1985/11/26149
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor David Bolton, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: COUNCIL REORGANIZATION: Selection of Mayor pro tem. This item was
continued from the meeting o~ November 19, 1985, to this date.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to absent himself from the
deliberations in the selection of a Mayor pro rem. After the deliberations,
he would join in and make a motion to cast a unanimous ballot for the Council
person elected to serve as Mayor pro rem for the next year.
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (10:11 a.m.)
Councilman Roth nominated Councilman Pickler as Mayor pro rem. He explained
that for the next six months he (Roth) was going to be busy in a campaign of
another nature and felt that Councilman Pickler had the time to devote to, and
carry on, the many duties and activities of the Office of Mayor during that
period.
Councilman Pickler nominated Councilwoman Kaywood.
There were no additional nominations.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, nominations were
closed. Councilman Overholt was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
A Roll Call vote was then taken on the nominees in the order of their
nomination.
Councilman Pickler:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Roth
NOES': COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt
874
150
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Since there was a question relative to whether or not the vote was sufficient
to elect a Mayor pro tem, City Attorney Jack White confirmed that on the
nomination, the vote was two yes votes, one no and one abstention, the
abstention not counting as a vote. Thus, three votes made the quorum and vote
was two to one. It was not required that there be three affirmative votes but
only a majority of those voting. In his opinion, the vote was sufficient to
elect Councilman Pickler as Mayor pro tem.
Councilman Bay suggested that the Council revote because he did not think that
any one understood abstentions were going to be used as yes or not used as no;
Mr. White stated that the abstention was not used at all in the vote.
Abstentions counted only in favor of a motion but this was a nomination. A
revote on the matter would be up to the Chair.
An additional Roll Call vote was then taken on the nomination of Councilman
Pickler as Mayor pro tem:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler and Roth
Bay
Overholt
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:16 a.m.)
Councilman Overholt stated he heard the vote and understood that Councilman
Pickler was elected Mayor pro rem. He thereupon moved to cast a unanimous
ballot for Councilman Pickler to serve as Mayor pro rem.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"Buy American Day in Anaheim," November 29, 1985,
"All American Buckle Up Week in Anaheim," November 24 to 30, 1985,
Police Chief Kennedy and Lt. Thalman accepted the Ail American Buckle Up Week
proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Paul O'Neill, Chief
Executive Officer, Anaheim Memorial Hospital, on the occasion of his
retirement.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held November 12, 1985. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
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
875
147
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
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 Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 33,482,935.80, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
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 Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 85R-490 through 85R-493, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
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 Robert Doyle Keller, Jr. for wrongful death of son
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 11, 1985.
b. Claim submitted by Raymond James Sullivan, Sr. and Raymond James
Sullivan, Jr. for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about July 4, 1985.
C. Claim submitted by John Edward Walls for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 16, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Benito TreJo, Jr. for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 25, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Colvin Packaging Products, Inc. - Barry E. Colvin
for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about August 22, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Deborah Ledferd for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 28, 1985.
f. Claim submitted by R. Wilson for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about September, 1985.
g. Claim submitted by Connie & Jack Buttrey for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 23, 1985.
h. Claim submitted by Sara Moiler for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about August 21, 1985.
Claim filed against the City - recommended to be allowed:
876
148
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
i. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 22, 1985.
(Claim #4H546-0535)
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of October 23, 1985.
b. 107: Community Development/Planning Department, Building Division--
Monthly Report for October 1985.
c. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of October 10, 1985.
d. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of October 10, 1985.
e. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Corrected Minutes of July 24,
and August 28, 1985.
f. 156: Police Department--Third Quarter Crime Report, 1985.
3. Approving the following applications in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. 108: Public Dance Permit, submitted by Manuel Gomez, for Anaheim Cruz
Azul Soccer Club, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on
November 28, 1985, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
b. 108: Public Dance Permit, submitted by Musa I. Madain, for Green Eyes
Productions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on
December 20, 1985, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with McLean and Schultz, in an amount not
to exceed $10,500 to provide architectural services for the design of a
replica of the Pearson Park grandstand, to be completed within 44 working days.
