1994/09/20C£t¥ Hallt Anahe£m, California - COUNCIL NINUTES - SEPT~4BER 20, 1994 - 5:00
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Dave Morgan
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Aghjayan
POLICE CHIEF: Randall Gaston
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE: Tom Wood
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYs Selma Mann
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Mary McCloskey
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2=15 p.m. on September 16, 1994 at the Civic Center kiosk,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m., all Council Members being
present with the exception of Council Member Simpson; Council Member Pickler
entered the Council Chamber at 3:14 p.m.
REOUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session noting first that there are two additions to Closed Session items.
is, therefore, necessary to add the two items to the Closed Session Agenda
both of which are to determine whether to initiate litigation under
subdivision (c), Section 54956.9 of the Government Code. The need to act
arose since the agenda was prepared and posted. He recommends that the
Council waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act.
It
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of
the Brown Act as recommended by the City Attorney. Council Member Feldhaus
seconded the motion. Council Members Simpson and Pickler were absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
City Attorney White. The following items are to be considered at the Closed
Session, including the two additional items just added (Item 5 and 6):
1. 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
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a} - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a} - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: DeWitt v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 71-15-83.
546
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20r 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9: I potential case
Existing facts and circumstances: Claims concerning the adoption
of Ordinance No. 5445.
5. & 6.
To determine whether to initiate litigation pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of Government Code.
cases involved.)
( Two
RECESS: Council Member Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council
Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. Council Members Simpson and Pickler were
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:13 p.m.)
Council Member Pickler entered the Council Chambers at 3:14 p.m.
~CESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Council Member Simpson, and welcomed those
in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:10 p.m.).
INVOCATION: Reverend Jim Schibsted, First Congregational Church, gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING THE ORANGE EMPIRE ~nn AMERICAN SCHOLAR TE~M
AND HONORABLE MENTIONS - POP WARNER FOOTB~nn:
Mayor Daly and Council Members congratulated the Orange Empire Ail American
Scholar Team and Honorable Mentions from Anaheim Pop Warner Football who were
present. Certificates were presented to the following:
Mandy Paterson, Tiffany Welt, Tracy Web, Peter Hernandez,
David Lim and Ryan Paterson; John Martus (unable to be present)
119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS DATE
TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME:
Recognizing September 25, 1994, as Race for the Cure Day in Anaheim
Declaring the month of September as $chool Bus Safety Month in Anaheim
Recognizing October, 1994, as Escrow Mouth in Anaheim
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,771,159.82 for the
period ending September 16, 1994, in accordance with the 1993-94 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:17 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:19 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items.
547
City Hall, Anaheim, CalifoFnia - COUNCIL MTN~TES - SEPTEMBER 20r 1994 - S:00 P.M.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mike Altman, owner, Big "O" Tires, 718 W. Lincoln, Anaheim. Over the last
10 to 14 days, there have been some issues that City officials have raised
regarding flags and zoning allowances which he would like to address. The
City Attorney makes a good point that it is a law that three flags are allowed
versus 23. However, the City is not subject to its own zoning ordinance if it
does not choose to be. He feels it is time to take another look at the
ordinance which was enacted 27 years ago. A city planner said it is really
about aesthetics in reducing visual clutter. He would never characterize a
display of the American Flag as clutter, but a show of patriotism. He invited
members of the Council to his store. His flag display is tastefully done and
well accepted in the surrounding community especially the businesses. He
reiterated his request that the ordinance be reviewed.
Mayor Daly. As he understands, the City Manager and City Attorney's Office is
reviewing the ordinance as to its appropriateness in 1994.
Timothy Royale. He is a former Vietnam Veteran. The City is in business and
operate8 as a business. Adding up all the flags the City flies, they are in
violation as well.
Gordon Ruser, representing the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, 3445
W£18hire Boulevard, Los Angeles (Home - 1221 S. Sycamore Street, Santa Ana,
92707). He referred to his appearance before the Council on August 16, 1994
(see minute8 that date) relative to how the Council felt about allowing
hunting in the Koll Canyon Tecate Cypress Ecological Preserve. He recently
spoke with staff in the Public Information Office, Planning and Fire
Department who seemed to be unaware of the situation. Another matter which
came to his attention - would there be access by the roadway that goes to the
Koll Canyon Company project for hiking groups, touring groups, bird watching
groups, equestrian groups, etc., from the Riverside Freeway to the north end
of the ecological preserve and would that access be provided during fire
season as well.
He clarified for the Mayor that he had already submitted documents at the
August 16, 1994 meeting, letter dated August 5, 1994 to the Fish & Game
Commission with attachments. The Sierra Club is against general hunting in
the ecological preserve as proposed by the California Department of Fish &
Game. He is asking Anaheim as he did on August 16, to make a determination if
there is a safety hazard in allowing high powered rifle hunting just to the
south and east of the City's boundaries, whether there would be access for the
groups mentioned and that the leaders of the groups be trained to not allow
any smoking or any type of activities that would allow a fire to occur.
Mayor Daly. He asked that documents be provided to the City as to the
specific requests of the Sierra Club, that staff from the City Manager's
Office, Planning and other appropriate departments review the matter on
whether or not Anaheim should take a position and report back to the Council
regarding the issue8 involved.
Gordon Ruser. He pointed out that in June of 1988, the California voters
approved Proposition 70, the California Wildlife Coastal Conservation and
Parkland Act which appropriated 4 million dollars for acquisition of land
pertaining to Tecate Cypress Forests and associated rare species in Koll
Canyon in Orange County to the Wildlife Conservation Board. The taxpayers and
548
City Hallr Anaheimr California - ¢O~IqCZL MZH'dTES - SEP~.IBER 20r 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
bond payers of California bought the Tecate Cypress Ecological Preserve and
they should have access to them in a limited way.
