1984/01/24City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRE SENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Tailey
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting-to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Rick Gastii, Hotiine Help.Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
li9: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Jerry Frick,
Legislative Analyst, and Steve Swaim, Community Services Manager, on behalf of
the City employees for their contributions to the United Way appeal.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be mailed to the California Elected
Women's Association for Education and Research, on the occasion of its 10th
Anniversary.
144/173: PROPOSED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR FEE PROGRAM: Presentation
by Ken R. Smith, County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, on the
proposed fee program to assist in financing the construction of the San
Joaquin Hills and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors. See reported
dated December 27, 1983, from the Acting City Engineer--Subject: Major
Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Programs for Transportation Corridors (for
information only), on file in the City Clerk's office. Attached to the report
were letters dated September 28 and November 29, 1983, from M. I. Storm,
Director of the Environmental Management Agency (EMA), which included their
proposed program entitled Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Foothill/Eastern Transportation
Corridors, prepared by Environmental Management Agency, Transportation/Flood
Control Program office, September 28, 1983. (Also see subsequent memorandum
from the City Engineer dated January 16, 1984, containing updated information
on the subject.)
Mr. Ken Smith briefed the Council on the aforementioned report, which included
a description of the Corridors involved, planning, estimated costs, overall
financing, methodology for determining area of benefit, fees, method of
collection, etc. Mr. Smith also referred to the three maps posted on the
Chambers wall, copies of which were included as a part of the report. The
purpose of the proposed program was to have new development pay a reasonable
67
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
share of the cost of constructing the transportation systems involved. It
would be a one-time development fee upon the issuance of building permits and
the authority for such a program would be in the Government Code. Anaheim was
involved in only one of the two fee programs. He then directed his emphasis
toward the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, since that was the one
Anaheim was most closely involved with. They estimated the cost of that
facility to be ~635 million, and the new development share of the Corridor
should be approximately 67 percent, based upon traffic generation today, or
about ~424 million to be paid for by development. There would be no
assessment proposed to existing dwelling units or buildings within the area.
To give an idea of the fees they were talking about in the Foothill Corridor,
for a single-family dwelling unit, ~i,185 per dwelling unit, multiple-family
dwelling units, ~705, and retail/commercial $3.75 per square foot. They had
to establish an area of benefit to distribute the costs, which he then
explained.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Smith stated as far as City actions, they
would welcome any actions by the City at or prior to the Board of Supervisor's
hearing (expected to be mid-March). They would appreciate conceptual support,
if that was possible, and they would also like at least for the cities to
consider holding public hearings if the Board of Supervisors adopted the fee
program.
Mayor Roth stated he was getting alarmed, because last year the Federal
government taxed gasoline five cents a gallon for roads, the one-cent sales
tax proposal was going to be on the June ballot, and now the citizens who were
going to be coming into the community were going to be asked to pay a premium
to have the privilege of living in the area. He felt this kind of publicity
at this time would be a hindrance in trying to convince citizens to support
the one-cent sales tax. He maintained that the timing was poor.
Councilman Bay noted in the staff report they showed $1,547 for each
single-family detached and ~1,820 for a single-family estate. Those numbers
did not coincide with the numbers quoted by Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith stated that was correct. The report he (Bay) had was published
prior to public hearings with the Orange County Planning Commission. As a
result of public hearing testimony and input by the Planning Commission, they
had made some revisions and thus, the numbers he gave were the numbers to be
presented to the Board of Supervisors~
Councilman Bay continued that his concern was similar to the Mayor's, not only
in the timing, but also if the total fee cost ended up on top of the price of
the home, the landowner and developer were not paying any of it. It would be
paid for by the people buying the home, based on the theory of use of the
Corridor. Therefore, he felt they were not going to get a great amount of
opposition from the landowners, because the minute the program was initiated,
their land was going to be worth more. He did not agree in concept with the
theory that fees as set up by house or square footage of industrial or
commercial were going to be paid by anybody other than the ones who were
eventually going to buy.
68
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickier asked how the proposal was going to tie in with the
one-cent sales tax; Mr. Smith answered that the 15-Year Investment Plan
identified by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) assumed in
that program that there would be additional revenue provided in addition to
the one-cent sales tax, which would be coming from the fee program. That
additional revenue was the developer fees. The part included within the
15-Year Investment Plan was a part of the fees that he mentioned would be
coming from other government funding sources. Thus, the 15-Year Investment
Plan, the one-cent sales tax, would pay at least for the majority of the other
proportion that developers would hot pay for.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if. the one-cent sales tax should not "fly," how
would the proposed program be effected and would they be looking for higher
fees.
Mr. Smith answered that he did not believe they would be looking for higher
fees. They had designed the program based on what they felt was a reasonable
share. They would not be proposing to increase the fees, but looking for some
other source.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if annexations took place, then the cities were to
collect the fees. She wanted to know if it was the identical amount as the
County was collecting.
Mr. Smith stated that was what they were proposing, but each of the cities
would hold their own hearings.
Mayor Roth stated another thing he wanted to share, since he represented the
Council on the Sanitation District, effective approximately three or four
months ago, the County now no longer shared any portion of the property tax as
traditionally had been done in the last 150 years in Orange County with the
Sanitation Districts. What was now occurring was a user fee on sanitation
hookups in tracts, so that when someone purchased a home in the new area,
Sanitation District No. 13, which was exactly the area Mr. Smith was talking
about, that citizen was going to have to pay another $1,000 to hook up to the
sewer system. He felt they ought to evaluate the situation, not only with the
proposal presented, but also involvin§ AB 8, where user fees were going to be
involved in all new construction in that area and the ultimate and cumulative
effect of ail those fees. He considered it to be double taxation.
After Mr. Smith confirmed that they were anticipating the public hearing
before the Board of Supervisors on approximately March 21, Councilman Overholt
asked if City staff would be ready soon enough so that the Council could take
an action prior to that day and instruct the Mayor or whoever the spokesman
was going to be, to appear at that hearing.
City Manager William Tailey stated they would have a report for the Council
that would mostly contain the information they already had presented, unless
the Board, prior to that time, indicated they wera going to change the
policy. The staff at the County was recommending that the County adopt a plan
69
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
and imp6se tt~t plan on the City through LAFCO, so that in future annexations,
it would be required as part of the annexation process. They would give the
Council a "fine tuning" on it but, in essence, they were looking at the
County's position and on March 2i, the Council could express its view to the
Board.
Councilman Bay stated that some of the other information that might-be helpful
to them, such as the Mayor mentioned, the new fee schedules involved with
Sanitation and also perhaps short summaries on how many new fees had come out
of the Orange County Board of Supervisors over the last couple of years, such
as the new fees on trash, solid waste, etc. They should look at the total
trend to see what position they were going to take on the new fee being
proposed.
Councilman Overholt stated that their concern not be misinterpreted as a
"deciaration'of war." Their concern was the manner in which financing of the
Corridor was being proposed and he would like to see them deal with that
specific question. They should research the other alternatives in order to
make an intelligent presentation to the Board. His guess was that the
position of the Council would "gel." He emphasized that the Board should
interpret their concerns as being positive and not destructive or obstructive.
Mayor Roth reiterated that staff should contact the Sanitation District
relative to the user fee on new construction in the future and cost per
household. They needed to make an analysis of compounding ail of those
additional costs. He maintained, however, that the Eastern Corridor was vital
to the City and Orange County, that they needed to formulate a position, but
he did not feel they had all the information necessary at this time.
Mr. Tailey stated that staff had been listening to the remarks and he was
asking them to get a report back to the Council. One of the things the
Council might want to consider was to discuss the matter at the monthly League
of California Cities meeting. If they wanted to have an affect, the closer
they came to a common view, the better off they would all be.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the meetings of
December 20 and December 27, 1983, and January 3, 1984. Councilman Pickier
seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of ail 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 Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,217,758.45, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
7O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overhoit, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-25 through 84R-33, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4476 for
first reading.