5. 160/123: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing
Agent to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding to Emergency One
Inc. in the the amount of $475,017.80 for one 95 foot aerial ladder truck with
platform; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to execute a letter agreement
with Kaufman and Broad approving the cost to be incurred by them to be
$401,161.24.
6. 160: Accepting the low bid of Woody Chevrolet in the amount of $15,681.49
for one suburban vehicle, in accordance with Bid No. 4267.
7. 160: Accepting the bid of Woody Chevrolet in the amount of $19,790.37 for
two 1/2 ton pickups, in accordance with Bid No. 4269.
8. 160: Accepting the hid of GMC Truck and Coach in the amount of $25,649.88
for three pickup trucks, in accordance with Bid No. 4268.
877
145
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
9. 160: Accepting the bid of Woody Chevrolet in the amount of $33,540.61 for
three mini vans, in accordance with Bid No. 4274.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Woody Chevrolet in the amount of $22,818.43
for two cargo vans, in accordance with Bid No. 4272.
11. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-490: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINATJ.Y 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 ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTHWEST SUBSTATION SITE, WELL SITE NO. 36, STREET
SWEEPING TRANSFER STATION AND DISNEYLAND METER VAULT SITE KEHABILITATION.
(Account Nos. 55-656-6329-08659, 52-606-6329-02256, 52-619-6329-02392 and
60-710-7105, Gillespie Construction, contractor, and authorizing filing of the
Notice of Completion therefor)
12. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-491: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FIN~TJ.Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND AT.T. 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: MAXWELL PARK SUMP PUMP IMPROVEMENTS. (Account No. 16-815-7105-15080,
C. K. Pump and Dewatering Corp., contractor, and authorizing filing of the
Notice of Completion therefor)
13. 109/172: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-492: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FUEL EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION. (Authorizing the City Manager to submit
an application to the California Department of Transportation for a Fuel
Efficient Traffic Signal Management Grant and all related documents to provide
funding in the amount of $8,935 for a study of the Katella Avenue corridor
from Brookhurst Street to State College Boulevard)
14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-493: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-490 through 85R-493, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
123: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXCERSICE OF POWERS AGREEMENT -
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Councilman Bay noted that when the
subject amendment was discussed in the last Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
meeting he attended, there was no carte blanche mention of forgiveness of all
liabilities or debts prior to withdrawal of a party from the Agency due to
judicial invalidation of its fee program. The bottom paragraph of Page 1 of
878
146
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Staff Report dated November 12, 1985, stated that the contributions of that
party on an involuntary withdrawal, "shall be refunded to said party upon its
withdrawal and said party shall have no liability for its proportionate share
of any debts or other liabilities incurred by the Agency prior to or
subsequent to said party's withdrawal from the Agency." The words, prior to,
were of concern to him. It was his understanding if funds had been collected
in the fee program that moved into the JPA and those funds were committed
where they could not be returned to whoever collected them that that portion
of the debt or liability remain in the JPA. He felt the words, prior to,
added to it would cause part of that liability to be split amongst other
members of the JPA and he did not believe that was the intention.
City Attorney White stated he believed Councilman Bay's interpretation was
correct. If approved, the agreement would allow the party required to
withdraw because of the Court action to have returned all funds previously
paid by that party.
Councilman Bay stated he could not recommend that amendment be approved by the
Council in that it was going to require more discussion with other members of
the Authority.
Joel Ftck, Assistant Director for Planning, stated from his recollection of
the meeting was that there was concern by the City of Irvine pertaining to the
initiative movement in process and the possibility of Court action that meant
if the fees that were collected could not be refunded, then the City of Irvine
would incur some liabilities by moving ahead with the program at this time.
Councilman Bay moved to continue a decision on the amendment to the Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement to January 7, 1986. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105/142: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Proposed
amendment to ordinance to alloW alternate members to serve on the Youth
Commission.
City Attorney Jack White briefed his memorandum dated November 15, 1985,
recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance authorizing alternate members
to be appointed to the Youth Commission to serve in the absence of the members
from the Commission meetings. He explained the ordinance was drafted to
provide that each alternate member appointment shall serve only in the absence
of a specifically designated regular member and if the Council wanted to
appoint members who would be able to serve in an at-large capacity in the
absence of any regular member, the ordinance could be redrafted accordingly;
Councilwoman Kaywood preferred the latter, that the alternates be a "floating
representative."