Leonard Lahtinen. He received a letter from the City a few days ago which he
feels is a symptom of complaints he has been hearing from some citizens about
the insensitivity of treatment of residents by staff. The letter referred to
political signs in his name which were found to be in violation of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. Since he has not posted any campaign signs, he called a City
staff ~erson to determine why the letter was sent and was told that the letter
is sent to everyone running for office, "just in case". He does not feel this
is a user-friendly way of dealing with residents of the City.
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager clarified for the Mayor that letters have
gone out to candidates whose signs have been found to be in violation of the
City ordinance. Staff will follow-up in this case and in any case where they
hear that the letter has been inappropriately sent out. It is their view they
need to consistently enforce the ordinance and that is what staff was
attempting to do.
Council Member Pickler. Relative to the comment on the insensitivity of City
staff, he feels it is the exception rather than the rule. Not many comments
are received about staff in that regard. When staff does send out a letter,
usually they are very sensitive about the effect.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He also received the same letter and
made the same phone call but as far as sensitivity, he believes the gentleman
in question is very sensitive as a result of phone calls he has received.
Hopefully, this was a one-time incident and not indicative of City personnel
in general.
Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid Avenue, Anaheim. He received a letter as well but
did not consider it to be any big deal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Public input received on Items A21, A22, A23,
A24 and A25 (see discussion under those items).
MOTION= Council Member Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances
and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of September 20,
1994. Council Member Hunter Seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was
absent. 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-224 through 94R-232, both inclusive, for
adoption. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5448 for adoption and
Ordinance No. 5451 for introduction. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Park and Recreation
Commission meeting held July 27, 1994.
549
Ci'cy Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCZL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20r 1994 - 5:00 P,M.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board
meeting held July 11, 1994.
A2. 150: Approving the appropriation of $25,000 from Fund 216 (Parksites and
Playgrounds Fund Balance) for construction, inspection and contract
administration costs; and awarding the contract to the lowest responsive
bidder, Bopark Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $139,601 for Peralta Park
Picnic Shelter; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the
terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second iow bidder, as well as
waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the iow and second iow bidders.
A3. 175: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk and
Steinle, Inc., in the amount of $727,488.27 for Electrical Underground
District No. 11 - Anaheim Plaza Substructure and Cable; 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 iow bidders.
A4. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement with Thrifty Oil
Company for two ground water monitoring wells located at the intersection of
Lincoln Avenue and Dale Street (Encroachment No. 94-4E).
AS. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with JHK & Associates to
implement two state-funded traffic management system projects including
software for route guidance sign operations, computer bulletin board vendor
support, and a public information database/system interface.
A6. 000: ORDINANCE NO. 5448 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 14.58.020 AND ADDING SECTION 14.58.050 TO CHAPTER 14.58 OF
TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES.
(Introduced at the meeting of September 13, 1994.)
A7. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a Purchase Order to OCE' Office Systems, in the amount of $20,325 for a
photocopy machine for the Library; and amending fiscal year budget by
increasing expenditures in account no. 101-208-4201-9701 by $22,296.
A8. 160: Accepting the bid of Forbes Computer Group, in the amount of
$51,686 for Computers and Software, in accordance with Bid $5302.
Ag. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Nobest, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $160,000 for the removal and
replacement of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, cross gutters, and access ramps, as
required by the Public Utilities Department.
AiO. 123: Authorizing the execution of a Second Amendment with Pedus
Security Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $320,000 for the period of
October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995, to provide security personnel to
enforce parking ordinances in posted street sweeping and other areas in
accordance with Bid Proposal $5168.
All. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with Earth Systems
Engineering Group, in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for engineering quality
control services, in connection with corrective slope stabilization at
Pelanconi Park.
A12. 123: Approving a License Agreement for a term of five years with the
Anaheim Senior Citizens Club, Inc., to utilize portions of the Anaheim Senior
55O
City Esll~ Anshs~m~ Csl£forn£s - COUNCIL MINUTES - -~EPTEbm~R 20~ 199~ - 5;00 P.N
Citizens Center, located at 280 E. Lincoln Avenue, on a shared basis to
provide recreational and social activities including bingo.
A13. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-224: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS
ASSIGNED TO THE GENERAL UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION. (Creating the classification of Forensic Services Supervisor,
effective September 23, 1994.)
A14. 000: R~SOLUTION NO. 94R-225: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE POLICIES ESTABLISHED BY THE ANAHEIM LIBRARY BOARD
FOR THE USE OF LIBRARY MEETING ROOMS AND THE FEES AND CHARGES REQUIRED
PURSUANT THERETO, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-139 AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION 82R-411.
A15. 123: Approving an Agreement with Montgomery Elevator Company for
maintenance to all elevator and escalator units at Anaheim Stadium.
A16. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5451 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTIONS .400 AND .621 TO SECTION 18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61
OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (RETAIL FURNITURE
SALES).
A17. 123: Approving an Agreement with Southern California Edison Company to
purchase 25 Megawatts of capacity and associated energy for short-term summer
peaking capacity for the period 1995 to 1997, and authorizing the Public
Utilities General Manager to execute said Agreement and other related
documents on behalf of the City.
Al8. 123: Approving an Agreement with PacifiCorp to purchase 25 Megawatts of
capacity and associated energy, and authorizing the Public Utilities General
Manager to execute said Agreement and other related documents on behalf of the
City.
A19. 123: Approving an Agreement with Southern Pacific Transportation
Company (Southern Pacific), permitting the City of Anaheim to construct,
maintain, and operate an overhead fiber optic digital communication line, for
a one-time fee of $2,945~ and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager
to execute said Agreement and related documents on behalf of the City.
A20. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-226: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOGNIZING THE CENTENNIAL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ELECTRIC
UTILITY SYSTEM. (As recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their
meeting of September 1, 1994.)
A21. 123: Approving an Agreement with Kirk-Mayer, Inc., for contract
services to provide field support for water and energy efficiency programs in
an amount not to exceed $60,800~ and authorizing the Public Utilities General
Manager to execute said Agreement and related documents on behalf of the City.
Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid Avenue, Anaheim. He believes in conservation, but
he does not believe Government is responsible to do any more than to educate
the people and subsequently they can do what they should be doing for
themselves. It is taxpayer's money and it will affect rates in the long run.
He opposes the recommendation.
Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. This is to show how the
program is implemented. Each of the programs Council approves has been
551
C£t¥ Hallt Anahe£mt Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20r 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
thoroughly examined and the cost effectiveness evaluated not just from the
customer's prospective, but also non-participating rate payers. The spread
sheets are available and Mr. Kynpstra is invited to see them. There have been
many meetings with him. It has also been the policy of the Council that not
just business but also residential customers have an opportunity to do things
to lower their bills. This is one of the programs that will allow them to do
so.
Sheri Flynn, 1042 Mountvale Court, Anaheim. She is speaking on the next three
items, A22, A23 and A24, giving the results of the Special Election held in
the three Mello-Roos Community Facilities District 1989-1, -2 and -3. There
was between a 40 to 50% return from all the districts with an average of 93%
saying yes to the redirection of Mello-Roos funds for a police sub-station.
It was a strong mandate. She has been reading conflicting newspaper articles
that there seems to be a split between the Council and the police. The Police
Department wants to go forward and City Council and staff are dragging their
feet saying there is not enough money and they are not obligated to build a
substation. In 1989, a large amount of bonds were sold (Mello-Roos) for which
the residents will be paying for over 25 years. The land has been purchased
for the substation, 22 new officers are being allocated from the City budget,
the Federal Crime Bill has passed, those in the Mello-Roos Districts also paid
for three more officers they have never received, ($370,000 to date). They
still have the same four officers since 1981 covering from State College to
the Riverside County line and response times are very poor. There is
approximately 3.1 million plus another 2.8 million or approximately 6 million
dollars available. The City wants to build a 30,000 square foot substation
and the residents feel it is debatable whether that is necessary. Originally
it was to be 12,000 square feet. Even taking those figures, they are talking
about $200 per square foot. Land costs do not have to be taken into account.
It is outrageous to spend that kind of money on a substation. The residents
want the Council to use the money they have and build it to the 4.5 million
dollar amount if that is what is available and not wait until it is 7.6 or
9 million dollars. She would like to set up another meeting with staff and
members of the community as they had before and talk about how they are going
to proceed. If the substation is not going to be built, then they want to
have the bonds retired and their tax rate lowered. She would also like a
response from the'City Attorney regarding the impartial analysis on the ballot
wherein it stated even if the measure passes, the City is not obligated to
build a substation.
Mayor Daly. An architect was hired about a year ago to work on the drawings
for the substation and subsequently told to reconfigure the substation and try
to reduce the cost to enable it to be built sooner. Many good questions have
been raised and for any that need more research, a follow-up meeting is a good
idea. The residents of the Mello-Roos Districts spoke loud and clear they
want a substation even if it is smaller in scope. The City owns the land,
additional officers are assigned and they need quarters. He asked to hear
from the Assistant City Manager.
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager. As recently as today, meetings were held
with Engineering staff and members of the Planning Department and the
architect to look at a possible redesign. He feels the suggestion by
Mrs. Flynn to have a follow-up meeting in the communities is an excellent
idea. It is necessary to get their input. The comments included in the
ballot materials simply pointed out the legal technicality that the City is
not obligated to build a facility which Mr. White will clarify.
552
City' Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20r 1994 - 5**00 P.M.
Mayor Daly. He asked if there were sufficient funds available now to build a
substation that can be expanded later.
Dave Morgan. That will require some 'additional analysis. Preliminarily, they
are about $750,000 short of where they wanted to be to get the full station
anticipated. The task is to work with the architect to figure out what can be
done in the meantime to have the expendability down the road. The original
estimate for the station was about $7 million dollars. They do not want to
undersize the facility as future growth takes place in the Canyon. He
confirmed for the Mayor that staff will contact Mrs. Flynn tomorrow and make
arrangements on how best to communicate with the residents. He also clarified
that the Police Department in an effort to reach out to the community was
planning on both having an open house at the new temporary substation in the
festival shopping center and to also talk about the City's entire community
policing effort. That will not be directed at the new substation.
Police Chief Randall Gaston. There will be a meeting at 6=30 at the Edward's
Theatre tomorrow evening (Wednesday, September 21, 1994). It is a general
community forum similar to those held in other parts of the City with the
primary discussion on the new community policing program. There will also be
an open house at the temporary substation on a Saturday in the future but the
date has not been announced as yet.
City Attorney White. He explained that relative to the impartial analysis
that was written, many things can happen after the bonds are sold that would
preclude the City from going forward with the project - build out might be
slower than anticipated, the estimated costs of improvements grossly under
estimated, etc. An escape valve is built in to allow the City an option to
not fund the improvements but if that occurred, the money cannot be diverted
for any other purpose. That is why the statement is made in the impartial
analysis.
A22. 1375 CFD 1989-1 (SYCAMORE CANYON) - SPECIAL ~T.~CTION RESULTS~
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-227= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1994,
IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-1 (SYCAMORE CANYON), DECLARING THE
RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-228: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE TYPES OF FACILITIES TO BE
FINANCED BY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-1 (SYCAMORE CANYON) ARE
LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 53338 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
A23. 137~ CFD 1989-2 {THE HIGHLANDS) - SPECIAL ~CTION RESULTSI
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-229: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1994,
IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-2 (THE HIGHLANDS), DECLARING THE
RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-230= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE TYPES OF FACILITIES TO BE
FINANCED BY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-2 (THE HIGHLANDS) ARE
553
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINIFTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 53338 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
A24. 137: CFD 1989-3 (THE SUMMIT) - SPECIAL ELECTION RESULTS:
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-231: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1994,
IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-3 (THE SUMMIT), DECLARING THE RESULT
AND SUCH OTHER HATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-232: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE TYPES OF FACILITIES TO BE
FINANCED BY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-3 (THE SUMMIT) ARE LAWFULLY
AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 53338 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
A25. 123: Approving (i) the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, (ii) City
escrow instructions, and (iii) Amendment to Declaration and Grant of Easement
concerning the Enclosed Parking Facilities, (iv) City Release, (v) Full
Reconveyance, (vi) Estoppel Certificate, and (vii) such other documents and
instruments as may be necessary to carry out sale of the Anaheim Hilton Hotel
& Towers; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such documents
on behalf of the City.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He posed questions relative to debt
service, whether it was completely retired or still outstanding.
