1994/08/09City Hall~ ~abeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 199~ - 5=00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau~-
PLANNING.DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
CIVIL ENGINEER-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Meeks
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:00 p.m. on August 5, 1994 at the CiVic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session noting first that there are no additions to Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: David Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters Assoc.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of case: Golden West Baseball v. City of Anaheim et al.,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of case: Rosendale vs. Moore, et al. Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 72-72-57.
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - ~XISTING LITIGATION:
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency v. Draugs et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 72-89-57.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property: Southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Clementine
Street (3.2 acres)
Negotiating Parties: Disney Goals, Inc., DCSR, Inc., Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency;
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of sale.
6. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (ANNUAL REVIEW):
Title: City Attorney
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:05 p.m.)
446
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting .to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:18 p.m.)
INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - JAPANESE STUDENTS FROM MITO JAPAN:
June Lowry, Sister Cities Committee, introduced the exchange students from
Anaheim's sister city, Mito, Japan who were present in the chamber audience
along with their teacher, Junko Nagishi.
Ms. Nagishi expressed sincere thanks to the May6r and the people of Anaheim
for the opportunity given them to participate in the exchange program and also
many thanks to the exchange families for their hospitality and kindness. They
have been excited to learn as much as possible about America, its culture and
values. Without the Council's kind cooperation, this exchange would not be
possible. She thereupon presented a letter and plaque from Hiroshi Okata, the
Mayor of Mito to Mayor Daly.
Mayor Daly accepted the message and plaque and on behalf of the Council and
the City, welcomed the delegation of exchange students and their teacher. The
exchange program has been an integral part of the Sister Cities Program.
Before concluding, Mrs. Lowry briefed the audience on the program and what
takes place during the students' stay in Anaheim.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the manager, coaches
and members of the District 46 Little League Softball All Stars recognizing
their outstanding accomplishment in becoming league champions. Mayor Daly and
Council Members congratulated the managers, coaches and players:
Manager, Paul Moute, Coaches Jim Liberio and Len Swavely and Players:
Danielle Aldrich, Kaylee Barr, Carrie Cheever, Katrina Enriquez, Crystal
Hildebrand, Daniela Maldonado, Nicole Mango, Dorian Newman, Allyson
Perry, Elizabeth Pierce, Megan Ramos, Linda Salazar, Torie Tackett,
Catherine Tout, Annelise Vanschoelandt.
119% DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and after an introduction by Mark
Deven, Recreation/Community Services Supervisor, the Declaration was presented
to the Devil Pups Program representatives and graduates - Sgt. Ed Kostiuk and
graduates, David Galvan, Mike Avina, Eliasis Estrada, Mario Rivera, Alex
Sanchez, Josue Iraheta and Erick i. Arellano N[no. Sgt. Kostiuk gave a
briefing on what the program entails and the rigorous schedule and work that
has to be accomplished by the young man in the program.
Mayor Daly and Council Members congratulated Sgt. Kostluk and the graduates
noting that the program is a very positive one for the youth of the community.
119: THE FOLLOWING RECOGNITION WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY' COUNCIL THIS DATE
TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME:
Proclamation recognizing August 4-14, 1994, as Circus Days in Anaheim
447
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,794,448.82 in
accordance with the 1994-95 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:42 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the meeting of the City Council for a joint meeting with
the Redevelopment Agency/City Council and Community-Redevelopment Commission.
Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Commission, Paul McMillan called the
commission to order. Commission Members present: Paul McMillan, Paul
Bostwick, Thomas Holguin, Bob Linn, Cheryl Perreira, Mary Ruth Pinson, Doug
Renner. Commission Members absent: None.
1. 161: 5:00 P.M. CONTINUED JOINT MEETING - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY
COUNCIL/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE
PROPOSED RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT:
This hearing was continued from the meeting of August 2, 1994, to this date.
The Public Hearing portion was closed at the meeting of August 2, 1994 (see
minutes of that date).
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She re-
introduced the item noting that it was continued from the meeting of August 2,
1994 to this date. She noted that at approximately 3:57 p.m. today, a letter
from Augustini and Wheeler was received, faxed to the City Clerk's office in
connection with the public hearing and copied for the Council, Agency and
Commission Members, (made a part of the record).
Mayor/Chairman Daly asked to hear from the City Attorney regarding the letter
received.
City Attorney Jack White. He has reviewed the contents of the letter and
because the public participation portion of the hearing was closed last
Tuesday, has deemed that the letter is untimely and under the requirements of
applicable law, need not be responded to nor should it be considered as part
of the hearing.
Mayor/Chairman Daly asked to hear from the Executive Director of Community
Development.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of ComMunity Development. She briefed the
joint meeting on some of the actions staff has taken since last week's
meeting. They have prepared documents and submitted them to the
Agency/Council/Commission as part of their regular agenda packet. Most of the
items reflect a change due to the proposed change in the name of the project
simplifying it to the Anaheim Stadium Recovery Project, There are als0 other
minor changes as noted in the staff report. She also submitted for the record
written responses to written objections in the form of Exhibit A to the
resolution being proposed for adoption by the Council and Agency. She then
briefed the findings as contained in Exhibit A (made a part of the record)
pages 1-3, regarding the following: claim of inadequate notice, claim of
inclusion, claim of improper interference, claim of failure to comply with
CEQA, claim of failure to show that the plan is consistent with. the general
plan and claim of improper reallocation of tax increment funds.
448
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
She then summarized the oral objections voiced at the previous meeting
consolidating them into general areas of concern. Several questions and
comments were put forth relating to the need for the project area, the timing
of the disaster and when the repairs were completed and the need to go forward
beyond the disaster repairs and dealing with long term problems, retention or
addition of a sports franchise and was it appropriate to look at that issue.
The need to go forward as soon as possible was to mitigate losses of revenue
and to comply with contractual obligations. There is no limitation on the
project, once it.is adopted, to only deal with the disaster and when adopted
becomes a redevelopment area. It would be short sighted for the Agency not to
use the plan as a partial tool to assist the City in the real challenges it
faces today and in the future. The objectives are appropriate and fully
allowed under state law.
Relative to the reallocation of taxes, economic"feasibility and amount of
funds actually needed, disaster law provides for redistribution of property
taxes just as any other redevelopment project. The current tax base still
goes to those tax entities. The Agency must pay a specific portion of the new
tax increment to all the taxing agencies as defined by the redevelopment law
effective January 1, 1994.
Relative to the report to the Council, it is a feasibility analysis as to
whether the project makes sense economically. The report is not intended to
address any future plans which may result from other land use action and the
economic analysis the C~ty is currently undertaking. Relative to surrounding
parcels not needing redevelopment, she re-emphasized that the only portion of
the area being considered for the Disaster Project designation is the Stadium
and City owned parcels.
Mayor/Chairman Daly asked if there were any questions of Council, Agency or
Commission Members. If none, the separate bodies will now take action on the
matters before them.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION:
MOTION: Commission Member Bostwick moved to approve the modification to the
Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Re-Entry
and Preferences by Business Occupants in the Anaheim Stadium Project and
recommending that the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency approve and adopt said
Rules. Commission Member Renner seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Commission Member Holquin moved to approve a revised report to City
Council on the Proposed Recovery Plan for the Anaheim Stadium Project and
authorizing submittal of the Report to the City Council. Commissioner
Perreira seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Linn offered Resolution No. CRC94-6 for adoption approving and
adopting the Recovery Plan for the Anaheim Stadium Project, and recommending
City Council approval. Commi3sioner Holquin seconded the offering of the
resolution. The resolution was adopted all ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. CRC94-6: (COMM REDEV COMM) APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT, AND RECOmmENDING. CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL.