1. li8: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Macco Constructors, Inc.~ for monetary loss
purportedly sustained due to failure of City to provide materials for
Santa Ana Canyon Road 36-inch Water Transmission Main, Phase I, on or
about June 30, 1982.
2. Claim submitted by Magnolia Drug for monetary loss purportedly
sustained due to power outage at 1003 North Magnolia Avenue, on or about
December 12, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Thomas Ratti for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a fall caused by an uncovered hole in the street at 118
South Philadelphia Street, on or about August 21, 1983.
B. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim denied:
4. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Automobile
Club of Southern California, Jesse J., Sr., and Leona C. Aragon, Insureds,
for subrogation for property damages to car purportedly sustained due to
an accident in which a City-owned vehicle was involved on Wagner Street
near State College Boulevard, on or about April 5, 1983.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 139: City of Seal Beach Resolution No. 3342, opposing the Howard
Jarvis sponsored Constitutional Amendment Initiative to Article XIII-A of
the California Constitution Relating to Property Taxation.
b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No.
83-12-053 (NOI No. 110), Southern California Edison Company for Authority
to Increase Rates Charged by it for Electric Service.
c. 171: California State Board of Equalization Annual Report,
1982-1983. (on file)
d. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for
December 1983.
e. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Annual Report for 1983.
71
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
f. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of%December 8, 1983.
g. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of December 8, 1983.
3. 155/175: Approving Negative Declarations for construction of replacement
water mains in Harbor Boulevard between Broadway and southerly of Ball Road;
in Santa Ana Street between Anaheim Boulevard and Manchester Avenue; in Citron
Street between North Street and La Palma Avenue; and in Lemon Street between
Broadway and Water Street.
4. 155/175: Approving Negative Declarations for the construction of water
transmission - distribution mains in Brookhurst Street between Pacific Avenue
and northerly of Bail Road; in West Street between Convention Way and
northerly of Katella Avenue; and in Convention Way between West Street and
Harbor Boulevard, including related appurtenances.
175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONSTRUCTION
OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF WELL SITES 40 AND 41, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 53-619-6329. (Bids to be opened February 23, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BROOKHURST
STREET STREET AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS, 389' NORTH OF CRESTWOOD LANE TO 35'
SOUTH OF CRESTWOOD LANE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-792-6325-
E2490; 53-619-6329-90280-31500; 54-605-6329-17330-34500 - AHFP NO. 1079.
(Bids to be opened February 23, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE - CITYWIDE
PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 01-263-6325, 01-263-6340,
01-263-6750 AND 01-263-6752. (Signal Maintenance, Inc., ~273,867)
165: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
A/~A/{EIM AWA/{DING A CONTRACT FOR THE BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 8 - AREA BOUNDED
BY LINCOLN AVENUE, BALL ROAD, EUCLID STREET AND BROOKHURST STREET, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3790. (Damon Construction Company,
~51, 614. 25)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE WEIR CANYON ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT PHASE
II, 1656 FEET NORTH OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0510. (Casada Engineering, Inc.,
$107,570.70)
123/129: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF SERVICE
AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM, GARDEN GROVE, ORANGE FIRE TRAINING FACILITIES
AUTHORITY, APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL ACTION. (for
a Computer-Aided Dispatch System through the Joint Powers Authority)
72
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
159: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DIRECTING THE FILING AND POSTING OF PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM WAGES
PERTAINING TO PUBLIC WORKS.
123/153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN. (Equitable Life
Assurance Society)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (URO
Investment s)
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4476: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEiM AMENDING
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.272, BY ADDING THERETO NEW SUBSECTIONS
.055 AND .165 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NO PARKING DURING
SCHOOL HOURS. (certain portions of Falmouth Street and Water Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verhoit, Pickier and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ~. .~,
MOTION CARRIED. The'Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-25~through 84R-33,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ....
108: REQUEST FOR REHF_,,~t. ING - 32~IJSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION - BARNES:
Affidavit of Merit in support of a request for rehearing submitted by~ctavio
Salazar on an amusement arcade application for Barnes, 120-122 West ~$nston
Road, for nine amusement devices, was presented.. The application was denied
by the City Council on January 17, 1984.
The Mayor asked if any Council Member wanted to offer a motion or discuss the
subject request.
Councilman Overholt noted that on the Affidavit of Merit submitted by Mr.
Saiazar, the primary reason was that he did not know he had to appear before
the Council.
City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that he had received a legal notice.
Councilman Overholt moved to grant the request for a rehearing.
Before any action was taken, the Mayor asked the City Attorney if there was
any legal requirement on their behalf to hear the matter again, due to the
fact that Mr. Salazar did not realize he was supposed to be present at the
previous hearing.
73
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered "no." He received a legal notice,
which constituted the required action on the part of the City. It was
unfortunate that Mr. Saiazar did not understand he should be present, but the
City had done ail it could to notify him. There was no legal obligation
involved and it was up to the Council to decide what they wished to do.
Mayor Roth stated he would normally yield to a request for a rehearing, but
there were people present at the last meeting who spoke in opposition and it
was subsequently denied. He did not want to have them come back for another
hearing.
The Mayor asked again if there was a second to'the motion by Councilman
Overhoit to grant the request for a rehearing. There was no second and,
therefore, the motion died for lack of a second, thereby denying the request
for a rehearing.
123/li2: ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW - CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE:
Councilman Pickier moved to authorize an agreement with Ralph Andersen &
Associates in an amount not to exceed ~35,000, to conduct an organization and
management review of the City Attorney's Office, term expiring 12 weeks
following date of execution of agreement. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: HEARING--ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT--MUGSY MALONE'S: Yueng Yi Tsai, Order to
Show Cause Hearing why the Entertainment Permit for Mugsy Malone's, 173i South
Harbor Boulevard, to permit mini-concerts, seven days a week, 8:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m., should not be revoked because the permit as being used is
detrimental to the public welfare.
Mr. Harold Stokes, attorney appearing on behalf of Mr. Tsai and the owner of
Mugsy Malone's, stated after the meeting with his client and the City
Attorney, and also some private parties represented in the audience, Mr. Tom
Goodman, representing the owner, he respectfully requested that the City
Council receive his recommendation to withdraw the Entertainment Permit. They
were proposing to go back to their original format, that being strictly a
dinner-dance establishment with no mini-concerts or other activities that was
permitted under their Entertainment Permit.
Councilman Overholt asked for clarification, stating that presently Mugsy
Malone's had an Entertainment Permit and Mr. Stokes was therefore asking that
it be withdrawn on behalf of his client.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the existing permit was being requested to be
withdrawn.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to terminate the Entertainment Permit held by
Mr. Yueng Yi Tsai for Mugsy Malone's, 1731 South Harbor Boulevard, as
requested. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
74
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
108: ANAHEIM MARRIOTT HOTEL - ABATEMENT OF PENALTIES: Marriott Corporation,
Taxes Division, for abatement of the penalty assessed on the late filing of
the October 1983 Transient Occupancy Tax due on the Anaheim Marriott Hotel.
Submitted was a report dated January 6, 1984, from the License Collector,
recommending denial of the request for abatement of the penalty, as well as
report dated January 16, 1984, from the City Attorney's office recommending
that a hearing be conducted to determine whether the sum of $13,919.15
collected from the Marriott Hotel as a penalty on a delinquent Transient
Occupancy Tax payment should be refunded in whole or in part.
