1987/05/26City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
VACANCY:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTOKNEY: Jack White
CITY CLRRK: Leonora N. Sohl
PIANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Mary McCloskey
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & AUDIT MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES:
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
Chris Jarvi
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 12:30 p.m. on May 22, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at
12:05 p.m.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 p.m.)
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership, 46-96-59.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman
Hunter seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:06 p.m.)
AFTEK KECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. One
Vacancy. (1:38 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Rick Gastil, Hotline Help Center, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
421
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
119: EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION: An Expression of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City oouncil and presented to Detective Dale
Walters for 18 years of service with the Anaheim Police Department and for his
commitment and service to the Anaheim community. Detective Walters was
accompanied by Mrs. Walters and Captain Richard Gray.
The Mayor and Council Members wished Detective Walters well in his new
position with Disneyland Security.
119: EXPRESSION OF COMMENDATION: An Expression of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Craig Roberts and
Betty Stark for their heroic actions which ultimately saved the life of Robert
Schoonover of Garden Grove when an emergency occurred at the Phoenix Club on
April 8, 1987.
Mayor Bay, on behalf of the Council and the City highly commended both Mr.
Robertson, Ms. Stark on their unselfish and heroic behavior. Mr. Schoonover
was also present to again express his heartfelt thanks and gratitude in saving
his life.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held May 5, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One
Vacancy. MOTION CAR/tIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,668,282.72, in
accordance with the 1986-87 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. 87R-204 through 87R-212, 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 Patricia Parrent for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 27, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Amy M. Davis for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 26, 1987.
422
14
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Oberg Enterprises, Inc. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 4, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (File No. JF746-0042) for property
damage purportedly sustained due to actions of the City on or about January 8,
1982.
e. Claim submitted by Kathy St. Amend for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 26, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by Maria Lucia Santos for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 27, 1986.
g. Claim submitted by Raimundo Fonseca for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 27, 1986.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - denied:
h. Claim submitted by United Exposition Service Co., Inc. (Main Action:
Marvin Wolfe) for indemnity and contribution sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 7, 1985.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
i. Claim submitted by Wallace J. Lucett for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 21, 1987.
J. Claim submitted by Cathy Garrett for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 28, 1987.
k. Claim submitted by Casa Canon Homeowners Association for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 20,
1987.
1. Claim submitted by James T. & Eleanor Broome for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 31, 1987.
m. Claim submitted by Gregorio A. Sibayan for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about Hatch 20, 1987.
o. Claim submitted by Peter Rodriluez for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 19, 1987.
2. 123; Authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the
Orange County Job Training Partnership Agency in the amount of $428,273 to
provide funds for the S-mmer Youth Employment Program for the term March 1
through September 30, 1987, and to execute any modifications thereto.
3. 170/123: Approving the assignment of special facilities (pumps and
reservoirs) reimbursement agreement from Kings Meadow Associates to Municicorp
of California, relating to Tract 10975 in the Anaheim Hills area.
423
i46
City Hall, ~n~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 26~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
4. 170/123: Approving the assignment of special facilities (pumps and
reservoirs) reimbursement agreement from Anaheim Hills Development Corporation
to Municicorp of California, relating to Tract Nos. 8513, 8515, 8516, 7587 and
8075 in the Anaheim Hills area.
5. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis, eight months
ended February 28, 1987.
6. 123/153: Accepting a settlement agreement with the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 47, in the amount of 511,892.65
relating to a grievance concerning the calculation of meter book values for
overtime work.
7. 160: Setting the date and time for a public hearing on the proposed
1987/89 Resource Allocation Plan, for June 16, 1987, 3:00 p.m.
8. 108: Exempting human service organizations making paid referrals to
shelter homeless individuals at City motels/hotels from the payment of the
transient occupancy tax on said referrals. (This item was withdrawn by staff)
9. 150: Authorizing the substitution of Aultman Plumbing for Beecham
Plumbing as subcontractor for the La Palma Picnic Shelter, Account No.
15-827-7105.
10. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of 5129,659.20 for eleven, 8 phase traffic controllers and cabinets.
11. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of 540,386 for 20 each,
15KV, 200 amp, three phase loadbreak switches, in accordance with Bid No.
A-4432.
12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of 521,398.22 for one
industrial loader tractor, in accordance with Bid A-4438.
13. 160: Accepting the low bid of Universal Truck Body, Inc. in the amount of
~16,(45.18 for two each, 5-yard dump bodies with hoist and appurtemances
installed on a cab/chassis furnished by the City, in accordance with Bid No.
4444.
14. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-204: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO
ALLOCATE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCUTT) FUNDS FOR LINCOLN
AVENUE BETWEEN THE EAST LIMITS AND RIO VISTA STREET. (Requesting the Orange
County Transportation Commission to allocate Orange County Unified
Transportation Trust (OCUTT) funds, in the amount of 566,169.08, for Lincoln
Avenue between the east City limit and Rio Vista Street)
15. 158: Authorizing the conveyance and sale of vehicular access rights to
East Anaheim Enterprises, in the amount of 528,900, to allow Joint usage over
424
1,43
City Ha!l, An~hetmt California - ~OUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
a portion of a City owned driveway at the Yorba Substation, CP 156, located on
the south side of La Palma Avenue and the southerly prolongation of Kellogg
Drive.
16. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-205: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (NOBEST, INC.)
(Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Nobest, Inc.,
in the amount of $8,870.40, for Romneya Drive Street Improvement 168 feet east
of Louise Drive to Louise Drive and Boden Drive to 131 feet west of Liberty
Lane, Account No. 17-792-6325-E2400)
17. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-206: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAT.LY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATIONS 2 & 3). (Account Nos. 01-935-6325 and
01-940-6325, P. H. Hagopian, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice
of Completion therefor)
18. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-207: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(ORANGEWOOD AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT 650' E/O RAMPART STREET TO STATE COLLEGE
BOULEVARD). (Account Nos. 15-793-6325-E3960 and 51-484-6993-00710, R. J.
Noble Company, contractor~ and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
19. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-208: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-82, NUNC PRO TUNC. (Amending
Resolution No. 87R-82, nunc pro tunc~ correctin~ Job titles of added
classifications)
20. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING DATED MAY 14, 1987,
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 47.
21. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-210: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLAILING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-4A) (DeclarinE intent to abandon a
portion of the north side of Center Street, formerly Old Lincoln Avenue, west
of Philadelphia Street, which is no longer included within the street right of
way, and setting a date for the public hearing therefor; suggested date:
June 23, 1987, 3:00 p.m.)
22. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-211: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-10A) (Declaring intent to abandon a
portion of an electrical public utility easement on the south side of Ball
Road, west of Knott Avenue and setting a date for the public hearin~ therefor;
suggested date: June 23, 1987, 3:00 p.m.)
23. 115/106: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-212: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0i THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
425
144
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-204 through 87R-212:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBE~S:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-204 through 87R-212, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar, motion carried, all items all ayes, one vacancy
except Item No. 20 which was withdrawn by staff.
116/115: EMPLOYEE IDEA - AERIAL MAP AND REMOTE DIGITAL DISPLAY FOR COUNCIL
CHAMBER: Submitted was report dated May 11, 1987 from the Employee
Improvement Program (EIP) Board of Directors, recommending that the City
Council consider the suggestions for additions to the City Council Chamber of
an aerial map and remote digital display and if the Council determines these
would be of assistance to them and the public in the conduct of public
meetings to appropriate funds from Council Contingency Fund in the amounts of
$3,300 and $2,500 for installation of these devices respectively. The
suggestion was submitted by Greg Hastings, Associate Planner.
City Manager Talley reported that since the agenda was printed last Friday, an
additional amount of $1,500 would have to be provided which included lighting
and framing for a total cost of $4,800 instead of $3,300. The overall total
cost is now $7,300 (including installation) instead of $5,800 as previously
reported.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the implementation of the idea submitted will
save staff time in not having to wait for an item to be discussed, it would be
money saved very quickly. She also noted that it was Employee Suggestion
No. 443 under a program that was conceived and initiated by the City Manager.
Mayor Bay stated he has no problem with installing the aerial map if there is
going to be a cost benefit in doing so. Both ideas presented are good ones.
It is a matter of balancing estimates as to cost and weighing whether the
benefits are worth that differential.
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development & Planning, stated it would
assist in the way Just mentioned by the Mayor. It will also be of assistance
because the current posted General Plan Map has certain limitations. It would
be valuable to the Council as well as being a general reference point in terms
of development proposals.
Mayor Bay stated he also assumed on the digital light showing the item being
discussed it will be a combination of lights and letters to correspond with
agenda items; Mr. Priest stated that was the expectation.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the addition of an aerial map and
remote digital display to the City Council Chamber with a subsequent
appropriation of $7,300 from Council Contingency Fund for the installation of
426
141:
City Hall, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
said devices. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
127/114: CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she is concerned
relative to the filing of Campaign Statements specifically Form 490. The
Anaheim Coalition of Taxpayers had not filed any reports as required. The
first one was due April 23, 1987, covering the period of January 1 through
April 18, 1987 and it was Just received after notices were sent and phone
calls made. The Coalition has the same Treasurer as Candidate Ehrle. The
statement due May 21, 1987 had not yet been submitted which was due last
week. The statement indicates that $6,500 was spent which she felt was
questionable for having mailed 40,000 pieces. She questioned not only the
amount but the fact that the Coalition was late in filing the required
statements.
City Attorney Jack,hire stated his recollection of the law, for being late
there is a mandatory fine for late filing of ~10.00 a day for every day the
statement is late up to a maximum of 5100.
Councilwoman Kaywood also questioned why nothing was filed by Councilman
Hunter considering that he had a fundraiser for Mr. Ehrle at 5500.00 a plate
and also Mayor Bay for the letter he sent w~th a Sample Ballot urging a vote
for Mr. Ehrle.
Councilman Hunter stated he did have a fundraiser in his back yard but under
Mr. Ehrle's Committee to elect Bill Ehrle.
Upon conclusion of further discussion relative to the issue between
Councilwoman Kaywood and Mayor Bay, no further action was taken.
108: APPLICATION FOR POOL ROOM PERMIT - LA TAVERNA: Application submitted by
Pedro Duran Reyna for a Pool Room Permit for La Taverns, 727 North Anaheim
Boulevard, for 3 pool tables, in accordance with the recommendation of the
Chief of Police. This matter was continued from the meeting of May 12, 1987,
(see minutes that date).
Mayor Bay asked if the applicant was present to speak to the issue; there was
nO response. He then asked to hear from Bill Taormina who requested to speak
on the matter.
Mr. Bill Taormina then briefed a three-page memorandum which had been
submitted to the City Manager/City Council (subject: the Application for Pool
Room Permit, La Taverna, 727 North Anaheim Boulevard - made a part of the
record) and from a map of the North Anaheim Boulevard area posted on the
Chamber wall. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Taormina stated,
virtually every surrounding pool room now in the area will be changing and/or
will cease to exist in the future. Therefore, remaining pool players will end
up in La Taverns whichwill be a devastating consequence to the neighbors.
The North Anaheim Boulevard Property Owners Association is committed to
resolving the problems that exist on Anaheim Boulevard. Their Association has
adopted guidelines for architecture, density and commercial land uses which
they will be submitting to the Council in the near future. He is speaking not
427
: 42
City H,11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
only as a property owner but as a member of the Association. On behalf of his
neighbors, himself, the property owners and other concerned citizens, he urged
the Council to consider the information provided in his May 22, 1987
memorandum which he briefed in his presentation to the Council and to take the
following actions: (See Page 3 of the May 22, 1987 memorandum)
1) Deny the Pool Hall Permit submitted by La Taverna.