449
City Hall, Anaheim, Californ~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY~
Agency Member Daly offered Resolutions ARA94-11 through ARA94-14, both
inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA94-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FINDING THAT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT IS EXEMPT, BY STATUTE, FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA94-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING AND ADOPTING RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCES BY
PROPERTY OWNERS AND RE-ENTRY AND PREFERENCES BY BUSINESS OCCUPANTS IN THE
ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA94-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT, AND
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA94-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND
MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE
PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. ARA94-11 throuqh ARA94R-14, both inclusive,
for adoption:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA94-11 through ARA94-14, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
CITY COUNCIL:
Council Member Daly offered Resolutions 94R-185 through 94R-188, both
inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-185: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RECEIVING THE PROPOSED RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT
AND THE AGENCY'S REPORT ON THE RECOVERY PLAN.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-186: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING THAT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT IS EXEMPT, BY STATUTE, FROM
THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-187: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE ANAHEIM STADIUM
PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF
LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT
TO THE PROJECT.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-188: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM OVERRULING ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE
TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND OVERRULING SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE
RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ~AHEIM STADIUM PROJECT.
450
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9~ 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 94R-185 throuqh 94R-188, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 94R-185 through 94R-188, both inclusive,
duly passed and .adopted.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5442 as an urgency ordinance for
adoption approving and adopting the Recovery Plan for the Anaheim Stadium
Project. Refer to Ordinance Book.
City attorney Jack White then read Ordinance 5442 in full.
ORDINANCE NO. 5442 (URGENCY): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
AND ADOPTING THE RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5442 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL.MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5442 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT - COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Chairman McMillan moved to
adjourn the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting. Commissioner Linn
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:34 p.m.)
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
5:00 P.M. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL:
2. 123: DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH DISC MANUFACTURINGr INC.:
To consider adopting a Resolution approving the Disposition and Development
Agreement (in final form) by and among the City of Anaheim, the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, and Disc Manufacturing, Inc.
Submitted was joint report dated August 9, 1994 from the Community Development
Department and Utilities Department recommending approval of the Disposition
and Development Agreement. The report gave the background of the proposal as
well as a discussion and a summary of the Agreement.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development first noted the
actions that were to be taken by the Council/Agency on the subject and
subsequently highlighted the Agreement (see summary as contained in Staff
Report of August 9, 1994). She also summarized what the Utilities Department
is contributing to the proposal.
Mayor/Chairman Daly opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone
who wished to speak on the subject Disposition and Development Agreement with
Disc Manufacturing, Inc.
No one spoke either in favor or in opposition.
Mayor/Chairman Daly closed the public hearing.
451
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Agency Member Daly offered Resolution ARA94-15 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA94-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND DISC
MANUFACTURING INC., AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote on.Resolution.No. ARA94-15 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA94-15 ddly passed and adopted.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-189 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE APPROVAL BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) BY AND AMONG THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND DISC MANUFACTURING INC., AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-189 for adoption=
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-189 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Agency Member Pickler moved to approve the DDA, in substantially
final form, by and among the City, the Agency and DMI, with such changes as
are in substantial conformance with the attached Agreement. Agency Member
Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
5:00 P.M. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL:
3. 123: DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, DISNEY GOALS, INC., AND DCSR, INC.,; AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS; AND
APPROVING BASIC CONCEPT DRAWINGS:
To consider adopting a Resolution approving the Disposition and Development
Agreement (in final form) by and among the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency,
Disney GOALS, Inc., and DCSR, Inc., and making certain findings in connection
therewith; and approving the Basic Concept Drawings, conditioned on review and
approval of landscape plans, related to the Community Ice Rink.
Submitted was report dated August 9, 1994 from the Community Development
Department, Lisa Stipkovich, outlining a number of technical and clarifying
revisions made to the version of the Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) which was submitted in the Council/Agency agenda packet. (See items 1-17
on page 1 and 2 of the report.)
Submitted for today's meeting was Supplemental Staff Report dated August 9,
1994, also from Lisa Stipkovich.
452
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Lisa Stipkovich. This is a joint public hearing which is required by
redevelopment law wherever a disposition or sale of land is involved. She
then gave a brief overview of the terms of the agreement (DDA) by and between
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Disney GOALS, Inc., and DCSR, Inc.). She also
briefed the analysis of the summary provided by Keyser Marston Associates,
Inc. It shows that the Agency has expended approximately $3.4 million in
acquiring this site and off site improvements and also parking either in a
structure or flat parking to accommodate the use. A-total of $4.3 million was
then used to establish the amount of services Disney would have to provide
ongoing to the City for 30 years. She then explained the process that was
followed.
in concluding, she stated staff is recommending that the Agreement be adopted.
The project is not only economically sound in terms of services being provided
in exchange for the land but also, believes it Gill be the catalyst for other
development in downtown, and complements the other commercial and civic uses.
She also pointed out that approval of building materials should have been
included. That item is being added at this time.
Bruce Berg, Director of Development and President of Disney GOALS, commented
that this is a project they have been working on for over a year. They are
very excited about the prospect of building the ice rink in downtown Anaheim.
As with all Disney projects, they place emphasis on the quality of service
they provide and the quality of design. They hired the Frank Gehry Firm,
Frank Gehry and Associates, world famous architects. He then gave the
background of the project from its inception to date.
David Wilke, Founder of the Disney GOALS Program. He explained the ground
work he laid since he has been in the City visiting various neighborhoods and
promoting the program. The idea of working in troubled neighborhoods is what
they are doing - in Jeffrey Lynne, Ponderosa Park and Guinida Lane. Those are
the areas they are going intc the first year. His extensive presentation
covered the specifics of the program.
Michael Kellerman, Firm of Frank Gehry & Associates. The rink is intended to
be as dynamic as the program Disney is trying to institute. He then briefed
the plans working from the posted exhibits, site plans, elevations and the
interior. A model was also displayed. It is a dual rink facility with an NHL
size rink and an olympic size rink and will include a pro shop, a large sky
lit lobby, skate rental and snack bar. They are also trying to preserve views
into both of the rinks. He then explained the signage and the building
materials. The exterior of the building will be aluminum which is etched and
has a clear anodizing. It will have a certain amount of brightness to it.
(He showed a sample of the material to be used.) Mr. Kellerman then explained
for Mayor/Chairman Daly that the anodizing is intended to preserve the
longevity of the material allowing what is considered a life time quality,
perhaps for 25 years. It should be low maintenance and preserve the
appearance of the building throughout its life.
Mayor/Chairman Daly open the public hearing.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He is wondering how parking demands are
intended to be satisfied since the proposal is a parking intensive use and
will it leave sufficient parking for the satellite campus of a local academic
institution proposed on a nearby parcel. Further, they are trading a piece of
land with a value of $4.3 million for programs over time. He asked what
mechanisms exist in the agreements to assure that there will be the ability to
provide those programs for the full time.