Mr. Joel Rothman, General Manager, Anaheim Marriott Hotel, first noted that
present with him today was their Controller, Jon Stoutamire, the person
responsible for the payment of the tax or a portion of it. They were
respectfully appealing the penalty of $13,919.15 for being one working day and
two hours late in payment of their October 1983 Transient Occupancy Tax. He
then briefed.the Council on his letter dated December 21, 1983 (on file in the
City Clerk's office), which explained in detail the hardships which were
created by the installation of a new computer system in their hotel on
October 18, 1983, and there were still many ongoing problems. The tax to the
City was due on.Wednesday, November 30, 1983. On Thursday, December 1, 1983,
at 4:00 p.m., they realized the tax had not been paid. They were at City
offices at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, December 2, 1983. They had paid $139.19 in
interest. The penalty stated it was ten percent for each month overdue. They
were overdue a day and two hours.. They would prefer total absolution, but
would suggest that perhaps a fair amount would be 1/30th of the penalty, which
would amount to $463.97, or 1/30th and then a quarter, which would then be
$579.96, or stretching it for full days, to $927.94, which would amount to an
interest rate of 4.2 percent for two days. Their records, since changing
accounting systems to meet the Transient Occupancy Tax was that they had paid
the tax as early as the 15th of the month instead of the last day of the
month, and generally paid the tax sometime in the mid-20's.
Councilman Bay stated he would like to call a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Pickier moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:57 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:28 a.m.)
Mayor Roth stated they would like to continue the matter for one week with Mr
Rothman's permission; Mr. Rothman indicated that was acceptable to him.
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the request of the Marriott Corporation
for abatement of penalties assessed on the late filing of the October 1983
Transient Occupancy Tax to Tuesday, January 31, 1984. Councilman Overhoit
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
75
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation, potential litigation, labor relations and public security
with no action anticipated; The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:35 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Councii~Members
being present. (1:40 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2506 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Jean K. Fogarty, to permit a temporary
trailer for a fish market on CL zoned property located at 2840 East Lincoln
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-215, approved
the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2506, subject to the following conditions:
1. That in the event subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and
then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
3. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall as measured from the highest
finished grade of subject property, shall be constructed on the southerly
property line for a minimum distance of approximately 135 feet or more
adjacent to Lot Nos. 34 and 35 in Tract No. 4152.
4. That the use is granted for a period of two (2) years to expire on
November 14, 1985.
5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2; provided, however, that skirting shall be provided around the bottom
of the temporary trailer to provide a sound barrier and that any necessary
openings required for venting shall face north towards Lincoln Avenue.
6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 3
and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
76
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled and
continued from the meeting of January 10, 1984, to this date. At the
January 10, 1984 meeting, the public testimony portion of the hearing was
closed.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present; Ms. Jean
Fogarty was present and stated that one of the owners of the proposed business
was also present and would speak to the issue.
Mr. Warren Finn, 12i56 Adrian, Garden Grove, explained that the business was a
wholesale fish operation to the public consisting of ail frozen fish.
Yesterday, he attempted to meet with his partner, Curtis Schwartz, at Los
Angeles International Airport, since he had the full rendering and ali the
details that the Council and neighbors were looking for. Mr. Schwartz was now
in Seattle and would not be returning for approximately one week. He would,
therefore, appreciate some kind of delay, a week or ten days, so that Mr.
Schwartz could be present to provide the rendering, noise factors involved,
parking and any other information the Council deemed necessary.
Mayor Roth again amplified on the problems expressed by the neighbors who were
present at the meeting of January 10, 1984, such as refrigeration operating
24-hours a day, ingress and egress, the fence to the rear, noise factors, etc;
Councilman Overholt stated an additional problem was the question of odor that
might emanate from the business from packaging and waste.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Finn if he was certain, should they continue
the matter for two weeks, that renderings could be provided and all questions
answered; Mr. Finn answered, without fail.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if just one of the neighbors was present at today's
hearing, who she believed was Mrs. Betty Miller, and if she would have a
problem returning in two weeks; Mrs. Betty Miller, who was present in the
Chambers audience, answered "no."
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2506 to Tuesday, February 7, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.,
with the stipulation that it would be the last continuance and that a decision
would be rendered at that time, with or without the requested information.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted "No." MOTION
CARRIED.
134/179/155: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 185 AND EIR NO. 262
- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2460 - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-'35 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2462: Request by Riviera Mobilehome Park, to
consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from current
Commercial Recreation designation to Medium Density Residential on
approximately 5.3 acres of land located on the west side of Haster Street,
south of Katella Avenue. At their meeting held January 3, 1984, the City
Council set this date and time for public hearing on General Plan Amendment
No. 185.
77
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC83-232, recommended
approval of Exhibit "A" designating the entire 5.3-acre study area for medium
density residential land use and, further, after considering Draft EIR No. 262
for the proposed Riviera Project and reviewing evidence, both written and
oral, presented to supplement Draft EIR No. 262, finds that EIR No. 262 is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City and
State CEQA Guidelines; and further finds that economic and social
considerations make it infeasible to eliminate entirely the significant
environmental impacts which have been identified in Final EIR No. 262.
However, the benefits of the project have been balanced against the
Unavoidable environmental impact and pursuant to the provisions of Section
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence of the significant
environmental effects identified in Final EIR No. 262 and as set forth above
may be permitted without further mitigation due to the following overriding
considerations: (1) after completion, the proposed project is expected to
generate a net fiscal surplus of ~1,620,500 per year for the City. This will
provide funds for the operation of programs for the benefit of all Anaheim
residents which would not otherwise be economically feasible; (2) the proposed
project will provide a balanced development which is compatible with and
complementary to the adjacent commercial-recreational area; and (3) the
proposed project will provide employment for an estimated 4,200 persons;
therefore, certified EIR No. 262 for the Riviera Project and adopts this
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2460: Application submitted by Riviera Mobilehome
Park, to permit a 17-stor~, 171-foot high, 852-room hotel with accessory uses
and on-sale alcoholic beverages on proposed C-R zoned property located at 300
West Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-231, certified
EIR No. 262 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see above) and,
further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2460, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to
the City of Anaheim a strip of land of variable width as required by the City
of Anaheim for the construction of Clementine Street from Katella Avenue south
to the southerly property line o~ subject property.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Clementine
Street, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of ail
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be
complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and that security
in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in
an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with
the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said
security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of improvement plans,
to guarantee the installation of the above-required improvements prior to
occupancy.
78
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include construction of a storm
drain in Clementine Street such that will permit the travel lanes to remain
unflooded in a 10-year design storm. Said storm drain shall extend southerly
from Katella Avenue through subject property and continuing across property
located directly south of subject property to the existing drain north of
Orangewood Avenue.
4. That in the event subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
Subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and
then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
5. That subject property within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
6. Prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
7. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division, including
the installation of on-site waste compactors.
8. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 66-67-61 and Reclassification No. 82-83-26, now pending.
9. That the proposed hotel shall comply with all signing requirements of the
"CR" (Commercial, Recreation) Zone, unless a variance is approved by the City
of Anaheim. Further, no sign or other advertising devices shall be placed so
as to exceed the over-ail height of the proposed hotel structure (171-foot
high hotel topped with a 12-foot high parapet).
10. That the developer shall provide and maintain a television antenna or
cable system, without charge to residents, to assure satisfactory television
reception to any residences which are unable to receive a satisfactory level
of television signals as a result of interference caused by the project
structures.
ii. Prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment fees
shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office
of the Utilities General Manager.
12. Prior to occupancy of the hotel, the developer shall construct median
islands along Kateila Avenue from Haster Street to Clementine Street without
median breaks.
13. Prior to occupancy of the hotel, the developer shall construct median
islands along Katella Avenue from Ciementine Street to the easterly terminus
of an existing median east of Harbor Boulevard without median breaks.
79
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
14. Prior to occupancy of the hotel, the developer shall modify the traffic
signal at the intersection of Kateila Avenue and Clementine Street as required
by the City Traffic Engineer.
15. Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the three construction
phases, the developer shall pay the traffic signal assessment fees applicable
to each phase minus the cost of signal modifications made at Kateila Avenue
and Clementine Street (as required by the preceding Condition No. 14).