The general Council consensus favored having alternates serve in an at-large
capacity rather than having someone named for each regular member.
After further Council discussion on the issue of alternates and terms, Mr..
White stated he would redraft the ordinance and subsequently submit it to the
Council at the next meeting, December 3, 1985, providing for an open-ended
879
143
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
number of alternate at-large members so that the Council could then appoint as
many as they wished and also that the alternates shall serve a term as
designated by the City Council.
179: COMPLIANCE WITH ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR SALE OF BEER AND WINE BY GASOLINE
SERVICE STATIONS: City Attorney Jack White briefed the Council on his
memorandum dated November, 1985, recommending that the Council adopt the
proposed ordinance requiring existing businesses to comply with newly adopted
service station regulations for sale of beer and wine. The ordinance would
require all existing service stations to be brought into full compliance with
the provisions of Ordinance No. 4668 not later than June 18, 1986. It also
provided that any existing business could seek a hearing and an extension of
the date for compliance from the Council upon a showing that additional time
would be necessary to permit the owner of the business to amortize or
otherwise recover costs and expenses for any portion of the business required
to be abated in order to conform. He had not disseminated copies of the
proposed ordinance to the ten existing businesses that would be affected.
Councilman Pickler felt that when the Council discussed the matter that space
requirements would not be considered relative to existing businesses but they
would have to comply with all other provisions.
Mr. White answered if that was the intent, then he did not correctly
understand the direction. The proposed ordinance included the 1200 minimum
square foot requirement; Councilman Overholt stated he had suggested that over
a period of time the business should be given the option of complying, or not
selling beer and wine. It was not his intention that the business should
continue in operation for an indefinite period of time without being in
compliance with the ordinance.
Mr. White reported that Community Development and Planning was in the process
of determining those existing businesses that did not comply relative to
square footage and that there was only one, and possibly two, of the ten
existing stations that would fall under the 1200 square foot requirement.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if a business had a sign advertising beer and wine
and they wanted to amortize that sign, she would be opposed. Those signs
should come down immediately.
Mr. White explained that the ordinance would allow additional time to comply
with the regulations in total. In addition, the City had the power to grant
variances from the provisions since it was a zoning ordinance. If an operator
made an application for a variance from the 1200 square foot minimum
requirement, then the Council and Planning Commission would have the ability
to entertain that application and, in the proper circumstance, grant such a
variance.
Councilman Bay stated the Council could also simplify it by relieving those
already approved of the square footage requirement. He agreed with that
because it would be a major cost change and also the square footage was
considered at the time of original approval.
880
144
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney White then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that relative to
any City liability involved attributable to beer and wine being sold at the
stations, it was his opinion the City would not be liable for any injury
caused by the issuance of a discretionary permit.
Further Council discussion followed wherein Councilman 0verholt spoke against
Councilman Pickler's proposal that the square footage provision be left out of
the proposed ordinance; City Attorney White stated he would obtain the report
on the ten existing locations relative to their compliance with the new square
fOotage provisions of the proposed ordinance and report back to the Council in
one week as well as providing an alternate version of the ordinance for
Council consideration containing Councilman Pickler's recommendation.
Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4672 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4672: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.020 OF SECTION 18.87.023 OF CHAPTER 18.87 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB): Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Frank Cozza from the Community
Services Board as tendered in his letter of November 12, 1985, with regret and
declaring an unscheduled vacancy on that Board. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that a letter be sent to Mr. Cozza thanking him for
his service on the Community Services Board.
162: CONSIDERATION OF NO SMOKING ORDINANCES: Submitted were a sample of
ordinances on no smoking as directed by the Council on November 12, 1985 (see
minutes that date), in response to the request of Ken L. Smith, to consider
adoption of ordinances relating to smoking in public places.