City Attorney White. He responded by first giving the historical background
of the issue which started with an agreement entered into in 1982 (see report
dated September 14, 1994 from theCity Attorney to the City Council explaining
the recommendation in detail). The City is doing fine in conjunction with the
transaction and in addition.is getting an additional $100,000 not counted on
as a result of the sale that has taken place.
A26. 114: Approving minutes of the City Council meeting held August 2, 1994.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 94R-224 throuqh 94R-232t both inclusive~ for
adoption~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 94R-224 through 94R-232, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5448 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS= None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson
The Mayor'declared Ordinance No. 5448 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. (Council Member Simpson was
absent.)
554
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL NIN'0'~gS - SEP~q4BER 20, 1994 - 5:00
A27. 105: APPOINTMENT TO FILL UNSCHEDULED VACANCY - PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD:
Appointment to fill the unscheduled vacancy created by the untimely
passing of Bob Kazarian, term ending June 30, 1994.
This matter was continued from the meetings of August 9 and August 23, 1994 to
this date.
City Clerk Sohl announced that due to advertising the vacancy, there is now a
list of approximately ten (10) candidates.
Mayor Daly. He is appreciative of the efforts put forth to recruit
candidates.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to continue the subject appointment one
week to allow an opportunity to review the list of candidates. Council Member
Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMIN$STRATOR N~.aT~NG OF SEPTEM~R~ 1. 1994~
DECISION DATE~ SEPTEMmF~ 8, 1994 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD END~
S~P~BER 23r 1994
B1.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3712 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Gelb Enterprises, General Partnership, P.O. Box 8370, Van Nuys,
CA 91409
AGENT: Ashok Jasuja, 2424 West Ball Road, SP, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 2424 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 3.1 acres
located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Gilbert Street.
To permit on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine in an
existing pizza restaurant.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE $ON~NG ADMINISTRATOr:
CUP NO. 3712 APPROVED (ZA Decision No. 94-24).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member Feldhaus. He noted this application is right next door to
Magnolia High School. It is contiguous property. He asked if there was
something in the code or Alcoholic Beverage Commission regulations that
prohibit establishments selling beer and wine within 1,000 feet of the school.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. There is nothing in the zoning code
that prohibits the business from being located that close. They do have to
process the ABC application but she does not know if there is anything
involved that would prohibit the use.
Council Member Feldhaus requested a review of the Planning Commission's
decision; Council Member Pickler concurred. This matter will be set for a
public hearing at a later date.
B2.
179: ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 94-01, CATEGORICALLY EYmMPTr CLASS 21:
OWNER: Rosalba M. Martin, 2420 W. Greenacre Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2420 W. Greenacre Avenue. Property is approximately 0.11
acre located at the southwest corner of Greenacre Avenue and Geneva
Street.
To permit a large family day care facility (7 to 12 children).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Use Permit 94-01 APPROVED (IA Decision No. 94-25).
555
City HSllr Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
B3./B4. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5449 AND 5450 FOR ADOPTION: Ordinance No. 5449
for adoption, adding Subsection .620 to Section 18.61.050 of Chapter 18.61 of
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to automobile service stations
and Ordinance No. 5450 for adoption, repealing Ordinance No. 5025 and
approving the cancellation of Development Agreement No. 88-05. (Both
ordinances introduced at the meeting of September 13, 1994).
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 5449 and 5450 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5449: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION
.620 TO SECTION 18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 AND AMENDING VARIOUS
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE
SERVICE STATIONS.
ORDINANCE NO. 5450: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING ORDINANCE
NO. 5025 AND APPROVING THE CANCELLATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-05.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5449 AND 5450 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5449 and 5450 duly passed and adopted.
C1. 108: REPORT ON STUDY OF SEX-ORIENTED BUSINESS ORDINANCE CONDUCTED
PURSUANT TO INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 5445 PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON SEX-
ORIENTED BUSINESS IN THE ML AND MH ZONES OF THE CITY; AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.89 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
FOLLOWING SUCH STUDY.
To consider amending Chapter 18.89 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to:
(i) impose a new, non-discretionary conditional use permit requirement
upon all new Sex-Oriented Business applications, (ii) amend the current
provisions concerning parking variances for SOBs to require such
variances be processed in a manner similar to all other parking
variances, (iii) amend the distance and locational criteria for SOBs
which would reduce the number of general areas where such businesses
would be permitted and allow for the limited "clustering" of such
businesses, and (iv) exempt any SOB lawfully in existence on or before
July 20, 1993, or any SOB which has been issued an SOB permit pursuant
to Chapter 18.89, from the distance and locational restrictions in
Chapter 18.89.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5452 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5452: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTERS
18.89 AND 18.06 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEX-
ORIENTED BUSINESSES.
C2. 179: ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK - RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER
RELATING TO THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
556
City H&llt Ansheimt CslifornLs - COUNCTL MINUTES - SEPTEI~ER 20, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
The recommendation is to adopt the Report of Hearing Officer and
Recommendations submitted by the Hearing Officer, the Honorable John H. Flynn,
Jr., finding that the Conversion Impact Report for Orange Tree Mobilehome Park
as submitted by the owner/operator of the Park, Campanula Properties, Inc.,
sufficiently addresses the impact of the proposed change of use upon the
displaced residents of the park as required by Section 65863.7 of the
Government Code. (See report of Hearing Officer and Recommendations from
Honorable John H. Flynn, Jr., (retired) dated August 31, 1994 and also see
Conversion Impact Report (CIR) of February, 1994 and supplements of April 28
and July 12, 1994.)
Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney to summarize what has transpired on this
issue.
City Attorney Jack White. He explained what had transpired since the time the
owner of the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park (OTMHP) determined to close the park
to the present (also see the City Attorney's report dated September 14, 1994
to the City Manager/City Council recommending adoption of the report of the
Hearing Officer). The recommendation of the Hearing Officer was to determine
that the report, as prepared, complies with the requirements of state law. In
the interim, the park owner has decided to move forward with the removal of
the mobilehome park zoning overlay from the property. Under the City's
ordinance, that triggers another process which requires the Planning
Commission to actually impose mitigation measures on the park owner in favor
of the tenants in the form of relocation payments. The mere fact that the
Hearing Officer's recommendation and the recommendation to the Council is to
approve the plan as submitted as complying with state statute, does not mean
the Council is agreeing or acquiescing that there be no payment to the
tenants. To the contrary, any decision on the payments is currently in
process at the Planning Commission. Yesterday, the Planning Commission began
a public hearing and continued the matter four weeks relative to making the
required payments to displace mobile home owners in the park. He reiterated,
tonight's action does not in any way prejudice the City continuing with those
hearings. As part of the Council's action and motion to accept the decision
of the Hearing Officer, he recommends the Council incorporate that the Council
is reserving the issue of relocation payments as part of the ongoing process
now underway which has been-triggered by the new application of the park
owner. The issue of relocation payments is not being settled by this action
tonight. It is still an issue in front of the Planning Commission and may
ultimately come to the Council at a later date.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved that the Council adopt the report of
Hearing Officer and Recommendations submitted by the Hearing Officer the
Honorable John H. Flynn, Jr., finding that the Conversion Impact Report for
Orange Tree Mobile Home Park as submitted by the owner/operator of the park,
Campanula Properties, Inc., complies with state statute and incorporating the
comments as articulated by the City Attorney relative to the issue of
relocation payments, that the City Council is reserving the issue of
relocation payments as part of the on-going process now underway before the
Planning Commission.
Before further action was taken, Council Member Hunter noted that about
15 residents still remain in the park. He asked if all the displaced
residents that left prior to the hearing would be entitled to relocation
payments.
City Attorney White. That is an issue of paramount concern to the Planning
Commission which ultimately may come to the City Council for determination as
557
City Ha11~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20t 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
to who the displaced mobile home owners are. Does it include only the 18 or
does it include people back from the time the original notice of intention to
close the park occurred, or some other number. That is one of the main issues
that is the subject of the current hearings.
Council Member Hunter. 'He wants to make sure what they are doing tonight does
not prohibit further discussion of the issue of displaced mobile home park
tenants that prior to this date for whatever reasons are no longer there and
that issue may ultimately come back to the Council.
City Attorney White. The difficult thing is the timing of having two
different reports which was the choice of the park owner and which has created
some confusion. He wants it clear on the record that the action taken tonight
by the Council if they approve the recommendation does not in any way
constitute a final decision on relocation benefits, what those amounts would
be and who would be entitled to those. The jurisdiction over that is reserved
as part of the ongoing hearings of the Planning Commission under Chapter 18.92
of the code. He also explained for Council Member Feldhaus that under the
code, the Council has to act upon the recommendation of the Hearing Officer
within 20 days and tonight is the last night to do so. The only reason he
brought up the other issues was to put it on the record that this decision is
not meant to be a final determination on benefits but only a determination
that the original report submitted complies with state law requirements.
Mr. Ed Leion, 23621 La Palma Avenue, H154, Yorba Linda. He submitted a number
of letters from residents in the park ~made a part of the record). A year
ago, he was asked to serve as President of the Orange Tree Residents
Association. He explained his history at the park and the disruption the
closure caused in his family. He is requesting the following relative to the
recommendation of the Hearing Officer=
1.)
2.)
That the Council not accept the CIR as adequate as presented
tonight.
Require the park owner to pay the residents adequate relocation
costs.
3.) Rule that the park owners obligation to pay be independent of any
collateral benefits the residents may receive.
4.)
That the relocation benefit be paid to all residents who moved as a
result of the distribution of the CIR and notice of change of use
on February 1, 1994 which activated the code processed. They found
that the CIR distributed in February was filled with errors and
misinformation.- The April and July supplements may be also. They
were introduced as evidence but are supplementary updates and not
made available to each resident with no copy available to examine.
By definition of the Anaheim Code, mitigation is limited to one
thing only - payment of relocation benefits and the owner has not
done that.
Mr. Leion continued his comments referring to the original CIR and relaying
some of the information contained therein..
Mayor Daly interjected during Mr. Leion's presentation stating that the reason
the matter was referred to a retired judge was so the tenants could have an
opportunity to make their case and the record shows they did have that
opportunity. His (Leion's) comments are a reiteration of those already made.
558
City H&ll~ Rnaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEImaeR 20~ 1994 - S~O0
City Attorney White. Perhaps he did not make himself clear. He emphasized
that the issue of relocation payments being recommended not be acted upon by
the City Council tonight and that the requirement of whatever relocation
payments be made under the statute and the Anaheim Municipal Code be served in
conjunction with the hearings started at the Planning Commission. Ail the
issues Mr. Leion is raising are all relevant issues to that hearing and
process. Tonight's recommendation is to merely find that the report meets the
minimum requirements of state law but not to make any finding on relocation
payments or the amount and that go back to the Planning Commission in
conjunction with the process already underway.
