Loading...
1983/11/22City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & COb~NITY SERVICES: Chris Jarvi WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSOCIATE PLANNER: John Anderson ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Pamela Lucado Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend O. L. Underwood, Foursquare Gospel Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: National Home Care Week in Anaheim, November 27 through December 3, 1983. Rebecca Ryder and Diane Oeser accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Visiting Nurses Association of Orange County and Everhealth Home Care, respectively. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Clyde W. Cromer for his splendid record of achievement accomplished during his six decades of service to the City of Anaheim. 119/114: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the Deputy City Mayor of Mito, Japan, Fujio Kikuchi and his delegation at the reception dinner to be held at the Grand Hotel this evening. Mr. Kikuchi and the delegation were present in the Chambers audience. Miss Chieko Duty, interpreter, on behalf of the Mayor, Council and the City, welcomed the delegation to Anaheim. Letter dated November 15, 1983, from Mayor Yukosuke Wada, which was presented to the ~yor on that date when the Tsukubas Expo '85 Youth Ambassadors were present, was then read for the benefit of the delegation. The letter also announced the visit of Mr. Kikuchi and the delegation today. 930 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Kikuchi then addressed the Council through Ms. Duty, bringing greetings from Mayor Wada and recalling the wonderful visit of the delegation from Anaheim to Mito last Spring. He reported that the American Dogwood planted on Anaheim Way in Mito was healthy and growing well. They were present also to promote Expo '85 and to have a chance to gain some expertise from Anaheim in preparing for and holding such a large and important event. MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held October 25 and November 1, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,616,508.33, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 83R-446 through 83R-449, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: 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 Magdi F. Haroun for personal property damages to household items purportedly sustained due to power failure at 3327 West Faircrest Drive, on or about September 11, 1983. 2. Claim submitted by Alton R. Morse for property damages purportedly sustained due to poor electrical connection at the pole servicing 128 North Evergreen, on or about September 14 and October 3, 1983. 3. Claim submitted by Margie A. Bradley for personal property damages to washing machine purportedly sustained due to uneven electrical current at 1231 Brewster, on or about August and September, 1983. 4. Claim submitted by Geraldine Green for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about September 25, 1983. 931 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. B. Claim rejected and referred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel Service, Inc.: 5. Claim submitted by David and Donald Brunk for personal injuries and false arrest purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about July 2, 1983. C. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim denied: 6. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Phoenix, Inc., for indemnity based on Superior Court Case No. 386897, Holger Gauemann vs. The Phoenix Club. 2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for October 1983. b. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of October 12, 1983. c. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of October 13, 1983. d. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of October 13, 1983. e. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application A83 11 17, Funbus Systems, Inc., for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate a passenger stage corporation over regular routes between Anaheim/Beverly Hills/Los Angeles/Universal City and between Anaheim/Long Beach/Los Angeles/Rancho Palos Verdes. f. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Notice to Customers of filing of amendment to Application No. 83-09-24 of Southern California Gas Company, to increase the Conservation Cost Adjustment component in Southern California Gas rates by an additional ~3.965 million. g. 147: City of Fountain Valley letter dated November 8, 1983, and excerpt of minutes of Council meeting of November 1, 1983, regarding sludge disposal at Orange County Sanitation District. 3. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Manuel Gomez, for Anaheim Dance Promotions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on November 24, 1983, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. 4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Jones Hall Hill & White in an amount not to exceed $55,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed ~2,OOO, for legal services for the purpose of refinancing certain parking facilities at the Anaheim Hilton Convention Hotel and to finance same through lease or purchase financing proceedings, including refunding Certificates of Participation. 932 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., in the amount of 519,500, plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed 51,000, for financial consultant services to assist the City and C-D III with the proposed refunding. Authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding with C-D III relating to replacement and enclosed parking facilities. 5. 128: Receiving and filing the Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 1983. 6. 170/123: Authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign Parcel Map No. 83-248, relating to property located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon and Weir Canyon Roads in the Bauer Ranch area, in accordance with an agreement with the Kent Land Company dated January 8, 1980. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-446: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE YORBA SUBSTATION STEEL POLE FOUNDATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-668-6329-84810-36400. (Means & Ulrich, 524,500) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-447: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ROMNEYA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT, WEST OF HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-793-6325-E3660. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, contractor) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-448: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-387 NUNC PRO TUNC. (to add upgrade status to the classification of Children's Services Librarian and to amend the job titles of Electric Systems Designer to Electrical Systems Designer and Industrial Engineering Manager to Industrial Engineering Supervisor) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-449: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Maliwanag, Thatcher and Associates; Robert N. Chorpenning, et ux.; GTE Sprint Communications Corporation; 0rangethorpe Professional Office Center) 158: ANAHEIM BOULEVARD - BROADWAY TO BALL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - REMOVAL OF BILLBOARD: City Manager William Taliey briefed staff report dated November 7, 1983, recommending that payment be authorized to Sixta Veyna in the amount of 55,000 for removal of a billboard. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the board was going to be replaced or removed permanently. City Engineer William Devitt answered that it was going to be removed permanently. He also explained for Councilman Overholt that it was necessary to relocate the board from the existing right-of-way. In this instance, it 933 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. developed that it was going to cost approximately $7,000 or $8,000 to relocate the board and in discussions with the owner, he indicated he anticipated a revenue of $6,000 or $7,000. General discussion revolved around the fact that since it was necessary to relocate the sign, it ought to be removed altogether and they subsequently negotiated a 35,000 payment. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize payment in the amount of $5,000 to Sixta Veyna for removal of a billboard at 541 South Anaheim Boulevard, as required by the Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project, Account No. 13-792-7101-E2580 (R/W 2800-8). Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 144.173: DETERMINING A POSITION ON THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC) 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM: City Manager William Talley briefed a report from the Planning Department dated November 16, 1983, recommending that the Council determine its position on OCTC's 15-Year Transportation Investment Program and subsequently direct staff to prepare a transmittal of the Council's position to OCTC not later than November 30, 1983. He elaborated on the comments proposed to be submitted as listed in the three-page report (report on file in the City Clerk's office) as follows: That OCTC make an irrevocable guarantee to cities for a minimum of 20 percent return of any net sales tax revenues to local governments on a per capita basis; allocation of the 20 percent sales tax to cities shall be made on a monthly estimated advance basis with quarterly reconciliation; 20 percent minimum allocation to cities should be unrestricted for transportation use; support a 50 percent allocation towards improving existing and new freeways, State highways, and expressways as identified in the draft March 1983 15-Year Plan; support eight-lane full standard improvements be made to Interstate 5 (I-5), including existing and new overcrossings and interchanges be made with predominently State/Interstate dollars; that a four-lane primary road for the Eastern Corridor be readied to commence construction by the tenth year of the 15-Year Transportation Investment Program; on improvements to Beach Boulevard and final mix of improvements to be proposed for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor take a neutral position until such time as study results are completed and available for staff review; support 25 percent maximum allocation to transit from the one-cent sales tax; support inclusion of a 38.3 mile light rail system contingent that prior to project commitment by OCTC, OCTD undergo a performance audit, and audit of the project cost estimate to assure the light rail project can be completed within a 25 percent maximum transit allocation of one-cent sales tax; support inclusion of Commuter Rail projects as candidate for the 25 percent transit allocation (a minimum quarantee of one percent should be provided in the 15-Year Plan); support 5 percent allocation to multi-jurisdictional arterial improvements contingent that such improvements are in addition to the 20 percent local allocation. Relative to evaluation criteria, staff proposed the following comments be forwarded to the OCTC: (a) The Commission's evaluation criteria should conform to Federal Aid Urban (FAU) and State Transportation Improvement 'Program (STIP) process to eliminate extra work effort by OCTC and Orange County Cities; and (b) The criteria should be more flexible by giving greater emphasis to local transportation priorities and policies. 