Jack White, City Attorney, explained for the Mayor that with regard to public
buildings, the City had the right, in its ordinance to designate those
buildings they wanted covered by an ordinance either public or private. Some
cities applied their ordinances to only public buildings such as civic
centers, others were applied to both private and public buildings and some did
not have any such ordinances. He was looking for general direction from the
Council on, (1) did the Council want to have him draft a no smoking ordinance,
(2) if so, should it include provisions relating to prohibiting smoking in
public buildings such as City Hall and also include provisions relating to no
smoking in private buildings, offices, etc., (3) what type of penalty would
the Council envision being entailed for a violation - a misdemeanor with a
maximum $500 fine and six months in jail giving the defendant the right to a
jury trial, or an infraction with a $50 fine for the first offense and not
giving the defendant the right to a Jury trial. Those were the policies that
needed to be addressed. If he were to draft an ordinance, the specifics as to
the definition of public and private buildings would be brought back to the
Council and at the time of submittal if the Council did not like the
definitions or the buildings covered, it would be appropriate to debate the
issue at that time.
881
141
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth expressed his concern with regulating smoking in private
places. He looked at private industry as being responsible citizens who
should be regulating their own smoking policies in their own facilities
without government interference.
Council Members then gave their input and comments to assist the City Attorney
relative to the direction requested.
Councilman 0verholt moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare and
submit a draft ordinance for Council consideration on December 17, 1985 and to
continue a decision on a policy on smoking in the Council Chambers to that
date. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the following people spoke to the issue:
Walt Bilofsky, Californians for Non-Smokers Rights. He wanted
to be sure that the draft ordinance would cover public meetings,
other public places such as restaurants, indoor service lines,
places of employment, etc. If those were planned to be excluded
then perhaps a discussion should take place at this time so that
the Council could give the City Attorney proper direction.
City Attorney Jack White stated he was going to, at his
discretion, draft the ordinance in a way he thought would be
appropriate for consideration.
Bill Ericson, 301 East North Street, stated he was speaking for
the majority of the senior citizens who utilized the Senior
Citizens Center. The issue of smoking was a "hassle". He asked
that the Council give consideration to the Senior Citizens
Center.
Ron Selvanna, Yorba Linda, representing the Tobacco Institute,
stated one of the things not apparent was what was being done in
areas that did not have ordinances such as the establishment of
volunteer programs. The Orange County Chamber of Commerce was
working on a volunteer program at present at the request of the
Board of Supervisors as were other Chambers. Preliminary
indications were also that the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce was
interested. He asked that they give consideration to the
volunteer issue.
Kenneth L. Smith, 1873 West Chanticleer, stated relative to
enforcement of the ordinance, he worked at Douglas Aircraft in
the City of Long Beach. That City had passed one of the more
stringent ordinances. He then read a portion of the Company
publication wherein management answered an employee regarding
ordinance implementation. He believed that businesses were
trying to cooperate and would like guidelines set for them.
Mayor Roth stated a basic ordinance was needed to build on and
public comments would then be appropriate. He was opposed to
882
142
Cit~ Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
smoking but had a responsibility to determine if an ordinance
was prepared that it was going to be enforceable and the limits
of their dictating to the private sector.
Councilman Overholt felt people working for large employers were
looking for some help so that they could have some control over
the environment in which they worked for 8 hours a day or more.
However, he was not sure he had firm direction to give to the
City Attorney today.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion offered by Councilman Overholt.
Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4671: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4671 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4671: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 84-85-39, RM-1200 3534 West Ball Road).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4671 duly passed and adopted.
EMPLOYEES DAY FRIDAY~ NOVEMBER 22, 1985: Council Members commented on and
complimented all those responsible for the first Employees Day Held in front
of the Civic Center on Friday, November 22, 1985.
Mayor Roth recommended that it be continued on an annual basis.
EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY: Councilman Bay announced
that the Eastern/Foothill Corridor Joint Powers Authority would hold its first
meeting on January 23, 1986, at Tustin City Hall where a discussion would be
held on Corridor Fees. He wanted to be sure that the Council and public were
aware the current law provided that the Corridor Fees could not be used for
administrative costs and there would be such costs. Administrative work had
been going on by the County and it was obvious that the County was now going
to try to start moving those administrative costs into the JPA.
