Carl Kiefer, R. J. McMillan, Jim Townsend None Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt made reference to staff report dated September 19, 1985, distributed on September 23, 1985, containing two recommendations for dealing with the refunds of wholesale overcharges by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) as follows, the first having been recommended to the City Council on August 27, 1985, and continued to this date. (1) Based on the present refund policy, that the Council approve the distribution of SCE Company refunds of approximately $11,340,000.00 (including estimated interest to September 18, 1985) as a one-time credit on the bill of customers of record as of September 6, 1985; and that electric rates be increased approximately 5.5 percent. (2) Based on a new rate stabilization policy, to establish published electric rates which will meet the needs until such time as SCE exceed those City rates in effect today; when that occurs, the City's rates would increase to equal a 2 to 3 percent increase, which is estimated for mid 1986. All refunds would be placed in a rate stabilization account, and money could be removed as needed to make up the difference between the published rates and actual billed rates. Customers would see no change in their bills until at least mid-year 1986. The money in that account would carry through the calendar year 1986, and perhaps through the first two months of 1987. Utilizing projected slides, Mr. Hoyt showed graphs illustrating the ratio of the "billing rate" to the "published rate", and noted that the recommended process could be continued into the future if the Council so desired, depending on future rates and/or refunds. The rate stabilization account would have no effect on the general fund nor Utilities Department Revenues. In response to Council questions, Mr. Hoyt pointed out that if the City does not keep its retail rates where they are until SCE rates exceed those of the City, than the refunds would run out in October or November, 1986. In 1987 SCE rates are expected to rise above those of the City. Councilman Bay noted that the report shows estimated SCE rate increases, and resulting City rate increases, with capital expenditures to continue based on those projections. He expressed concern that the Utility maintain a "break-even stance" and hold rates down, asking what alternatives were available. Mr. Hoyt referred to details in the Department's Five Year System Development Plan, which includes Capital Improvements. The 20-year forecasts for rates are compiled by staff every two years. The current proposal was not for any more than the "break even stance"; changes in published rates would be submitted to the Public Utilities Board and the Council for approval. The rate stabilization account would be used to hold rates to less than those of 728 2O City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24; 1985~ 10:00 A.M. the SCE Company until early 1987, and he felt that a rate increase would be necessary each year as long as inflation continued. Mayor Roth invited Members of the Public Utilities Board to comment. Chairman Ken Keesee stated he had Chaired the Board for 9 years, and at public hearings for necessary rate increases, it had been especially difficult to hear pleas by senior citizens and others on fixed income that the utility rates not be raised. He asked that something be done to assist those people. Board Member Joe White outlined the recommendation to the Board from the Chamber of Commerce, upon which the Board had been working at their September 12, 1985 meeting, and noted that the Public Utilities Board had recommended that the City oppose the Chamber's suggested plan (report was contained in the transcript of the Public Utilities Board hearing of September 12, 1985, furnished to City Council). He briefed the Board hearing of September 12, 1985 and action taken for recommendation to the City Council. Mayor Roth pointed out that a segment of our society was trying to live a normal life within a fixed income, and the City Council had promised electric rates which were below those of the SCE Company; however, City rates were now above' SCE rates. He expressed interest in the recommendation by the Chamber of Commerce. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: William Ehrle, 552 Sherwood Drive, Anaheim, CA. 92805. He noted that at the time Proposition A was to come before the voters, Mr. Hoyt had stated that Anaheim's participation in power generation would result in a few more clerical positions being added to his Department, mostly accounting staff. However, on August 22, 1985, Mr. Hoyt had stated at the Council meeting that Department operating expenses were increasing by approximately ~700,000. He expressed the opinion that for the majority of the past 10 years, the public had been given continual promises and untruth, and he quoted the Public Utilities General Manager's statement as contained in the Los Angeles Times issue of January 26, 1975, concerning potential 25 percent savings to citizens by approximately 1985. In another article, it had stated that §CE felt Mr. Hoyt's figures should be studied by a consultant. The bonds were subsequently approved and now things were out of the control of the rate paying citizens. He requested that the City Council let those citizens know where they were headed. Mr. Hoyt