934 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Staff further recommended that the one-cent sales tax be effective for a period of 20 years after the tax commences collection on January 1, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that Council's position be as outlined in staff report of November 16, 1983, and that the comments contained therein be transmitted to the OCTC. Before any action was taken, City Manager Talley explained for the Mayor that if they waived the opportunity to give their input, staff believed the OCTC would still go forward with the plan. This was the Council's final opportunity under the guidelines set forth to input their views into the decision. If the Commission did not do what the Council wanted to see done, the Council would have to take a position, because it was going to be a public issue. It was going to require 14 cities containing at least 50 percent of the incorporated population of Orange County to approve the plan. Although it was possible it could be done without Anaheim's input, inasmuch as the City represented better than 10 percent of the population, being the largest of the cities, their views would have great weight. Mayor Roth stated he was going to support the recommendations, but they had not received input from citizens, Chamber of Commerce, etc. As a result of Council questions, City Manager Talley explained the procedure to be followed by the Commission after receiving input from the cities, other governmental jurisdictions, etc., by the November 30, 1983 deadline. In mid-December, the Commission was going to submit a revised plan to all jurisdictions, public hearings would be conducted, and adjustments made as deemed necessary. They would then submit plans to City Councils and the Board of Supervisors in early 1984, and at that time the Council would be requested to make an official approval. They would then have approximately 60 days to hold any type of local public hearings they wished, although he recommended if they were going to do that, that they wait until mid-December when the final revisions were made. They could then solicit community input based upon the plan that they must decide whether they were going to support or not. Councilman Overholt stated he viewed the staff report as an Anaheim "wish list." Councilman Bay's earlier question was whether they could approve the report and still hold back on a commitment to the general philosophy of the 15-Year Investment Program. He (Overholt) felt the answer was no. Their "wish list" supported that philosophy, contrary to Supervisor Nestande's feelings. If they supported the staff recommendation, they were tacitly supporting the concept of the Transportation Commission and at a later date, they would have the opportunity to approve the detailed and specific plan, which would include most, if not all, of the recommendations in the report. Councilman Bay stated he had a problem with the 15-Year Plan and with the fact that the OCTC and OCTD Board agreed that the question of the one percent County-wide sales tax was going on the June ballot. He did not agree with that, and thereupon prefaced his remarks with a history of the basic cause of the problem with which the County was faced, that being Sacramento and 935 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. CalTrans and their lack of action over the last eight to ten years in the County not getting its fair share of funds from those sources. It was his opinion that there were other ways to solve the problem other than by a new tax, but it would take much longer. Since there was a major division of opinion on the plan, centering around transit funds and fixed rail, the County Board of Supervisors, OCTC and OCTD should be advised as follows: There should be an advisory vote on the June primary ballot, giving the two basic alternative plans, one concentrating on roads, streets, freeways and automobile transportation as expanded by Supervisor Nestande, and the other transit plans, fixed rail and anything else on that side of the argument. In June, therefore, the people of the County could vote on which plan they preferred and, whichever plan was chosen, that plan be put on the ballot in November, along with the one-cent increase in the sales tax. He felt the danger of rushing into a June ballot, particularly with a major political split and differences on the plan, could cause the whole thing to fail. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be highly opposed to a double election. Enough discussion had taken place and the issue was going to be on the June ballot. If they wanted to begin to have the transportation problem solved in Orange County, the politicians had to get together so that the transportation issue could be resolved. Councilman Pickler stated if they worked hard enough, he felt they could get the measure passed in June, since it was needed now. If they approved the recommendations of staff and sent their comments on to OCTC, in February if they disapproved, they could change their mind and say no. Councilman Overholt stated he would like to see things done as Councilman Bay suggested,'but felt that time had run out for that approach. He also had a serious question as to how deep the breach was on the two points of view between Supervisor Nestande and the Commission. The Commission had been working a long time and their recommendation was the culmination of years of sampling public opinion and making studies and this was the last step in coming up with a plan. If they passed the recommendations of staff, they were committing themselves to the Transportation Commission's point of view and his vote could be interpreted as doing that. He did not think they had the luxury of changing the procedure now. Mayor Roth stated that Anaheim had an important stake relative to the future transportation needs in the County and he felt comfortable in supporting staff's recommendation with full knowledge that he would have another opportunity for input in February. He was very pleased with the recommendations, particularly with regard to the Eastern Corridor, the one which was of greatest importance to him. If they sat back, they would be the losers. Councilman Pickler thereupon seconded the motion offered by Councilwoman Kaywood. 936 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay posed questions to staff which were answered by Pamela Lucado, Associate Planner, wherein Miss Lucado reported that the 20 percent in funds proposed to be returned to the cities required that the money only be used for transportation purposes, that the $3.6 million estimated to be returned to Anaheim was an estimate for the first year only, and there were no estimates over a 15-year period that she was aware of at this time. Councilman Bay then expressed his concern, as had Senator John Seymour, that the percentage of sales tax to be returned to the cities might result in the cities backing away from normal capital expenditures planned for in their yearly budgets in streets, highways and infrastructure, and he was interested in the opinions of his colleagues on that point. Mayor Roth then recognized Mr. Bill Erickson who had asked if he could read a short statement. Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, first stated that he was invited to the staff presentation of the 15-Year Program when it met with a number of interested citizens and he had a letter read at that meeting. He thereupon submitted the letter to the Council. At the meeting, Mr. Herb Leo talked about leverage financing and he (Erickson) felt that could be an important ingredient in the Council's deliberations. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay stated even though he agreed from his own personal opinion that the staff recommendations were for the good of the City, because he did not have citizen input, he was not sure what the majority of the opinion of the constituents he represented were relative to the plan. He could not disagree with the Council that his proposal might be a little late, but without public hearings, he did not know what the people of Anaheim wanted. 175.123: RADIO RECEIVER AND ANTENNA INSTALLATION AT LINDA VISTA RESERVOIR: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the extension of a License Agreement with the City of Orange for a radio receiver and antenna installed at Linde Vista Reservoir, commencing December 5, 1983 and expiring at midnight on December 4, 1988, as recommended in memorandum dated November 7, 1983, ~rom the Public Utilities Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175: ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE STABILIZATION ACCOUNT AND OVERCHARGE FUNDS: Discussion relating to the Electric Utility Rate Stabilization Account and overcharge funds--continued from the meeting of November 8, 1983 (see minutes that date). Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue discussion on the subject for one week, since they just received the Public Utilities Board Minutes of November 17, 1983. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 937 -- City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 105: RESIGNATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Jan Billings from the Community Services Board as tendered in her letter of November 1, 1983, for the term ending June 30, 1986, with regret and sincere thanks for the excellent job she had done for the City. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mrs. Billings was on the original Board and its first chairman. She also requested that a resolution be prepared to be presented to Mrs. Billings. 114: DETERMINATION THAT NO COUNCIL MEETING BE HELD DECEMBER 27, 1983: Councilman Pickler stated that since Tuesday, December 27, 1983, was the Tuesday between Christmas and New Years', he recommended that they not hold a Council meeting on that date. He asked for a consensus of opinion. Mayor Roth stated he had no problem with the recommenda.tion provided that the agenda for the following meeting was not overwhelming; City Clerk Linda Roberts reported that no public hearings had yet been scheduled for Tuesday, December 27, 1983. Councilman Pickler moved that no Council meeting be held on Tuesday, December 27, 1983. - Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the City Clerk if she could give some assurances that cancelling the meeting would have little or no impact on the first meeting of 1984; City Clerk Roberts reported that no public hearings were scheduled on January 3, 1984, at the present time. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 31, 1983, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2504: Submitted by Anaheim Hills Promenade Partnership, to permit a church on CL-HS(SC) zoned property located at 6509 Serrano Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-208, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2504, and granted a Negative Declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by R. A. McNees, (The Cowboy), requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1063, to establish a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc., with an on-sale liquor establishment in an existing structure on C-R zoned property located at 1721 South Manchester Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1063, to expire October 7, 1984. 