Mr. Leion. They were surprised yesterday at the Planning Commission to hear
that now the July supplement is considered THE CIR it was never introduced
that way but presented as a supplement package. It was not distributed to the
residents and most of the residents do not know it exists unless they have
been at the proceedings yesterday or today. The Code does specify that the
residents are to be given a copy fifteen (15) days before the hearing.
Procedures were not properly followed in appointing that as the CIR and that
the February document be the CIR and the others be supplements.
Robert Coldren, representing Campanula Properties. He urged the Council to
adopt the report of the Hearing Officer. He does take issue with what
Mr. White has said concerning the legal effect of the Council's adoption of
the recommendation of the Hearing Officer. In a letter from Selma Mann,
Deputy City Attorney which is a part of the packet, she indicated they were
not to look to evidence but only to the administrative record in coming to any
conclusions. They did not even know a transcript had been prepared.
Judge Flynn concludes on page 3 of his report that the CIR adequately
addresses the issue submitted. The point is, it would seem to him to be a
clear due process problem to determine that relocation benefits are
appropriate under one triggering device (closure of the park) and then turn
around by saying if you are going to convert to some other affirmative use if
you are going to secure a removal of the overlay zone then they are going to
re-look at it and investigate some other relocation measures. He strenuously
objects to the remarks of the City Attorney and does not believe it is part of
the resolution that they received or the package before the Council tonight.
In concluding, he urged the Council to accept the Hearing Officer's relocation
report. From his client's perspective, there ought to be an end to the
matter. One point the City Attorney and his client do agree on, who are the
displaced residents and to whom payments should be made. They believe it is a
legal issue under the ordinance and that ought to be the subject of the
overlay zone removal hearings and not the hearing tonight.
Bernard Bernick, a resident of Brea but formerly a resident of Orange Tree
Mob£1e Home Park, Space 91. He feels that if what the Council is going to
accept or deny at this point poses a danger to the residents that moved, he
feels very strongly in asking the Council to reject the CIR. By rejecting the
CIR as it exists this time, they will prevent further legal action for the
City, residents and the Planning Commission.
City Attorney White. He wants to avoid any arguments later that the Council's
action tonight will be used against the City by the park owner and his legal
counsel at the next set of public hearings to try to create a ratcheting
effect on what benefits can be considered. He (White) attempted to avoid
that. If it is not clear, what he is recommending is only that the Council
determine that the original CIR, because, now there are two that the applicant
has submitted, meets the minimum requirements of the State Government Code
Statute but not make a decision as to whether or not any mitigation measures
559
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20t 1994 - 5200 P.M.
or relocation payments under the statute or City Code are required. If such
recommendation is a modification of the Hearing Officer's recommendation, then
so be it. He does not want the City prejudiced and the residents in the park
prejudiced by an action being forced to be taken by the City Council based
upon the fact that there are two different processes currently underway which
is a problem that has been created by the Park owner bifurcating that into two
different parts and using each part against the tenants. He wants to reserve
that issue to a later date and if Hr. Coldron is unwilling to do so, he would
say as an alternative, reject the entire report and let them start all over.
Council Member Hunter'. The Planning Commission spent hours on the issue and
the Hearing Officer over 12 hours. The Planning Commission came up with a
decision to pay $8,000 for a single wide and $10,000 for a double wide. The
owner did not like that and appealed to the Council and the matter
subsequently was referred to a Hearing Officer. They probably do not like
what the Planning Commission is doing now so they are taking another tactic.
The park owners could have done what the Planning Commission said in the
beginning and now they are trying to get out of that as well.
City Attorney White confirmed for the Mayor that what he is recommending is
that the Council adopt the judge's report as amended to reserve the issue of
relocation payments as part of the current on-going process so they do not
have to decide the issue tonight since there is a collateral proceeding
currently pending that has been requested by the applicant. They asked for
that second proceeding to go forward. It does not make sense to have two
separate proceedings going forward simultaneously on the same issue. He is
suggesting that the Council not do something that will prejudice those
hearings. He wants to be sure that it is clear in the record when in the
future somebody looks at this in court that the Council clearly did not intend
to foreclose the issue of relocation payments by the action they are taking
tonight.
Mayor Daly noted that there is nothing in the four-page document from the
judge that would do that.
City Attorney White. He does not think so either but Mr. Coldren thinks there
is.
Mayor Daly. He clarified that his motion incorporated the City Attorney's
original statement.
Council Member Pickler asked the City Attorney if he was comfortable if they
voted yes and if they were protecting the tenants of the Mobile Home Park that
have moved out and the ones still living in the park.
City Attorney White answered yes and stated they are not making any decision
on who gets payments and how much. He confirmed the process with the Planning
Commission will continue under a second CIR dated July 25 submitted by the
applicant.
Council Member Hunter. They are now doing a second CIR and going off on
another tangent. He does not feel comfortable with any of this.
Mr. Leion stated again that none of the residents have seen the July CIR.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Council Member Daly, now
seconded by Council Member Pickler that the Council adopt the report of
Hearing Officer and Recommendations submitted by the Hearing Officer the
560
C£t¥ Hall, Anahe£m, Cal£fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
Honorable John H. Flynn, Jr., finding that the Conversion Impact Report for
Orange Tree Mobile Home Park as submitted by the owner/operator of the park,
Campanula Properties, Inc., complies with state statute and incorporating the
comments as articulated by the City Attorney relative to the issue of
relocation payments that the City Council is reserving the issue of relocation
payments as part of the on-going process now underway before the Planning
Commission and was carried by the following vote=
AYES: Feldhaus, Pickler, Daly
NOES: Hunter
ABSENT: Simpson
C4. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney White stated that
there are no actions to report.
RECESS~ By general Council consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes.
(6:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Council Member Simpson. (7:00 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. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CANCELLATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVE CONTRACT FOR THE DOUGLASS PROPERTY. AND APPROVAL OF CEQA MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATIONs
The subject property is located at 1501 and 1551 South Douglass Road and is a
triangularly shaped parcel consisting of approximately 7.3 acres located on
the west side of Douglass Road between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue.