stated he strongly resented any implications or charges, and categorically denied that there had been any falsehoods given on his part to anyone. In 1975 when the power supply program was started, the Utilities staff believed that a number of generating stations would be constructed and placed into operation by 1985, producing a revenue stream to the City. However, as demonstrated earlier this year by staff presentation to the City Council, those savings would not materialize as 729 17 City Hall~ Auahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. DISCUSSION: early as hoped due to time scheduling problems; the first unit probably would be in operation in July of 1986, and the second in July, 1987. Anaheim should receive its first kilowatt of power from Intermountain Power in April, 1986 when the first turbine roll is scheduled, and test energy was expected to be generated into our system. Commercial operation was projected for July, 1986. In addition, he advised that Independent Consultant Engineers did study the Proposition A figures contained in the proposal at the time, and made independent recommendations to the Public Utilities Board and the City Council at a Joint Meeting, and also at other subsequent meetings. Increases in Department maintenance and operating costs were not related to generation requirements, and Mr. Hoyt stood by what he had stated on August 22 concerning costs for clerical staff. Department personnel had been reduced by 25 out of 300 persons over the last three years, and he believed that forecasts had been accurate as made. Rita Ray, 1927 Chateau, Anaheim, Ca. 92804. Briefed the background of Anaheim's utility rates which had risen along with those of SCE Company and various operating expenses. She stated that people voted for bonds because they believed they would be receiving power at lower cost. Now, more rate increases were forecast and she inquired as to the amount of the City's bonded indebtedness. She further recalled that in 1983, Mr. Hoyt had requested that the Council retain one of the refunds so that the money could be used for Capital Improvements for the Los Angeles Rams development. Mr. Hoyt responded that earlier this year, Utility staff had presented a report to City Council which covered that issue in great depth; they went through the City's direct debt and the debt which is implied by existing contracts. No matter how it is accomplished, the rates would be held at the present level. The difference would be that they were suggesting rates increase only when those of SCE were raised to a level higher than those of the City. Board Member McMillan pointed out that the City was in the Utilities business, and must show customers that that business is being conducted in the most viable manner possible. Councilwoman Kaywood indicated she was not opposed to the recommendation but was surprised at the "turn about" in recommendations by the Board. Councilman Overholt indicated a strong case for stabilization of rates had been presented, and felt that the staff proposal presented today would provide that stabilization, carrying the City through to 1987, without increase in billed rates. 730 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Mr. Hoyt requested that the City Council give some direction today on the proposed rate stabilization account. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the City Council embrace in concept the recommendation by utility staff this date, i.e., for a published rate and a billing rate; the billing rate to continue as is, and locked into the Southern California Edison Company situation, so that when SCE rates rise to the level of the City's billing rate, the refund rate stabilization account would be used to subsidize the retention of the City's rates at the SCE retail rates so long as those funds remain. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued, and Councilman Bay expressed disagreement with the staff recommendation to raise the base rate to 5.5 percent, with a policy projection for another 4.6 percent in 1986. However, he agreed with the concept of holding the refund and using it and its earnings to meet necessary costs already approved by the Council in the budget; the most he would approve is a one and one half percent increase on the base rate. Councilman Bay proposed that Councilman Overholt's motion be amended to include discussion of the possibility of a much lower base rate, while using refund monies to stabilize rates for as long as possible. Councilman Overholt indicated his motion would stand as offered. Councilman Roth withdrew his second to Councilman 0verholt's motion and thereupon seconded Councilman Bay's proposed amendment, commenting that he would like to see all alternatives. Councilman Pickler seconded Councilman Overholt's motion. Councilman Bay withdrew his amendment to Councilman Overholt's motion and suggested that the Public Utilities Board be given the leeway and flexibility to discuss the pros and cons of what has been projected by the staff, and establish the base rate as low as possible while meeting the need and balancing the account. Councilman Roth withdrew his second to Councilman Bay's motion. Roll Call vote on Councilman Overholt's motion was requested: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS Kaywood, Pickler and Overholt Bay and Roth None PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Ken Kessee adjourned the Public Utilities Board meeting to another meeting in another location (6th Floor Conference Room), to convene in 10 minutes. (5:00 p.m.) RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:00 p.m.) 731 15 City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth reconvened the meeting at 5:10 p.m., all members being present, and announced that at this time the City Council would hold a Joint meeting with the City Planning Commission to consider the Anaheim Stadium area study. PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING: Norman J. Priest ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick PROJECT MANAGER: Mary McCloskey TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II: Mac Slaughter Planning Commission Chairman Charlene La Claire called the City Planning Commission to order. PRESENT: Bouas, Bushore, Fry, Herbst, King, La Claire, McBurney ABSENT: Messe 101/114/105: ANAHEIM STADIUM AREA STUDY: Executive Director Norm Priest stated that the Stadium area had been under study for approximately 18 months under contract authorized by the City Council for the examination of impacts to the City's infrastructure by development proposals in that area, and precisely what would be required to support planned and proposed development. The Planning Commission was seeking guidance from the Council pertaining to methods of funding infrastructure improvements vitally needed for such developments. A 15-minute slide presentation was given by Study Consultant Phtllip Schwartze, of Phillips Brandt Reddick, the firm which conducted the study. (See Anaheim Stadium Work Book). The study boundaries were defined as being bounded by Ball Road on the north, the Santa Aha Freeway on the west, the Anaheim City Limits on the south and the Santa Aha River on the east. S,,mmaries of existing and projected square-footage in the study area were given including office square-footage and acreage, and of costs identified in the study, and additional cost estimates for recommended Alternative IV. There was a recommended action/plan, and another map showing the area staff recommended for G~neral Plan Amendment, i.e., bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad Easement on the north, Santa Ana Freeway on the west, City Limits on the South and the Santa Aha River on the east. The City plan designated the area as primarily industrial. To accommodate recent and projected development activities which were dramatically different from industrial in character, implementation of costs to the City were estimated to be a total of ~131,396,000 for Alternative IV, which included identified costs plus additional cost estimates. Recommendation was estimated for an interim fee program to fund the necessary improvements. Responding to question by Mayor Roth, Mr. Schwartze advised that in the 1960's, when the City adopted a General Plan for the area, plans were for a low-rise industrial program. Now that the area had become extremely attractive and the infrastructures were at capacity, various improvements were 732 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. needed to continue with the change from an industrial base to high density, high rise office buildings. He recommended Alternative IV for optimal growth, and noted the City was in a dynamic position with the area's access to freeways which gave excellent circulation capabilities. Other county areas developing in this manner were not as well planned, and would "choke-out", as a result, developers would be looking to Anaheim. Mayor Roth called attention to persistent rumors of recycling into high density office buildings, the Orange Drive-in property and property to the west in the City of Orange, and he asked whether any coordination efforts had been initiated with the City of Orange for traffic circulation, etc., since that property was immediately south of the Stadium study area. Mr. Schwartze replied that he had seen no master plans; he was aware that Orange was in the process of letting a contract for their EIR to study a master plan for that area. Council discussion was held with various points made in the study being clarified. Assistant Director for Planning Joel Fick pointed out that when the study was presented to the Planning Commission, they directed that the Study Work Book presented to Council this date be prepared to address right-of-way acquisitions costs, etc. Other cities were contacted with the findings that their methods of calculating fees varied. Anaheim's Planning and Zoning Department was receiving almost daily inquiries about commercial office development in the area, and should that be the policy, the recommendation was that a General Plan Amendment be initiated to study the area for commercial office development. If that type of development was to be encouraged, it was recommended that an interim ordinance be adopted and in the meantime, the City would be studying the possible avenues available to make up the necessary funding. Councilman Bay requested examples of where the City had exceeded the capacity of its traffic infrastructure at this point. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer reported that if all development which already had been approved was completed, capacity will have been reached at two intersections, Katella and State College Boulevard and Orangewood and State College Boulevard. Mayor Roth invited comments from Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Lew Herbst felt that before a decision could be made, the City Council needed to determine what would be the cost benefit to the City, and what was affordable. Mr. Schwartze pointed out that the recommendation was for a much more detailed analysis of the cost benefit to be made; every alternative recommended would resolve in a positive fiscal impact to the City. Alternative IV was recommended as the highest intensity, thereby it would generate the highest benefit. 733 13 City Hall~ An~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~, 10:00 A.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Floyd L. Farano, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim Ca. 92805, attorney representing Dunn Properties, addressed the Council and Commission advising that Dunn Properties Development was the lead project at State College Boulevard and 0rangewood Avenue. He stated that one of the conditions of their zoning action was a fee of ~5.33 per square-foot of building gross floor area. Under Alternative IV, a 39 percent fee would be paying for 100 percent of the cost. This did not seem fair, since benefits would accrue in varying degrees, depending upon location of a potential development, and considering that road improvements would take up three fifths or $32 million. He proposed that the City recognize that the infrastructure improvement is necessary, and that all properties in the study area should be assessed in accordance with the extent to which they would benefit from actual improvements. Mr. Farano further advised that Dunn Properties had prepared an EIR report for their development which identified certain impacts to the area, and they had agreed to pay for them. He felt the $5.33 fee was too high for future developers when the price of their properties would be adjusting to the projected commercial office development. He felt his clients were "caught in the middle" as they purchased the property under one set of values and a new set of values was being added. He requested that the City of Anaheim immediately consider the institution of an Assessment District to cover the entire area. Executive Director Norm Priest pointed out that the $5.33 had been adjusted in the study proposal to $6.38, which was a more accurate calculation. Mayor Roth suggested that some flexibility be worked out for a project that was caught in such a position. If the recommendation was fully adopted, new developers coming in would be aware of fees from the beginning. Mr. Priest advised that by the time an Assessment District was established and in place with protests heard, hearings held, and action taken, a fair amount of time would be involved. He pointed out that in some other cities where similar development took place, fees were collected too late in the process. Previously completed projects in the Stadium area were not expected to participate in these fees, and if there was any over-payment by new developers, the City would need to make a refund in order to insure equity. Assistant Director for Planning Joel Fick advised that the recommendation from the consultant was that the City leave no stone unturned seeking possibilities for making up the short-fall. Assessment Districts may be one vehicle for one or some of the improvements, and the suggested interim fee program was for only 50 percent of the currently estimated costs. 734 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985t 10:0G A.M. Commission Chairman La Claire noted that the EIR report presented by Dunn Properties stated the City's infrastructure was at capacity, and in order to build this new project they must participate in some sort of financing mechanism. In response to question by Councilman Bay, Mr. Priest stated that staff anticipated 50 percent of the costs to come from fees in the development area. Alternative sources for the other 50 percent might be derived from the following: (1) Matching Federal funds on special projects. (2) On the sizeable item of right-of-way acquisition, given costs assume "full takes" often partial takes, or less, can be achieved which would substantially lessen those costs. (3) Additionally, it was possible that other financing mechanisms would be identified in addition to cost sharing. (4) On some improvements, while costs were calculated on an interim 50 percent cost basis, there could possibly be substantially less participation of costs for certain improvements simply because that percentage of benefit would be less, which would be determined through further analysis. Staff was not suggesting that all of the improvements must be constructed simultaneously. Total cost was projected at $12.76 per square-foot, less what might be reduction in right-of-way acquisition. Councilman Pickler left the meeting. (6:30 p.m.) Councilman Bay questioned what was included in Phillips Brandt Reddick's circulation estimate. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer read from the study document, Page 23, outlining Capital Improvements included in the circulation estimate. Phillips Brandt Reddick's preliminary study stated that this was the minimum requirement. Mr. Andy Schutz, Dunn Properties, felt that their development had been caught in the middle; they purchased the property a year ago, paid a handsome price and made their projection based on what was believed to be the current rentals. Now the rules had changed, and they were amazed by the magnitude of the numbers discussed today. Competitive cities assess fees of different magnitude and he was of the opinion that they would have to reassess their situation and determine whether they could proceed, as their initial reaction was that they must substantially downscale their development. He had assumed that they would be participants in an Assessment District which would pay for the improvements, which they realized were necessary; he felt fees would have to be based on sound economics for a workable solution. 735 11 City Hall~ Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Commissioner La Claire again pointed out that the Planning Commission had continued one project three times and would again be considering that project on September 30, 1985. Perhaps the solution would be to assess an interim fee until an ordinance was adopted, or an Assessment District formed, and if the fee were in excess of whatever the final action may be, that portion could be returned. Commissioner Herbst urged that a new specific zone be considered for the study area, which would accommodate existing and proposed development. Regarding the project which was continued before the Commission, Commissioner Bouas pointed out that the developers were concerned that they would have to pay a fee and pay for the Assessment District. She asked whether the fees could be applied to the Assessment District. City Attorney Jack White stated that his understanding of discussion today was that an equitable solution would be reached at the point when the Assessment District was established. In addition, the Council discussed giving credit toward the fee that the proposed ordinance established, however, the ordinance was not written that way; the ordinance established a flat fee at $6.38 per square-foot as a condition of any building permit for improvements necessitated by the developments. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Bay indicated he did not want to be rushed into a decision after a week of reading the study document, and having had presented today the proposed ordinance and the s-mmary contained in the Study Work Book. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that she and Councilman Pickler had served as liaison to the Committee which studied this problem for approximately the last two months. There was an urgency to go forward, as there were potential developers inquiring about the area almost on a daily basis and the infrastructure must be improved. Mayor Roth commented that considering the magnitude of the proposal, maybe it would be wise to have public hearings on the issue so that input could be obtained not only from developers, but from industry. Mr. Priest suggested that staff sit down with Dunn Property Representatives and discuss their situation, as there was some merit for looking into a particular solution in their case. Staff could come back to Planning Commission with the results, and City Council could deal with it when it came before that body. 736 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 101/114/105: ORDINANCE NO. 4655: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance 4655 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4655: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM FEE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER. Councilman Overholt stated he did not intend to vote for finalization of the ordinance until there was a complete hearing. By introducing the ordinanc~ at this'time, there was a document on which to work as a basis for making critical decisions. He concurred with the suggestion by Mr. Priest regarding working with Dunn Properties for equity in their situation. Commissioner La Claire pointed out that an application had been continued by the Commission for a time which was approaching the 40-day limitation. Deputy City Attorney Mac Slaughter explained that under Municipal Code requirements, the Planning Commission loses jurisdiction to consider a matZer 40 days after the hearing has been closed. If the Commission did not make their decision, it would come to City Council regardless. The hearing could possibly be reopened if the applicant stipulated to extending the 40-day period, but he believed there might be some legal difficulties. In response to comment by Councilman Overholt, Mr. Schwartze reported that Phillips Brandt Reddick had a variety of market studies, and concurred that the Dunn Properties project had some unique features. He indicated that Mr. Priest's recommendation to meet with representatives of Dunn Properties was probably the most equitable solution. Mayor Roth thanked the Planning Commissioners for their participation in the meeting. Commissioner La Claire expressed appreciation to the City Council for holding the joint meeting, and adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:15 p,m. 118: LARRY J. FRICKER WAREHOUSE FIRE: Mayor Roth reported that a hearing was held before the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on September 20, 1985, concerning toxic substances at which the Larry J. Fricker Warehouse fire in Anaheim was mentioned. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:21 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 737