119: SKYFEST - DECEMBER 5~ 1985: Mayor Roth again urged participa~1on in the
subject program by businesses and individuals to make it the success
anticipated. He also asked his Council colleagues to consider City
participation in the project which would have far-reaching benefits to Anaheim
accruing from the world-wide recognition that would be given to such a large
undertaking.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the City purchase 4 "nets" of balloons
(1,000 each net) at $450 for each thousand with that cost to be appropriated
883
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
from the Council's City promotional fund. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would
be held with the City's attorney for the following purposes:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Company, O.C. Superior
Court Case No. 40 92 46, and Iskon vs. City of Anaheim, Case No.
83-09-11R.
b. Labor Relations matters pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:46 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:48 p.m.)
170: PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-369: Request by Frank
Cuttle, appealing conditions of approval to create a 4-parcel division of land
for residential purposes on approximately 5 acres located on the south side of
Martella Lane from 378 feet east of Martin Road to 1124 feet east of Martin
Road.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS M~T BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 14, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 15, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November, 1985 from the City
Engineer with recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 15, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Framk Currte, 326 East Radcliffe Avenue.
He had seen the City Engineer's report and concurred in the
recommendation as outlined.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
884
140
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the condition imposed on Tentative Parcel
Map No. 85-369 on October 14, 1985 requiring the owner to construct a storm
drain from the subject property to an existing storm drain inlet south of
Santa Ama Canyon Road be modified to require that Mr. Currie's property be
graded to drain to Martella Lane, that Mr. Currie post a bond prior to
approval of the Final Parcel Map in an amount approved by the City Engineer to
guarantee such granting prior to issuance of building permits on Parcels 2, 3
and 4 of Parcel Map 85-369 or within a period of two (2) years from the date
of approval of the Parcel Map, whichever occurs first. Further, that Mr.
Currie irrevocably offer to dedicate a 10-foot storm drain easement and a
15-foot construction easement along his westerly property line to the City of
Anaheim. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
101/000/155: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED INTERIM FEE PROGRAM FOR ANAHEIM
STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider a proposed
interim fee to be applied toward financing public improvements necessitated by
anticipated development in the Anaheim Stadium Business Center, an area
generally bounded by the Southern California Edison Easement on the north; the
Anaheim City limits on the south; the Santa Aha River Channel on the east;
and, the Santa Ana Freeway on the west.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 14, 1985.
Posting of property November 15, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 15, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 19, 1985 from the
Community Development/Planning Department.
Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning.
He briefed the extensive staff report dated November 19, 1985
with attachments (also including Attachment D - the proposed
amended ordinance establishing an interim fee for public
improvements in the Anaheim Business Center). The previously
recommended $6.38 per square-foot fee was reduced to 54.12 per
square-foot of building gross floor area. Properties zoned
General and Commercial Professional and zoned CO will pay $1.05
per square foot including any projects with approved plans in
the area designated Commercial Professional on the General
Plan. Other properties which have had site plans approved prior
to the effective date of the ordinance will pay $2.10 per square
foot. After his presentation, he referred to Page 3, Paragraph
(1) of the proposed ordinance which he recommended be modified
to include not only CO (Commercial Office and Professional) but
also CL (Commercial Limited) since both zones permitted such
uses as a matter of right. He also confirmed that the total~
difference between the 56.38 and the $4.12 was not only
utilities costs, but there were other reductions beyond that.
885
137
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Staff examined each improvement and the attachments to the
report identified each improvement and the funding sources.
Bill Vardoulis, 21 Mandrake Way, Irvine.
He was the instigator of and involved with a similar program in
the City of Irvine for 5 years as an Engineer and Councilman.
He briefed the Council on the general approach used in that City
to bring such a program to fruition. In analyzing the Anaheim
proposal, it was well thought out, reflected the cost of doing
business today and the fees were in the "ball park". Irvine
imposed a fee of $6.00 per square-foot for general office and
there was also a systems development charge of 1 percent of the
building valuation adding another .70~ per square foot.
PhillipAnthony, representing Business Properties, 17631 Fitch,
Irvine.