16. Upon occupancy of the hotel the developer shall provide bus shuttle
service for guests to minimize the number of passenger vehicle trips.
17. That ail off-site real property interests necessary, to comply with the
requirements set forth in this resolution shall be acquired and dedicated to
the City of Anaheim within the times otherwise required in this resolution.
18. That the proposed building and above-grade parking structure shall be
sprinklered in compliance with Fire Department requirements.
19. That a standpipe delivery system, emergency on-site water storage and
fire control rooms shall be provided as reviewed and approved by the Fire
Department.
20. That the developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of costs associated
with the development of a new fire station site, a fully equipped fire station
and appropriate apparatus to equip said station. Said pro-rata share of the
total costs to be determined by the Anaheim Fire Chief pending completion of a
study prior to issuance of a building permit.
21. That the developer shall install a distribution main in the Clementine
Street right-of-way and through the project as reviewed and approved by the
Water Engineering Division.
22. That the developer shall supply, if needed, an additional source of water
to meet anticipated fire flow requirements as reviewed and approved by the
Water Engineering Division.
23. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay its proportionate share,
and shall execute and record an agreement in a ~orm approved by the City
Attorney's' Office obligating owner(s) to pay its proportionate share, of the
cost of certain off-site public improvements and services pursuant to that
certain assessment district or benefit area to be hereinafter established by
the City of Anaheim, pursuant to the requirement of Development Agreement No.
83-01 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Stadium Associates.
24. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 9.
8O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
25. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one'year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 8, 17, 20 and 23, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted
in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
26. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 5,
7, 10, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24 above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-35 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2462:
Application submitted by Riviera Mobiiehome Park, to consider a change in zone
from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1000, on property located at 300 West Katella Avenue,
to permit two 234-foot high, 180-unit condominium towers, with the following
Code waivers: (a) minimum building site area, (b) maximum structural height,
and (c) minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC 83-233, certified
EIR No. 262 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and adopted a Statement of Overriding Conditions (see above), and further,
granted Reclassification No. 82-83-35, subject to the following conditions:
1. That completion of these r~classification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2462.
2. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
completion at Reclassification No. 82-83-26.
3. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
General Plan Amendment No. 185 shali be adopted by the City Council.
4. That an ordinance rezoning subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of a final map within the
time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further time as the
Planning Commission or City Council may grant.
5. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 6.
7. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 5,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
81
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC 83-234, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2462, subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
2. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
3. That in the event subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and
then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County~Recorder.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division, including
the installation of on-site waste compactors.
7. That exercise of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the
completion of Reclassification No. 82-83-35, now pending.
8. That service for sanitary sewers shall be from the existing 2i inch sewer
in Katella Avenue.
9. That exercise of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the
completion of Reclassification No. 82-83-26 (removal of the (MHP) Overlay
Zone), now pending.
10. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment
fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the
Office of the Utilities General Manager.
11. That the proposed residential high-rise towe~s shall be sprinklered in
compliance with Fire Department requirements.
12. That the developer shall provide and maintain a television antenna or
cable system, without charge to residents, to assure satisfactory television
reception to any residences which are unable to receive a satisfactory level
of television signals as a result of interference caused by the project
structures.
82
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
13. That no permits shall be issued by the City of Anaheim for the exercise
of this conditional use permit except following the exercise and compliance
with all conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 (17-story, 171-foot
high, 852-room hotel).
14. That prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall pay the
traffic signal assessment fees minus the cost of traffic signal modifications
made at Katella Avenue and Clementine Street.
15. That a standpipe delivery system, emergency on-site water storage and
fire control rooms be provided as reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
16. That the developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of costs associated
with the development of a new fire station site, a fully equipped fire station
and appropriate apparatus to equip said station. Said pro-rata share of the
total costs to be determined by the Anaheim Fire Chief pending completion of a
study.
17. That the developer shall install a distribution main in the Ciementine
Street right-of-way and through the project as reviewed and approved by the
Water Engineering Division.
18. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay its proportionat~ share,
and shall execute and record an agreement in a form approved by the City
Attorney's Office obligating owner(s) to pay its proportionate share, of the
cost of certain off-site public improvements and services pursuant to that
certain assessment district or benefit area to be hereinafter established by
the City of Anaheim, pursuant to the requirement of Development Agreement No.
83-01 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Stadium Associates.
19. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 6.
20. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of subject
property shall record a covenant, in a form approved by the City Attorney and
the Planning Director, prohibiting conversion of the individual residential
condominium units to time share residential condominium units.
21. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in
Residential Projects".
22. That this conditional use permit is granted subject to the approval of a
tentative tract map.
23. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
83
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office and
Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, will then be filed and
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
24. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 7, 9, 13, 16, 18 and, 23, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted
in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
25. That prior to final building and zoning in'spections, Condition Nos. 2, 4,
6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Councilman Pickler had requested review of the Planning Commission's action on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2460, Reclassification No. 82-83-35 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 2462 at the meeting of January 3, 1984, and public hearing
scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, first introduced staff
members, consultants and the architect on the project, Dan Rowland. He then
explained that they had reviewed the EIR and it was discussed at length with
members of staff as to the effects of the project on the surrounding
community, and matters necessary to mitigate those effects. (Also see minutes
of the Planning Commission hearing of December 12, 1983, where extensive
discussion took place and input received.) He believed he was correct in
saying that ail aspects or any adverse or other impacts that would be caused
by the project had been provided for and corrected in a manner that would
lessen or alleviate the impact entirely. Before continuing, Mr. Farano moved
to the model of the development and briefed the Council on the proposed
Riviera project, which would occupy 23.4 acres: Hotel, office and residential
condominium development (a picture of the model had previously been made a
part of the record--although the two highrise office buildings were a part of
the project, that conditional use permit was not before the Council today).
Mr. Farano then continued that they agreed with all mitigation actions that
had been stated in the EIR and in the staff report. They believed that one of
the most important aspects of the entire project was the extension of the
storm drain from the southern.terminus of their property to Orangewood
Avenue. The EIR and staff report made it clear that prior to the commencement
of any construction, that that extension must be made, and they agreed to pay
for the construction of that extension. The traffic medians to be constructed
on Katella and Haster were part of the overall impact and they had agreed to
construct those medians. Water, electricity and ali other aspects being
impacted by the development were taken care of by the mitigation measures and,
he reiterated, they had agreed to ail aspects to mitigate those.
84
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
One other important point was that oL.~ of the bases upon which the project was
favorably acted upon by the Planning Commission dealt with the Cost Benefit
Study. The EIR stated that the benefits of the project to the City were in
excess of $2 million, whereas the cost to the City to maintain the development
totalled approximately $388,000. Thus, the City would realize a cost benefit
of approximately $1,600,000 per year. One of the most important aspects of
the project was that for the first time it took into consideration a mixed use
of hotel, office towers and residential highrise buildings. In order to
provide a good perspective as to how it would impact the area and what it
would mean to the City, they had undertaken investigation and research that
took them outside of Orange County, since there was no project comparable to
that being proposed in Orange County.
Mr. Farano then submitted and briefed the material contained in a booklet
showing photographs of locations in which single-family residences,
condominiums .and/or apartment buildings were located within one block or
abutting highrise condominiums or office buildings. (The booklet was
previously made a part of the record.) It also contained the results of
interviews of residents in Beverly Hills and Long Beach located within
one-eighth of a mile of the highrise buildings shown in the photographs, the
results of which indicated no outrage or absolute objection to living in such
close proximity. Also included in the booklet was a paper compiled by KFWB
Newsradio 98 in cooperation with the Regional Affairs Council of Southern
Caiifornia--"Future Shelter" February, 1983. The conclusions the experts
reached was that if the population in Southern California and in other parts
of the United States was to continue without encroaching into open spaces,
that the density per square foot must be increased.