453
City Hall, ~-~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 199~ - 5~00 P.M.
Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid Avenue, Anaheim. He asked if this will have any
economic impact on the new skating rink located on Cerritos. Also is Disney
going to own the property and is the $4.3 million going to part of the
property tax base plus the cost of construction. If so, he feels the proposal
is a good one.
Andy Jimenez, Anaheim Police Department. He represents the Anaheim HEAT, a
hockey team made up of Anaheim fire fighters and police officers. He
explained the goal of.the Anaheim HEAT is to introduce hockey to the youth of
Anaheim and, in addition, raise money for children's organizations and the
youth of the community to combat gangs and drugs. (He submitted an
explanation sheet signed by Fire Chief Jeff Bowman.) After explaining some
details of the program, he confirmed that Anaheim HEAT is in support of the
Disney GOALS and the proposed community ice rink.
William Taormina, P.O. Box 209, Anaheim. He expressed how happy he was over
the project proposed today. He has lived in Anaheim for 43 years, owns
property in the City and lives within a few blocks of the site of the ice
rink. He obtained all the public information on the project and shared it
with 400 people at a July 4th block party attended by area residents. He then
read the letter which he subsequently submitted to the Council, the first
sentence of which stated, "It is with a great deal of pride and anticipation
that I express to you my absolute support of the Disney GOALS Project slated
for downtown Anaheim."
Mayor/Chairman Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor/Chairman Daly. Mr. Taormina's comments reflect a lot of what he has
heard relative to the proposed project. It is going to be a real milestone
for all of the City and the beginning of many good things that are going to
happen.
The architect then answered questions posed by Council/Agency Members relative
to uses, signage, parking, etc.
Lisa Stipkovich then answered questions posed by members of the public
relative to adequacy of parking, how they are going to insure that services
will be provided for the 30 year term, and the property tax issue noting that
the property is going to be on the tax rolls which will reflect the land value
and improvements. She then answered additional questions posed by the
Mayor/Chairman relative to hardscape and landscape and additional questions
relative to parking. She emphasized that the hardscape and landscape issues
will be coming back at a later date as well as the other matters discussed.
All they are asking for tonight is approval of the basic concept drawings and
added to that approval of the specific building materials.
Agency Member Pickler offered Resolution ARA94-!6 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA94-!6: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, DISNEY GOALS, INC, AND DCSR,
INC., AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS iN CONNECTION HEREWITH.
454
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. ARA94-16 for adoption:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA94-16 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Pickler offered. Resolution 94-190 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE APPROVAL OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND AMONG THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, DISNEY GOALS, INC, AND DCSR, INC., AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION HEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-190 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-190 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Agency Member Pickler moved to approve the basic concept drawings
related to the community ice rink including the proposed building materials as
explained and shown by the architects representative. Agency Member Daly
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Council meeting was then recessed until after the conclusion of the
Redevelopment Agency Meeting and the meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority.
(7:30 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (7:32 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Tony Zanini, owner of property at 2134 Acama Street, Anaheim. He submitted a
petition signed by 60 owners and residents to stop the sale of alcohol at the
Circle K store, 500 W. Orangewood, Anaheim (made a part of the record). He
then read the heading of the petition which noted that the residents and
property owners, "... are being harassed by loiterers who purchase alcohol at
the store and then consume it on the adjoining sidewalk and streets." They
are not residents of the area but they are taking control of the neighborhood.
Residents are afraid to walk in the neighborhood at night. They are asking
for Council's help.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to work with the Police Chief to gather
information about the amount of crime in the neighborhood and some of the
background details on the street and report back to the Council with their
findings.
City Manager Ruth. He will discuss the matter with the Police Chief and get
back to Mr. Zanini as quickly as possible, probably within the next 48 hours.
455
City Hallr Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~ Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There was discussion on Agenda Items A9; All-
Al2 and A15-16 (see discussion under those items).
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to waive reading in full of all
ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of August
9, 1994. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the following items.were approved
in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 94R-191 through 94R-193, both inclusive, for
adoption. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5440 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Judy F. Huitt for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 25, 1994.
b. Claim submitted by Robert Rickard for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 4, 1994.
c. Claim submitted by Carolyn Stoffel for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 27, 1994.
d. Claim submitted by Maureen Cecile Walsh for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 18, 1994.
e. Claim submitted by Oscar Humberto Castaneda, c/o Murray Rosenberg,
Esq. for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about April 28, 1994.
f. Claim submitted by Kenneth Paul Nadrasky for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 28, 1993.
g. Claim submitted by William & Karen LeBlanc for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 4, 1994.
Claims recommended to be accepted:
a. Claim submitted by Jeff Weaver for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 6, 1994.
b. Claim submitted by Jeremy Dunkln~on, c/o Max B. De Liema for bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
June 3, 1994.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Park and Recreation
ComMission meeting held June 22, 1994.
140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical
Report for the month of June, 1994, and for the fiscal year 1993/1994.
456
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board for
June 22, 1994.
A3. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Griffith
Company, in the amount of $1,591,828.24 for Harbor Boulevard Street and Storm
Drain Improvements - La Palma Avenue to the Riverside Freeway; and in the
event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding
the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities
in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
Don Parsons, 700 W. Juliana Street, Anaheim. It indicates the project will
run from the middle of next month to February 1995 which will create a major
traffic disturbance for their neighborhoods. He would like to know if this is
the anticipated Harbor Widening Project or a prelude to the future one. They
would like to go through the disturbance only ohce if possible.
Mayor Daly. He received Mr. Parsons phone call on the design of the widening
and passed the question on to City staff. This afternoon, he and Council
Member Pickler attended a meeting with Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and
City Engineer and John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager and the issue
came up. He stated that Mr. Lower will be calling him (Parsons) on the
question.
Mr. Parsons. He invited staff to meet with them on September 7th at the
Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council meeting. He clarified that they are
interested in the design and construction details as well as how the project
will link up to the 91 Freeway widening and if it could be delayed so there
will not have to be more than one project.
Mayor Daly. He asked the staff to meet with Mr. Parsons on the matter.
A4. 000: ORDINANCE NO. 5440 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SUBSECTIONS .010 AND .030 OF SECTION 17.32.070 OF CHAPTER 17.32 OF
TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION FEE CREDITS.
(To allow credit for construction and dedication at the same discounted
percentage of the actual cost fee established by Council.) (Introduced at the
meeting of August 2, 1994, Item A4.)
A5. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-191: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO
ALLOCATE COMBINED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $556,650 FOR
THE KRAEMER BOULEVAPJD/LA PALMA AVENUE CRITICAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.
A6. 123: Approving a Cooperative Agreement with the Cities of Buena Park and
La Palma which sets forth the design, construction, and implementation
obligations for' a coordinated system of signalized intersections along
La Palma Avenue from Woodland Drive to the I-5 Freeway.
A7. 160: Accepting the low bid of ACPC c/o Matzinger-Keegan, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $81,400 for 100,000 feet of 653.9 KCMIL greased ACSR
wire, in accordance with Bid #5294.
A8. 160: Accepting the bid, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a
purchase order to General Paving Company, in the amount of $21,985 for the
excavation and installation of a parking lot on Clementine and Harbor Place.
457
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
A9. 177: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for an
application for 222 units under the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program and
Rental Certificate Program.