2) Step up enforcement of City Codes as to the other bars in the
area.
3) Establish a Citizen's Action Committee (as outlined in the
memorandum) to discuss clean up efforts and to report to the City on
a quarterly basis.
Mayor Bay. Relative to architectural guidelines and the kinds of businesses,
he urged Mr. Taormina to institute those through their organization. However,
setting architectural guidelines is a line he will not cross, i.e., asking the
Council to set up architectural controls on private enterprise in that area.
Relative to stepped up enforcement, he suggested staff respond to that in a
week or so. As far as a Citizen's Action Committee, he would like to have
staff input giving staff an opportunity to consider that request as well. The
request to deny the permit stands.
Councilman Hunter. He reported on his meeting in October or September of 1986
with many people on North Anaheim Boulevard, wherein concerns were discussed
with the Police Department regarding the serious problems in the area. It was
determined the problem was shutting down the bars. They finally went to
Senator John Seymour, who was responsible for reaching the man in charge of
the Alcoholic Beverage Commission. As a result, several bars were shut down
or in the process of shutting down.
Bill Taormina. What he would like to see is for the Council to sanction their
Committee so that they can submit regular reports on a formal level.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She would also like to have a staff report but the
Council should be more aware of the plans the property owners have. This
could be a catalyst for other areas to upgrade and work together.
Mayor Bay. Before Government takes any steps, the Council should look at what
has already been created by private enterprise and the citizens themselves.
Perhaps all that is necessary is a report from the Committee to the Council on
a regular basis. As far as stepped up enforcement, that has already been
done. Primarily the policy on Code Enforcement is reactive. Decisions are
made to be proactive in some cases such as in the Chevy Chase area and other
areas. This results in a great deal of overtime in the Police Department, and
he is not anxious to trigger more overtime in that Department. Requests 1 and
2 listed on Page 3 of the May 22, 1987 memorandum are reasonable but the best
way to approach Request 3 relative to the Council establishing a Citizen's
Action Committee is to leave it alone.
428
:1.'.39
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the application for a Pool Room Permit
for La Taverna, based on the finding that the request is an attempt to be
retroactive to illegal pool tables that have been on the premises for some
time; and further finding that denial is also based upon the reason that the
location for which the pool room is sought to be located and carrying on pool
would be detrimental to the public health, public order or public morals based
on the evidence presented at the hearing today. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
A staff report was also requested to be submitted relative to requested
actions 2 and 3 - enforcement and a Citizen's Action Committee listed on Page
3 of Mr. Taormina's memorandum to the Council.
City Attorney White pointed out that the Pool Room Permit applies to locations
where there are three or more pool tables. To have less than three does not
require a permit so, therefore, one could be removed from the subject location.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2841: Request by Floyd L. Farano, Farano &
Kieviet Lawyers, request to extend the 90-day period required by Condition
No. 15 of Resolution No. 86R-513 which granted Conditional use Permit
No. 2841. Submitted was report dated May 14, 1987, recommending that a 90-day
extension be granted retroactive to February 16, 1987.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve a 90-day extension of time on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2841 retroactive to February 16, 1987 to expire
August 24, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy.
MOTION CARRIED.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4832: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4832
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4832: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.01.120 AND 18.06.050.0241 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE
"KITCHENETTE" WHEN PERTAINING TO MOTEL ROOMS, AND ESTABLISHING PARKING
REQUIREHENTS TKEREFOR.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL HEHBEKS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL HEHBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4832 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4833 THROUGH 4835: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance Nos.
4833 through 4835, both inclusive for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4833: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THEANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-11, RS-HS-22,000(SC), north of Nohl Ranch
Road between Andover Drive and Old Bucket Lane)
429
140,
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26t 1987; 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4834: AN OKDINANCE 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. 85-86-38, CO, 800 South Harbor Boulevard)
0RD~ANCE NO. 4835: 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, Keclass. 69-?0-58(5),ML, La Palma Avenue and White Star
Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4833 through 4835, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
101: SUPERBOWL BID: Mayor Bay reported that last Tuesday, May 19, 1987 after
the Council meeting, he, Councilman Pickler amd staff members, went to San
Diego with great hopes of obtaining a Superbowl for Anaheim at Anaheim Stadium
in 1991 but without success. He thanked Public Information Officer, Sheri
Erlewine, for the fine work she had done on the project which extended over
many months as well as other staff members. A superb Job was done on the
video presentation by the City. It was obvious to him the decisions were not
based on the caliber of presentations.
Councilman Pickler also commended staff for a job well done.
106: REQUEST FOR BUDGET INFORMATION: Mayor Bay stated that two weeks ago he
had asked for budget information relative to expense accounts, travel,
seminar, and training costs, etc. but has not yet received anything. He asked
when he could expect to receive the information.
City Manager Talley stated he had asked what information Council desired so
that staff could prepare in advance, and it could be submitted with the
budget. He did not know the Mayor wanted advance information on budget
requests, and that he considered the additional information requested as part
of that.
Mayor Bay stated perhaps it was a misunderstanding. Since the Council chose
not to have any budget workshops, he felt some of the specific information the
Council could obtain in advance would give a little time to look at some
alternatives to the cuts presented at the last workshop. His understanding
from correspondence he received was that if the Council had requests, if they
were made on Thursday, the information could probably be supplied by the
following Tuesday. He Just assumed he was going to have the information he
requested at least within a week. He is assuming now he did not get it in two
weeks.
430
City Hall~ Auaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated it was a misunderstanding since he had not proposed
to deliver the budget in increments prior to June 1, 1987. He will be
submitting that information on Monday or Tuesday. He has a meeting scheduled
on Thursday, May 28, 1987 to go over with Human Resources and Program
Development & Audit, to ensure that all of the information and information he
had requested in a similar vein was prepared so it could be submitted. He
will see to it that the data is submitted by June 1 or June 2, 1987 at the
latest.
Mayor Bay. He assumed the budget was going to be available from the City
Clerk on June 1, 1987; Mr. Talley answered yes.
Mayor Bay. He expects that specific information at least by the same date.
Looking at the budget schedule, the first budget presentation will be on
June 9, 1987 and the first public hearing on June 16, 1987 which will leave
about two weeks to make major changes to that budget. He reiterated if there
are major revisions to that budget there may be a need to have three meetings
in one week trying to meet the June 30, 1987 budget adoption deadline.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
The following people addressed the Council under the public comment portion of
the meeting and presented the several issues listed:
Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street: He first read portions of and then
submitted a letter to the Council, the essence of which was to support the
request of John Poole, the City's Code Enforcement Supervisor for three more
Code Enforcement Officers and one Secretary. He also submitted a petition
further supporting the request.
Gary Arnold, P.O. Box 1573, Placentia, Citizens for Civic Responsibility: He
spoke to the issue of the City/Mayor form of government as opposed to the
Council/Management form of government concluding that those Americans under
the Council/Management system do not realize that they are being denied
representative government.
Joe Floyd, 118 Shakespeare, Santa Aha: He referred to recent newspaper
articles in the Santa Ana Register relative to the amounts of money that are
going to be spent on campaigns in Anaheim for a $400 a month Council seat. He
also suggested that the City Manager's position be a voting office or possibly
the Mayor be the Executive as in the City of Los Angeles.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3~07 p.m.)
AFTF~R RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (3:24 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22~ VARIANCE
NO. 3636 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Hartman Corp.
536 West Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
431
City Be!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
ILEQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from }fL to CL, to construct a
commercial center on property located south and east of the southeast corner
of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, with the following Code
waivers: (a) Minimum number of required parking spaces, (b) maximum number of
freestanding signs, (c) permitted location of freestanding signs, (d) minimum
distance between freestanding signs.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-42 and PC87-43 denied
Reclassification No. 86-87-22 and Variance No. 3636; approved EIR - Negative
Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Floyd Farano, attorney for Banco Development Group, agent for the
applicant. This matter was continued from the meeting of April 14, 1987, to
this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 3, 1987.
Posting of property April 3, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 3.
PLAN~ING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 18, 1987.
(B) 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Same as above.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a drive-through restaurant on ML zoned
property located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and
State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of required
parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-44 denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2883; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Same as above.
to this date.
This matter was continued from the meeting of April 14, 1987,
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 3, 1987.
Posting of property April 3, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 3, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 18, 1987.
City Clerk Sohl stated that since the last meeting, the applicant has
requested permission to withdraw their plans from the foregoing and to
resubmit the project to the Planning Commission.
432
City Hall, A,-heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
He asked to hear from the applicant.
Joan Virginia Allen, attorney, law firm of Farano & Kieviet.
She confirmed the request of the applicant to withdraw the
current plans and to resubmit the project to the Planning
Commission.
No one else was present to speak to the matter.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the request of the applicant to
withdraw their plans on the subject projects and request for Reclassification
No. 86-87-22, Variance No. 3636 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 and
Negative Declaration, and resubmit that project to the City Planning
Commission. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION
CARRIED.
155/179: PUBLIC ~ARTNG - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-1 (INCLUDING A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PIAN)~ FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS~ SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARnS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (SUPPLEMENTAL):
APPLICANT: Southmark Pacific Corporation (So. Pac., Inc.)
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
Pasadena, Ca. 91101
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider adoption of a Specific Plan including
Zoning and Development Standards, and a Public Facilities Plan for the
proposed Highlands on approximately 816 acres located north of Canyon Rim
Road, east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by East Hills Planned
Community (Bauer Ranch), east by Wallace Ranch and Oak Hills Ranch, and
southeast by Irvine Company property, to provide for the development of up to
2,147 residential units, 8 acres of commercial uses, 285 acres of open space,
a 5 acre park site and a 15.3 acre elementary school site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Adoption of Specific Plan No. 87-1 (including a
Public Facilities Plan Section) in the Zoning and Development Standards for
Specific Plan No. 87-1 was recommended by the Planning Commission in
Resolution No. PC87-94 and PC87-95; recommended that EIR No. 273
(supplemental) be certified with a statement of overriding considerations.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May 14, 1987.
Posting of property May 15, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 15, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated March 30 and
April 13, 1987.
Also see related documents and data which have been made a part of the record
as well as the minutes of the Planning Commission hearings of March 30 and
April 20, 1987 where extensive testimony was given.
433
i36
City Hall, Ansh-im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Norm Priest, Director of Community Development & Planning. Both
the Highlands project (the subject project) and Oak Hills, the
next agenda item, which is the project adjacent to the
Highlands, are virtually analagous to the creation of new towns
which require land use balance. Both developments have a
substantial effect on their surrounding natural environment and
will require new and innovative services. Some one hundred plus
conditions have been imposed on the projects.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
The two large projects before the Council today are an important
event. The estimated population of approximately 12,000 new
residents is the largest considered on one public agenda in the
past decade. Mr. Fick then gave an overview of the nature and
scope of the Highlands project as well as the issues involved
that staff believes warrants Council consideration and
attention. He first described the project, (see the staff
reports to the Planning Commission getting extensive data in
detail on the project). The Planning Commission recommended
approval of Specific Plan 87-1 (see Resolution No. PC87-94 dated
April 20, 1987, recommending that the City Council adopt the
plan which includes a Public Facilities Plan section and which
imposed 118 conditions, as well as Resolution No. PC87-95,
recommending that the Council adopt an ordinance approving
Zoning and Development Standards for Specific Plan No. 87-1).