938 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1517 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Robert W. Hostetter, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1517, to permit a board and care facility for the treatment of alcoholics on RS-7200 zoned property located at 703 North Lemon Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1517, to expire May 28, 1983. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1783 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Michael L. Schmucker, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1783, to permit an automobile rental agency and incidental automobile repair on CL zoned property located at 3200 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1783, to expire December 19, 1985. 5. ANAHEIM HILLS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - INFORbt~TIONAL: Staff update on repairs to improvements in certain areas of Anaheim Hills. 6. REVISIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Submitted by Redevelopment Agency requesting approval of revisions to the proposed River Valley Redevelopment Project on property located northwest of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Weir Canyon Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-209, recommended approval of revisions to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the River Valley Redevelopment Project. (Also see joint public hearing between the Council/Redevelopment Agency/Redevelopment Commission on the subject Plan, which took place at the afternoon public hearing section of their meeting.) 7. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11830, REV. NO. 1, AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Submitted by Gfeller Development Co., Inc., (Lincoln Beach Mobile Manor), requesting amendment to Conditions Nos. 22, 25 and 29 of approval of Tentative Tract No. 11830 (Rev. No. 1), to establish an 18-lot, 639-unit, RM-1000 zoned subdivision located at 2925 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held November 14, 1983, approved amendment to conditions to Tentative Tract No. 11830. 8. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11364: Submitted by Ephram Beard, et al, to re-establish an 83-1ot, 80-unit proposed RM-3000 zoned condominium subdivision on property located at 1241 South Beach Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held November 14, 1983, approved Tentative Tract No. 11364. 939 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood noted what may have been an oversight on Page 2, No. 7 of the letter to the owner dated November 15,~ 1983, wherein it did not mention low and moderate income housing. Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti clarified that was correct and she would see to it that the clerical error was corrected. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the actions of the Planning Commission became final. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 3328, REV. NO. 3, REVISED PLANS: State-Wide Developers, Inc., (Apollo Junior High School), requesting approval of revised plans for Reclassification No. 82-83-27 and Variance No. 3328, a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to construct a 332-unit affordable condominium complex, with various Code waivers. A public hearing by the City Council was recommended by the Planning Commission. After a brief Council discussion regarding an appropriate time for the hearing, Councilman Pickler moved that the date and time for a public hearing on the subject revised plans be Tuesday, December 20, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 161/177/114: ORDINANCE NO. 4462 - PROPOSED CHANGE IN COUNCfL MEETING TIMES: Consideration of a proposal that Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority and City Council meetings be convened at 12:00 Noon on Tuesdays for announcements of any closed sessions; if no closed sessions, recess to lunch; and reconvene meetings of the Redevelopment Agency at 1:20 p.m., the Housing Authority at 1:25 p.m., and the City Council at 1:30 p.m., with public hearings scheduled at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Overholt stated he had done considerable research in trying to come up with what he considered to be the best timing and he was not totally convinced the times specified were the best arrangement at this moment. For that reason, he moved to continue all matters to January 3, 1984, which was the first meeting after the next week when they would have a full Council. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay stated he would speak against the motion, because he felt they had a minority position on the Council that was "beating a dead horse." He supported a vote on the motion as asendized rather than continue the matter and drag it out. Councilman Pickler stated as of now, he agreed with Councilman Bay, but he just received some notes today where about three or four out of five wanted a 7:00 p.m. starting time. He felt if Councilman Overholt wanted to work on the matter a bit longer, he would have no qualms in continuing the issue. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Bay and Roth voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. 940 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. PUBLIC REQUEST - CONSENT CALENDER ITEM: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-450 for adoption, terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 1410, in accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning Division. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1410 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Calmark Development Corporation, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1410, to permit expansion of an existing hospital on property located at 950 South Gilbert Street, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2458. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-450: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1410 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 73R-324 NULL AND VOID. Roll Caii Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-450 duly passed and adopted.. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4461: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4461 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4461: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~MENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-21, CO(SC), ML(SC) and CL(SC), north of the Riverside Freeway, west side of Weir Canyon Road) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL b~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4461 duly passed and adopted. 114/175.106: TREND OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN UTILITIES: Councilman Bay noted during the Utility hearings he requested the simplest report possible giving him some trend idea on the capital expenditures of the Electric Utility particularly. If staff wished, they could provide figures on both Electric and Water, but he was mostly interested in the capital expenditures of the Electric Utility over the past five years by how many millions a year, so that he could look at what the trend had been. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations and pending litigation with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated. 941 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and for a lunch break. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:35 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Chairman Roth reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, all Agency Members being present, for the purpose of conducting a joint public hearing with the City Council and the Redevelopment Commission. (1:50 p.m.) PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL/AGENCYMEMBERS: None REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS: Robert Doty, Jane Oseid, Doug Renner, Dan Martinez, Robert Anthony, William Ranney REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS: Herb Leo CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman Priest CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt ASSOCIATE PLANNER: John Anderson 161.157/105: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED REDEVELO?MENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: A joint hearing between the City Council, the Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Commission to consider the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Environmental Review Determination for the River Valley Redevelopment Project located northwest of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Weir Canyon Road. Vice Chairman of the Redevelopment Commission, William Ranney, called the Commission to order. (1:50 p.m.) Mayor/Chairman Roth opened the joint public hearing, explaining its purpose was to consider the approval and adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the River Valley Redevelopment Project and the Environmental Impact Reports previously prepared for SAVI Ranch and Shorb Wells (EIR Nos. 230 and 258), pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. Executive Director of Community Development Norman Priest then gave a summary of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, which involved a~proximately 160 acres, generally at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue. The property had been deterred from development by the flood hazard created by the non-channelized Santa Ana River (see Exhibit A, Section 5 in the booklet entitled, Joint Public Hearing, River Valley Redevelopment Project, November 22, 1983, on file in the City Clerk's office, which included a map of the Project Area and a legal description of its boundaries. The booklet contained detailed documentation on all aspects of the Project Area from its inception to present). Mr. Priest briefed the extensive actions that had taken place culminating in the presentation of the Plan for approval today, as 942 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:O0 A.M. well as making certain findings that the provision of low and moderate income housing outside the River Valley Redevelopment Project Area and the use of tax increment revenues would be of benefit to the Project and also making certain findings in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to the Project's environmental impacts. (Also see report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the River Valley Redevelopment Project--September 1983--Section 6 of the aforementioned booklet--giving the Reasons for the Selection of the Proposed Project Area, Description of Physical, Social and Economic Conditions in the Project Area, Methods of Financing the Project, Plan and Method of Relocation, Analysis of the Preliminary Plan, Report and Recommendations of Planning Commission, Report Required by Section 65402 of Government Code, Project Environmental Impact Reports, Report of County Fiscal Officer and Fiscal Review Committee, Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer and Summary of Consultations with Taxing Agencies, portions of which were also briefed by Mr. Priest.) He then asked John Anderson, Associate Planner, to speak to the blighted conditions relative to the Project. In his presentation, working from posted maps, Mr. Anderson explained that the Santa Ana River flowing through Anaheim's canyon area had the potential for the worst flooding in the Nation, yet the River Valley Project parcels were singularly unprotected. The United States Corps of