AiO. 123: Approving a Third Amendment to Agreement with the Community Care
Network to provide professional services relative to the City's self-
administered workers' compensation claims program, in the form of hospital
utilization review and hospital specified rates, for-the period of July 1,
1994 to June 30, 1996.
Ail. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-192: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFICATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE
UTILITIES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL 47, EFFECTIVE FROM JULY 2, 1993,"THROUGH DECEMBER 28, 1995.
Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid Avenue, Anaheim. He has spoken on every employment
contract that has come before the Council and in each case he believes all the
raises were approved unanimously. He understands this does not affect the
General Fund but it does affect the cost to the citizen in Anaheim. In this
case, it is his opinion that water and electric bills will go up. He does
considerable surveys and tries to compare fairness and equity issues. This is
not consistent. He feels it important to discuss total compensation with all
items factored in. There is a lack of fairness and equity in what he sees the
City doing compared to other cities, the private sector, and the school
district, and he is not pleased.
Willie Stewart, representing Local 47 of IBEW, 600 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard,
Diamond Bar. He first commented on some of the issues broached by Mr.
Knypstra noting that the union members had not had a raise for three years.
The agreement finally negotiated is a good one. It is a compromise. The
people represented by the agreement deserve the wage increase that is being
granted. He is present to urge the Council to approve this item and also Item
Al2. A great deal of work and effort was expended by a lot of people. They
appreciate the effort, leadership and initiative shown by City Manager Ruth in
bringing the bargaining to a conclusion. Most of all he appreciates the union
members.
Al2. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-193: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 47 AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(Provides for no layoffs under the provisions of Article 30, Layoff and
Reemployment prior to October 1, 1995.)
Al3. 123: Approving Agreements with the firms of Kutak Rock and Lewis,
White, Clay, Mallory & Srown-Curtis, (collectively "Bond Counsel") for bond
counsel services, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their
meeting of July 7, 1994.
Al4. 123: Approvi.ng the Engineering Services Agreement with Geonex Vernon
Graphics, in the amount of $158,919 for conversion of hand-drawn water and
electrical system maps to digital AutoCAD drawings.
Al5. 123: Waiving Council Policy 401, and approving a professional
consulting agreement with Deloitte and Touche for an amount not to exceed
$120,000, plus reimbursable expenses for Anaheim Stadium
renovation/construction feasibility study.
458
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He asked where the expenses would be
paid from - the Redevelopment Project, General Fund or Stadium Fund; City
Manager Ruth answered on both counts (Items Al5 and Al6) that they are not
general funded but will come out of the Stadium Reserve Account. There will
be no impact on the General Fund. In the event they go forward with Item Al6,
sometime in the future this will come from the Stadium Reserve Fund.
Al6. 152: Authorizing the Planning Director to solicit proposals from
qualified firms .for professional_consulting services to prepare a land use
strategy plan and necessary environmental analysis for the Stadium Area.
Al7. 123: Making a finding in accordance with CEQA, that EIR No. 270 was
previously certified by the City Council; and, approving a cost-sharing
agreement (the City's share would be approximately $124,000) with the United
States of America, Army Corps of Engineers to c6nstruct Streambed Protection
consisting of rock revetment along a 500 foot area which is located on the
south bank of Walnut Canyon Creek, located within the Anaheim Hills Public
Golf Course; and authorizing the City Manager to execute said Agreement.
Al8, 123: Approving an Attorney Services Agreement with John J. Curtis for
services as special legal counsel relating to possessory interest tax issues
involving the City.
Al9. 114: Approving minutes of the City Council meeting held June 28, 1994.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 94R-191 throuqh 94R-193, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME~EERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 94R-191 through 94R-193, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5440 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5440 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A20. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE ANAHEIM PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL:
Appointing one member to the Anaheim Private Industry Council (PIC) to
represent the Community Based Organization category for a term of three years;
and appointing Mr. Tony Adams as PIC Chair for a term of one year.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to appoint Matt Cunningham to the Private
Industry Council representing the Community Based Organization category as
recommended in memorandum dated August 9, 1994 from Marge Pritchard, JTP
Manager for a three year term. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
459
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to appoint Mr. Tony Adams as PIC Chair for
a one year term as recommended in. memorandum dated August 9, 1994 from the JTP
Manager. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A21. 148: VOTING REPRESENTATIVES - CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 1994:
Designating a voting representative for the California League of Cities
meeting to be held October 25, 1994, in Long Beach.--
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved that Mayor Daly be the voting
representative for the annual California League of Cities meeting to be held
October 25, 1994 and Council Member Feldhaus be the alternate voting
representative. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A22. 105: APPOINTMENT TO FILL UNSCHEDULED VACANCY - PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD:
Appointment to fill the unscheduled vacancy created by the untimely
passing of Bob Kazarian, term ending 6-30-97.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to continue the subject appointment for two
weeks. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED
ITEM B1 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JULY 21, 1994: DECISION
DATE: JULY 28, 1994 INFORM3%TION ONLY - APPE~_L PERIOD ENDS ~3GUST 12, 1994
Bi.
179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0094:
OWNER: Baltazar, Julieta & Cecilia Urrea, 2424 West Gramercy Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: Mike Moser, 14344 Anaconda Street, Whittier, CA 90603
LOCATION: 2424 West Gramercy Avenue. To construct an exterior balcony
to the second floor addition, with waiver of side yard setback.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 0094 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 94-19).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
B2. 179: ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 93-94-12 located at 131-135 West Elm Street from the ML
zone to the RM-1200 zone. (Introduced at the meeting of August 2, 1994, item
B12.)
Council Member Simpson offered Ordinance No. 5441 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5441: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A/~ENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING
(RECLASSIFICATION NO. 93-94-12).
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5441 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5441 duly passed and adopted.
460
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The City Attorney announced that it is appropriate at this time for all those
intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be
sworn in at this time.
Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise
their right hand. The oath was then given.
D1. 155: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-01 (INCLUDING ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN)
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: B.U. Patel, Tushar Patel, Mayur B. Patel, Katella Partnership,
Haster Partnership, Kash Partnership, TSB Crystal Partnership, c/o
Tarsadia Inc., 650 Town Center Drive, Ste. 1910, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
AGENT: Elfend & Associates, Inc. 610 Newport Center Drive, #1290,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1742 and 1754 S.
Clementine Street, 1730, 1733, 1743 and 1755 S. Zeyn Street, 1733 and
1745 S. Anaheim Boulevard and 201 W. Katella Avenue.
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-01: Request for consideration and adoption of a
Specific Plan for the proposed Hotel Circle Specific Plan which includes
450 rooms with accessory land uses (which may included a 15,000-square
foot dinner theater) within two (2) hotel buildings located immediately
adjacent to three (3) previously approved hotels containing 653 rooms
for a total of 1,103 rooms. Incorporated within the Specific Plan is a
Public Facilities Plan which consists of maps and text setting forth the
proposed infrastructure and public facilities.
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDAP~S: Request for adoption of
zoning and development standards and design guidelines to set forth
standards, procedures and guidelines for the development of hotels and
other related uses within the Specific Plan area. Property is
approximately 6.8 acres with frontages of approximately 246 feet on the
east side of Clementine Street, 576 feet on the west side of Zeyn
Street, 100 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street, 285 feet on the west
side of Anaheim Boulevard, and 254 feet on the north side of Katella
Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval to City Council with changes to conditions of
approval for Specific Plan 93-01 (including Zoning and Development
Standards, Design Guidelines and a Public Facilities Plan) (PC94-76) (6
yes votes, i absent).