The public hearing is relative to the cancellation of the Agricultural
Preserve Contract for the Douglas property and determining that the previously
approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Anaheim Arena Area Public
Parking Facilities is. adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for
this project.
PUBLIC NOTICE REOUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 30, 1994
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 29, 1994
Posting of property - September 1, 1994
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report dated September 7, 1994 to the City Manager/City Council from
the Zoning Administrator recommending that certain actions be taken in
connection with the subject cancellation.
This matter was continued from the meeting of September 13, 1994 to this date
as requested by Tejas Partners in their letter dated September 13, 1994 from
J. Wayne Allen requesting a one-week continuance of the public hearing.
561
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5500 P.M.
City Clerk Sohl announced that a letter was received dated September 20, 1994
again from J. Wayne Allen of Tejas Partners requesting an additional one-week
continuance to September 27, 1994.
Mayor Daly noted that the public hearing was open at the last meeting and
continued to this date, he asked if anyone was present to speak on the matter
tonight; there was no response.
MOTION= Council Member Hunter moved to continue the subject public hearing
for one-week to September 27, 1994. Council Member Daly seconded the motion.
Council Member Feldhaus was temporarily absent. Council Member Simpson was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
D2. 176= PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 94-3A=
In accordance with application filed by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, a
public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of all streets, alleys and
easements within the area bounded by Broadway, East Street, Lincoln Avenue and
the Santa Fe Railroad pursuant to Resolution No. 94R-208 duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated August 10, 1994 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer.confirmed that staff recommends approval of said
abandonment.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION= On motion by Council
Member Daly, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the City Council finds that
the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of
the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact
Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to file
an EIR. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Daly offered ResolUtion No. 94R-233 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 94-3A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-233= A RESOLUTION OF THE cITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING ABANDONMENT NO. 94-3A.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-233 for'adoptions
AYES=
NOES=
ABSENT~
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-233 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313r GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 333r SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT,
STANDARDSt A DESIGN PLAN AND GUIDELINESt AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN}~
ANAHEIM RESORT IDENTITY PROGRAM. ANAHEIM RESORT pUBLIC REALM LANDSCAP~
PROGRAM~ ANAHEIM RESORT NONCONFORMING SIGNAGE PROGRAM ACTIONS
562
Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTBI~nFR 20, 1994 - 5=00 P.M,
INITIATED BY:THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PLANNING COMMISSION
PER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC94-102
LOCATION=
The 1,046-acre Anaheim Resort, including the 549.5-acre Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan area, is generally located adjacent to and southwest of
Interstate 5 between Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue and is accessible
from Harbor Boulevard, Ball Road, Freedman Way, Katella Avenue, West
Street, Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street/Anaheim Boulevard and Walnut
Street (see attached map showing location of the Anaheim Resort and the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan boundaries).
PROPOSAL=
Environmental Impact Report No. 313 - Request for certification of EIR
No. 313, including a Statement of Findings and Facts and Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 313
has been prepared for the project and circulated for public/responsible
agency review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. As
indicated in the DEIR, significant effects on the environment
anticipated as a result of implementation of the
Specific Plan include transportation and circulation, air quality, land
use-related plans and policies, land use compatibility, visual resources
and aesthetics, noise schools, solid waste and construction impacts. A
Response to Comraents document (EIR No. 313 Volume III) was made
available for public review on Friday, August 19, 1994. The document
includes responses which address the public/responsible agency comments
on the Draft EIR, refinements to the text of the EIR and a copy of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.
General Plan Amendment No. 339 - Proposal to amend the Land Use,
Circulation and Environmental Resource and Management Elements of the
General Plan as follows=
Ae
Land Use Element
To add text to the General Plan Land Use Element recognizing
that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is an implementing
zone of the Commercial Recreation land use designation and
that it establishes the following development density
designations for the area (these designations are based upon
hotel/motel development but are transferable to other
permitted and conditionally permitted uses): "Low Density",
which has a maximum density of up to 50 rooms per gross acre
or 75 rooms, whichever is greater; "Low-Medium Density", up
to 75 rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms, whichever is
greater; "Medium Density", up to 100 rooms per gross acre or
75 rooms, whichever is greater; and, "Convention Center (CC)
Medium Density", up to 125 rooms per gross acre with trip
generation characteristics mitigated to the equivalent of
100 rooms per gross acre, or 75 whichever is greater. For
those parcels that are developed with hotel/motel rooms
which exceed the maximum.density designation, the number of
rooms existing on the date of adoption of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Ordinance may be rebuilt or
modified at their existing density. With regard to
563
Ci2¥ Hall, Anahe£m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20r 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
accessory uses, up to 20% of each hotel/motel project square
footage, excluding parking facilities, may be developed with
integrated (i.e., included within the main hotel/motel
complex) accessory uses.' These uses will reduce the
otherwise maximum permitted hotel/motel density at the rate
of one hotel/motel room per six hundred (600) square feet of
accessory uses.
To upgrade the Water System Maps and amend the Storm Drain
and Sewer Maps to reflect the improvements described in the
Public Facilities Plan (Section 4.0 of the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan document as further detailed in DEIR No. 313
and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085).
Circulation Element
3o
To redesignate Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and
Orang.wood Avenue from a Secondary Arterial Highway (4
lanes, 90-foot right-of-way) to a Modified Secondary
Arterial Highway (4 lanes, 87-foot right-of-way)
designation.
50
To redesignate Convention Way between Harbor Boulevard and
approximately 1,450 feet west of Harbor Boulevard from a
Primary Arterial Highway (6 lanes, 106-foot right-of-way) to
a Modified Primary Arterial Highway (6 lanes, ll0-foot
right-of-way) designation.
To redesignate Pacific. Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and
Haster Street from a Major Arterial Highway (6 lanes, 120-
foot right-of-way) to a Modified Primary Arterial Highway (6
lanes, 110-foot right-of-way) designation.