Relative to the project itself, they had tried to give the City a class
project with little or no waivers. At the last hearing before the Planning
Commission, a gentleman from Disneyland was present and mentioned they were
concerned about the line-of-sight restrictions. He (Farano) did not believe
the project would violate the height or line-of-sight restrictions, but they
were willing to engage in a balloon test if necessary and would stipulate to
the extent that the project would exceed the height limitations, they would
reduce the project accordingly.
An item that he did want to discuss with the Council related co Condition No.
23 of the Planning Commission under Conditional Use Permit No. 2460, and
Condition No. 18 under Conditional Use Permit No. 2462, both conditions being
identical, dealing with the requirement that the applicant must execute an
agreement with the City pursuant to the requirement of development agreement
No. 83-01 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Stadium Associates (Cabot,
Cabot and Forbes), a circumstance where a developer was leasing land from the
City. They did not think that kind of agreement or condition applied to the
subject project and requested, if the Council considered their development
favorably, that that condition be deleted. Other than that condition (imposed
under both CUP's), they were agreeable to all the conditions set forth in the
staff report. Since the applicant and owner were willing and proposing to
construct all on-site developments, as far as the subject portion of the
project was concerned, they did not think that condition should apply.
85
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth asked for clarification from staff relative to Condition Nos. 18
and 23 under their respective CUP's.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained that item was part of a development
agreement that hopefully they would be able to promulgate throughout the
entire area in order to effect the proposed parking and circulation outside
improvements that would become necessary in the future. They had a similar
agreement with other hotels in the area. It would be an integrated parking
district and perhaps an integrated transportation system. They did not at
present have a plan viable enough so that they could extract specific dollar
amounts.
Mayor Roth stated although he agreed with the concept, he had a problem in
imposing a condition without a dollar figure.
Mr. Singer stated that had come up before and he could not answer other than
to state the developer would be obligated in some way to participate to his
own benefit. The entire scope of their project was to benefit the adjacent
properties.
Mr. Farano stated one of the conditions was to pay a proportionate share of
the new fire station and they agreed with that. They were looking for
something certain so that they could get a better handle on the situation.
His client had not shown any indication of shirking his responsibility or not
carrying his share of the load. However, this was a bit different and
uncertain enough where they would not like to be in it alone. If only those
developments that came in in the last year and a half were involved, those
later developments were picking up the load for everyone else. He reiterated
the only Problem they had with the condition was that fact that it was
uncertain, unknown and open-ended, so that it did not give them a feeling that
their contribution was going to be a proportionate one and not something more.
Mr. Singer explained the condition was not only for any new development but
also hopefully in the future would encompass the existing units and businesses
in the entire area, in order to effect a more viable transportation system and
parking district. He commented further that he hesitated to call it a
district, because that was a specific, and at the present time it was not that
specific.
City Manager Talley stated if this concern had been known earlier, they might
have been better prepared to address it. Me would like to see staff work with
t°ne City Attorney's office in coming up with the agreement and also the
reasons for it. They were getting into a new policy area that basically
addressed the major problem of traffic and parking in Anaheim. They should,
perhaps, prepare a staff report and submit it in two or three weeks. The
staff could either answer or confirm Mr. Farano's concern, but they should not
do it today, verbally. On the other hand, they did not want a development
this major without securing the approvals they were going to need in five or
ten years in order to do some of the things they were talking about to get a
handle on the Convention Center/tourism, parking management problems.
86
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Farano stated he had been instructed to participate to an extent of any,
new development that improved the area to the proportionate share of his
client's development. They did not disagree with the principle.
Councilman Pickier asked if he would agree to a delay, since Mr. Talley
indicated they should hold off; Mr. Farano emphatically answered "no." If
there was a proposal that the matter be continued, he would rather have the
Council act on it today with some kind of understanding, and a binding
stipulation between the City and his client, that the matter be further
reviewed. They did not have problems with what Mr. Talley and Mr. Singer
said. They were in favor, encouraged and would participate in it.
Mayor Roth, speaking to the City Manger, stated that Mr. Farano was
stipulating that he would support, cooperate and participate in an assessment
district or benefit area. He wanted to know how they could deal with that
issue when they voted on the matter today.
Mr. Tailey stated his recommendation was that he either agreed to the
condition or that staff go back and work up'the exact documentation and
prepare a report; the Mayor stated they expected the applicant to participate
and agree today, and after it was fine-tuned, he could request a hearing on
that particular issue.
Mr. Talley stated, or they could continue it for two or three weeks.
Mr. Farano stated he would agree to accept the condition if the Council acted
on the project today, but with the stipulation and understanding that the
staff would work on the issue of the agreement within the next two weeks or a
month, so that they could have a better understanding, and they would also
work with the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the reason for delaying the parcels with the office
buildings and handling them as a separate project.
Mr. Farano answered that they agreed to construct a road to the southerly
terminus of the property to the extension of Convention Way and Convention Way
tO Harbor Boulevard. At the Planning Commission hearing or just before, they
learned that what was actually entailed was the construction of a road ali the
way to Orangewood Avenue. That did not bother them all that much either,
except for the fact that it would also require them to acquire the fee
interest and to buy the land on which the road was going to be constructed.
They discussed the matter with Mr. Fujishige, owner of the property to the
south, and it appeared there was a 'possibility for some mutual agreement that
would make everyone happy. The road to the south would not become necessary
until the office buildings were constructed. Their proposed phasing was that
the hotel would be the first phase, the condominiums the second phase, and the
office towers the third phase. They were hoping to start construction in the
fourth quarter of 1984. It would be six or seven years before they started
the office towers. The necessity for the road, according to the EIR with
which Mr. Singer agreed, was that it was not necessary until the third phase
of the project.
87
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification from Mr~ Singer; Mr. Singer
stated what he tried to convey and Mr. Greer (consultant) agreed, the road
would be necessary at the last point when the office buildings were
constructed. Actually, it was desirable right now, but it would be absolutely
necessary then.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she found it hard to believe that they could add
an 850-room hotel and 360 condominium units without having a road in there at
that time.
Mr. Singer explained that the residential project would impact primarily
Haster Street and Kateila Avenue and that the hotel was going to impact
Katella Avenue and Clementine Street at off-peak hours. The office complex
would have the greatest impact on the area because of the sheer volume of
traffic with peak hour destination the same as an 8-5 operation. Therefore,
the office development would be the one that would ultimately impact Kateiia
Avenue the heaviest. What they were trying to do by extending Clementine to
Orangewood Avenue and Convention Way to Harbor, was to provide two additional
circulation points and avoid over-congestion at Katella Avenue and Harbor
Boulevard. The bypass was not going to affect event traffic, which was the
reason for congestion at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated to her the intelligence of having the condominium
towers was because of the office towers, assuming that people would be living
and working right in the same area where they would not need a vehicle and
could walk to their office; Mr. Singer stated that seldom happened.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she then had a problem with changing the CR
designation to residential altogether.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Farano what market he was aiming at relative to
the condominiums. She thought the expectation was for the people who would be
working in the office towers.
Mr.. Farano stated the condominiums would be in the range of ~200,000 to
$250,000.
Councilman Bay then asked Mr. Farano, relative to Condition No. 23, did his
principal consider that to be a non-estimatable liability the way it was
stated, and one that they could not size across the financing of the project;
Mr. Farano answered "yes."
Councilman Bay stated relative to the assessment district, or whatever it
would be called as a combined effort to solve general problems in the CR area
dealing with transportation, he could not agree more that there would
eventually have to be cooperation with the private sector working with the
public sector. However, it was a surprise to them they were putting those
obligations, still undefined, into conditions on developments. He did not
think that policy came from the Council, although perhaps it might have. His
view of an authority or district to help pay for and solve those problems to
88
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
the benefit of ail in the private sector was one that was going to be set up
and sold to the owners and participants on the basis of the good it would be
to their businesses, as well as the good of ail businesses. He reiterated, he
was not sure he agreed with the concept that as new developments came in to
impose that condition, putting them in a position of having a non-estimatabie
liability against their development. There needed to be a great deal more
discussion on just the philosophy of that concept.