Recommended approval to City Council of Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of June 28, 1994, Item B3.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 28,1994
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 28, 1994
Posting of property - July 29, 1994
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 3, 1994.
Mayor Daly. Before moving to the Public Hearing, he asked staff to summarize
what the con~unication has been on the project as well as staff.
recommendation.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He first explained the items before the Council
for approval tonightl The project has been the subject of two lengthy
461
City Hall, ~--heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5500 P.M.
hearings before the Planning Commission (see Planning Commission minutes of
the hearing of May 16th and'June 13, 1994). He then described the specifics
of the project. He noted that the Planning Commission discussed in detail the
proposed development standard~ and design guidelines to insure this would be a
quality planned development. Staff is in agreement with the development
standards as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Communications they had with representatives of Hotel Circle revolved around
five basic areas: (1) Terms and conditions regarding existing hotels on site.
The two existing-hotels-are.not subject to .the--.mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures and the mitigation program apply to all unconstructed
components of the project. (2) Parameters of the hydrology study. The
applicant is desirous of doing a development by development study rather than
an overall study for hydrology prior to the first building being constructed.
Staff recommends that condition remain unchanged. (3) Installation of
landscape piping for potential future reclaimed"water. The City believes it
important to install dual piping for landscaping only in the event reclaimed
water becomes available. That would preclude having to dig up mature
landscaping in the future. Staff recommends that also remain unchanged.
(4) Site plan authority. The request is that staff have the approval for the
final site plan rather than the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission's feeling and recommendation is that comprehensive language
presently exists to insure the proper processing and they recommend that the
Planning Commission retain authority for final site plan approval. Staff
recommends that as well. (5) Fair-share or area wide improvements. This
item was the subject of the most discussion. It is a critical issue since the
base environmental document requires fair-share participation of projects to
insure that everyone is treated equitably and that all projects contribute
toward their cumulative impact on City services and infrastructure. Public
Works did a study that resulted in a maximum case scenario of possible
improvements. The study did represent maximum case only and does not
represent the expected situation for this project. The Planning Commission
recommended conditions regarding area wide improvements and fair-share which
continue to be acceptable to staff. Staff prepared an alternative as outlined
in the staff report that would be equally acceptable but it is staff's
understanding that the language is unacceptable to the developer.
Recent correspondence includes a letter dated August 3, 1994 from Latham and
Watkins and a 16-page letter received yesterday from Ross and Scott objecting
to the manner in which mitigation measures and the mitigation program and
conditions are applied to the project. A letter was also received dated
August 8, 1994 from the Marriott Residence Suites and a fax received today
from Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, suggesting alternate fair-share
condition language. The City Attorney has reviewed it and in the event that
the condition is adopted, the City Attorney has prepared a paragraph which has
been given to the applicant suggesting alternate or additional language. He
was informed by telephone that the applicant was not agreeable to the
recommended additional language and as a result, if that continues to be the
case, staff would be recommending that this hearing be continued until those
issues can be resolved. They were informed verbally at the hearing that there
may be some modified viewpoint from the applicant that the wording may be
acceptable; however, on the suggestion of 90 days to resolve the issue, there
may be a request that E~riod be shortened. In the event that request is made,
90 days is needed to prepare that documentation and address that concern.
City Clerk Sohl. In addition to the correspondence mentioned, she has copied
and distributed to the Council letter received at 4:52 p.m. today from
Mr. William O'Connell of Stovall's Best Western Hotels in opposition to the
project.
462
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9~ 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Daly. Based on what the Planning Director said about the uncertainty of
the potential language that was discussed regarding the cost sharing aspect,
he asked what the City Attorney recommends regarding the public hearing.
City Attorney White. He first outlined what he believes to be the issue
concerning the fair-share condition and how it should be treated. The
mitigation measures that have been proposed and approved by the Planning
Commission require the project applicant to pay its-fair-share of the cost of
certain necessary area,wide improvements. Yesterday they received the il-page
letter from the law firm of Ross and Scott (with 5 pages attached), attorneys
for the applicant, objecting substantially on how the fair-share cost would be
allocated. His office has not had an opportunity to review in full the
concerns expressed. Having looked at it in a cursory manner, the issues
raised are significant with regard to a potential challenge by the applicant
of any fair-share condition imposed not agreed 6r stipulated to as part of the
hearing process by the applicant. If there is no stipulation, the City will
run the risk of a legal challenge. Staff will need to do a significant amount
of work in preparing studies and justifications for the Council to adopt
individualized findings as to how the fair-share cost was allocated for the
project and why it is reasonable under the individualized circumstances for
this project. It will require approximately 90 days to do that work.
In the alternative, if the Council should determine not to continue the matter
but wishes to act tonight, he has suggested additional language that a
condition be imposed on project approval saying the parties would agree to a
fair-share allocation of the costs for the area-wide improvements within
90 days by a written agreement between the City and the applicant. If they
are unable to agree within 90 days, that in not-to-exceed 120 days, the matter
would be on the agenda for Council consideration and determination. The
additional language he has drafted would simply say that the decision, for
purposes of legal challenges or request for rehearings, would not be deemed
finally made until such time as that fair-share determination had come back
and been approved at a public meeting by the City Council either in the form
of a mutually accepted agreement or by the City Council making a determination
as to what that fair-share is. The options tonight are to continue the matter
until they have been able to make that fair-share determination or to approve
a condition relating to the fair-share determination that will be stipulated
to by the applicant which will supersede the letter previously sent and made a
part of the record. If the applicant stipulates to the condition on fair-
share, the comments previously placed in the record have been superseded and
will not be challengeable if that stipulation is made. He does not see a down
side either way continuing the matter for 90 days and a determination of what
fair-share is to be made, or approving the project tonight if they add
language that the status quo is maintained with regard to any potential legal
challenges until such time it is determined what that fair-share is.
Council Member Feldhaus. He understands the applicant did not agree with the
~ec0nd alternative.
City Attorney White. The applicant can speak for himself but he (White) would
be hard pressed in light of the significant legal comments to tell the Council
to go ahead unilaterally and approve a condition on fair-share that has not
either gone through a significant amount of additional study by the City or
not stipulated to by the applicant.
Mayor Daly. Based on what the City Attorney has explained, he asked the
Planning Director which of the two alternatives he believes makes planning
sense.
463
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Joel Fick. Their best recommendation would be, based upon their information
that the one course is an unacceptable one to the applicant, that the item be
continued for 90 days.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and asked to hear from a representative
of the applicant.
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates. He first introduced other
representatives4involved~in the.development.who, were present to subsequently
answer any questions. His slide presentation may answer questions that were
raised in the discussion that just took place. He will also address the
comments raised by Mr. Fick and Mr. White. They presented the project back in
1989 and the reason why five years has gone by and the project not approved is
because of some of the same issues they are facing tonight. In 1990, the City
enacted a moratorium in the C-R area, but the T~rsadia Project was exempt.
The City approved a new zoning code in 1990 and the City initiated the C-R
area specific plan in September of.1991. Tarsadia's Project was exempted.