The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council
certify EIR No. 273 for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills and adopt
a statement of overriding considerations (see Page 7 and 8 of
Resolution No. PC87-94). Mr. Fick then briefed memorandum dated
May 21, 1987 - subject: Executive Summary - Highlands at
Anaheim Hills and Oak Hills Ranch Proposal addressed to the City
Manager/City Council from the Director of Community Development
& Planning attached to which were recommended conditions of
approval for each development reflecting the City staff's
position (documents made a part of the record). From the
Executive Summary, Mr. Fick highlighted the issues that were
involved with the Highlands project, several of which were
pertinent to both projects - the main issues being:
Fiscal Impact - Council's stated policy is that proposed
developments be designed to return sufficient revenues to the
City to cover the costs of providing City services. Staff has
concluded that neither development will provide such revenues
and that, in fact, a negative Fiscal Impact will result
exceeding $625,000 per year for the Highlands project and
$650,000 per year for Oak Hills after buildout. This negative
fiscal impact is contrary to the developers submitted Fiscal
Impact Analysis (see Page 3 of the May 21, 1987 Executive
Summary).
434
.1.33
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Circulation - Staff is recommending that both projects be
conditioned to participate in the financing of certain off-site
area-wide improvements partially necessitated by the two
projects (see Pages 4 and 5 of the May 21, 1987 Executive
Summary).
Fire Protection - Provision of access to Fire Station #9 via
Serrano Avenue and Fire Station #10 via a new Weir
Canyon/Serrano connection. The Highlands project has requested
that the first 400 units be constructed without providing these
roads (see Page 5 of the May 21, 1987 Executive Summary).
Location of Permanent Fire Station #9 - The Fire Chief has
selected the current site at Nohl Ranch Road next to the Anaheim
Hills Golf Course as being the best site for overall fire
protection needs for the Anaheim Hills area. The Highlands has
requested that the station be moved to the top of the hill
(Serrano Avenue and NohlRanch Road). (See Page 6 and 7 of the
May 21, 1987 Executive S,,mm~ry).
Financing of Permanent Fire Station #9 - Staff recommends that
the three developments (Highlands, Oak Hills and Wallace)
finance the reconstruction of Fire Station t9 since it is the
primary paramedic station for these projects and that it be done
on a proportionate share formula (see Page 7 of the May 21, 1987
Executive Summary).
Four Corners Pipeline - The pipeline traverses both the
Highlands and Oak Hill Ranches. The Oak Hills developer has
requested that the pipeline possibly be relocated. Staff is
recommending that a condition be imposed on both Highlands and
Oak Hills that a study be conducted at the developer's expense
prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract or Parcel Map in
order to address the various concerns associated with the
pipeline (see Page 8 of the May 21, 1987 Executive Summary).
Street Maintenance Facility Site for Street Sweepin~ Transfer
Facility - The Oak Hills project has been conditioned to
provide a site and the Highlands project has been conditioned to
contribute a proportionate share of the cost for this off-site
facility. Staff recommends that a Transfer Station be required
on the Oak Hills Ranch and that the land and development cost be
equally shared between the Highlands, Oak Hills and Wallace
Ranches (see Page 8 of the May 21, 1987 Executive Snmmmry).
Provision of City Park - Park Site Location - At the Planning
Commission hearings, the Highlands developer proposed an
alternate 5-acre park site, which, in conJunction with an
adjacent 8-acre school site would provide a combined 13 acre
school/park site. Staff finds the alternative satisfactory,
provided that the City receives the net 5 acre park site
required as the developer's park dedication obligation.
435
City Hall~ Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the Orange
Unified School District (OUSD) submitted a letter outlining
concerns relative to the proposed park site and requested that a
number of conditions be imposed on the Highlands development to
ensure that the School District's needs are met. Staff
recommends approval of the alternate site (see Page 9 of the May
21, 1987 Executive Summary).
Twin Peak's Reservoir and Park View Booster Pump Station - Phase
II - Highlands - Since the financing and design of these
facilities is not an obligation of Highlands, staff recommends
that Condition No. 20 of PC87-94 be deleted and impose instead
modified Condition No. 16 as recommended by staff (see Pages 9
and 10 of the May 21, 1987 Executive Summary).
Today, Utility staff has received financial documents that would
satisfy this condition and put into action the completion of the
improvements but recommended that conditions remain intact until
the documents can be reviewed and the letter of credit verified.
City Contribution to Maintenance of Open or Natural Channel
Storm Drain Facilities - Highlands - Staff recommends that the
request of Highlands for the City to participate in the
maintenance costs associated with the open or natural drainage
channel storm drain be denied since the storm drain will
directly benefit the Highlands project and since a substantial
negative Fiscal Impact has been identified (see Page 10 of the
May 21, 1987 Executive S,,mmary).
Ron Rothschild, Program Development & Audit Manager. Relative
to the Fiscal Impact, the approach used by the developers is
substantially different in specific areas. Relative to the
Highlands Development, staff has taken exception to some of the
findings of the developer's consultant both in the areas of
revenues due to the City as well as cost of providing services
by the City. Mr. Rothschild then narrated a slide presentation
showing facts and figures to substantiate staff's findings that
the cost of providing services to the Highlands development
would be in excess of the revenues generated by approximately
$625s000 per year~ contrary to Council's policy that this type
of development should pay for itself and not be a burden on
existing taxpayers and residents of the community. He addressed
such issues as commercial development, property tax, sales tax,
police services, fire services, etc. If additional revenues are
not found, it will result in a degradation of services to the
rest of the community. In addition, the $625,000 per year is at
full build out of the development. Since it is not phased
development, the Fiscal Impact should be analyzed on the basis
of a phased development but staff does not have all the
necessary information from the developer to do that. Because of
the substantial differences between the developers and the
City's evaluation of the Fiscal Impact, the City did seek an
436
Cit7 Hall~ a,aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
independent validation and hired the firm of Ultra Research, the
firm used ten years ago when designing the General Plan
Amendment to the whole hill and canyon area. Report dated
May 18, 1987 was previously submitted to the City Council.
(See, review and comments regarding Fiscal Impact Anlysis - the
Highlands - Anaheim Hills, California, prepared by Alfred Gobar
Associates, Inc. and prepared for the City of Anaheim by Ultra
Research, Inc. (U-R) (the report was submitted under memorandum
dated May 21, 1987 from Mr. Rothschild).
Mr. John Ran, Ultra Research, Inc. referred to the May 18, 1987
report on the Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Highlands project
and briefed portions of the report. He referred to Page 13
(summary portion) where it concluded that, "instead of an
estimated "annual" profit to the City equal to approximately
$45,000, the Anaheim Highlands project will most likely cause
the City to incur an "annual" deficit on the order of
5721,000." Mr. Rothschild stated to make a one-point-in-time
picture as to how revenues and costs should flow to the City is
not very realistic, but to look at it on a time phased basis
would be. They are in concurrence with City staff that there
would be a significant deficit which may be much larger, more in
the order of 5720,000. He suggested that a more realistic way
to be looking at the issue is a time phased basis.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, addressed the off-site circulation
improvements to Santa Ana Canyon Road (see Page 4 and 5 of the
May 21, 1987 Executive Summary). Staff is recommending that
Planning Commission Condition No. 113 be modified to change the
limits of the Santa Aha Canyon Road improvements from Lakeview
Avenue to the Bauer Ranch to an area between Imperial Highway
and the Bauer Ranch, the reason being only the Imperial Highway
to Bauer Ranch segment is significantly impacted and, therefore,
is a more logical area for the widening to take place.
Secondly, there needs to be clarification as to the intent of
the responsible parties for the improvements to include only the
Highlands, Oak Hills Ranch, Wallace Ranch, City of Anaheim and
other undeveloped parcels between Imperial Highway and Bauer
Ranch. The clarificationwtll then exclude such things as
assessments of current residents in the Anaheim Hills area as
well as other properties that will not develop in the near term
and have presently no specific development plans. The estimated
cost of the Santa Aha Canyon Road improvements is between 57.5
and 58 million. The responsible parties will only be obligated
to their proportionate share of the cost. The cost of the study
to determine this cost will be between 540,000 and 560,000. The
obligation will be that of the developer. He cannot overstate
the need for improvements to Santa Aha Canyon Road. There are
limited City funds for improvements to that road and there
exists a critical need for new development to pay its fair share
of the costs.
437
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman, narrated a slide presentation depicting
six maps which provided an estimate of the five minute response
patterns from the fire stations located in the hill and canyon
(also see report dated May 19, 1987 from the Fire Chief attached
to which were copies of maps previously submitted to the Council
- the colored maps in green, black, red and blue which indicated
response patterns for Station ~8, (green) Station #9 (red),
Station il0 (blue). - (1) Existing response capability - five
minutes or less, (2) existing station locations - Serrano
completed, (3) Station #9 relocated - Serrano not complete, (4)
Station t9 relocated - Serrano complete, (5) truck service -
Serrano not completed and (6) truck service Serrano completed.
Slides were also presented showing the areas involved, the
terrain and topography. He gave the frequency of response to
the various areas indicated on the maps explaining that the
majority of the responses were northerly of the existing
location of Fire Station #9. The highest risk area for fires is
in the commercial-industrial area around Imperial Highway and La
Palma Avenue. Moving the fire station up the hill will lessen
the opportunity to get to that critical area. Eventually
Serrano Avenue will continue into Orange. If Station ~9 were to
exist at the top of the hill, a good portion of the response
pattern in that five minute period would be into another
community thereby leaving the City of Anaheim unprotected in
Fire Station #9 first-due area. In his opinion, the best place
to have Fire Station #9 is where it currently sits (see Pages 5
through 7 of the Executive Summary where the Fire Station ~9
issues were discussed). Relative to the construction of Fire
Station #9, staff has recommended that the three Ranches,
Highlands, Oak Hills and Wallace Jointly participate in the
financing of permanent Fire Station ~9. The Planning Commission
deleted that as a condition and he is asking that it be added as
a condition for all three Ranches. Paramedic protection for all
three Ranches will come from Fire Station ~9.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services.
He spoke relative to the City park issue as explained on Page 9
of the May 21, 1987 Executive Summary. His presentation was
supplemented by slides. He also re£erred to letter dated
May 15, 1987 from Mr. Brent Barnes, Director of Planning
Services, Orange Unified School District, 370 North Glassell
Street, Orange (made a part of the record) with four Exhibits
attached. Exhibit 4 listed specific conditions proposed by OUSD
to be included in the City Council Resolution on the project for
Council consideration. In summary, Mr. Jarvi stated that his
Department feels that any of the three sites could be
appropriate for their purposes and in order of preference are as
follows:
(1) The School District's proposal (allows maximum amount of
open space available to the public).
438
129'
Clt~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 26, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
(2) The Planning Commission's proposal, if acceptable to the
School District (park site on School District site).
(3) The developer's first proposal (park site northwest of the
existing school site).
He recommended that development not proceed until there is a
proposal acceptable to all three parties.
Joel Fick.