Engineers Ali River Plan would eventually provide protection along the River. As presently adopted, however, the subject area would remain unprotected in its natural state and the Federal Environmental Management Agency (FEMA) maps showed the area to be in the A-Zone Flood Hazard Area and Floodway. He then narrated a brief video record of the area taken after the moderate rains of 1980. He continued that, subsequent to the Corps plans and FEMA maps, private levee construction in the vicinity had changed the flood patterns and while the levees now provided protection to adjacent properties, they would act to channelize flood flows and direct the flows against the unprotected Shorb Wells and SAVI parcels. The River bisected the River Valley Project east to west and within the Shorb Wells parcel there were several flood protection/drainage concerns. He then pointed to those areas from the engineering map, concluding that the areas must be.properly filled, protected by erosion control landscaping, provision made for conveyance of area-wide drainage and adequate flood protection provided including levees, channel improvements and excavations. Similar blight was found on the westerly portion of the SAVI Ranch and those deficiencies would require fill and provision for conveyance of area-wide drainage and for adequate flood protection by completion and improvement of levees and by channel improvements. Mr. Priest then reported that in terms of land use and land ownership, the land was largely vacant. There were six owners with 18 assessor parcels and a number of those owners were utility companies. The major owners were SAVI, owning 50 plus acres in agricultural use, and the City of Anaheim, with 50 plus acres in the Shorb Wells site. The River channel bisected the property and occupied the remainder of the 150 acres. He then explained the zoning on the property and the possible capital improvements contained therein. 943 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. He continued that the proposed Redevelopment Plan was not typical of those they had considered previously and acquisition would be very limited to only that necessary for proper parcelization and carrying out public improvements. Relocation was provided for in the Plan, although there were no Project residents. It further provided for demolition and public improvements. Key elements they would envision utilizing was the ability the Plan gave to participate with current owners in the development of the property and a provision of the Plan indicating the intent of the Agency to coordinate with other public bodies in the Planning and implementation of the program. The financing permitted the use of tax increments in the Plan up to 530 million and that was their estimate of a worst-case basis. It also envisioned utilizing other sources of financing, whether State, Federal, Corps of Engineers and County, as were available in combination. (Also see Page 5 of report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan, Section 6 of the booklet.) He then asked Mr. Don Swartz of Hillman Properties, representing SAVI, to comment on their proposed development. Mr. Don Swartz, 450 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, stated they were the owners of the property shown on the map in blue, marked A, B and C. Their proposed development was of two types--office development near Weir Canyon, and industrial development to the west of the property of approximately 300,000 feet of office buildings to be developed, and 600,000 feet of light industrial buildings at this time, if the channel improvements were put in place. Without those improvements, the property was difficult to plan and use, and they would probably get from one-quarter to one-third of the amount of industrial space on the property. The bridge across Weir Canyon was essentially complete and should be connected to the Riverside Freeway in the next 60 days. They were supportive of the Project and felt it would benefit the entire County. He then confirmed for Council/Agency Member Bay that the commercial office would be developed whether or not the Redevelopment Project was approved, but the industrial portion would otherwise only be 25 percent developable. Mr. Anderson then described the potential development of the Shorb Wells property under the General Plan. The General Plan designation and compatible zoning would permit uses including development of a neighborhood shopping center or commercial uses in support of the anticipated nearby SAVI commercial/industrial and the Bauer Ranch regional shopping center. Working from the posted map, Mr. Anderson stated that should the parcels be precluded by noted flood and drainage concerns from planned development, not only would the subject parcels remain blighted and underdeveloped, but also the larger vicinity would to that extent be blighted by unsightly, dysfunctional and underdeveloped parcels within the center of what was planned to be an intensively developed community core. Mr. Priest then elaborated on the financing aspect of the Project, pointing out that the tax increment of full development would be slightly in excess of 51 million and there were two significant factors relative to that. Under California State law, 20 percent of that increment was committed to low and moderate income housing in the community and was a legal requirement. 944 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Additionally, recognizing that the Project having eliminated flooding and creating developable land would lead to development which could create approximately 3,100 jobs. They, therefore, recognized that there might be impact upon school districts and surrounding public bodies. They had been in consultation with those public bodies, and at this point in time, suggested to them agreements known commonly as pass-through agreements, in which case a portion of the increment would pass-through to those bodies to assist them in any detriment and the maximum amount of such pass-through would be approximately 23 percent of the total increment. In concluding, Mr. Priest stated that the Project would not only eliminate the flooding, but it also would create additional jobs, provide tax increment only as necessary to either do the Project or close the gap with other available financing, and it would not be their intention to get extensively into land acquisition, transfer or development. He then outlined the documents submitted and announced that Rhonda Gale from Weiser, Kane, Ballmer and Berkman, Special Counsel, and Mr. Kalva Hollis of Katz Hollis, and Redevelopment staff were present. Questions were then posed to Mr. Priest by Council/Agency Members for purposes of clarification, as well as questions posed by Redevelopment Commissioners Doug Renner and Robert Anthony, which were answered by City Engineer William Devitt. Mr. Devitt reported that the Project provided localized protection, and the problem Mr. Renner emphasized relative to the Santa Ana River as indicated in the public notice mailed out with property tax statements, was a Corps of Army Engineers problem, which would take multi-billions of dollars to solve. The two were not directly associated and he reiterated that relative to the subject Project, they were looking at localized protection for an intermediate period of time and ultimately the Ail River Plan must be built. He also clarified that the site did flood now without the necessary protection that was being proposed. He also confirmed for Council/Agency Member Bay that there was levee protection south of the area. The Flood Control District had for many years been making improvements along the River and particularly around the bend at Lincoln Avenue. It was an on-going program of continued progress. Mgyor/Chairman Roth asked the estimated value of the Shorb Wells property which was owned by the City, if it had an adequate amount of flood protection for building or developing; Mr. Priest answered that he did not have that figure. In terms of developable parcels, there were approximately 4Z acres. Mr. Anderson interjected and stated that 42 would be an optimistic acreage in terms of what would be developable. That was based on Assessor's data previous to the time that some of the road work was completed, and the actual usable area might be anywhere from 19 to 30 acres. Mr. Devitt also reported, in answer to the Mayor/Chairman, that there was a great deal of fill involved in the property and without that fill, it was not likely that anything worthwhile could be developed; Mayor/Chairman Roth stated that was the answer he was looking for. It was a valuable piece of property 945 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. whether it was going to be used for commercial or industrial in the future, and thus would have a far-reaching effect as far as the taxpayers in the City were concerned. Council/Agency Member Pickler asked Mr. Hollis if he had an estimate of the value of the property as broached by the Mayor; Mr. Kalva Holiis stated they did not try to estimate the value of the land. It was commercial-industrial property, which in Orange County, if developable, could be a minimum of ~4 and as high as ~9 or $10 a square foot. The Mayor/Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed River Valley Project. Denise Racine, 5500 Morro Way, La Mesa, representing the California Department of Fish and Game, read a prepared statement, the essence of which was as follows: The Department had commented on development proposals for the area in the past. Their concerns regarding protection of the habitat along the River remained the same regarding the subject Project. Their comments on the SAVI Ranch General Plan Amendment in 1979 stated that the Horseshoe Bend area within the Santa Ana River Flood Plain contained some of the most productive riparian habitat found below Prado Dam. They intended to be very protective of the habitat and believed the Project was incompatible with their objective in protecting those resources. They recommended that riparian resources within the Horseshoe Bend area be given full protection from and buffered against any urban development. A continuous corridor of riparian woodlands linking Yorba Linda Regional Park and Featherly Regional Park should be provided to preserve the region from excess urban encroachment to maintain its value for riparian wildlife. In concluding, she stated they would like to support the Corps of Engineers Ail River Plan which designated the area as open space. Council/Agency Member Bay asked Miss Racine if she had responded in writing to the EIR report; Miss Racine answered they did not. Mr. Priest pointed out that they did respond on the prior EIR's and they considered those in the Project. They would have taken those comments into consideration at that time. Council/Agency Member Bay surmised then that the mitigation statements were in the plans; Mr. Priest answered "yes." There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor/Chairman closed the public hearing. Redevelopment Commission Vice Chairman William Ranney asked the Commissioners if there were any questions or any other deliberations they wished to undertake; Commissioner Renner posed a question relative to the Planning Commission resolution and deletions that he noted. Mr. Priest clarified that the deletions did not pertain to the resolutions that they would be considering. 