Disney initiated their resort project in May 1991 and staff indicated to them
(Tarsadia) that they would like them to piggy-back on the Disney project which
they have done on the EIR side and the Disney project was approved in 1993.
The Tarsadia Project is one that has faced numerous obstacles. They have a
client now that has a transaction he would like to complete and it is
contingent upon approval of the request tonight and certainly not in 90 days.
Mr. Elfend then gave a slide presentation which showed their already built-out
properties, surrounding properties and the sites involved in the subject
project. One of the important issues is that the property is currently five
separate parcels. Current code permits 75 rooms on each parcel by right thus
permitting 375 rooms. With the Katella Hotel of 384 rooms, 759 rooms are
currently permitted. Under the specific plan, they are proposing '700 rooms or
59 less than what is currently permitted by right or by the current CUP which
is in place and extended by the Planning Commission. It is less dense than
what is currently permitted. The project will generate, based on information
provided by the applicant, approximately $2 million in transient occupancy tax
(TOT) at 13%. One of the things they agreed to as part of the CEQA process as
well as their desire and commitment to the City to redesign the Katella Hotel,
was a redesign as outlined in the exhibit he had shown earlier, which he
explained. Instead of building five separate hotels, they are proposing to
build two hotels which is in contrast to what would otherwise have been built
on the property. Another issue addressed was the subject of interface, i.e.,
their project will be interfacing with what has been termed the largest
parking garage in the world to be built in association with the Disney
project.
Elaborating on some of the comments made by Mr. Fick, he (Elfend) submitted
material entitled "Hotel Circle - Summary Of Outstanding Issues" (made a part
of the record). The issues were:
(1)
Delete provision for Planning Commission review ef final site
plans. They would prefer not to have to go through any additional
exhaustive public meeting process.
(2)
Add, "for newly proposed hotels" to property owner's definition.
They have no action on that request.
(3)
Hydrology study for each site. His client would like to do what
they have done previously - do a study for each hotel rather than
over the entire property.
464
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
(4)
Installation of dual piping for reclaimed water to be provided by
property owners/developer when system becomes available. He
discussed the matter with his client and his client is willing to
accept this condition.
(5)
Hotel Circle Drive constructed prior to occupancy of Parkview
Hotel. The condition.currently reads that Hotel Circle Drive
shall be constructed prior to occupancy-of the first new hotel
adjacent to. Hotel Circle Drive. They would_prefer that it be
constructed prior to the occupancy of Parkview Hotel. That is the
hotel that uses that access point currently. Right now there is
no such requirement for the Katella Hotel as currently approved
and it would be a substantial cost savings to his client if the
City would consider that.
His remaining remarks will speak to the comments by the City Attorney and
Planning Director. He concurs with the wording suggested by the City
Attorney. Relative to the fair-share issue, area Wide improvements and
programs, he submitted for the record memorandum dated July 27, 1994 to Tom
Wood, Deputy City Manager from R.H. Maguire, Deputy City Engineer - subject:
Hotel Circle Area Wide Improvements and Programs. He highlighted what the
requirements for Tarsadia's project would be predicated upon approximately 450
new hotel rooms (see memorandum of July 27, 1994, page 1-4 with attachment -
Hotel Circle Appendix - Mitigation Calculations and Requirement Detail).
Staff indicated to them in a memorandum from Russ Maguire to Tom Wood
that the project would be required to pay fair-share fees of approximately $25
million.
Mayor Daly interjected and asked if it was an internal staff memo, a formal
staff report, recommendation or condition of the project. He wants to know if
it is germane to Mr. Elfend's point and asked that he get to the point he is
trying to make.
Mr. Frank Elfend. He stated that it is only germane to clarify the public
record that when comments are made regarding the chronology of the issue
before the Council tonight. It is not one predicated by his client. They did
not create the issue but are responding to some information they had received
from staff. The Council has a letter from Bill Ross and several letters he
(Elfend) has sent. He also submitted a letter to the Council today dated
August 9, 1994 which is the letter the City Attorney referred to which
contained some wording they thought to be a compromise to the current impasse.
His client would like to have the project approved tonight. In the last hour
or so, he has had several conversations with Mr. Fick in which they discussed
the additional wording which the City Attorney had recommended which he
assumes would become a part of the condition he had provided on August 9. He
has discussed this with his client and as a result they would agree to accept
the wording provided by Mr. White in order to get beyond this matter and hope
they can then work with the City Manager and Tom Wood to ~et the i~ue
resolved. He reiterated, they are accepting the wording by the City Attorney
along with the wording in their letter in association with all the information
submitted either by his office or that of Bill Ross's office. With that in
mind, he has completed his presentation.
Council Member Hunter. As he understands, Mr. Elfend and his client would be
in agreement that the status quo be maintained until such time as some type of
determination is made on fair-share participation. He asked if that was what
Mr. Elfend was agreeing to.
465
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Frank Elfend. If the Council would approve the project tonight, there would
be the additional condition that was worded by Mr. White and himself and that,
in essence, would extend the statute of limitations. That would be what they
would agree to as opposed to a continuance of 90 days which would be
completely unacceptable.
City Attorney White. If the City approves the project subject to the
additional language in the condition as agreed to now that he (Elfend) has
stipulated he.would.agree.to-the..condition, by adding that additional
condition relating to the fair-share determination, does that supersede the
objections that relate to the mitigation measures, the mitigation monitoring
plan and the conditions that were all objected to in yesterday's letter by
Ross and Scott. He asked for clarification that Mr. Elfend would be agreeable
that they could go forward with the project as recommended by the Planning
Commission with the modifications and it would ~ot be in his client's view a
violation of the law to go forward on that basis.
Frank Elfend. He is not going to answer because he is not an attorney but to
the extent that they recognize that between now and the next 90 days that they
are going to work out something that is fair-share, the answer is yes.
City Attorney White. If the parties are unable to get together and this were
to come back for the fair-share determination, neither his client nor anyone
else would be prejudiced in raising any objections at that time with regard to
whether or not the City had complied with the law with regard to calculating
fair-share. He is happy to stipulate to the fact they are not trying to
preclude any subsequent objection on Tarsadia's part to what their fair-share
would be. One of the issues that has to be resolved tonight, if approved,
would be the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the City Council can not do so
without finding that there are conditions imposed on this project that have
mitigated all the environmental effects. He does not want to put the Council
in a position of making that finding and have the 16-page set of objections to
the conditions hang over its head. He is asking if those objections have been
superseded by the stipulation they are attempting to arrive at with regard to
the additional wording.
Frank E!fend. In deference to Mayor Daly, he would say'yes, but he feels Mr.
White appreciates they would not be present tonight if they felt the fair-
share allocation presented to them by the City in what the Mayor referred to
as an internal memo was reasonable. He would answer in that context.
Bill Ross, Ross and Scott. He will confirm what Mr. Elfend said. He would
like to clarify for the record that they brought that forward. It is
something that arose after the Planning Co~unission decision as a result of the
United States Supreme Court decision which will substantially change the way
land use deci~i0ns are arrived at. What Mr. White is saying and what Mr.
Elfend is agreeing to, they are agreeing to a condition that will allow the
matter of fair-share to be resolved one way cr another in the future and
preserves the right for legal challenges for that time period.