Mr. Farano again agreed to accept the condition if they could later have the
opportunity to make a presentation to the Council, if necessary, to ask for
Withdrawal or to modify it.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions relative to the fiscal impact
analysis as broached by Mr. Farano, and whether staff was satisfied that that
was, in fact, the fiscal impact, noting particularly that the Chief of Police
stated that seven new police officers, plus backup, would be necessary for a
project of the magnitude proposed.
Mr. Greg Broughton, Planning Consultants Research, 1629 Stanford, Santa
Monica, stated they had prepared the EIR. In preparing the fiscal impact
report, he personally had a number of conversations with Ron Rothschild in
Program Development an~ Audit regarding the appropriate methodologies to use,
given the data base the City had available. The costing side of the equation
in many instances came out of the decisions previously made on a project of
comparable scale, specifically the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes development (at
Anaheim Stadium). Relative to the seven police officers, what the Chief said
was that the project would probably be the project which would encourage them
to double the police beat in an area currently served by a single beat. Ail
of the burden of the additional costs could not be assigned to this project
specifically. The methodology for assigning an increment of costs was similar
to that of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes. The fiscal impact report was on Page 163
of the Draft EIR, and the cost was predicted to be somewhere in the order of
$124,000 a year.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not read it that way. She thereupon read
Item E, Page 4-k of the staff report, wherein it stated that the project would
place demand at a breaking threshold, requiring that the existing patrol beat
area be split into two beats, and that such an action would require the
addition of seven new officers, as well as support equipment. Her
understanding was that it was an addition and not instead of.
Mr. Farano answered that it was true that there might be some extra expense
because of police protection and other services, but what the fiscal impac~ in
cost benefit analysis reflected was, taking all those into consideration, the
City would net an increase of approximately $1,600,000 a year, as he had
previously reported.
Additional discussion and questioning followed relative to the cost for seven
police officers, indicated as $124,000. Councilwoman Kaywood did not agree
with that figure; later in the hearing, City Manager Talley reported that
89
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, i0:O0 A.M.
relative to police services, the Police Department stated that the Chief felt
the development would require them to add another beat which would take seven
people, including civilians, five officers and two support people in records,
which he valued at approximately ~280,000. The fiscal impact compared the
project to the Stadium project saying, in essence, they should not have to
take the "blame" for the entire district because it caused the necessity for
the new beat, but it was not going to take it all up. In comparing it with
the Stadium project, they valued that as one-half a patrol beat, or ~140,000,
their share being roughly ~124,000 of that beat and, therefore, they should
pay for approximately 45 percent of a patrol beat.
Councilman Bay stated the conclusions he reached from that was that staff was
not questioning the credibility of the EIR; Miss Santalahti stated "no," they
were not.
Councilwoman Kaywood also posed additional questions to Mr. Farano regarding
the net density of the project and the fact that there was nothing like it in
Orange County.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Masao Fujishige, 1848 Margie Lane, then read his letter dated January 6,
1984, which he submitted to the Council (and also previously made a part of
the record), as well as an addendum attached to that letter (made a part of
the record. The essence of Mr. Fujishige's letters dealt with the importance
of agricultural preserves, which he and his brother owned and presently
operated as a farm at 1854 South Harbor Boulevard, adjacent to the subject
property on the south. The letter stated, "A land preservation contract
between a landowner and City cannot be cancelled...to make way for development
where the development was predictable. The City has not shown that all other
alternative methods of alleviating the traffic circulation problems have been
exhausted. There has been no finding here that the public interest in open
spaces, the conservation of prime agricultural land, was outweighed by the
public interest in additional housing and albeit development...the extension
of Clementine and Convention Way are not agricultural purposes. Furthermore,
if the City wishes to diminish the preserve in any way, it must give me, by
law, 60 days' notice before the annual contract renewal date. A public
hearing is mandatory."
Mr. Frank Flynn, 300 West Katella, stated he compared the proposed project
with the one in Century City. It was his opinion that they had nothing to
offer the people who were going to be living in the proposed condominiums,
whereas such developments in Century City and Santa Monica had things to offer
in the surrounding area, and there was no congestion. He could see the hotel
and the office buildings, but not the condominiums.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
9O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 262 - CERTIFICATION: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council, after
considering Draft EIR No. 262 for the proposed Riviera project and reviewing
evidence, both written and oral, presented to supplement Draft EIR No. 262,
finds that EIR No. 262 is in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City and State CEQA Guidelines; and further finds that
economic and social considerations make it infeasible to eliminate entirely
the significant environmental impacts which have been identified in Final EIR
No. 262. However, the benefits of the project have been balanced against the
unavoidable environmental impact and pursuant to the provisions of Section
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence of the significant
environmental effects identified in Final EIR No. 262 and as set forth above
may be permitted without further mitigation due to the following overriding
considerations: (1) after completion, the proposed project is expected to
generate a net fiscal surplus of ~1,620,500 per year for the City. This will
provide funds for the operation of programs for the benefit of ail Anaheim
residents which would not otherwise be economically feasible; (2) the proposed
project will provide a balanced development which is compatible with and
complementary to the adjacent commercial-recreational area; and (3) the
proposed project will provide employment for an estimated 4,200 persons;
therefore, certified EIR No. 262 for the Riviera Project and adopts this
Statement of Overriding Considerations. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 84R-34 through 84R-37, both inclusive,
for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 185, Exhibit "A", granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2460, approving Reclassification No. 82-83-35 and
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2462, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 185, EXHIBIT "A."
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2460.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-35)
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2462.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Page 4-c of the
staff report relating to density of the project. She asked staff their
recommendation or feeling on the type of density proposed, since the RM-1000
designation they were looking for would be 43 to the acre and they were
requesting 70.4 to the acre.
91
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahti stated the number was consistent with the General plan
designation shown on the posted exhibit, but agreed that it was a residential
density that was not there before, and they had not seen a proposal like it
before.
Councilman Bad. stated the Council as the Redevelopment Agency had thought for
some time that there would be highrise residential densities planned into the
Downtown Redevelopment Area. He looked at the overall project, the benefits
to the City and the fact that it was breaking precedent on highrise
residential as a good starting point. It was something they had looked
forward to occurring in the City, but he had no idea a couple of years ago
that it would occur first on Katella in a commercial-recreation area. He felt
it would be helpful if they faced the highrise densities of practical
residential that would be needed in DoWntown Redevelopment. Therefore, he
would support the development.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated dividing the project into two separate parts was
of great concern to her.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nop. 84R-34, 84R-36 and 84R-37:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, 0verholt, Pickier and Roth
Kaywood
None
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 84R-35:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that she voted "No" on the whole project, but
had no objection to Conditional Use Permit No. 2460.
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-34 through 84R-37, bogh inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:47 p.m.)
134/179/170: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 189 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION - RECLASSIFICATION 83-84-14 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12102:
Request by Anaconda Ericsson, Inc., to consider an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan from current General Industrial designation to
Low-Medium Density Residential on approximately 9.4 acres of land located on
the south side of Crescent Avenue, north side of Alameda Avenue, west of
92
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Muller Street. At their regular meeting held January 3, 1984, the City
Council set this date and time for public hearing on General Plan Amendment
No. 189 and negative declaration therefor.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC83-241, recommended
approval of Exhibit A, changing the General Plan designation from general
industrial to low-medium density residential and, further, pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration,
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
RECLASSIFICATION 83-84-14: Application by Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc., for a
change in zone from ML to RM-3000, to construct a i36-unit condominium complex
on property located on the south side of Crescent Avenue, 680 feet west of
Muller Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-242, pursuant to
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration, together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and, further, granted Reclassification
No. 83-84-14, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for tree planting purposes along Alameda Avenue in an amount as determined by
the City Council.