In summary he stated there are numerous development-related
issues and concerns already addressed but reaching 100%
agreement on all issues is difficult to achieve. The scope of
some of the issues has changed through time. The Council has
heard about the Specific Plan process, the EIR, the Highlands
proposal, including a s-mmary description of the project, scope
and proposed implementing ordinances that includes some
adjustments to present standards. The Council has also been
provided with a copy of the staff recommended conditions of
approval. In concluding, he again directed Council's attention
to the issues summary on the chart displayed in the Chamber (the
issues listed were those broached in the first part of the staff
presentation and as listed and outlined in the May 21, 1987
Executive Summary - Fiscal Impact, circulation improvements,
fire protection, City park, Four Corners Pipeline, Twin Peak's
Reservoir and Parkview Booster Pump Station Phase II and City
participation in the open drainage facility.
Mayor Bay then asked to hear from the School District.
Mr. Brent Barnes, Director of Planning Services OUSD.
The site that has historically been designated as the school
site is acceptable but does not provide sufficient flexibility
to construct the school facility that will be needed. The
District believes it could get an 8 acre level pad on the
property they own now but would be hard pressed to get the state
minimum 10-acre pad which is an important issue since they will
be constructing the school with state funding. The proposal the
developer presented to the Planning Commission does not work,
because it limits them to the 8 acre-pad. The School Board
considered the alternative presented by staff and the Board
voted to adopt that proposal. It involves swapping 5 acres with
the developer which the developer would then give over to the
City for a park for a two and one-half acre strip on the north
end of the property which is about 150 feet deep and can be
accomplished within the parameters of the existing grading plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked relative to the Four Corners
Pipeline, what kind of gas was transported through the line, how
dangerous and the dangers involved in moving the line.
439
City Hall~ ^nahelm~ Caltforaia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dick Marston, Senior Agent, Land Services, Four Corners
Pipeline. As a common carrier, they are restricted primarily to
runn/ng only crude oil through their lines. In transporting the
oil, it is possible to throw a match on it and nothing will
happen but if there is a leak, it would cause a real problem.
Should vaporization occur and then ignition, it could cause a
fire ball. The pipeline has been in place since 1957 and
approximately 55,000 barrels of oil a day is piped through. The
main problem they see is the possibility of the line getting hit
by somebody. If that occurred, it would be very costly both
environmentally and monetarily.
Mr. Ftck clarified the reason that staff is recommending a new
Condition No. 119 is that a study be conducted prior to the
first Tentative Tract Map approval identifying the hazards
relative to the pipeline and how to deal with mitigation
measures.
Jerry Murphy, Administrator of Advanced Planning, City of
Orange. He is present on behalf of the City of Orange to
support the staff and the Planning Commission's recommendation
on Condition No. 112 which requires the action plan be prepared
identifying the timing and financing of the construction of
Serrano Avenue and Loma Street through to the City of Orange as
part of the arterial highway system relating to the original
Anaheim Hills/Texaco ownership. They support the requirement of
the viable action plan, that it be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission as identified iu Condition No. 112 and that
Orange be notified when it is reviewed in order to provide
appropriate comments at that time.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern with the proposed 3,500
square-foot lots and 1,000 square foot homes noting that the
minimum in the City is 1,225.
Mr. Fick stated that was an issue that was discussed in detail
by the Planning Commission. There were several staff members
who took a look at existing lot sizes and the conclusion reached
by staff and the developer was that quality of the development
did not necessarily pertain to lot size alone. They saw homes
of lesser quality than City Council might like to see which were
on lots larger than 5,000 square feet and saw smaller homes of
very good quality on lots smaller than present standards.
Subsequently, what the Planning Commission did was to insert a
condition that, prior to approval of any Tentative Tract Map,
the Planning Commission would be reviewing specific site plans,
floor plans and elevation plans to ensure that the quality they
were assured they were going to be getting would be seen in the
development. That was the assurance they felt they needed and
incorporated in the conditions of approval.
44O
City Hall, Amahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(4:48 '~.m.)
AFTF/{KECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (5:00 p.m.)
Mayor Bay.
He asked staff for clarification relative to a condition adding
a study and possibly changing that to a requirement for a safety
plan from the Highlands developer on how with their design,
construction and grading they were going to avoid the Four
Corners Pipeline. When the Oak Hills Development is discussed,
they will talk about a safety plan requirement on where the
pipeline goes through any of the development rather than a study
and will also take up the issue of the pipeline actually being
on the proposed park land, which is a second issue.
Mr. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, Agent for the Highlands
project, 1151 Dove Street, Newport Beach.
They have been working with staff over the last three years.
The plan to be presented today is the one approved by the City
Planning.Commission approximately 30 days ago (see minutes of
the Planning Commission hearings of March 30 and April 20, 1987
where extensive discussion took place, testimony received and
data and documents presented). He first made an overview
presentation on the project followed by a discussion on the
project in its entirety. Mr. Elfend then narrated a slide
presentation wherein he discussed specifically where the project
was located and the process that led up to the plan. His
presentation included the environmental factors involved, the
grading and ridge line preservation aspects, Weir Canyon Park,
circulation, Public Facilities, land use, density, quality
housing, open space recreation and a depiction of the views from
various vantage points. He also explained specific plan
benefits and then explained the development plan for the
specific development areas. (See Exhibits submitted which were
hard copies of the material presented in Mr. Elfend's extensive
presentation - illustrative product and site design for the
Highlands at Anaheim Hills which included development areas 1
through 12 and an additional Exhibit - product types - which
illustrated the specific kinds of dwellings to be built in each
of the areas with development area 8 being devoted to commercial
uses,
(Also see Booklet submitted by Mr. Elfend - the highlands at
Anaheim Hills - City Council Summary Booklet - Southmark Pacific
Corporation which covered the following items and also the
issues addressed by Mr. Elfend and his presentation - project
description, specific plan, environmental benefits, Community
Development Scheme - issues - Fiscal consideration/Fiscal Impact
which included economic realities, park and school site
alternatives, school site agreement, park/school site
441
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 26~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
chronology, prior Tentative Map approval/park site, Fire
Department considerations, Fire Department correspondence, Fire
Department position, and Fire access.
Mr. Elfend then addressed the issues, those raised by staff in
their report of May 21, 1987 - Executive Summary. He was
surprised at the modification staff has made to approximately 25
of the Planning Commission conditions, only a few of which were
some that were previously discussed. Mr. Elfend then spoke in
detail to the following:
Issue - City Park - Disposition - The School District agreed to
8 acres. Highlands is providing a site that was turned to 8
acres. The School District wanted another two acres and
Highlands stated that they could not provide those additional
two acres. Highlands is suggesting that Condition No. 42 be
approved not as suggested by staff but as approved by the City
Planning Commission. They would be comfortable with that and to
discuss the item further with the School District. It is their
intention to stay with the site most acceptable to their
neighbors as well as the Commission and the Orange Unified
School District.
Issue - Fire Service - Fire Stations - New maps were created by
the Fire Department. Highlands was not aware of these until
today. (See the colored maps previously submitted and described
under the Fire Chief's presentation). The only map previously
shown to Highlands which showed total fire coverage without any
gaps was the one that relocated Fire Station #9. Highlands is
not promoting relocation of Fire Station ~9. In March of 1987,
a presentation was made by the Fire Chief. He (Elfend) then
submitted the maps to the Council which they were told at that
time represented response time to the development. The maps
were prepared by the Fire Department and they were indicative of
what the response capability was for the project. Southmark
indicated they would provide an emergency access or a Fire
Department road access that would link up to Fire Station #10
and a road that would be within reason as it related to grades.
They discussed that in a very preliminary sense with Chief
Bowman and were told in a preliminary sense it would be
acceptable although he has not seen the Exhibit.
Highlands is asking for the Council to approve that proposal
which will require modification of staff Condition Nos. 70, 71,
74, 91, 95 and 110. They also concur with the Planning
Commission that they not be a part of the reimbursement for Fire
Station ~9. (Also see Booklet submitted by Mr. Elfend for
Southmark Pacific - City Council Summary Booklet - this Booklet
addresses each of the issues presented by Mr. Elfend).
442
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Issue - Off-site Roadway Asreement - Highlands would like to
delete this and go back to the Planning Commission verbiage on
Condition No. 113. Reason - the City's Resolution No. 83R-427
provided for the preparation of an action plan to determine the
alignment, financing and construction of Serrano. That plan has
actually been prepared. In conjunction with an approved project
in the City of Orange, Southmark has agreed to a condition that
says Serrano Avenue must be built from the City of Orange to the
City of Anaheim prior to the occupancy of the first unit or
within 6 years as indicated in development agreement presently
in preparation. Relative to Loma, there is a Resolution No.
6162 of the City of Orange which provides for the construction
of Loma from the City of Anaheim to the City of Orange.
Highlands sees no need to have Condition No. 112 since control
is provided for.
Relative to Condition No. 113, Mr. Elfend submitted the
conditions that were changed from the Planning Commission
meeting. They all agreed to the condition since it provided
flexibility. Highlands is requesting that the Council adopt the
Planning Commission Resolution regarding that condition rather
than that as suggested by staff. The project contributes to
that road anywhere from 10% or less.
RECESS - DINNER BREAK: Councilman Bay moved to recess for a dinner break.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
(5:40 p.m.)
AFTER EECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (7:28 p.m.)
Mr. Elfend continued addressing the issues.
Issue - Fiscal Impact - They have retained Dr. Alfred Gobar who
will address this major issue. Mr. Elfend first referred to
letter dated March 31, 1987 from the City of Fountain Valley
supporting Highlands contention regarding Fire Department costs
and letter dated August 30, 1987 from Police Chief Jimmie
Kennedy giving estimates of police costs that would be incurred
subsequent to the development outlined in a letter written by
Mr. Gobar in August of 1982. He introduced Mr. Gobar.
Mr. Alfred Gobar, President, Alfred Gobar Associates Inc.
His detailed presentation basically addressed the issues of
taxable retail sales generation and police costs which related
to the differences between staff's Fiscal Impact Analysis in the
Highlands development. Staff, through their consultant test,
concluded that there will be a negative Fiscal Impact to the
City annually whereas the Highlands has concluded that there
will be a positive impact. Mr. Gobar based his presentation on
his letter of May 14, 1987 and his letter of March 25, 1987 to
Elfend & Associates both contained in the Booklet submitted by
443
City Hall, Am~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Elfend entitled - "The Highlands at Anaheim Hills - Summary
Booklet Appendix, Southmark Pacific Corporation." This data
revolved around the research process used to support their
estimate that 80.0% of the increased taxable sales traceable to
new population in the City of Anaheim is likely to fall to
merchants within the City as opposed to staff's alternate
estimate of a 50.0% capture rate. (See the May 21, 1987
Executive S,~mary Page 3 and 4 listing staff's analysis of the
Fiscal Impacts involved).
Relative to the issue of police costs, there is a tendency in
Anaheim to want to allocate police costs on a straight per
capita basis. He contended that police cars should be allocated
on the type of land use involved rather than on a straight per
capita population. He also took issue with some of the figures
indicated on Page 3 of the Executive Summary.
After Mr. Gobar's presentation, Council discussion followed
relating to the regional shopping center that had been planned
for some years to be developed by the Taubman Company at Weir
Canyon and the effect that would have on the sales picture.
Frank Elfend.
They are currently working with the Taubman Company on the
shopping center site and the Taubman Company will be presenting
something to the City in the next 60 days. Other items
addressed by Mr. Elfend contained in the staff Executive Summary
were as follows:
City Participation and Maintenance Costs of open or Natural
Channel Storm Drain Facilities - That the City would
essentially credit the Highlands development for that portion
which they would use to maintain the system if the system were
open rather than closed. If the system is to be maintained as
an open channel and maintained by a maintenance district then
why not credit the project for that savings.