Their project, Metroplex III, is fully approved and they are
ready to request building permits. The fees were not reasonably
related to the economics of their project as it exists.
Although they agreed not to object to the assessment in general,
the condition imposed at the time of approval of the project,
did allow them to discuss (1) exactly how fees are determined to
benefit the property, (2) which properties are included in the
fee program, (3) the manner in which the fees are determined and
(4) the manner in which the costs are spread. Any new excessive
fees would be a serious economic hardship to Business
Properties. Their project does not appear to have caused the
need for any of the new additional improvements. There is a
clear obligation of Anaheim's neighbor, the City of Orange, to
share the responsibility for the traffic and other impacts that
will evolve as a result of proposed development in Orange to the
south of the subject properties. As an alternative, Business
Properties is offering to settle at the $1.05 fee limit without
further negotiations, and suggest that it be clarified that the
new fee program does cover the need for the Anaheim Stadium
ASsociates (ASA) Assessment District and further that the
Council consider excluding certain uses which are beneficial to
the City financially and to the office complex the City is
seeking to encourage such as restaurants, hotels, retail and
service oriented commercial.
City Manager William O. Talley.
The fees charged in Irvine have not discouraged people taking
development into that City; Business Properties on many
occasions with staff were advised of at least a $2.00 magnitude
of fees and should have had that information well before they
ever scoped their project; giving a reduction in fees was going
to divert the fees that staff believes are fairly assessed to
Business Properties, against other developer and other
developers will be subsidizing an already discounted rate. He
urged the Council not to consider other types of revenue that a
particular project or development produces to get away from the
886
138
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Califoru/a - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
need for infrastructure. Council was also aware of staff's
concern with development in the City of Orange, recognizing it
was going to cause a major problem in Anaheim that must be
addressed by Anaheim and Orange and their Redevelopment
Authority, if involved, until some agreement was achieved.
Dennis Abramson, Hanover Real Estate Associates, owners of
approximately 12 acres of property on Katella Avenue purchased
in 1981.
Had they proceeded with development of their property in 1981 or
1982, they would not have had to pay any of the fees which
apparently will be imposed on new developers coming to the
area. They should be paying something, but the question is how
much, before they found it unnecessary to even respond to the
change of use. He did not know how much they will be asked to
pay - ~1.00 would not be equitable, but there seemed to be
equity in being included in the $2.00 range. He wanted to be
sure that Hanover Real Estate was not included in the $4.00
range which would cause them to rethink developing their
property since that cost was not budgeted into their project.
He requested that the matter be deferred until they have an
opportunity to discuss it further. They believed they have
complied with everything that would bring them into the $2.00
range.
Floyd Farano, Attorney representing Dunn Properties.
Page 2, Paragraph b. of the proposed ordinance applied the fee
of $1.05 and the $2.10 to the gross building floor area. Since
the property or improvements that will produce the revenue that
will be used to pay the fees is the actual rentable floor area,
he suggested that the fee be levied upon rentable area rather
than gross. It would make it easier for the property owner to
relate the fee to the rentable space. Page 4, Sub-paragraph b.
- Methods of Payment - provides that those paying $4.12 pay the
fee at the time of issuance of occupancy. Those paying $1.05 or
$2.10 must pay at the time the building permit is taken out.
The latter group should not be treated any differently and it
would be a substantial benefit not to have to pay that money up
front, but at the same time as those paying $4.12. Same
Paragraph, the fee is increased at the rate of 12 percent or an
amount equal to the rate of return on the City's invested
surplus funds. He suggested they follow the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) since as worded in the ordinance, it is almost as
though the City is earning money on funds that it does not yet
have. Lastly, as long as the improvements have been on the
General Plan, he asked if it was right, just or fair that the
City obtain money for developments that will be made at an
uncertain time in the future. Developers should be given some
assurance that the money collected, rather than go into the
General Fund, be set aside and be used for the specific
improvements specified in the Anaheim Stadium Area Study. To
the extent that those improvements set forth as being needed are
887
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
not undertaken or at least substantially underway that those
funds be returned to the developer. If not, it becomes an
increased property tax.
City Manager Talley.