The City Attorney confirmed for Council Member Pickler that is the way he
understands it.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from any additional proponents; there were none. He
then asked to hear from those who are Opposed.
Bob Break, Latham and Watkins, 1050 Town Center Drive. He is addressing the
Council on behalf of his client, Walt Disney. Mr. Break then addressed the
466
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9~ 1994 - 5:00
strong misgivings they have about whether or not the Mitigated Negative
Declaration is at all appropriate. (See letter dated August 3, 1994 from
Latham and Watkins, Marianne A. Harvey, expressing concern about the project,
"because there has beep inadequate review of the projects' environmental
effects under the California Environmental Quality Act" and urging the Council
to incorporate all the Planning ComMission's recommended conditions of
approval and mitigation measures. (Also see previous letters from Latham and
Watkins dated May 12, 1994 and June 13, 1994 as well. as testimony given at the
May 16 and June 13, 1994 Planning Commission hearings). He also referred to
and commented on the letter from Bill Ross of Ross and Scott questioning the
conditions of approval and indicating that Tarsadia is no longer willing to
incorporate mitigation measures. In concluding his extensive presentation,
Mr. Break stated the bottom line is that Tarsadia's demands do not leave the
City with any legal choice. It cannot legally approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and take action on the project in view of Tarsadia's demands. The
City cannot rely on a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project that, in
turn, relies on mitigation measures repudiated by the project proponent and
not incorporated into the project.
Doug Moreland, Disney Development, 1313 Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim. Disney
fully supports new development and believes it is key to the development of
the C-R area but it is important for new development to adhere to the new
standards in order to create a unified tourist oriented destination resort.
New development needs to be on a level playing field. At the Planning
Co~mission hearing, the commission provided Hotel Circle's plan with a number
of variances or special considerations from the existing C-R area zoning as
well as the proposed Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. He then commented on three
or four, specifically side yard setbacks, front yard setbacks and density.
Even with all the special considerations, the applicant is now asking for
changes in the fair-share language which the Planning Commission adopted. If
this development does not pay its fair-share, there is a certain amount of
infrastructure that has to be built regardless. It means the next development
that comes in will have to pay. It is important that they hold to the fair-
share. In concluding his presentation, he stated that the new development
must conform to the new development standards that will make the C-R area an
aesthetically pleasing environment for tourists. It is incumbent that all
hotels contribute. Disney believes that the environmental issues and the
Negative Declaration issues need to be resolved before the project can be
approved and move ahead.
Miriam Kaywood. After all of the time, effort and money that has gone into
the C-R area and the hundreds of millions of dollars yet to come, she does not
want any mistakes made. She feels five to ten foot setbacks are unthinkable
and the City should have learned by what it has cost to buy back property on
Anaheim Boulevard to widen that street. To build something that does not fit
in does not make sense. She would hope that very specific plans, renderings
and drawlng~ b~ ~ubm£%~ed and the project t~ed in wlth those plans so there is
no shifting of the project.
Jim Leech, Quality Inn, Anaheim Center. He has concerns about the specific
plan relative to the density and setbacks. The big impact of the project on
services and traffic and the fair-share issue. Some communities will allow
variances to density in exchange for land and it is something to consider if
the density is going to be exceeded.
Jonathan Gallup, General Manager, Residence Inn by Marriott, 1700 S.
Clementine, Anaheim. He would recommend a minimum setback of five feet
467
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
around the entire perimeter of the project whether building or open space.
Their hotel is set back 30'. They are 200 units on 6~ acres. This project is
75 to 100 units on one acre. He then submitted photographs he had taken of
existing projects/landscaping. Five feet is not a lot to have a setback with
landscaping. He also wants to make sure it is noted there would be no
subterranean parking lot. If a subterranean lot later was put into the
property where it exists, the£e would be no landscaping. The pictures tell
their own story.
Bob Jordan, 1850 S. Harbor. This is the Council's first opportunity to show
they believe in the new Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and in the future of the
C-R area. The project must be in 100% compliance. Also design, signage and
landscaping has to adhere to the plan. The project will be the gateway to the
Anaheim Resort area. It is important that they follow the plan and not
mitigate anything. He is also concerned with the density of the project and
this is why the project is allowed to have up to 100 rooms per acre or more
while everything else east of Harbor is topped out at 75 rooms per gross acre.
It is unfair to have more than 75.
SUMMATION BY
AI~PLICANT~
Frank Elfend. They understand the CEQA process and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and are going to participate in fair-share per the mitigation
measures. He then addressed/rebutted some of the issues, concerns, and
comments by the speakers who spoke in opposition. In concluding, he stated
the project is improving the blighted conditions of that area. The existing
Tarsadia Project has received an Anaheim Beautiful Award. The simple answer
to City Attorney White relative to fair-share is yes.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney if the proposed language is what is
still being proposed in terms of how to proceed on the fair-share question.
City Attorney White. He usually does not disagree with Mr. Break but he does
not believe, based upon the stipulations that were discussed and agreed to by
the project applicant, that there has been any repudiation of the mitigation
measures imposed by the Planning Commission. Those mitigation measures are
continuing in existence and the previous objections to those measures have for
all intents and purposes been withdrawn. Also, the mitigation measures
currently imposed do use the terms fair-share. It sets forth a procedure and
preserves certain rights and remedies not only to the project applicant, but
the project opponents. Also the written material previously received from the
law offices of Latham and Watkins on behalf of the Disney Company indicate
that "... if any of the recommended mitigation measures are eliminated, the
City should conduct additional environmental review and should not adopt the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration." He takes that to mean they are not
objecting as long as the City continues to impose the Planning Commission
measures and that is exactly what is being suggested and will continue to be
imposed as being further defined. On that basis, he does not see any
violation of the CEQA. The fair-share concept is currently in the conditions
and that is being continued by the suggested additional condition.
He (White) continues to feel that the Council could approve the. project this
evening with that language as stipulated to by the applicant including the
additional language. The language he proposes says "The decision of the City
Council approving Specific Plan No. 93-1 shall not be deemed complete for the
purposes of Sections 1.12.100 and 18.02.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
468
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Section 1094.6 of the Government Code, Section 21152 of the Public Resources
Code, or the commencement of any other applicable statute of limitations
within which to challenge such decision until the date of the approval of said
agreement, or the date of the establishment of the property owner/developer's
fair-share cost, by the City Council pursuant to this Condition."
With that, he feels they could go forward with the additional condition.
Answering the Mayor, he stated the specific plan could be approved tonight.
They can introduce the Ordinance this evening as well. One of the conditions
in the Ordinance does not make the decision final for purposes of any legal
challenges until the fair-share allocation is agreed to and brought back to
the Council or the Council imposes it within 120 days.
Joel Fick, Planning Diructor. Staff from Public Works Engineering will
address Items 3 and 5. He would like to clarif~ that staff continues to
recommend relative to Item 1 that final site plan review go to the Planning
Commission. Item 2 represented by Mr. Elfend as being identical to the
wording he had seen is not exactly the case. The mitigation program did not
apply to the existing hotels, but would apply to newly constructed hotels.