946 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Commissioner Ranney offered Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. CRC83-2 for adoption. Refer to Redevelopment Commission Resolution Book. REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CRC83-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND JOINING IN WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN THE SUBMITTAL OF SUCH PLAN, TOGETHER WITH THE REPORT, TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Ranney, Doty, Oseid, Martinez and Anthony NOES: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Renner ABSENT: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Leo The Chairman declared Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. CRC83-2 duly passed and adopted. Council/Agency Member Bay stated he had a comment before taking action. Relative to the subject Redevelopment Project, there was no comparison with Project Alpha either in dollars or size; however, it was important for the public to understand the major differences between the two Projects. The Redevelopment Law in the State had undergone a number of changes since they initiated Project Alpha and one of the changes that became very apparent on the subject Project was the mandatory 20 percent of the full tax increment to be allocated to low and moderate income housing outside of the Project. The Housing Department in Sacramento had pushed to get more and more allocations where there' was a problem on low and moderate income housing. That was one of' the basic differences. Estimates by staff indicated that another 23 percent of the tax increment would be going to other districts in the Project, leaving for the Plan 57 percent of the total increment. Across the 30 years, at approximately ~1 million a year, they could count on roughly 55 to 57 percent of the money going into the Project. The benefits of the Project were many and varied for the citizens of the City, particularly in taking almost totally undevelopable land and making it developable for the good not only of the City owning Shorb Wells, but also providing more jobs in the industrial development that would occur. Agency Member Roth offered Resolution No. ARA83-46 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING THAT THE PROVISION OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES THEREFORE WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA83-46 duly passed and adopted. 947 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. MOTION: Agency Member Roth moved to approve the report of the Fiscal Review Committee. Agency Member Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Agency Member Roth offered Resolution Nos. ARA83-47 and ARA83-48 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA83-47 and ARA83-48 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-451 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-451: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING THAT THE PROVISION OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES THEREFORE WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-451 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the Redevelopment Agency's response to the report of the Fiscal Review Committee. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-452 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-452: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE_ RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (including Statement of Overriding Considerations) 948 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22,. 1983, 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-452 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4463: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4463 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4463: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. ADJOURNMENT - REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Commissioner Oseid seconded the motion. CARRIED. (2:46 p.m.) Commissioner Dory moved to adjourn. Commissioner Leo was absent. MOTION ADJOURnmENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Roth moved to adjourn. Agency Member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. p.m.) (2:47 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Larry R. Smith, to permit a billboard on CL zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Knott Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, and (b) maximum height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-63, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2428. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Foster and Kleiser, Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of May 10, June 7 and July 26, 1983 (see minutes those dates), to this date. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a request had been received from the Agent for the applicant for a 60-day continuance. The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue. If so, and they wanted to give testimony today, it would be accepted. 949 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mrs. Joyce Keeter, 716 South Kenmore, stated that she was again present, as she had been three times prior when the matter was continued. The Mayor explained the situation relative to the request for the continuance; Councilwoman Kaywood asked when the staff report relative to billboards was to be expected. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that they were hoping to have a draft ordinance before Council 60 days from last Tuesday. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2428 and negative declaration to February 21, 1984, at 1:30 p.m., as requested by the applicant. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2438 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by La Palma Business Park, to permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at the northeast corner of White Star Avenue and Armando Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, and (b) maximum height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-95, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due 'to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2438. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robert D. Mickelson, Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of June 7 and July 26, 1983 (see minutes those dates), to this date. City Clerk Roberts announced that a 60-day continuance had been requested by the agent. Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2438 and negative declaration to February 21, 1984, at 1:30 p.m., as requested by the applicant. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue. Janet Mickelson, 3823 Glassell, Orange, representing the applicant, stated that the 90-day continuance was acceptable. 95O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2492: Application submitted by William Van Den Hurk, (Ail Car Equipment Company and Apple Auto Leasing), to retain an automotive repair and leasing facility on ML zoned property located at 1874 South Santa Cruz Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-170, approved the negative declaration upon finding that it had 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. 2492, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a traffic signal assessment fee equaling the difference between the industrial and commercial assessment fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2094 to the Planniqg Department. 3. That all automobile repair and parts storage shall be conducted wholly within the building. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. I and 2. 5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of this resolution. 6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Willy Sulzmann, appellant, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of October 25, 1983 (see minutes that date), to this date. Mr. William Van Den Hurk, 337 Calle Grande, Orange, stated that with regard to the Conditional Use Permit, he had discussed the situation with Willie Sulzmann, and the tenant he (Van Den Hurk) had now occupying the premises was going to be leaving on January 31, 1984. Therefore, after that time, the permit would not be necessary. Miss Santalahti explained for the~Mayor that the application was for an automotive repair shop in the industrial zone which required a CUP with a requested parking waiver. Parking was the issue of the appeal. The property owner indicated the operation would cease on January 31, 1984. If Council 951 City Hal.l~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November. 2.2.~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. looked favorably on the application, they could approve it until January 31 or alternately, they could terminate the action and there would be no enforcement activities until January 31, 1984. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had asked before, when the continuance was requested, if they were going to continue parking and selling boats and cars on the lawn. She wanted to know if they were still doing that; Miss Santalahti answered that they did go out to the area, but she was not positive if this was the particular operation involved. Mr. Van Den Hurk confirmed that he owned the subject property and had a tenant in it; however, the tenant did not sell boats or cars. Perhaps that was some other property. The tenant installed automotive air conditioners for dealers. Mr. Willie Sulzmann, Appellant, explained that he owned the property next door and he would be more than happy to go along with the situation until January, when the tenant was scheduled to move. He confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there was still a problem relative to parking. His tenant and Mr. Van Den Hurk's tenant seemed to have problems with each other. Also, his tenant happened to have a junk car which could not be moved which was parked on his (Sulzmann's) property. He would have to find out how it could be legally moved. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that there was no reason to continue to allow a problem, even through the end of January; Mr. Sulzmann reiterated that he was more than happy that the situation was going to be taken care of in the near future. Mayor Roth asked if he was stipulating that he was withdrawing his objection, providing that the operation was going to move on January 31, 1984; Mr. Sulzmann answered "yes." He also explained that there was a problem across the street at a body shop where cars were parked on the lawn, and it had been a problem for some time. Whenever they got busy, they parked everywhere, and their employees or customers would then park in his customer lot. Miss Santalahti stated they would investigate. Mr. Van Den Hurk then stipulated that the All Car Equipment Company would be vacating the premises at 1874 South Santa Cruz by January 31, 1984. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Discussion then followed between Council and staff as a result of an inquiry by Miss Santalahti relative to a condition of the Planning Commission providing for a traffic signal assessment fee. In finality, it was determined that condition was not to be deleted from any action. Councilman Bay stated he heard a statement by Mr. Van Den Hurk that the CUP was going to be terminated on January 31, 1984. He asked for confirmation that he made that stipulation; Mr. Van Den Hurk answered that was correct. 