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment
fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the
Office of the Utilities General Manager.
3. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined
by ~he City Council.
4. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
5. That prior to final tract map approval, vehicular and pedestrian access
rights to Alameda Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
6. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Crescent
Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of ail
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
93
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUN~iL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
, pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be
complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engimeer; and that security
in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in
an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with
the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said
security shall be posted with the City prior to final~'tract map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, to guarantee the
installation of the above-required improvements prior to occupancy.
7. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation
of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by
the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval
and included with the building plans prior to the issuance of building
permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access and/or
circulation within the project.
8. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by
the City Planning Department.
9. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any o~cupancy
if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
10. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street
in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent
public streets. Installation of any gates within a distance of forty (40)
feet from said public street rights-of-way shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
11. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
12. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
13. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
14. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
15. That an ordinance rezoning subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of a final map within the
time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further time as the
Planning Commission or City Council may grant.
16. That the property owner shall landscape and record a covenant, as
approved by the City Attorney's Office, agreeing to maintain the 3-foot wide
City owned parkway and the 15-foot wide landscaped setback area adjacent to
the north side of Alameda Avenue.
94
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
17. That street lighting facilities along Alameda Avenue shall be installed
as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications
on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the
form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned
improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to
final tract map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
18. That this Reclassification is granted subject to the approval of
Tentative Tract No. 12102.
19. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1257 to the Planning Department.
20. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the
easterly, westerly and northerly property lines, and along the southerly
property line abutting the 15-foot wide landscaped area adjacent to Alameda
Avenue.
2i. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office and
Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, will then be filed and
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
22. That General Plan Amendment No. 189 shall be adopted by the City Council.
23. That prior to issuance of building permits for each of the four phases,
the property owner shall submit a vehicular circulation and street plan for
review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer, Fire Department and
Sanitation Division.
24. That prior to approval of the final map the owner of subject property
shall acquire and dedicate to the City of Anaheim additional right-of-way as
determined to be necessary by the City Traffic Engineer, for street widening
and street improvement purposes for property located north of subject property
across Crescent Avenue. The owner of subject property shall further construct
all necessary street improvements as required by the City Engineer and in
accordance with plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
25. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 8.
26. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 15, 18 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
95
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24,~1984, i0:00 A.M.
action of the Planning Commissiom unlc s said conditions are complied with
within one year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
27. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 10,
11, 12, 14, 16, 22 and 24, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12102: Submitted by Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc., to establish
a 5-lot, 136-unit RM-3000 zoned condominium subdivision on property located on
the south side of Crescent Avenue, west of Muller Street. The Tentative Tract
Was approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 28, 1983,
subject to certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision on the Reclassification and
Tentative Tract was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of
January 3, 1984, and a public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Barry Cottle, Senior Vice President, Century American Builders/Developers,
1428 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, stated that they were present today to ask
for approval to develop 136 condominiums on 9.5 acres on Crescent Avenue in
Anaheim. Their plans conformed to ail City requirements and thus, they were
not asking for any variances or waivers at all. He then described the project
working from the site plan posted on the Chambers wall. They had worked
closely with staff and were in agreement with their conditions and
recommendations for approval. He thereupon introduced one of the consultants,
Bob Mickelson.
Mr. Bob Mickelson, 3823 East Giassell, Orange, stated he had talked to members
of the Chamber of Commerce, including their Executive Director, about changing
industrial land to residential. Their Industrial Committee was generally
opposed to reducing the industrial inventory in the City. They did not
disagree with that, but in this particular case, the 9.5 acres they were
talking about was better suited to residential than industrial. To better
explain, he submitted a letter dated January 20, 1984, from Mr. David
Daddario, Vice President, Security Pacific Realty Advisory Services,
consultant to Anaconda Ericsson, who performed an in depth study of the
property. Re read excerpts from that letter as follows: "...we encountered
strong resistance to use of the ten-acre Crescent Avenue frontage by
industrial companies. Industrial companies felt that the 20-acre Muller
Street property would be more suitable for their operations and long term
objectives .... After many months of meetings and discussions with industrial
companies, developers, and members of the real estate community, it was
determined that: ...the lO-acre frontage along Crescent Street should be
rezoned for a quality residential use that would be more compatible with
developments to the south and west...after interviewing a number of
developers, Century American was selected for a 10-acre residential project
along Crescent Avenue." Mr. Mickeison then advised that this was a company
that could come in, take a piece of property and develop it without a single
96
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
variance. They were meeting ail the standards of the City. Working from the
posted zoning map of the subject site, they felt there were a couple of
elements that made sense. First, the proposal tended to square off the
residential area. Secondly and probably most important was that the
relationship batween the vacant industrial and existing residential could be
enhanced by the project. Lastly, even though people were concerned with the
lack of industrial property, there was also a legitimate concern for the lack
of residential property. They were convinced that there was a need for that
type of quality and residential in that area.
Mr. Cottie then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that Anaconda Ericsson had
owned the property since approximately 1963 when they were called Atlantic
Richfield.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either for or against
the proposed ~project.
Mr. Michael Bradley, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, stated he came to read a
statement in opposition to the program. "The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce as
of January 19, 1984, reaffirms its position stated on September 14, 1978. The
Board of Directors approved a position stating that the Chamber is opposed to
all conditional use permits and variances in areas currently zoned Industrial
under the current Master Plan."
Mayor Roth pointed out that the project was not asking for a CUP or any
variances; Councilwoman Kaywood stated the request was to rezone the land from
Industrial to multiple family.
Mayor Roth stated that the Chamber did have a position of concern due to the
limited amount of industrial property left in the City and he shared in that
concern. However, he felt two things were wrong with the statement as it
related to the subject. (1) There was no Chamber input given at the Planning
Commission hearings and (2) the applicant was an industrialist who had been in
Anaheim for 25 years, asking for a change in reclassification.
Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Bradley knew whether the Chamber specifically
evaluated the subject project or were they just taking the flat position that
they were opposed.
Mr. Bradley answered, at this point, ali they were doing was reaffirming their
position taken in 1978.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were any industrialists interested in a
parcel of that size in that location; Mr. Bradley answered "no."
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that was her concern whem the development came
through under the Planning Commission informational items, and she did not
know the Chamber's feeling at that time.
97
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. John Flocken, 1320 South Hacienda, stated he was appearing as a private ~
citizen today. The organizations to which he belonged had not had an
opportunity to review the question before the Council. He was opposing the
change in the General Plan more on general principles than on a thorough study
of the specific plan. He assumed it appeared before the Planning Commission
some time in November, and there was a hearing in December, although he could
be mistaken on those dates. The Chamber did not know about it, although he
could not speak for the Chamber, and the Anaheim Economic Development Board
did not know about it, so that there was no input at the public hearing before
the Planning Commission. It showed a weakness or gap in the attention being
given by the Chamber and other organizations within the City to industrial
planning. No matter how the Council voted today, it was a mandate to them to
get their act together.
Mayor Roth stated that they needed to get a liaison going somehow when there
was an indust'rial land change being proposed, so that there could be some
notification to the Chamber.
It was later confirmed that both the Planning Commission meeting and Council
meeting agendas were sent to the Chamber of Commerce in advance of forthcoming
meetings on a regular basis.
Councilman Bay suggested solving the communication problem another way. They
had established an Industrial Development Board appointed as an advisory board
to the Council, and such matters were within their purview. He wanted to see
an internal procedure established where if there was a change to any
industrial zoned property in the City, that Board was notified of the fact.
He believed most of the members on the Board were also members of the Chamber.
Councilman Overholt asked if the Board did anything other than evaluate
requests for industrial revenue bonds; Mr. Flocken stated he could speak to
that, since he was the Chairman of that Board. His answer was "no," although
the charge from the Council to the Board was rather broad. This magnified the
concern he had about what they should be doing on that Board and the talent
they had was such that it should be utilized effectively for the future of the
City.