Staff would have no problem in segregating the funds into a
specific account where the balances could be made public to
everybody. If the project could not be built, the City should
not be keeping the funds, but they should be returned. Relative
to the interest, if the City was not getting the money up front,
it would like to have.the interest since it was Just a pure
money problem. He disagreed with using net instead of gross.
Gross is very easy for everyone to understand and it was much
easier to apply a fee to some standard rather than determining
some discount factor, raise the rates, and on a development by
development basis, have to argue with the developer the net
square-footage.
Bill Treder, Community Bank, 2975 Fletcher Drive, Los Angeles,
owners of 7 acres at State College and Katella Avenue.
The area surrounded by the 57 Freeway and the Santa Ana Freeways
in the City of Orange is excluded from the assessment area. The
proposal in the City of Orange will use a great portion of the
infrastructure but is not paying its fair share. Orange should
be involved and paying the amount he was going to have to pay on
his development. Staff should also look at those monies that
were supposed to come from CalTrans to be sure they were going
to be received.
Richard Gardner, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles,
representing Stadium Business Park South, 17.5 acres at the
corner of State College and Pacifico.
If the assessment fee imposed upon the developments in process
outlined by the City would be uneconomical for those
developments, he did not think it will be any less uneconomical
for their proposed project which might Come to pass in the
future. The major parcel in the "platinum triangle" (the
subject area under discussion) is owned by a dozen different
entities. The projects that have been mentioned thus far
perhaps represented 12 percent of the 20 million square feet
proposed for the area. If there is another 88 percent to go,
the infrastructure would not get very far without that 88
percent. Either the Assessment District should be expanded to
impose less of a fee on a small number of developments, or
consideration given to the possibility of establishing a
redevelopment district for the area. Developments are not going
to benefit Just this area but all of Anaheim and create the need
for more and more businesses. Every project should pay its fair
share. Those in process now or in the future should pay the
same fee. A study should be taken to see if the fee could be
reduced. The fees are Justified but the Assessment District
should be expanded because the infrastructure was going to
888
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
benefit many more people than the specific area around the
Stadium.
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development/Planning.
The possibility of a redevelopment area has been considered and
is still being considered. He expected to be back to the
Council within the next week or two with a request for a survey
area which is the first step allowing staff to be directed by
the Council to look at the area.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:32 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:42 p.m)
Bill Talunis, owner of two industrial properties in the area.
A contributing factor to the success of the program in the City
of Irvine was the fact that when they implemented the fees, they
also changed the zoning of the lands affected. In the area
affected by the fee, he wanted to see Anaheim change the zoning
from industrial to CO thus allowing the owner to recapture some
of the loss for which they were being penalized for the building
fees.
Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning.
The City has exercised some development approvals by giving zone
changes, CUP's and variances in some cases. The program
anticipated is to have a General Plan Amendment to redesignate
those properties most appropriate for commercial office
development. Following that, either at the request of the
property owner, if there are specific plans prepared, the zone
change would follow. Several steps needed to be taken before
doing so. At the moment staff was preparing an EIR for the
General Plan Amendment ~nd also the General Plan Amendment
request which would be brought before the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Mr. Talunis.
The City would be doing the property owners a great favor by
accomplishing the procedure all at one time.
Mayor Roth.
Relative to the $4.12 proposed fee, it is the highest in north
Orange County, but lower than fees in the south County. He
wanted to know what the developers could anticipate relative to
additional utility costs.
Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager.
To provide water to meet high rise needs of the area would cost
approximately $9 million in increased facilities to be financed
by revenue bonds and perhaps a surcharge on the area served. On
the electric side, his Department is prepared to serve the
889
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
area without additional cost to developers. However, high-rise
buildings were large consumers of electricity and the Utilities
Department would anticipate that the revenues received from
those facilities would amortize their investment. If
undergrounding is required, it will cost approximately $8
million to underground the existing overhead facilities since
there was no identifiable source of revenue at this time to do
so.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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.
Councilman Pickler offered an amended first reading of Ordinance No. 4655
including the technical correction recommended by staff on Page 3 to include,
"or CL" (Commercial Limited) at the end of the second line.