Fiscal Impact - The statements made by Ron Rothschild were
responded to by Mr. Gobar.
The statements made by the City Engineer were covered in their
request for modified conditions. The Fire Department concerns
were covered in his presentation.
Park Site - Mr. Jarvi indicated a variety of alternatives and
Highlands would like to keep the ones they have. He believes
the State would consider funding an 8 acre site. Relative to
the grades, the grades would be essentially identical on either
plan. Relative to the Four Corners Pipeline, Highlands is not
proposing any relocation of that line. The first phase of the
development is nowhere near the Four Corners Pipeline.
Therefore, he suggested that the condition be modified, to read
444
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
when development occurs in that area adjacent to the pipeline,
that a safety plan be provided rather than request that for the
first phase of development.
There are still 7 to 10 conditions on which they have
questions. Provided there is some type of direction on the
major issues discussed earlier, Highlands would be able to sit
down with staff and revise approximately 10 to 20 other
conditions that they still have questions on after having
received the revised report from staff late on Friday.
After Mr. Elfend's presentation, Mayor Bay stated he felt it
would be a much better solution if they could settle the capital
one-time cost issues, and then look at setting up assessment
districts within the new development which would probably
include Oak Hills as well to cover those costs. He reiterated
it is the basic policy of the Council that new development,
wherever it is in the hills will not be subsidized by the
taxpayers in the rest of the City. It is going to have to pay
its own way. The new homeowners were either going to have to
pay now in the price of their home or they were going to have to
pay it later if there is an assessment district. He asked Mr.
Elfend's opinion whether that would be detrimental to his
marketing plans.
Frank Elfend.
He did not feel comfortable right now saying yes or no, other
than they would like to consider the Mayor's statement and have
an opportunity to respond back to the Council at a subsequent
time. The only real area of disagreement is on the cost of the
Police Department. It is a reasonable position that costs be
allocated on a fair share basis. They have not had an
opportunity to review the staff report to the extent they would
like and they would like to do so.
Joel Fick.
Mr. Elfend addressed the Four Corners Pipeline issue. He (Fick)
has conferred with the City Engineer who is amenable to the
condition reading: "Prior to the Tentative Tract Map for any
development area that would improve the plpeline~ the developer
will complete and submit a safety plan acceptable to the City
Engineer." Staff then confirmed for the Mayor that it would be
at the time of development and prior to grading.
Mr. Elfend.
He confirmed that prior to the grading is acceptable.
Joel Fick.
Relative to the Twin Peak and Parkview Booster Pump Station, he
spoke to Mr. Elfend and there is a condition being worked
through and Highlands is agreeable to the condition that is
being proposed; Mr. Elfend stated he agreed.
445
i24
tit7 ~a!l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Joel Fick.
The two capital items addressed in the presentation by staff
included the Santa Aha Canyon Road widening and also the funding
of Fire Station #9. Those are capital related and project is
specific. Most of the other items such as the storm drain and
the on-site facilities have been addressed in the Public
Facilities Plan to the satisfaction of both the City and the
project applicant.
Mayor Bay asked if that included the extension of Serrano, Mr.
Elfend stated they have not had an opportunity to review the
revised Public Facilities Plan and so could not comment on
whether it does or not but he would say it is a problem.
Mr. Fick stated that the Serrano/Weir Canyon connection for fire
protection and area-wide circulation does need to be completed.
Mayor Bay asked where Wallace Ranch comes into the cost of the
Serrano/Weir Canyon connection or any other development along
with Highlands, and is Oak Hills involved? Is it shared across
all the developments yet to come?
City Engineer, Gary Johnson.
He answered yes. Based upon a study, staff would propose it be
funded by the developer and performed by a consultant selected
by the City. One of the differences in the conditions is that
the Planning Commission provides that the developer shall
prepare the financial plan and study. Staff is not comfortable
with that and is proposing that all the Ranches that will be
developed in the near term should participate as well as
undeveloped parcels in the immediate area and the City. The
City would look at traffic generated from the developments where
the trips were assigned and what proportionate share should be
borne by each development. With the limited resources to devote
to future widening in the City, there are no funds identified in
the 5-year Plan to do so. They wanted some general guidance in
the preparation of the study so they are not looking at things
such as area-wide assessment districts for existing residential
properties in the area on the basis those properties have paid
their fair share when their projects were before the City.
Frank Elfend.
They do not care who prepares the study. The original wording
they submitted provided a certain degree of flexibility as it
related to several items. Participants is one of them. They do
not know why the City should limit the participants involved and
the City should include as many participants as they can
support. The condition approved by the Planning Commission was
more reasonable.
446
City Ha!!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Gary Johnson.
Staff's intent is to include Highlands, Oak Hills and Wallace
Ranch and other undeveloped property in the area with the City
as a participant.
Frank Elfend.
He agreed as long as other undeveloped properties were included
and the participants would not be limited. It was critical to
leave the study flexible.
Gary Johnson.
They are looking at the area between the Bauer Ranch and
Imperial Highway. He wanted to make it clear who the real
participants are. If the Council wants to include all
properties, staff will do that but the point is, it was going to
be difficult not knowing the nature of the development. It will
be a difficult task if not impossible.
Mayor Bay.
It was necessary to come up with fair share on the costs to
widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to six lanes.
Mr. El~end then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there is
no proposal to include existing taxpayers in what they just
discussed.
Mayor Bay.
He addressed the capital costs of sharing the new Fire Station
(Fire Station 19) to replace the temporary station.
Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman.
Location is paramount to the discussion. The Planning
Commission recommended moving it to the golf course site which
is not acceptable based on existing City plans for development
of that area. In previous informal discussions with the
developer, the discussions revolved around Fire Station #9 on
top of the hill at Serrano and Nohl Ranch Road. It was based on
an assumption by City staff that the site at that corner was to
be donated by Texaco Anaheim Rills ~or the City to Build a fire
station. At the meeting in December where the location of Fire
Station ~9 was discussed, the suggestion came up in lieu of
donating the site at Nohl Ranch and Serrano that the developer
would instead sell the property and donate the money to the City
in lieu of the site. The most recent city position based on
· Joint staff agreement is that all of the Ranches proposing to
develop in the area should participate in the construction
financing for Fire Station 19 since all will benefit in the
paramedic coverage and first due firefighting capabilities. The
projected cost is ~630,000.
447
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1987, 1:30 P.M.
City Manager, William Talley.
If the site is granted to the City, staff will withdraw the
request that part of the construction cost for Fire Station #10
be paid for by the developer. The City could then determine
where the site is going to be.
Frank Elfend.
There were new Exhibits presented at this meeting that showed
the whole service area different than before. Highlands
position is to service that first 400 units without having to
make that connection. They have proposed a connection for the
subsequent 401st unit which would be made either on-site, or a
fire access road for the Fire Department to be made on the 401st
unit which they would not have to make if the connection of
Serrano and Weir Canyon was provided. The issue is one that
purely relates to fire access and their position is to provide
that type of connection be it on-site through an emergency
access or, if off-site, with the 401st unit instead of the cost
of making the developer put Serrano all the way to Weir Canyon
prior to constructing the first unit. He confirmed for
Councilwoman Kaywood that they wanted to build 400 units before
there is a fire access. In the Exhibits presented to the
Council and the ones that had been presented, it is their
position that sufficient protection can be provided from Fire
Station 19 on an interim basis and on the 401st unit, fire
access would be created for Fire Station #10. Serrano would
then be built to the project boundary after the 400th unit.
Access would be provided either through the Wallace Ranch
project or through a northerly extension. There has been no
intent to build Serrano all the way down to Weir Canyon Road to
Fire Station Il0.
Chief Bowman.
Two issues need to be stated, the first being Mr. Elfend's
comment regarding Fire Station t9 providing adequate service.
That is his (Elfend's) definition of adequate. It is absolutely
not adequate to provide protection to that area from Station
#9. The comment was made that it has been the Fire Department's
position in the past that first due fire protection would come
from Fire Station t9 and that is not the case. Their position
from the beginning is that the Highlands project as well as Oak
Hills, Wallace and Bauer Ranch would all be provided first-due
fire protection from Fire Station il0. That is the station they
have always said would serve the Highlands project.
Frank Elfend.
There are two choices, if they are going to come back on the
Fiscal Impact, the matter could be discussed further at that
time and the Fire Chief and he could get together, but their
position is fairly clear.
Mayor Bay suggested that the matter be tabled at this time.
448
1:1.9
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Joel Fick.
There are two remaining issues summarized earlier regarding the
City park site with a request to go back to the earlier Planning
Commission condition and the issue of City participation in the
storm drain channel.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation & Community
Services. He reiterated his position remains the same. What is
lacking is a solution. Of the three solutions he broached at
the beginning of the hearing, any are suitable as long as there
is agreement of the School District in the actual development or
donation/development of the property. In Condition No. 42 all
that was added were the words that the elementary school site
that would be adjacent to the park would be acceptable to the
School District.
Frank Elfend.
Highlands would prefer to keep the site where it is currently
located because it makes sense for a variety of reasons. The
School District is asking that the City negotiate for the two
additional acres. There is no ability by the developer to
provide those two additional acres. He reiterated they want the
condition kept as originally approved by the Planning
Commission. If they are unable to reasonably negotiate with the
District, the Highlands would look seriously at offering the
original school/park site, which was acceptable to the Parks
Department and the School District.
Chris Jarvi.
They could live with the initially proposed site but want to
make sure, even in that situation that the School District has a
site that is acceptable to the City in terms of topography and
general development.
Frank Elfend.
He concurs if it goes back to the other configuration. The
School District owns the site. Highlands is not negotiating but
they have agreed to grade it. Now the School District is saying
they want another two acres o£ land.
Barry Barnes, OUSD.
He is not certain he made the District's position clear - it is
as voted on by the Board on May 13, 1987 of this year. The
District wants a 10-acre site at that location. To change that
position, the Board will have to revote. Mr. Elfend did make a
presentation to the Board same as he made today. Based on that
presentation and the same discussion, the Board voted for the
10-acre site even though the Board recognizes the site has
significant constraints such as limited usable pad area and it
is directly adjacent to two arterial streets. They want the
opportunity to use State funding to build a school on the site.
Otherwise, they do not feel a school will be built at that
location for quite some time.
449
City H~!!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The site presently designated for the school has a serious flaw,
since access would have to be taken from an arterial street. An
elementary school should have primary access to a local street
and he is recommending access to a local street.
Frank Elfend.
As reflected in the Planning Commission minutes, the only reason
the issue has come up is due to trying to work out a solution
for the grading. The real breaking point is the two additional
acres which the district is asking the City to condition. They
do not have another two acres in that location. If the Council
goes with the condition they have asked for, it will be the same
as the Planning Commission approved condition. If the School
District insists on the two acres, Highlands will go back to the
position that was previously publically accepted. The important
thing is retaining the net acreage the District agreed to. That
agreement was there until they had the Planning Commission
meeting. They cannot do all the other things and give an
additional two acres.
Discussion followed between Mr. Jarvi and Elfend wherein Mr.
Jarvi stated if the District does not get a State approved site
at that location, then there will be no site; Mr. Elfend stated
that was not his understanding.