952 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council does hereby approve 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 is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-453 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2492, with the stipulation that the tenant will be vacating the premises by January 31, 1984, and CUP 2492 will be terminated on January 31, 1984. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-453: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2492. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-453 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-5 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2259: Application submitted by American National Properties, Inc., (Orangewood Acres Mobilehome Park), for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to C-R, to permit conversion of an existing mobilehome park and construction of a five-story office building on property located at 2111 South Manchester Avenue. The City Planning Commission disapproved a negative declaration status on November 16, 1981, and subsequently denied Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2259. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled this date. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that the applicant, in his letter of November 4, 1983, requested a continuance of 4~ days. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; no one was present. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, public hearing on Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2259 was continued to January 10, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 155: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BAUER RANCH: City of Anaheim, requesting approval of proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Public Facilities Plan for the development of the Bauer Ranch ("Plan") as heretofore approved by the City Council as follows: (1) 953 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Amending certain provisions of Exhibits A thru J of said Plan, (2) amending certain provisions of said Plan entitled "City Budget Factors", and (3) amending certain provisions of the text of said Plan. Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that the Bauer Ranch Public Facilities Plan was initially designed to address the City Council's directive to staff to comprehensively examine the cost associated with new development in the hill and canyon area to ensure that existing City residents were not having to bear the burden of paying for new development in that area. The Plan was approved in March of 1981 and one amendment was approved earlier this y~ar, which primarily addressed the Water facilities system. Since the initial plan approval, development of the Ranch itself had intensified to some extent and there had been more detailed engineering and planning studies completed both by the developer and the City, resulting in the need for the comprehensive Amendment which was before the Council today. Despite the scope of the Amendment, staff in numerous meetings with both the developer and adjacent property owners had resolved a significant number of issues associated with the request. Interdepartmental studies concluded that, in general, development of the Ranch as proposed did not pose any particularly unusual problems for the City in terms of service. Mr. Fick then described some of the major changed components of the plan and areas addressed by staff in their extensive and detailed report. (See 12-page report dated November 18, 1983--made a part of the record.) In concluding his presentation, Mr. Ffck stated one issue that was raised following completion of the report was a question as to whether the City would exercise its power of Eminent Domain to assist in grading operations of the Bauer Ranch itself. The issue as it related to the request before them today was that in order to implement the Plan as proposed regarding, in particular the fire station site and possibly the park site, grading must occur on the Wallace Ranch. This could be accomplished either through an agreement between the Ranches themselves, as had been done east of Weir Canyon Road, or through the City's police power. Staff wanted to have Kaufman and Broad (K&B) describe the status of the negotiations with the Wallace Ranch or alternate plans in that regard, in order to gain some level of confidence that the sites and utilities would be delivered to the City as proposed in the Plan. There was audience representation today from bo~h the developer and from the surrounding property owners. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Keith Murdoch, 516 Wedgewood Drive, representing Kaufman and Broad, first introduced Mr. Robert Galloway, Senior Vice President, and Mr. Tom Winfield, Attorney for Kaufman and Broad. He then briefed the Council on portions of the Public Facilities Plan for the Development of Bauer Ranch, Revision No. 2, November, 1983 (on file in the City Clerk's office), and specifically the three major changes involving the relocation of the electrical substation site to a more suitable location, relocation of the library site and moving the park site to a more central location adjacent to the south Ranch boundary. Mr. Murdoch was working from a posted map of the 1981 Adopted Plan of Public 954 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Facilities. (Another map showed the specific locations as outlined in the amended Plan. Also see covering letter to the Public Facilities Plan, dated November 11, 1983, by Robert M. Galloway--and Exhibit F of the Plan, Pages 17 through 21.) Relative to the Water system and the 36-inch transmission/ primary distribution mains from Mohler Drive to Weir Canyon Road (see Water System--Exhibit I--Page 27 to 32 of the Plan), if that line, which was not needed at this time and would not be needed until the properties to the south began development, the City would be required under their present policy to pay their proportionate share of the line, or one-third of the transmission portion, amounting to an estimated 387,000. In order to be certain that not building the line at this time would not become a burden to the property owners to the south, K&B had provided for the delay of the construction of one traffic lane on the east side of Weir Canyon Road, and the parking lane, but they would post bonds for that work. They agreed to pay for the full improvements of the street, but felt it was.only fair to have the burden of the water line be on the part of the beneficiaries. Another controversial item concerned the stub street between the park and fire station, shown on the posted map, which was originally contemplated as being part of the Bauer Ranch development. Design changes were made and at the time the Tentative Tract Map was filed and approved by the City, the stub street was shown on the map as a future street, not a dedicated street, with the notation: Note: 50-foot access utility and slope easement for possible future grading reserved for Wallace Ranch and road improvements, if required, are to be part of the Wallace Ranch development. K&B felt that provision was made for that street to be installed if it was required, but they did not fe~l they should be required to bear the costs of the improvements with the exception of that portion required for the fire station. There was a provision as indicated in the 1981 Plan for the property dedicated for a library to be returned to K&B if in seven years after dedication the property was not used for a library. Included in the discussion on the motion at the time, there was a concern as to whether seven years time would be adequate. Staff had addressed their concern with that issue (see Page 6 of the November 18, 1983 staff report). The request, however, was made in the proposed Amendment and stated as seven years. They also requested a return of the funds posted for the propo~d r~ervoir if in fifteen years no action was taken on its construction. At the conclusion of Mr. Murdoch's presentation, the Mayor stated that evidently there had been~some problem relative to the grading of the fire station site and another site, which was to be worked out with the Wallace Ranch. He asked if they had been able to come to any agreement. Mr. Tom Winfield, attorney representing K&B, 615 South Flower, Los Angeles, reported that while the proceeding was going on and Mr. Murdoch was making his presentation, the negotiations apparently ceased between Wallace Ranch and K&B. Mr. Grable of Rutan and Tucker (attorney for Wallace Ranch) indicated 955 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. his clients' last position on the matter. He (Winfield) first wanted to bring the Council up to date as to the issues. There were primarily three, which had to do with the improvements of Weir Canyon to the southerly boundary of the K&B property, including the installation of a water main, the construction of a fully improved street with water and sewer in the street at the location between the fire station site and the park site, and also mutual reimbursement agreements. After some discussion, Wallace Ranch expressed concern regarding reimbursements and they wished to participate in any discussions regarding appropriate benefited areas. They (K&B) had agreed and they still did so in that any affected property owner had a right to participate in a process of determining benefited areas for reimbursement agreements. Mr. Winfield then spoke to the other two issues as follows: Improvements to Weir Canyon Road--full improvements of Weir Canyon Road at this point in time would require the installation of the water main for its full length as part of the customary improvements. There was no need either for the additional traffic lanes or for the Water system to be in the street at this point in time. City staff agreed with that, as did K&B's technical people. The Wallace people agreed there was no present need, but advised, unless such improvements were made now, or K&B committed to paying for both the full improvement of the road and for the installation of the water main to the southerly boundary of the property, they would not make the necessary grading easements available to K&B. Construction of a fully improved street at the location between the park and fire station site--City Traffic Engineer Paul Singer told them he saw no need for a road at that location at this time and would oppose the improvement until he had much more information as to the ultimate needs. Wallace Ranch was saying, unless K&B gave them that stub street fully improved, that they again would not cooperate and give the necessary grading easements. As of today, the necessary easements were not available to them. Mr. Winfield emphasized that they were asking that they be allowed to go forward with the Public Facility Plan as presented. It was only this morning when he saw the memorandum from Planning Director Thompson to the City Manager and Council (see memorandum dated November 21, 1983) regarding staff's position on the City using its police power of Eminent Domain to resolve the issue. K&B did not want the City to use th0se powers~ but they did not want to be in a position that would be to the detriment of both the City and K&B where their neighbors could hold the slope easements hostage. They wanted the Council to approve the Public Facility Plan consistent with staff recommendations and Mr. Singer's position, consistent with the street improvements on Weir Canyon being bonded and improved by K&B, with K&B agreeing to hold the City harmless as to the water main in Weir Canyon. They did not want to be in a position of paying for a water main that would benefit only the Wallace and Douglass people. In approving the Plan, they asked that the City recognize it would require them to acquire grading and slope easements from the Wallace Ranch and that they had the burden of accomplishing that. He would also ask that the plan reflect that if they showed that they 956 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. had made a good faith effort to either buy those slope easements or do other public improvements consistent with staff's approval and desire, but that Wallace Ranch had refused to agree to what the Council determined to be a fair and equitable offer, that the City support the public-private sector partnership in existence since 1981 and use their police powers to acquire those grading slope easements. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that the stub street under discussion was leading to a substantial piece of Wallace property that tentatively had been designated as a commercial parcel. In order to accommodate the trips generated by a commercial parcel, a comprehensive traffic study would have to be conducted to determine the trip distribution to and from the parcel and what function it would serve in possibly diverting trips from Serrano onto Monte Vista Road that could then lead to a deficiency in another arterial street that had tentatively been deleted from the proposed Oak Hill and Wallace Ranches to the east of Weir Canyon Road. There were a number of ramifications that entered into that short little street that could be dumping arterial-type traffic onto a local distribution road. Until such a study was conducted, it would be in the best interests of the City to have it as an access to the fire station with an adequate easement and a bond, should the street be necessary as a local access street only to the Wallace Ranch to be constructed ~t such a time as the study was completed for the entire circulation of the area. After additional discussion between Council and staff on the issues, Mr. Winfield stated they would be willing to bond the improvement of a ~ocal road at the location between the fire station and the park for a two-year period if there was a possibility that road was needed to serve the southerly property for residential uses as a local street. (Later in the meeting, Mr. Fick indicated that three years would be more appropriate.) After comments made by Robert Galloway, Senior Vice President of K&B, confirming that the street under construction was planned to be a residential-type street, the Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Roger Grable, Attorney, Rutan and Tucker, 611 Anton, Costa Mesa, representing the Wallace Ranch, reported that at the outset they stated that they would be willing to cooperate with K&B insofar as they might need slopes or what,vet wa~ necessary on their pr0pertie~ to accommodate their d~vel0pment plans in view of the regional context of the Plan. Mowever, what had come to pass was that their willingness to cooperate had been interpreted and represented to be binding commitments, whereas the revised Public Facilities Plan had been subject to change and many of the benefits they perceived in that Plan had now been requested to be deleted. He felt that was what had brought them to the impasse, the prime example being the 36-inch water main in Weir Canyon Road. Mr. Grable then elaborated on the two main points of disagreement as follows: 957 City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Thirty-six inch water line improvement in Weir Canyon Road--As they understood the staff recommendation, it would be requested that that line and the street improvements be bonded for at the present time and the City would have the opportunity to determine when the need for those improvements would occur and call those bonds. They were in agreement with that, but under K&B's interpretation, that need was to be demonstrated only in the event the City made the determination independent of the adjoining developments. The cost would then be pushed on to the Wallace Ranch totally, so that if they were to develop next, they would have to front the entire cost of that regional improvement. There had been no determination as to what extent, if any, of that line they would need. If there was a demonstrated need for something on the site, then the property owner should.put that in and they would be expecting to do that in the future, whether needed by someone else or not. It was pulling back from that policy that was the target of their objection. Fire station/park site stub road--They believed the improvements were going to be required and were concerned that by attempting to ignore the ultimate need, whatever it might be, and not make provision for it now in some fashion, that they were going to have some severe difficulties. As Councilwoman Kaywood mentioned, if the park improvements were going in and they subsequently had to come back at some future time and remove those, there would be considerable concern, because the residents would be there. He then asked their engineer to expand on their real concerns, not only with the determination as to the alignment, but also the need for the utilities to be sited at this time. Mr. Bruce Harrison, Williams and Schmid, Consulting Civil Engineers, working from the posted map, then spoke to the issue of the stub road between the park and fire station (also see his report dated November 14, 1983, to Rutan and Tucker, Job No. 76148--Comments, Bauer Ranch Public Facilities Plan--on file in the City Clerk's office) and the necessity for the road relative to the future circulation. The road should be established now and whether or not there was any commercial on Wallace Ranch was something that would have to be mitigated in another manner. They felt strongly that road was going to be required even if there were no development, just to serve Anaheim Hills and the other properties to the south. They were not asking for it to be built, only accounted for, so that there would be room for it. He clarified that he was talking about a total of 74 feet in width (64 feet between curbs), which would allow the same curb width as on Monte Vista Road, plus five feet on each side, in case the City should require a sidewalk. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like a stipulation made that if a wider street was required, and perhaps it would not be right at that location but on the other side of the park, that the Wallace Ranch reserve enough acreage so that the park would be whole, the size it was proposed to be at present, and that no development be proposed where later they would come back and say they were not aware of the situation. Mr. Grable stated they were going to have to come to the City with their plans and that the City would clearly have the authority to reserve that. He did not have the authority to'make that stipulation; however, the matter had been discussed and there was no problem with that concept on the part of the property owner. 958 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Harrison then clarified for the Mayor that they did not want to dump a highway into a residential area, but they had not set up a lot of things that were happening in the area. He reiterated what they were asking for was something that would not cost the Bauer development a penny. They were ensuring that they were going to get their entire park site, they were not asking them to improve the road, but to set aside the right-of-way in such a way that at least the options were open if it could be shown that it was necessary. Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, then clarified for the Mayor that the 36-inch water transmission line was a master planned project to serve the whole canyon area, including facilities and developments now within the City where there were presently some deficiencies in storage. They felt overall that facility needed to be built, but at this time the extension southerly in Weir Canyon Road would not provide any real benefit until they could get up to the reservoir. Mr. Grable then stated the final point of disagreement was on the issue of reimbursement agreements, their two fundamental concerns being they wanted to be able to participate in the benefit analysis that would necessarily have to occur at this stage of the proceedings before they were officially part of the process. The second thing was that while they recogdized there may be facilities provided that they would benefit from, they would also like recognition of the fact that they may be required to construct facilities which would benefit the property that was already being developed. They would like to have incorporated in that concept the idea of offsets, so that they could have the right to offset their regional Improvements. Staff indicated they agreed with that and would seek to have that incorporated into the resolution. He then gave Councilman Bay an example of what he meant relative to offsets. Mr. Fick then explained that the reimbursement agreements themselves were a subject of a future hearing, and the hearing today set the format of how the reimbursements themselves were calculated. In terms of the mechanism to set-off fees, the best that staff could represent at this time was, they were open-minded and would make a recommendation at the time they had an opportunity to analyze those and make a presentation to the Council in that regard; Mr. Grable stated that was all they were asking. Councilman Pickier stated as he understood, the only thing that was holding up K&B was the grading agreement they needed for the park and unless Wallace Ranch got all of the things they were talking about, they were not willing to give them that agreement; Mr. Grable stated, not at the present time, because there might be other ways they could resolve the differences. At this point, with all the unresolved issues, they were uncomfortable making a commitment and a binding agreement, which was what they were being asked to do. Councilman Pickler asked for clarification regarding the stub road, that if they got the 74 feet they were still not ready to give the easement; Mr. Grable stated if that issue was resolved, that would help them, and then the only remaining issue was that of the water line and whether it would be bonded for in the normal fashion or not. 959 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay stated that he did not like to see the Council put into the position of mediator of agreements between K&B and Wallace and Douglass and Oak Hills. He did not feel it was the position of the Council to be the mediation court they should come to, to resolve their differences. The intent of the Master Plan was to cover the whole developable area. He was not ready to okay the plan if there were questions still open between Wallace Ranch and K&B relative to the items discussed and hoped that both would settle the differences before the Council approved the Plan. The recommendation from staff was that those questions should be resolved before they okayed the Plan. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if she understood correctly, if a 74-foot portion was reserved, not necessarily a precise alignment, th~n Wallace was willing to reserve the equivalent acreage immediately contiguous to the park. She wanted to know if that was still a problem or if that had been resolved. Mr. Grable answered if that could be part of the approval, that was acceptable to them. Councilwoman Kaywood asked then if the only other issue was the water line; Mr. Grable answered that he thought so. Their understanding of the staff recommendation would be acceptable, but that was the point where they fell apart on the issue. There was no question about Wallace paying for the portion of the water line through their property. They were willing to pay whatever, the beneficial portion was for the portion that K&B was building at such time as they developed, whatever that beneficial share might be. Mayor Roth stated that would not include any portion from Santa Ana Canyon Road south to the property line; Mr. Grable stated that it would. He also clarified for Councilman Overholt that if K&B bonded for the construction of the water line, they would be satisfied, but he clarified further that his understanding of staff's recommendation was that they would bond for that water line at the present time. When there was a need demonstrated, the line would be constructed and subject to a reimbursement agreement. They were in accord with that, agreed with that and accepted it. K&B was saying, no, they would not bond for it to the extent there was a need, but to the extent that there was a need for it independent of the development of Wallace and Bauer Ranches. Mr. Grable concluded that relative to the condemnation issue, he felt in this situation they would be exercising that right purely for a private benefit. The Plan and those facilities could still be provided through proper planning. Mr. Bruce Harrison then stated he was asked by Mr. Jim Denehy of Oak Hills Ranch, who had to leave the meeting, to state that he had listened to Mr. Grable's presentation and was in favor of what he had said. In terms of the things that would affect him (Denehy), he was looking for regional planning, as opposed to individual project planning. Mr. Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, confirmed that it would be perfectly acceptable to have a full-width street if 960 City ~.1.1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. that was what was determined to be desirable, as long as the park land was replaced on the Wallace Ranch side. One of the reasons the park was located at its present site was that they planned, when park dedications were required on the Wallace Ranch, to ask for additional land on Wallace Ranch to fill that park site out as much as 10 acres in that location. They had told the Wallace Ranch people that was their desire. Mayor Roth then gave Mr. Galloway an opportunity to make his summation. After speaking to the issues, he (Galloway) stated they were present today to say that they had given their fair share and they would be prepared to live with whatever the Council determined on the issues. He reiterated they would live with whatever the Council directed, if Mr. Grable would say they would do the same thing. Mr. Winfield asked that they approve the Public Facilities Plan as proposed. They felt that Mr. Grable and his client would have to deal with the City in good faith if they wanted to become a part of the City and develop their property and that they would deal with them (K&B) once the Plan was approved, and would be able to provide the slope easement necessary to implement the development plan. They did not need the City's commitment to use the power of Eminent Domain, but were asking that they not foreclose that issue, and with that backup position, they would be able to resolve the situation. They were asking that they not be put in a position of paying for those that came before them, as well as paying for those who may come after them. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned with the sev~n years restriction on the return of the library site to K&B if construction of the library had not begun. She maintained that seven years could go by very quickly. Mr. Winfield stated if the commitment was that the property would be used for public utilities that served the residents of Bauer Ranch, he did not think they had any opposition, but would like a reservation so that it would never be sold off, for instance, for a gas station site. City Manager Talley stated they would take what Mr. Winfield just offered, that it be reserved for public use. Then, after questions posed by Councilman Pickler, Mr. Talley further explained that they were moving at the developer's timetable. Staff was not pressing the issue saying it was something Council had to decide today. If staff had their way, they would ask that the Council refer the matter back until the problems were solved. What they were being asked to do today was to approve a Plan that was a change from an existing Plan, creating a situation for which they were asking the Council to use their police powers. That was not the only alternative. If the Council said they were not going to do that and they (K&B) did not want to have to remain at the mercy of the Wallace Ranch, they then had the alternative of redesigning their plan and bringing in another Public Facilities Plan that would meet their obligations without creating the problems they were setting before the Council today. However, they wanted it done now. He did not want the Council to feel it was bound to solve the problems when there were other alternatives. They would not recommend using Eminent Domain for a number of reasons. 961 C.i.ty..Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Robert Galloway stated the need for the easement was caused by the realignment of Monte Vista and Weir Canyon Roads, which had been approved by the City. At the time they agreed to that, they were assured they would get easements. There was mention made at a meeting last week by the Wallace Ranch engineer that the slope easements would be made available. Mr. Fick had stated earlier that he had not heard that, but he (Galloway) believed the statement was made. Mr. James Ruth, Assistant City Manager and coordinator for the Bauer Ranch project, stated he was at the meeting where that statement was made by the representative of Wallace Ranch, but it was also indicated after the meeting it was questionable whether that person had the authority to make that kind of determination. Mr. Galloway reiterated they would settle for whatever the City Council decided. He just asked Mr. Grable if they built the water main now, would Wallace build the stub street, whatever or whenever it was going to be, if right-of-way was available to them. They had already reserved 54 feet, the City agreed they would make that width up to 78 feet if they required it. If they agreed they would put the water main in with the improvements now, which meant they would build all of Weir Canyon now, he asked if Mr. Grable would then accept the responsibility of the stub to their property. Mr. Grable stated his client had to make the decision. He could not do so, but it sounded good to him and he appreciated the offer. He would recommend it to his client, but he did not know what the answer would be. Mr. Galloway asked, if it was possible that that offer would be agreeable to their neighbors, to the south, could approval of the Plan be contingent on that; City Attorney William Hopkins stated under the circumstances, the matter should be continued until the situation could be fully worked out, because Mr. Grable did not have the authority to make the decision at this hearing. After additional discussion relative to the ramifications of a continuance of the matter, a decision on the issue was trailed to allow Mr. Grable an opportunity to try to reach his client. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:55 p.m.) Mr. Grable stated he talked to his client and he was amenable to the solution Mr. Galloway suggested with the understanding that the rest of the recommendations of staff, as discussed, were going to go forward, including the ability of the staff in the planning of that park not to encroach if that right-of-way should ultimately be needed. Regarding the stub street, the staff indicated in their planning for the park facility they would not design improvements that would necessarily preclude that right-of-way from being widened if required. It was basically reserving it as part of the City's 962 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1983, 10:00 A.M. planning process and they would do the same. If the property was needed, they would reserve for planning purposes the ability to shift that onto their property if they needed it. Councilman Bay asked if that was a 78-foot right-of-way; Mr. Grable answered whatever the staff would recommend, 78 feet or 74 feet. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Joel Fick then confirmed the staff recommendation that the Plan be approved as recommended by staff and there were five items that were actually change items that should be incorporated in the Public Facilities Plan based upon the discussions today and the resolution just reached. Those were the items summarized on Page 10 of the staff report, which he recapped as follows: The first item should read in the amended Public Facilities Plan that the developer will rough grade the 54-foot wide right-of-way located between the park and fire station sites in lieu of providing full improvement. The second item was acceptable to staff, because K&B would be bonding for that improvement of Weir Canyon Road. The third item, the water main installation in Weir Canyon Road, that was not now an issue, but the Plan should be amended to include that K&B would be either installing or bonding for the installation of that water main facility. The fourth item--any reference to the reconveyance provisions addressing the library site should be deleted, as agreed to by K&B. The fifth issue was a non-issue, since it was not raised by the SAVI Ranch today. Mr. Fick then amplified on the library site for Councilman Pickler. Relative to the library, the reconveyance provision which was requested by K&B if construction of the library was not commenced in seven years would be deleted in the Plan, but staff would incorporate language saying that they were amenable to recording a deed or some type of covenant against the property to use it for a public purpose, if it was not used as a library site. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve, with modifications, the specific Public Facilities Plan for the development of Bauer Ranch, Revision No. 2, including implementation programs, submitted by Kaufman and Broad, Inc., as originally approved on March 17, 1981 and subsequently amended by the City Council on August 16, 1983 (Water System only), based on an agreement reached between Wallace Ranch and Kaufman and Broad regarding necessary easements for implementation of the Plan, subject to the four points as articulated by staff. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. p.m.) (6:00 963 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:27 p.m.) APPOINTMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD: Councilman Roth moved to support Councilman Pickler for appointment to the Orange County Transit District Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:28 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK Councilman Bay seconded the 964