ORDINANCE NO. 4655: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 17.30
TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM FEE FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM BUSINESS CENTER.
Mayor Roth.
Expressed his concern over the monetary impact on a developer
having a fee imposed upon his project after the closing of
escrow, submittal of plans, EIR, etc. The magnitude of the
issue was such that he was not yet convinced of supporting the
concept at the present time. He asked representatives of
Business Properties to share their comments.
Mr. L. C. Smull, owner of Business Properties, developers of
Metroplex III.
Emphasized the fact that they had the right to contest the items
that they were contesting and were not asking the Council to
consider anything that was not granted to them in the conditions
placed on their property. There has been no time when they were
fully aware there was going to be a ~2.00 fee or a figure of
that amount placed on their property. The conditions placed on
their properties are the same conditions established for the
Assessment District and the benefit area. It is his
understanding that the benefit area takes the place of the
Assessment District. It is unfair to have both of those burdens
hanging over the properties in the Stadium area. Business
Properties is questioning the impact and necessity created by
their development and the one caveat to whether or not the
Assessment District will fall if the benefit area is
89O
134
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
STAFF INPUT:
implemented. (See letter dated November 25, 1985 from Mr. Smull
documenting their position and concerns relative to the fee
program).
Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning.
He gave the background on staff's discussions with Business
Properties relative to fees which were also discussed at public
hearings as well as public review of the environmental
documentation draft EIR No. 266 which was examined continually
through the entire process. The Development Agreement was an
item that required continued exmm~nation between his Department
and the City Attorney's Office.
Jack White, City Attorney's Office.
He believes it is staff's intent that the fee in the ordinance
would be in lieu of any other fee at this time in connection
with any potential assessment district. The City's agreement
with ASA is such that at a later date and time, it may be
necessary in connection with financing the public improvements
that were being constructed by ASA that some additional
mechanism, not necessarily an Assessment District, may be needed
in the future for those improvements which are not necessarily
part of the improvements contemplated by the fee today. Until
they had more concrete information on the ASA development, it
was impossible for staff to represent to anybody that the fees
contained in the ordinance would be in lieu of any other fees
that would be required of any property owner in the Stadium
Area. Currently the intention is that it would be in lieu of
other fees to the extent they were legally able to do that.
Richard Oglesby, Business Properties.
Referring to previous hearings before the Planning Commission,
he emphasized there is no justification or basis for the
creation of the $2.00 fee and it was an arbitrary one. The
Planning Commission found as they went through the debate with
Business Properties regarding the issue that Business Properties
was being imposed not only with the conditions of the Assessment
District, but also the current fee request constitutes double
taxation. That was back in February of 1984. He acknowledged
the $2.00 fee came from a condition out of nowhere on a rezoning
of Metroplex II on the northeast corner of Katella and Howell,
and it came out the day before the Planning Commission hearing
in February of 1984. For Business Properties to know at the
time they had their zoning approved, or at the time they
executed those conditions or went through the processing on
Metroplex III that the City was considering a fee of $2.00 per
foot or greater was not accurate.
Councilman Overholt.
It is apparent that Business Properties did not have the
assurance of one of their conditions, that the Benefit District
would be their sole obligation and that they could not get an
891
131
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
ADJO~:
the motion.
answer on that issue today or in the immediate future. The
action before the Council today is an amended ordinance for
first reading. Business Properties and other companies who feel
they should have special treatment under that ordinance should
continue to talk to staff this week to see if something can be
done between now and adoption of the ordinance on December 3,
1985. If not, apparently the Business Properties Attorney has
advised that there were certain rights that they could continue
to contest. Business Properties problem could not be solved at
this meeting. His concern is that they are spending a great
deal of time on Business Properties who have a special problem
and he did not know if it was going to be solved at a Council
meeting.
Jack White, City Attorney.
Clarified that the present City Council does not legally have
the right to bind all future City Councils that forever the City
can guarantee that there will not be any further assessment
districts or fees imposed in the Stadium area. He did not
believe there will ever come a point and time where the City
could say it could guarantee forever this is the way it will be
since conditions, times, and requirements change.
Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
MOTION CAPdLIED. (4:45 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
892