Mr. Barnes explained the 8-acre site was agreed to in January of
this year. It was done on the basis of a concession to the
developer who stated at that time or shortly before that they
believe an 8-acre pad and not more, was possible within the
confines of the property but they find that condition has
changed.
Mayor Bay noted that Exhibit 1 was the original site, and
Exhibit 2, as proposed on April 20, 1987, was approved by the
Planning Commission. Exhibit 1 showed 8 acres net in a park
site of 5 acres.
MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved that the Council accept
Exhibit 2 as a plan approved by the Planning Commission since
there is still 8 acres net and the agreements included one
million dollars of grading to be done by the developer plus
other improvements. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that access could be taken
from the side street and secondary access only will be from
Serrano and no access from Canyon Rim.
Councilman Pickler surmised that the park site had to be
adjacent to a school site; Mr. Jarvi stated if the school site
is moved, they would want to move the park site with the school
site.
45O
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 26~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that it would be better to continue
the issue and then start fresh rather than makin~ a hurried
decision.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
no. MOTION CARRIED.
Joel Fick.
The two remaining issues include City participation in the open
channel and the second is the requested deletion of Condition
No. 12.
Gary Johnson.
Relative to the storm drain, the type of facility will be
determined from a study funded by the developer and conducted by
the City. This is at the request of the developer who wishes to
install an-open channel system.
The only remaining issue deals with the proposed City
contribution to a Maintenance District, if there is an open
channel to an equivalent amount if the City had to maintain a
closed conduit. The Maintenance Department indicated that the
maintenance of the closed conduit in that area, because of the
grade of the facility would, in effect, be self-cleaning and the
only maintenance would be cleaning the inlets. It appears that
there would be only one inlet at the upper reach of the closed
conduit. The cost, if it could be measured, would be so minimal
the Maintenance Director did not feel it was an important
consideration in comparison to all the other things they were
dealing with. As a matter of policy, the City has never agreed
to such a change in the past.
Mr. Elfend stated that the study they had done identified more
than one inlet, and somewhere between 20 and 30 inlets. Their
studies indicate if the channel were to be put underground in
total the City would incur a cost to maintain that underground
channel. Highlands has asked that there be credit provided in
the form of something allocated to the project, based on future
considerations. The City will save money if the channel is
maintained by a Maintenance District. They feel the cost may be
$25,000 a year to maintain the closed conduit and it should be
used as credit somewhere in the system. They would be
comfortable with not coming up with a number now but in the
preparation of the subsequent study. They would like the
opportunity to do that.
Gary Johnson.
He does not have a problem with the study but believes it is a
policy item and would be a change from prior policy.
451
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Joel Fick.
Relative to Condition No. 112 requested for deletion, it is an
Engineering issue. Based upon Mr. Elfend's initial
presentation, the condition is not needed because it is
redundant based upon a prior City Council resolution and
secondly, Orange has conditioned some developments already in
this regard. Resolution 83R-427 passed during 1983 and
forwarded to the City of Orange is not in conjunction with any
particular development proposal. The CityCouncil at the time
was basically Just interested in the implementation of the
roadways in the Anaheim Hills area. The only two things the
resolution addressed are the extension of Imperial, Loma and
Serrano, and that the City of Orange endorse that in accordance
with the master plan of arterial highways. Secondly that the
City of Anaheim encourage 0range along with Anaheim to require
the property owner (Texaco Anaheim Hills) to complete an action
plan to determine the alignment, financing and costs of Serrano
prior to any future parcelization within the Texaco Anaheim
Hills property boundaries. Staff's position would be that the
presently recommended position remain intact which only requires
that the property owner submit a viable action plan subject to
review by the Planning Commission to ensure the timely
construction of the two roadways, and put into place the
previous Council resolution. It was also something requested by
the City of Orange.
Frank Elfend.
The original reason the City of Orange was concerned about the
condition was the Serrano Heights project was not approved.
Once it was approved there was a condition indicatin~ no unit
would be occupied until that road was built. There is also a
development agreement which is being finalized that says the
road will be built in six years. He questioned why burden the
Highlands project with another condition.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The EI~ specifically addresses itself to the extension of
Serrano Avenue and the Loma extension. He believes if the
condition is left in it will merely reiterate and assure the
timely construction of Serrano and the extension of Loma.
Frank Elfend.
According to their Traffic Engineer, not a single trip from the
project has been applied to Loma. That being the case, he does
not understand the statement Just made.
Paul Singer.
The Loma and Imperial Highway extension is also part of the
originalAnaheim Hills planned development. If not done now, it
was never going to be accomplished.
452
115
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - Ma7 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Gary Johnson.
He does not recall, as stated by Mr. Elfend, the comment he
(Johnson) made regarding financing of those particular
improvements only to Santa Ana Canyon Road as an off-site.
that context, he is in agreement with Mr. Elfend.
In
Mayor Bay.
All they are talking about is an additional study which Mr.
Elfend claims is already covered in the resolution.
Joel Flck.
At the Planning Commission hearing when the City of Orange staff
was addressing the issue, they expressed concern about
conditioning of the projects. They asked that when these issues
came up that they have the opportunity to review them. Staff is
not looking for additional studies. At the time prior to
Tentative Tract approval, there should be a communication to
Orange so that they have an opportunity to comment to the
Planning Commission and Council if they wished. It should not
be an issue if representations made tonight that these things
are moving forward in Orange are correct.
Frank Elfend.
Highlands would satisfy the condition relative to the City of
Anaheim with input from the City of Orange. He would like the
condition not be included because he feels it is redundant. The
clarification provided makes the issue moot as it relates to the
condition.
Mayor Bay.
He felt there was no issue at this time.
Mr. Elfend.
For purposes of the record, the condition reads~ it is the Final
Tract Map rather than the Tentative.
Joel Fick.
The City Engineer and Planning are both in agreement that the
condition should re~ain.
Mr. Elfend then continued that the two items to still be looked
at in the interim are the cost revenue, and the issue with the
Fire Chief, understanding that the resolution of the latter
issue will affect several conditions.
Mayor Bay.
The only issue still in negotiation is the Fire Department issue
and whatever may come up along with that. As far as recurring
costs on the Fiscal Impact Anlysis, there will be a lot of
advice from staff when the matter is again brought back to the
Council on how to set up the necessary Assessment Districts to
take the risk for the City on those recurring costs out of the
development.
453
116
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Frank Elfend.
Highlands would like the opportunity to consider other
alternatives as well.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Vic Peloquin, developer of downstream property, 280 Chrisalta,
Anaheim, Ca.
His is the property adjacent to the 91 Freeway, bordering Santa
Ana Canyon Road. They presented their project before the
Planning Commission approximately one year ago for a 48,000
square foot office building. They have been requested through
the Planning Commission to construct a storm drain pipe at their
property. In meetings with City staff, he has been requested to
design the entire structure from the 91 Freeway through their
property across Santa Ana Canyon Road to terminate at a
bifurcation structure on the south side of Santa Aha Canyon
Road. Cost estimates from their subcontractors are in excess of
$5,000. Total assessment costs for the drainage facility for
their 3-acre development is approximately $10,700. There is an
Assessment District provided in the City called District 141.
To this date, they have been told by staff members that there is
approximately 3250,000 within that District to construct
drainage facilities at this point in time. The rest of the
money would be coming from developers from storm drain
assessment fees. The drainage facility is causing a burden on
his property. He referred to minutes of the Council meeting of
May 20, 1975 wherein there was a request to waive the drainage
requirement prior to grading in drainage District t41 by Anaheim
Hills Inc. He then read Item No. 4 from those minutes which
indicated the ultimate drainage facility will be installed by
Anaheim Hills Inc. when their development extends beyond the
area shown in Exhibit A or at the time a downstream property
owner develops, whichever comes first. He wanted to go on
record and would like the City Council to address the problem of
his project wanting to start within a few weeks, and needing the
Council to ask for assistance from the upstream property to help
them in their drainage facility downstream.
Gary Johnson.
He referred to letter dated May 22, 1987 ~rom Victor
Construction which he first saw this evening. He is not
prepared to discuss it in detail and asked that Engineering be
allowed to meet with Victor Construction (Mr. Peloquin) as well
as Mr. Elfend and his associates to look at the matter as part
of the next meeting.
Bob Morse, 7020 Blackbird Lane, representing Anaheim Hills
Community Church, the owner of the two properties referred to
frequently in the presentations as ~the properties to the
north." They own approximately 80% of the properties to the
north. Their concern is that throughout the Planning Commission
Resolution and subsequent documents by staff there are many
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
references to various alternatives for the installation of
facilities, all of which affect their property. To this point,
they have never been contacted and did not receive a notice of
the Planning Commission public hearing, yet decisions are being
made affecting their property. He then referred to certain
conditions of the Planning Commission Resolution (30, 40, 85
which ts 86 in the staff report, 90 and 95). He elaborated on
each noting that several were modified in the staff report.
Joel Fick.
The Planning Commission Resolution is a recommendation to the
City Council. Staff went through all the conditions and based
upon subsequent meetings with the developer, staff provided the
Council with an additional recommended set of conditions. In
some cases, there were deletions and modifications.
Robert Morse.
They are considering sale of all or a portion of their property
to people who intend to proceed on what would be the appropriate
development. They are in a state of limbo and need some answers
before they can proceed.
There was no further public input at this time.
Discussion then followed relative to leaving the public hearing open or
closing it at this time and also an appropriate time frame for continuance.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay moved to continue the public
hearing on Specific Plan No. 87-1, including a Public Facilities Plan, Fiscal
Impact Analysis, Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards and
Environmental Impact Report No. 273 (Supplemental), Southmark Pacific
Properties Inc., the Highlands, to Tuesday, June 16, 1987 at 3100 p.m.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (10:19 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the-meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (10:3~ p.m.)
134/179/155: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 223~
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-19~ PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN~ FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281:
APPLICANT: DL Enterprises, Ltd.
1535 East Orangewood, ~129
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan with proposals including but not limited to hillside low
density residential, hillside low-medium density residential, hillside medium
density residential, general commercial and general open space, for a change
in zone from OS(SC) to PC(SC), consisting of RS-HS-10,000(SC), RM-3000(SC) and
CL (SC) zones, to provide for the development of up to 2,176 residential
455
I14
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
units, 30 acres of commercial use, 166 acres of open space, a 13 acre park
site and a 10 acre elementary school, on approximately 591 acres located 1.1
miles southeast of the Weir Canyon Road and Riverside Freeway intersection and
bounded on the north by the Wallace Ranch, west by the Anaheim Hills property,
and south and east by the Irvine Company property (Oak Hills Ranch).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-103 approved General Plan
Amendment No. 223, Land Use Element, Exhibit A; Resolution No. PC87-104
granted Reclassification No. 86-87-19; recommended that EIR No. 281 be
certified as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUI~TS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May 14, 1987.
Posting of property May 14, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 14, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated April 13 and
April 27, 1987 as well as related documents and data which have been made a
part of the record. Also see extensive testimony given at the Planning
Commission hearings of April 13, April 20 and April 27, 1987.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
He gave au overview of the nature and scope of the Oak Hills
project including the issues involved, several of which were
different on the Oak Hills project as opposed to the Highlands
project. He described the project (see staff reports to the
Planning Commission giving extensive data in detail). The
Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 223, Exhibit AA mended, Land Use Element subject
to certain conditions (see Planning Commission Resolution No.