The wording as proposed and handed to the Council says newly proposed which is
different from constructed. Staff would recommend it be clarified not for
existing hotels but for newly constructed hotels which would include the
revised Katella Avenue Hotel which would be subject to the mitigation
monitoring program. Item 4 was removed by the applicant, and staff from
Public Works is present to comment on Items 3 and 5. He clarified for Council
Member Pickler that relative to the site review, that is the manner in which
the upcoming Anaheim Resort Plan w[ll be going before the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Public Works. Relative to Item No. 3, the
master plan hydrology study for the specific plan area, staff feels it is
appropriate to have a master plan hydrology study for a development like this
where there is shared uses of private streets and parking. A basic hydrology
study is what they are looking for so that any storm drains constructed on
site are sized appropriately for future development in the area. She would
recommend the condition stay as written for a master plan hydrology study.
John Lower,.Traffic and Transportation Manager. He would not support the
request to change Item 5 to delay the construction of Hotel Circle Drive for
two major reasons - the traffic impact study done for the development assumed
Hotel Circle Drive to be in place and assigned traffic to it. Fifty percent
(50%) of the trips generated by this development are coming to and from the
west and a number of those would be utilizing Hotel Circle Drive. Without it,
could result in a significant number of "U" turns at the intersection of
Katella and Haster and Anaheim Boulevard which will shortly be under
construction. That area will also be affected by the I-5 widening. To
introduce additional trips not quantified would be a major concern. Secondly,
Hotel Circle Drive is designated in the specific plan as being the bus
circulation for the Hotel Circle Development. This development along with
others will have a substantial amount of shuttle bus activity. For those
major reasons, he does not support this request.
Mayor Daly then posed questions relative to the project which were answered by
Mr. Flck regarding setbacks and density.
469
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter. The Planning Commission approved this by a
vote of 6 to 0. Staff is recommending the project. The City Attorney says
they are not in violation of the CEQA requirement. The Planning Director
stated that setbacks are consistent with what is there now and they just heard
his explanation regarding the density. He thereupon took action as follows:
Council Member Hunter moved that the project be granted a Mitigated
Declaration status. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was.taken, City_.Attorney White...stated with regard to the CEQA
finding that Council Member Hunter offered incorporate the findings set forth
under Paragraph No. 27, Pages 18 and 19 of the June 13, 1994 staff report and
modifications to the Initial Study as set forth therein approving the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0079.
Council Member Hunter amended his motion as follows: Granting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration status and incorporating the findings set forth under
Paragraph No. 27, Pages 18 and 19 of the June 13, 1994 staff report and
modifications to the Initial Study as set forth therein approving the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0079.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 94R-194 for adoption, approving
Specific Plan 93-01 for Hotel Circle subject to the clarification and
modifications as set forth in the staff report and the additional conditions
stipulated to this evening by Frank Elfend for his client concerning the
fair-share allocation.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-194: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 HOTEL CIRCLE.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-194 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-194 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 94R-195 for adoption, approving
Specific Plan 93-01 including Zoning and Development Standards, Design
Guidelines and a Public Facilities Plan subject to staff recommended
conditions and the fair-share stipulation.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-195: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01 INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PLAN.
Roi3. Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-195 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-195 duly passed and adopted.
470
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Pickler. Something he would like to see is that the project go
back to Planning Department instead of another public hearing before the
Planning Commission.
Council Member Feldhaus noted that the Commission asked that it come back to
them.
City Attorney White. The resolution approving zoning and development
standards relating to.Hotel Circle Specific.Plan. 93-01 the staff
recommendation is the same as the Planning Commission conditions which were
that the site plans go to the Planning Commission for approval. Council
Member Pickler is suggesting that be modified to go instead to the Planning
Department for approval. It is not a public hearing if it goes back to the
Planning Commission but publicly noticed.
Council Men~er Hunter. If and when the plan comes back, planning staff will
make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. His resolution includes
that the site plan go back to the Planning Commission and is a part of his
resolution.
City Attorney White. There are two ordinances for introduction. In the
ordinance amending the zoning map which is the first of the two, it would be
recommended that the conditions be modified in accordance with staff
reco~nendations and the stipulation concerning the fair-share allocation and
be offered with that revised wording. The second is also to be offered with
one minor correction on page 28 in Section .0601 which says, "where design
constraints exists", changing the word exists to, "can be demonstrated."
ORDINANCE NO. 5443 FOR INTRODUCTION: Amending the zoning map referred to in
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (Specific Plan No.
93-1, Hotel Circle).
ORDINANCE NO. 5444 FOR INTRODUCTION: Specific Plan 93-01 Hotel Circle
(including Zoning and Development Standards (including Zoning and Development
Standards, Design Guidelines and a Public Facilities Plan).
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance 5443 and 5444 for first reading with
the minor change to 5444 as articulated by the City Attorney. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5443: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING
(SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-1, HOTEL CIRCLE).
ORDINANCE NO. 5444: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SPECIFIC PLAN 93-01
HOTEL CIRCLE INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN).
The subject public hearing was thus concluded.
Cl. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
114: Northfield Avenue - Sound Wall:
Council Member Pickler referred to the Transportation Liaison Meeting that he
and the Mayor attended today.
Mayor Daly. At the Transportation Liaison Meeting held this afternoon at 1:30
p.m., he and Council Member Pickler met with Gary Johnson, Director of Public
471
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 9, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
works and City Engineer, John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager and
Kristine Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer. They discussed the
Northfield Avenue Sound Wall issue relating to the rail line along the
boundary of Anaheim and Yorba Linda along Orangethorpe Avenue. The City has
received a letter from Congressman Kim urging the City to participate in the
construction of a rail sound wall adjacent to the Atchison/Topeka and Santa Fe
rail line along the Orangethorpe corridor.. In response to the letter, he
(Daly) would like to request that the City Manager direct staff to develop an
action plan.proceeding with.the Northfield Avenue residents petition for a
rail sound wall and that the action plan include: (1) near term steps
towards the development of an appropriate solution to the resident concerns,
(2) technical and environmental studies that may be required, (3) time line
for implementation, (4) suggested City of Anaheim funding participation. He
would like to see a response to the City Council by August 30, 1994. Also, a
study initiated by OCTA will look at short term"and long term solutions that
may be available in conjunction with Yorba Linda and Placentia and how best
the City can participate in the OCTA Lead Study. He would like a report back
in approximately two weeks that lays out that type of time frame. The key is
the OCTA's study where they will be asking for financial participation from
the City in identifying solutions. He understands a letter is coming from
OCTA.
Council Member Simpson. He does not have a problem with that as long as they
specify that the financial participation will be to facilitate a study or find
a solution. He is concerned about what was raised before on the precedent
setting nature of anything they do. There are a lot of railroad tracks in
Anaheim. He is sympathetic but is well aware of the many tracks running by
houses in Anaheim.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. Answering Council Member
Feldhaus, he stated they are going to be requesting a sound study be added to
the scope of work which OCTA has drafted and asked for the City's comments.
C2. 112: REPORT'ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney White stated that
there are no actions to report.
C3. 105: REPORT ON APPOINTMENTS TO THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE:
Report dated August 5, 1994 submitted by the City Clerk, Leonora Sohl.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to ratify the appointments of various Board
and Commission Members to the Telecommunications Policy Committee as submitted
in memorandum dated August 5, 1994 from the City Clerk. Council Member
Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved that the two Members of the City Council
to serve on the Telecommunications Policy Committee be Mayor Tom Daly and
Council Member Frank Feldhaus. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consensus the City Council adjourned.
(9:50 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
472