Suit Could Delay Arena a Full Year : Sports complex: Opponents threaten to sue Anaheim over zoning, environmental approvals. A basketball franchise and a 1991 completion date would be jeopardized.

Opening day for the city’s proposed $85-million indoor sports arena could be delayed a full year and negotiations for a basketball franchise jeopardized if arena opponents file a lawsuit as they have threatened, Mayor Fred Hunter said Wednesday.

Hunter said the apparent intention of Anaheim Stadium Associates (ASA), a partnership involving Rams owner Georgia Frontiere, is to sue the city over its recent zoning and environmental approvals for the arena. He said that could delay construction six months, long enough to miss the opening of the 1991-92 basketball season.

City officials had hoped to begin construction in February and open the 20,000-seat arena by October, 1991.

In a Jan. 9 letter to the city, ASA said it would sue if officials did not correct alleged flaws in the arena’s environmental impact report, said William D. Ross, the partnership’s attorney.

According to Hunter, a lawsuit would delay construction long enough that the arena would not be ready to open until the 1992-93 basketball season, a factor he said that could also hamper efforts to attract a professional sports franchise to Anaheim.

Hunter was confident the city would prevail in a legal challenge, but he said the arena project would suffer from the delay.

“If we get sued and it takes six months (in court), the arena won’t be ready until the 1992 season,” Hunter said. “We’re going to lose a whole year.”

In the Jan. 9 letter, ASA formally asked the City Council to reconsider its rezoning and environmental approvals of the arena, which would be located near Anaheim Stadium.

The request was made on behalf of the ASA partnership, which is already embroiled in an eight-year legal battle with the city over rights to develop the stadium parking lot.

Ross said Wednesday that he does not expect the council to agree to rehear the arena issues. He said the rehearing request is necessary in order to file a lawsuit challenging the council’s Dec. 27 vote that cleared the way for arena construction.

The Los Angeles Rams also intend to file a petition for a rehearing of the council actions, Rams’ attorney Peter Scolney said Wednesday. Scolney said the Rams have not determined whether to sue the city, although the petition will keep that option open.

“We’re not burning any bridges,” Scolney said.

A spokeswoman for the Anaheim city clerk’s office said ASA’s request for rehearing probably will be brought before the council at its Jan. 23 meeting. ASA has 30 days from Dec. 28 to file a suit challenging the environmental impact report.

According to the report, portions of Anaheim Stadium’s parking lot would be used for parking for the arena, located northeast of the stadium at Katella Avenue and Douglass Road, within walking distance.

In his letter, Ross asserted that the council did not provide a fair hearing on the arena or provide adequate time for the public to review the environmental report.

Ross said city officials also gave inadequate consideration to an existing earthquake fault and underground pipeline carrying petroleum products in the vicinity. Moreover, Ross maintained, the council did not adopt a required general plan amendment to permit arena construction.

Hunter said he hopes that ASA “sits down at the table with us before bringing a lawsuit.”

A 1983 suit by the California Angels sought to prevent ASA from developing high-rise buildings in the stadium parking lot. ASA maintained that it had purchased rights to development from the city when the Rams moved to Anaheim from Los Angeles.

Under a court order signed a year ago, high-rise parking garages were banned, but some development on the 146-acre parking lot was permitted. The city and ASA appealed the entire ruling, while the Angels appealed it in part to seek clarification of what areas may be developed, according to Angels’ Executive Vice President Michael Schreter.

Schreter said the Angels also have concerns about the effects of traffic that would be generated by the arena.

“We’re very concerned with some provisions” of the arena proposal, Schreter said. “But we’re promised (by the city) our concerns will be addressed and satisfied.”

Capanula Properties, owner of the Green Tree Mobile Home Park immediately to the north of the arena site, also has indicated it may sue to block the project because of the impact the arena would have on residents.