PC87-103), granted Reclassification No. 86-87-19, subject to 134
conditions (see Planning Commission Resolution No. PC87-104) and
recommended that the City Council certify EIRNo. 281 as being
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
adopting a statement of overriding considerations (see Page 4 of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-104.
Mr. Fick then briefed the issues involved regarding the Oak
Hills project that needed to be resolved (see the Executive
Summary dated May 21, 1987 - Highlands at Anaheim Hills and Oak
Hills Ranch from the Director of Community Development &
Planning). Mr. Fick highlighted the issues that were involved
relative to Oak Hills, the main issues being:
Fiscal Impact - As previously reported, staff has concluded
that neither development - Oak Hills or Highlands - will provide
revenues to the City to cover the costs of providing City
services and that a negative fiscal impact will result exceeding
$650,000 per year on the Oak Hills project after buildout.
456
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Circulation - Staff has already expressed their concern and
interest about enhancing the traffic service levels predicted in
particular for the Santa Ann Canyon Road project. Engineering
has pointed out the need for detailed traffic analysis and has
recommended participation also by Oak Hills on this
improvement. The Council dialogued the issue substantially in
the previous hearing (Highlands).
Fire Protection - The fire issues and needs have also been well
documented and discussed and basically the presentation given in
the Highlands project is also applicable to Oak Hills.
Four Corners Pipeline - It also traverses the Oak Hills Ranch
site and would be located as proposed under the present City
park. It is a situation that is not desired by the Park
Director.
Street Maintenance Facilit2 - Staff understands that
discussions have taken place between the Maintenance Director
and Oak Hills Developer and have reached a conceptual agreement
for the Facility to be located on the Oak Hills Ranch. The
Highlands and Wallace Ranches under present plans would provide
financial reimbursement to participate in that facility.
Several issues that were different than those on the Highlands
project that are new are:
EIR Considerations - The consultant for the Wallace Ranch has
submitted information subsequent to the Planning Commission
meeting indicating concerns about the traffic analysis done for
the EIR for the Oak Hills Ranch project. Engineering recommends
that a study be completed and impacts evaluated as requested by
the Wallace Ranch consultant prior to any action being taken on
the Oak Hills Ranch project.
Weir Canyon Regional Park - The County has requested that 45
acres be dedicated which they feel is consistent with previous
studies they have done for Weir Canyon Regional Park. The
developer has proposed and Planning Commission has recommended
that 15 acres be dedicated.
Park site - The Parks Department recommended that the project
not be approved until such time as an acceptable park proposal
is received.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He recommends all of the staff presentation at the immediate
preceding hearing that is applicable and relevant to this
proceding be incorporated by reference without further
elaboration (Re: The Highlands).
457
Cit2 Hall, Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Jared Ikeda, 18002 Cowan, Irvine, Ca. 92714, representing Oak
Hills Ltd.
His presentation will cover background on how they got to where
they are today as well as some of the discussion that occurred
at the Planning Commission hearings. Also to be covered is the
plan currently envisioned, a discussion of the site and the
issues which include the Regional Park, City park, Four Corners
Pipeline, traffic circulation issues and the Fiscal Impact. He
then submitted a revised plan reflecting the discussion they had
with the Planning Commission (see sheet - Land Use -
Parcelization Plan prepared by Church Engineering, civil
engineers - EDAW, Inc., land planners/landscape architects and
also park site/existing conditions, made a part of the record).
Mr. Ikeda's presentation included a series of slides. The plan
incorporates 15 acres for a regional park site near the
southeast boundary of the park. The plan has shifted from the
original General Plan proposed. The project population under
this plan is reduced to 5,984. The plan for the proposed county
park site has also shifted.
Mr. Ikeda was assisted in his presentation by Mr. Jim Dennehy,
representing Oak Hills Ltd. who during the slide presentation
explained that he was personally involved with the Weir Canyon
Park and Road Study and when they were putting that together
there were two alignments traversing their property for the
Eastern Transportation Corridor. Through a great deal of hard
work they were able to get those alignments eliminated. If the
alignments for the Eastern Transportation Corridors were not
eliminated as originally proposed through the area, there would
be no park.
Mr. Ikeda then continued. He broached another concern - the
make up of the north peak which was subject to erosion and
land-sliding. Relative to the City park to be located to the
north boundary adjacent to the Wallace Ranch, they were now
proposing a dedication of 12 acres outside the drainage area,
graded to be consistent with the park's requirement. He has a
current plan that does show what they propose for dedication and
it als0 shows the location of the Four Corners Pipeline. They
agreed upon 11 conditions with the Parks Department. However,
in the current staff report there are significant changes to '
that agreement. Some of those are not acceptable to them. One
condition that they cannot agree to is that the Four Corners
Pipeline cannot run through the park. They would like to have
the study first to see what kinds of alternatives can be
established and then decide on the best solution. They would
like a revised condition in the staff report to reflect a study
of where the Four Corners Pipeline route will be put and not
precluding an option of going through the parkland.
458
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Relative to traffic, they have no problem with providing an
addendum to the EIR to reflect their current plan.
Relative to Fire Station #9, this was a new condition presented
to them today. The discussions previously with the Highlands
project are appropriate. Relative to the presentation by the
Fire Chief, their project is served by Fire Station #10. They
had always anticipated that they would participate in the
reimbursement agreement for Fire Station il0. They did not
understand that they would have to be involved with the
construction of Fire Station ~9. Their current understanding is
that Fire Station t9 only provides paramedic service to their
area. They would be willing to participate only in the
construction of Fire Station #9 for the paramedic facilities and
not necessarily for the entire development of Fire Station No.
9. They would be willing to discuss it further.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis has also been revised to reflect the
proposed plan. Because the discussion of the Planning
Commission has reduced their units and the resident population
that would occur, they have revised their Fiscal Impact
Analysis. He stated he would pass that on to Council. In
discussions they have had with the City, their methodology (Oak
Hills) is a little different than the methodology used by
Highlands since they used a per capita cost basis. Their only
real major area of disagreement is in sales tax capture ratio.
They used an 80% sales tax capture ratio. Using per capita
reports and City supplied costs for police, they still came up
with a positive impact of something like 56,000 annually. There
is also some indication in their report that possibly some of
the City park maintenance costs might be somewhat lower than
using a per capita ratio. If that is included, they produce a
positive Fiscal Impact of something like 530,000 annually.
Mr. Ikeda then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that staff did
not have a copy of the new Fiscal Impact Analysis, but were Just
provided with it. Their presentation was now concluded but they
have a number of questions as to the conditions established in
the Nay 21, 1987 Executive Summary. There are approximately 20
new conditions or conditions that were modified from the
Planning Commission conditions. Of those, there are
approximately 10 which needed to be clarified.
Mayor Bay.
Regarding the revised Fiscal Impact Just presented, the Council
had the other analysis and most of their work over the weekend
was based on that report. He noted there does not seem to be a
big difference in the revenue summary totals.
Jared Ikeda.
From their original Fiscal Impact Analysis they have reduced
police costs based upon City staff figures which were supplied.
The other change was in Park Maintenance. It was their feeling
459
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
that adding 6,000 new residents should not necessarily increase
proportionately the general government cost by 3400,000 but they
have included it anyway. The numbers can be interpreted and
used by different people in different ways. They would be happy
to set that aside and work with City staff and the City's
consultant to come to some agreement. Relative to the annual
recurring costs, since Highlands has agreed to explore those
further, Oak Hills would also be tied to that.
Mayor Bay.
If the recurring costs for Oak Hills are treated the same as
they decided to treat the Highlands recurring costs, those
issues can be put aside at this time and go to the issues of
initial capital costs, circulation, traffic impact, Weir Canyon
Regional Park, and various other items that were in contention.
He asked if there was a problem with the adequacy of the EIR.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He answered yes, dealing with the Traffic report. He then
briefed portions of the study stating that the proposed uses now
result in a daily trip generation of 51,200 or an increase of
10,900 daily trips. This has to be re-evaluated and the
amended in some format before staff can recommend certification
of the EIR. It is not Just the daily trips, but actually new
mitigation measures would have to be found in order to mitigate
the additional 10,900 trips.
Norm Priest.
In terms of doing an addendum to the EIR, it would be close to
the end of June before that could be accomplished.
Jared Ikeda.
He then identified conditions which are still at issue,
specifically Condition Nos. 24 and 26 regarding the construction
of Serrano. In the discussion with the Planning Commission, it
had been understood that a reimbursement agreement would be
entered into by all three Ranches and that the initial developer
would develop Serrano and the other Ranches would then reimburse
the initial developer as to their particular pro rated share of
that construction. Conditions 24 and 26 state that Oak Hills
would develop Serrano and he wanted to clarify the understanding
was that there would be a reimbursement agreement by the initial
developer. The Planning Commission condition stated it would be
a reimbursement agreement and the present (staff) condition does
not state it in that manner.
Mayor Bay.
Conditions No. 24 and 26 are not clearly stated as far as a
reimbursement agreement. He assumes between Oak Hills,
Highlands and the Wallace Ranch, whoever is the first developer,
will build Serrano from Canyon Rim Road down to Weir Canyon. He
asked where in the conditions it clarified the reimbursement
agreement payment for the road.
460
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Joel Fick.
Another issue is whether that is acceptable by staff standards.
If Oak Hills Ranch is the first developer and builds the roadway
and it benefits other properties, it has been City practice to
provide for reimbursement agreements. If it is acceptable to
Engineering, Planning staff would have no objection to that.
After further discussion on the issue, he also clarified that
the Planning Commission modified the requirement to require the
whole network to be in place prior to occupancy of the first
unit and staff, for fire purposes primarily, is recommending
that it be prior to construction.
Jim Dennehy.
At the Planning Commission hearing, each of the Ranches said
they would commit to putting in their respective link. The
question was when. There was a representative from Wallace
Ranch at those hearings as well who made the same commitment.
Frank Elfend.
Mr. Dennehy is correct. The consideration is the
reimbursement. The parties had acknowledged a commitment to put
Serrano in and bring it down to Weir Canyon Road. The
right-of-way would be graded for the remainder. He reiterated
the issue is reimbursement. It was agreed if the road was to be
put in by someone else, there would be reimbursement provided
for up front financing.
Jared Ikeda.
Since the matter is going to be discussed when the Highlands
project is again before the Council, they will forego the issue
at this time. Another condition at issue is No. 46 which is
worded differently than the Planning Commission approved it and,
as Highlands, they prefer the original Planning Commission
wording. Oak Hills wants to know what the City's role in the
condition would be. Their understanding is the City would
participate in the development of Santa Ana Canyon Road. If so,
he assumed that the City would then participate in the funding
for the study.
Gary Johnson.
Staff recommendation is that the developer pay for such a study
but the City would be a participant. However, the City is not
creating the need for these additional improvements. It is a
policy decision for the City Council.
Jared Ikeda.
The Oak Hills Development would impact Santa Aha Canyon Road a
very small percentage. Also with the three Ranches providing
development of Serrano, it will relieve some of the traffic that
would occur on Santa Ana Canyon Road and those residents
currently living in Anaheim Hills would benefit from the
extensions of Serrano. If there is to be a study, they would
461
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
like to have that consideration incorporated into the study and
include Serrano.
Gary Johnson.
If this particular development has minimal impact on the
facility, then the cost will be minimal. He does not think the
condition as amended on the Highlands should be a burden on the
project.
Mayor Bay.
He asked if the study costs were going to be divided the same
way as traffic costs are divided; the City Engineer stated that
could be done.