Councilman 0verholt stated if the scope of the Board was not broad enough in
the organizational documents, it should be broadened; Mr. Flocken stated it
was broad enough.
Mr. Flocken then stated, again as a private citizen, that he had not seen the
Security Pacific report, but the easier way was not always the best way. Any
residential property that abutted industrial property created a problem no
matter where it was located.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Cottle
to make his summation.
98
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Cottle stated they looked at the property one and one-half years ago and
at that time, the studies not not been done. One and one-half years later, no
interest was shown from any industrial users. They entertained their
proposal, but considered it not to be a prime industrial site. He also
confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that it was advertised for industrial use
in the brokerage community.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Bay asked staff to explain the planned improvement of Crescent
Avenue immediately north of the project, how the widening would be done.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated, upon receiving the application, it was
determined that the street was too narrow to accommodate what had to be a
minimum of three lanes--one in each direction and a left-turn lane. As a
condition and with the agreement and stipulation of the developer on not only
the subject parcel but also the adjacent industrial parcel, was that they
would improve at least 40 feet of pavement on Crescent to accommodate the
three lanes necessary. Crescent Avenue was going to be improved on the south
side to its ultimate width and on the north side improved to accommodate a
total north and south of 40 feet. Part of the right-of-way was available, so
it would not require acquisition of right-of-way, but adequate right-of-way
was not available to do the complete job.
Councilman Bay noted that very close to the blacktop were some very high
voltage utility lines on large and permanent looking poles. With the
limitation he saw on the north side of that street, if they were going to
improve it to three lanes, almost all the improvement would have to take place
to the south, unless the poles were removed; Mr. Singer answered that it would
not be required to remove the poles and yet accommodate 40 feet of pavement.
There was space for the lanes to be accommodated without relocating the large
poles.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that it has
considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial
study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment, and is, therefore,
exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether on the poles some kind of fence with
reflectors could be placed in front of them to prevent a dangerous situation;
Mr. Singer stated they would work with the developer and assure as much safety
on the roadway as the design would permit.
Mr. Cottle then reported for Councilwoman Kaywood that the selling price of
the condominiums would be approximately ~100,000.
99
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984., 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 84R-38 and 84R-39 for adoption,
approving General Plan Amendment No. 189, Exhibit "A", and approving
Reclassification No. 83-84-14, subject to the City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ~HE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 189, EXHIBIT "A."
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (83-84-14)
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had mixed emotions in
this case. She requested that the Chamber look into the matter, because she
was surprised to see they had a square piece of industrial property of almost
10 acres which apparently had not been in the inventory and no questions were
asked. She was going to vote for approval of the project for the following
reasons: There were apartments to the south and west, the subject was a very
nice looking condominium project with a proposed price range of $i00,000, and
statements were made tha-t the subject property was not considered an ideal
location for a planned industrial complex because of limited local and freeway
access.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-38 and 84R-39 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City
Council finds that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and
improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of
Tract No. 12102 for a 5-lot, 136-unit RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family)
Zone condominium subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,'
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the
convenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office and
Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, will then be filed and
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
100
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
3. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation
of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by
the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval
and included with the building plans prior to the issuance of building
permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access and/or
circulation within the project.)
4. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by
the City Planning Department.
5. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy
if permanent street name signs have not been installed.
6. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street.in
a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public
streets. Installation of any gates within a distance of forty (40) feet from
said public street rights-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Traffic Engineer.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include construction of the
necessary facilities to preclude the flooding of any travel lane on Crescent
Avenue.
8. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation
in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined
by the City Council.
10. That the vehicular and pedestrian rights to Alameda Avenue shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval.
11. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Crescent
Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of ail
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be
complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and that security
in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in
an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with
the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said
security shall be posted with the City prior to final tract map approval, to
guarantee the installation of the above-required improvements prior to
occupancy.
12. That street lighting facilities along Alameda Avenue, shall be installed
as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications
on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the
101
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned
improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to
final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed
prior to occupancy.
13. That prior to final tract map approval, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the converted
residential units will be in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards
Specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25.
14. That prior to final tract map approval, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in
Residential ~rojects."
15. That prior to approval of the final map the owner of subject property
shall acquire and dedicate to the City of Anaheim additional right-of-way as
determined to be necessary by the City Traffic Engineer, for street widening
purposes for property located north of subject property across Crescent
Avenue. The owner of subject property shall further construct ali necessary
improvements as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with plans on
file in the Office of the City Engineer.
16. That the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12i02, is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 83-84-14.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay asked if they needed a motion to direct staff to notify the
Industrial Development Board of all changes to industrial property; Miss
Santalahti stated that they would put them into the computer.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they could tie the project into the plans that
were shown to them; Miss Santalahti stated that Condition No. 25 of the
Planning Commission required that the project be developed in accordance with
the plans submitted.
170/179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE, TENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 10474: Request submitted by Anacai Engineering Co., requesting
waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance rslating to
location of lot lines at the top of slopes within Tract No. 10474, property
located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road and west of Viliareal Drive.
The Planning Commission recommended approval in accordance with the City
Engineer's recommendation.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
102
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Cai Queyrei from Anacal Engineering was present, representing the
developer.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the reason they were asking for the waiver was
due to the fact that the Homeowners Association was going to take care of the
slopes; Mr. Queyrei answered "yes." It was a technicality, because the lots
hung over the bank.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed thp public hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the lot line requirement of the
Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to location of lot lines at the top of
slopes within Tract No. 10474. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
108/173: APPLICATION FOR LIMOUSINE SERVICE PERMIT: Submitted by Philip A.
Koenen, Ph.D., Grand Touring, requesting a permit to operate a limousine
service at 2785 East Regal Park Drive. Also submitted was a report dated
January 17, 1984, from the City Attorney.
Mayor Roth asked if the applicant was present.
Mr. Philip Koenen was present.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if where he wanted to operate the service was a
residence.
Mr. Koenen answered "no." The location was an industrial park, and there was
quite a bit of parking available.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the Application for a Limousine
Service Permit submitted by Philip A. Koenen for Grand Touring, to operate a
limousine service at 2785 East Regal Park Drive. Councilman Pickier seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC REQUEST - CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded
by Councilman Roth, the following item was approved, in accordance with the
report and recommendation furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274--EXTENSION OF TIME: Approving an
extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2274, to permit a truck and
heavy equipment storage yard on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 1124
North Richfield Road, to expire December 29, 1984, as requested by Ron
Christian.
MOTION CARRIED.
103
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
142/108/171: ORDINANCE NO. 4474: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4474
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4474: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 2,
CHAPTER 2.04 SECTION 2.04.050 SUBSECTION 2.04.050.0203 PERTAINING TO SALES AND
USE TAX.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4474 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4475: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4475 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4475: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-55(12), ML, 2890 and
2898 East Miraloma Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verhoit, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4475 duly passed and adopted.
173: INTERCOUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY MEETING: Councilman Pickler reported on
his attendance at the Intercounty Airport Authority meeting held January 18,
1984; Councilman Overholt asked when he had an opportunity, if Councilman
Pickier could give a status report on what was happening with the Authority.
Councilman Pickler stated he would submit a report.
169: UNIMPROVED PARCELS EXTENDING INTO THE ROADWAY: Councilman Pickler asked
that a discussion be scheduled regarding unimproved parcels extending into the
roadway, referring ~0 material received from the City Attorney's office.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:29 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ail Council Members
being present. (5:46 p.m.)
112: LUDWIG VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City
Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 37-88-01, Ludwig vs.
City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed ~10,455. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
104
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
113: DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
84R-40 for adoption, authorizing the destruction of certain City records more
than two years old.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-40 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT:. Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickier seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:50 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
105