Jared Ikeda.
He agreed to that. They would also still request that an
analysis be included on Serrano when Serrano is improved to
Santa Ama Canyon Road because, looking at traffic circulation,
Serrano is parallel to Santa Aha Canyon Road. He then clarified
that Oak Hills would participate in the cost of the study.
Mr. Ikeda then broached Condition No. 51. It appeared that
there were some benefits that accrued to the Kaufman & Broad
property due to the development of Fire Station #9 as well as
Santa Ama Canyon Road. It was not clear that the widening of
Santa Aha Canyon Road would include undeveloped properties and
whether the Bauer Ranch would also be included.
Mayor Bay.
The Council received a letter from Kaufman & Broad (see letter
dated May 26, 1987 received by a messenger today - Re: Oak
Hills Ranch Planned Community from Tomas F. Winfield, III Brown
Winfield Canzoeri, attorneys for Kaufman & Broad) reminding the
City of reimbursements due Kaufman & Broad from Oak Hills and
Wallace Ranch if the developments take place.
Jim Dennehy.
About three years ago he met with Wallace Ranch and Kaufman &
Broad and discussed reimbursement. One of the conditions they
talked about if they were going to set up a reimbursement, those
reimbursements should include all of the public facilities that
were not only going to be on the Bauer Ranch but also on the
Wallace Ranch and the Oak Hills Ranch. Right now, they are
participating in the library, the new police station, the
existing fire station on Kaufman & Broad's property plus paying
the school fees and dedicating the land to the school where
Kaufman & Broad only had to pay fees. The point in that meeting
with Kaufman & Broad, if there was going to be reimbursement, it
should be a reimbursement for all the public facilities in that
area and that should be divided appropriately.
462
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Jack White.
He first explained why reimbursement agreements are set up. It
would not be legally permissible as a reimbursement or benefit
district to go back and add to, or attempt to recapture the
costs from some project the City has already approved and which
has been developed out. The mechanism that is being used here
is a benefit district that is secured by a reimbursement
agreement and that is one utilized only as to undeveloped
property.
Jared Ikeda.
Santa Ann Canyon Road and Fire Station #9 provide benefit to
undeveloped properties in the east hills. Oak Hills traffic on
Santa Ana Canyon Road is going to be very small but the benefit
area will be to the Kaufman & Broad regional shopping center.
There is a benefit received by widening Santa Ama Canyon Road.
If they have to fund it and also Fire Station #9, the issue had
to be resolved.
Gary Johnson.
His understanding is that the EIR for Bauer Ranch included that
development, the regional shopping center. The entire project
had mitigation measures relative to commercial and residential
development. If that is the case, perhaps they have met their
requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act. If
the City can then go back and impose additional assessments and
mitigation measures, that is something he would have to
investigate perhaps as a legal issue.
Mayor Bay.
Council has not made a decision on who is going to pay for
Station #9 as yet.
Jared Ikeda.
He would only reiterate Condition No. 56 and the discussion they
Just had. The same applies to Condition No. 61, their
participation in the funding of Fire Station #9. They feel the
primary fire service is provided by Fire Station #10. The new
condition on Fire Station ~9 has Just been imposed on them today.
Relative to Condition No. 73, this is the item that precludes
the Four Corners Pipeline from going into the City park. They
are willing to participate in working with Four Corners and
developing a plan, but feel that condition precludes that option.
Jim Dennehy.
He explained the Planning Commission specifically deleted that
condition.
After further discussion on the pipeline issue~ Mr. Ikeda stated
they are dealing with a three party agreement. They support the
study relative to the pipeline but they cannot make any
463
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 26, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
agreements without having that study completed and the condition
precludes one option. They would like to be able to have the
study and involve the three parties so that a mutually
acceptable solution can be arrived at.
Chris Jarvi~ Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services.
Should they end up with the park site includin~ the pipeline,
they would prefer to have the study. He would prefer not to
have the pipeline in the park at all but to support the concept
of doing a study to determine whether or not the pipeline should
go through the park.
Mayor Bay.
He asked if they could make Condition No. 73 a non-condition at
this time until Condition No. 135 is complete; Mr. Jarvi
answered that he could accept that.
Jared Ikeda.
He questioned Condition No. 77. The phasing of the City park
development is different in this condition than agreed to in the
Planning Commission hearing.
Chris Jarvi.
It is a totally new condition based on additional information he
received from the Planning Department. The original condition
was based on the fact that they believed Weir Canyon was going
to be completed in the first phase of development and that there
would be some limited access to the park. It was also based on
the fact that the second phase would occur rapidly. In
discussions with the Planning Commission, it may not occur
rapidly and there could be as many as 3,500 people without a
park site.
Jared Ikeda.
In order to do the grading required to provide the 12 acres of
park land, they will need to take some of the fill material and
put it into the second phase of the project. It is not viable
to grade that particular area prior to the necessity for the
development of Phase II. Economically they cannot do it.
Jim Dennehy.
He clarified there could be three or four years between Phase I
and Phase II.
Mayor Bay.
He suggested that condition also be tabled and that there be
further negotiations between the developer and the parks.
Jared Ikeda.
Condition No. 128 - he questioned the time frame. He wanted to
know if the time frame for reimbursement to the City for the
studies was after the studies were completed, or 90 days after
the Council acts on the plan.
464
i O3
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He believes the intent was that there needs to be 90 days after
the approval of the application in front of the City Council
this evening.
Jared Ikeda.
That is an item that they would like to come back to the City
Council with. Those then were all the conditions that involved
issues of questions.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes.
(12:10 a.m. - May 27, 1987)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (12:25 a.m.)
Mayor Bay.
The conditions at issue are 46, 51, 56, 61, 73 which is tied to
135, 77 and 128; Mr. Fick added Condition No. 24 and 26.
Jared Ikeda.
Relative to Condition No. 128, although it was clarified, they
would still like it to remain under consideration, until the
matter is continued.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Viriginia Chester, 9731 Valley Woods Drive, Villa Park.
She was present to speak for the Friends of Weir Canyon. The
highest and best use of 45 acres of Parcel D would be to leave
those acres exactly as they are and make them a part of the
County Regional Park. Weir Canyon Regional Park will be a great
recreational benefit to the City. It deserves the support and
thoughtful consideration of the Council. The requested
dedication from the developer is only 7% and this would complete
the northern ridge line of the park and Join with the 130 acres
already dedicated by the developers of Highlands. She briefed
the Council on the positive environmental aspects of preserving
the 45 acres and urged the Council to continue approval of the
development on the dedication of Parcel D to the County of
Orange for inclusion in the Weir Canyon future regional park.
Jeff Race, representing the County of Orange, Environmental
Management Agency Parks and Recreation. He asked for the
Council's continued support for the regional recreational
facilities in the County. In this case, they are talking about
the Weir Canyon Regional Park, a proposed 2,138 acre wilderness
regional park. Parcel D, the 45 acres, contains the most
spectacular viewing points in the park. It is also important to
preserve the watershed in Weir Canyon and in particular the
headwaters of Weir Canyon Creek which are directly within the
area the developer is proposing to fill and develop and the
preservation of the Wildlife Circulation Corridor as well as
465
104
tit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ha7 26~ 1987~ 1130 P.M.
the viewshed of the upper portion of the park. They have not
been able to sway the developer in providing a viewshed analysis
in a timely manner. The developer is proposing to dedicate a 15
acre parcel. He also outlined the Environmental Impacts of the
project emphasizing that the dedication of 45 acres would be a
suitable overriding consideration for those impacts. He is
asking for consistency in the decisions the City is making in
the proposals that are being made relative to Weir Canyon Park.
Dedicating 45 acres will not kill the Developer's project. The
County Board of Supervisors, on Supervisor Don Roth's motion
passed a Resolution reaffirming their commitment to Weir Canyon
Regional Park and requesting that the City Council condition the
project to provide for the 45 acre dedication. He asked for the
Council's support and that any dedication contemplated be of an
unencumbered nature, i.e., that the area not contain significant
areas of manufactured slopes or fill modification areas.
Frank Elfend.
He is speaking this time on behalf of the Wallace Ranch. (1)
Relative to the City parksite, they made a presentation at the
Planning Commission hearing. They are concerned about the
8fades between the two park sites and also access since it had
been an issue. The position of the City Traffic Engineer is
that there be one access point as shown on the map prepared by
Mr. Dennehy to serve both projects. They wanted to make sure
that was the case. (2) There is a school site shown on the
General Plan now for the Wallace Ranch which is an issue they
are currently negotiating with the OUSD. (3) There was a
statement tonight regarding the revision to the EIR. They are
requesting that they be involved in that process and have an
opportunity to comment on those changes. (4) There was also a
statement in the staff report regarding reimbursement for Fire
Station 19. Wallace Ranch is extremely close to Fire Station
Il0 and it is included in a reimbursement for Fire Station il0.
It would seem unreasonable to burden that project for
reimbursement for fire protection for Station t9. Fire Station
Il0 is literally across the street and being involved in
reimbursement for Station 19 would not seem reasonable.
There were no further persons who wished to speak.
Mayor Bay.
In concluding he stated the counterbalance on the cost of the
developments was always based heavily on a regional shopping
center. The only reason the City was going to have to set up
assessment districts based on the people who buy and decide to
live in the subject area are to make up that differential for
not having the sales tax that would come from the regional
shopping center to counter balance the cost of services. If and
when there is a regional shopping center or a good size
commercial development on the Taubman property and the sales tax
466
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - Ma7 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
benefits the City always planned on started coming in, he wants
those assessments set up so that they taper off and end as the
sales tax balances the need for recurring costs. He wants it
clearly stated the Assessment Districts are being set up on a
temporary basis until there is a sales tax differential to take
care of those recurring costs. The other issue is a request by
the County for 45 acres of dedication being made a condition of
the development. He asked if Mr. Dennehy would care to respond.
Jim Dennehy.
He does not know where in Mr. Race's presentation he got a
36-inch pipeline draining into Weir Canyon because there is no
such drainage pipe. Relative to the elimination of the
alignments about ~hich Mr. Race spoke, no one of the County
Parks Department or any other entity was present at those
meetings fighting and trying to get those alignments
eliminated. He explained the hard work that had taken place
relative to this issue by working with LAFCO. Relative to the
head waters for Weir Canyon, those are on the southwesterly side
of the south peak.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She spoke to the need for dedication of the 45 acres. As
development occurs more natural habitat and wildlife is being
eliminated. She would move to make the 45 acres a condition of
approval of the development. It is important to think about the
balance of nature.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the regional park dedication be 15 acres as
proposed by Oak Hills Ltd. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that such
a decision is forever and it could not be undone in the future. It is
necessary and essential to preserve some of the wilderness areas and that the
wildlife in the area have sufficient habitat.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
no. Councilman Hunter stated he was going to abstain. He would like to make
a trip to the area to see the circumstances for himself. Councilman Pickler
then stated in that case the item should be continued Just as the other points
of contention.
After further brief discussion, Councilman Bay withdrew his motion on the park
dedication and then moved to continue the public hearing on General Plan
Amendment No. 223, Reclassification 86-87-19, Public Facilities Plan, Fiscal
Impact Analysis, Environmental Impact Report No. 281, Oak Hills Ltd., to
Tuesday, June 30, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
467
City Hall~ A~ah.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT:
the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
LEONORA N. SOHL
Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
(1:10 a.m. - May 27, 1987)
468