To redesignate the portion of Manchester Avenue paralleling
the I-5 east of Harbor Boulevard to north of Alto Way from a
Secondary Arterial Highway.(4 lanes, 90-foot right-of-way)
to a Modified Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes, 67-foot
right-of-way) designation.
To redesignate Manchester Avenue south of the portion
paralleling the I-$ (Alto Way) to the intersection of
Freedman Way from a Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes, 90-
foot right-of-way) to a Modified Secondary Arterial Highway
(4 lanes, 87-foot right-of-way) designation.
critical Intersection Clarification - Text is proposed to be
added to the Circulation Element clarifying that the
Critical Intersection design for Convention Way/Harbor
Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard/Katella Avenue, Haster Street-
Anaheim Boulevard/KatellaAvenue and Pacific. Avenue/Haster
Street also includes the Anaheim Resort required street
parkways/sidewalks as well as the required through-travel
lanes, raised medians, left-turn lanes, and right-turn-only
lane that may also serve as bus turnouts. The Anaheim
Resort street parkway/sidewalk designs are identified in the
Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program.
564
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
Cl.
Environmental Resource and Management Element: The General Plan
Environmental Resource and Management Element designates
approximately 58 acres southeast of Katella Avenue and Harbor
Boulevard as an Agricultural Preserve (the actual acreage is
56.48). Currently, this acreage is subject to a California Land
Conservation Act (Williamson Act) contract. A notice of
non-renewal has been filed and the contract will expire on
March 1, 2000. Since one of the purposes of the General Plan is
to set forth long range plans for the City, the proposed
amendment would remove the Agricultural Preserve designation for
this acreage from the General Plan in recognition of the upcoming
contract expiration.
me
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 - Proposal to establish
a comprehensive identity and land use plan intended to maximize
the area's potential, guide future development and ensure a
balance between growth and infrastructure. The Plan, which
includes specific zoning and development standards, a design plan
and guidelines and a public facilities plan and establishes
density designations, ~ermits the development of hotels,
convention, retail and other visitor-serving uses as well as the
infrastructure improvements which will be needed to support
future development. The Specific Plan area is currently zoned
C-R (Commercial Recreation), RS-A-43,000 (Residential,
Agricultural), and PR (Public Recreational). A few of the
parcels also have the HHP (Mobilehome Park) Overlay designation.
Adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would replace the
current zoning designations with the Specific Plan C-R District,
PR District and MHP Overlay zoning designations. It would also
replace and supersede the CR Zone requirements in Chapter 18.48
of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
The Anaheim Resort Identity Proaram - Request for adoption of an
Identity Program which sets forth identity elements for the
Anaheim Resort including gateway elements, signage, street
furnishings and pageantry elements which are intended to create a
consistent visual theme and unify the Anaheim Resort.
The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Proaram - Request for
adoption of a landscape program which describes how the Anaheim
Resort will be transformed into a garden environment through
installation of extensive landscape improvements.
The Anaheim Resort Nonconforminq Siqnaqe Proqram - Request for
approval of a program to encourage signage to conform with the
new standards proposed in connection with the Specific Plan and
the Anaheim Resort Identity Program.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION~
Recommended Certification of EIR NO..313 (5 yes votes, i no vote, 1
absent).
GPA NO. 333 APPROVED (PC94-113) (6 yes votes, I absent).
Specific Plan 92-2 (including Zoning and Development Standards, a Design
Plan and Guidelines, and a Public Facilities Plan) APPROVED (PC94-114)
(6 yes votes, 1 absent}.
Anaheim Resort Identity Program APPROVED (PC94-115) (6 yes votes,
I absent).
565
City Hallr ~ahelm; Cali£orni& - COUNCIL MZNIFTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program. APPROVED (PC94-116) (6 yes
votes, i absent).
Anaheim Resort Nonconforming Signage Program APPROVED (PC94-117) (6 yes
votes, i absent).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY=
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - September 8, 1994
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 8, 1994
Posting of property - September 9, 1994
PLANNING STAFF INPUT=
See staff re~ort dated September 14, 1994 to the City Manager/City Council
from the Planning Director, Joel Fick - Subjects Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
and Associated Actions which listed the ~ertinent documents/information
relative to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which were previously submitted
to the Council=
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report No. 313 (Volume I) dated June, 1994 and
addendum dated August; 1994.
The Draft Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (Volume IIa) dated
June, 1994 and addendum dated August, 1994.
Draft Anaheim Resort Identity Program and Draft Anaheim
Resort Public Realm Landscape Program (Volume IIb) dated
June, 1994.
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Response to Comments to
the 'Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 313
(Volume III).
The Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the
Meeting of August 29, 1994.
A copy of all documents submitted to the Planning
Commission at the public hearing.
A copy of the action agenda for the Planning Commission
meeting.
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan - EIR No. 313 Statement of
Findings and Facts and Statement of Overriding
Considerations (with refinements).
Written responses to issues raised and responded to at the
Planning ¢0m~issi0n hearing regarding the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan and associated actions.
· Transcripts of the Planning Commission public hearing.
Mayor Daly first asked to hear from staff for a report on the proposed Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan (ARSP).
Planning Director, Joel Fick. It is staff's pleasure to present to the
Council for consideration the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan including new
zoning and development standards, the design plan and guidelines and a public
566
City Hallr Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
facilities plan along with three implementation programs - the Anaheim Resort
Identity Program, Public Realm Landscape Program and Non-Conforming Signage
Program. Accompanying the plan is EIR No. 313 and General Plan Amendment
No. 333. Mr. Fick then gave his presentation (see verbatim transcript of the
Planning Commission's Special Meeting of August 29, 1994, Pages 3-6). Before
concluding his presentation, he noted there was one minor change to be made on
Page 53, Section 4.3.3 where reference was made to Lewis Street and Katella
Avenue should be amended to read Haster Street and Chapman Avenue.
The following presentations were then made by the City's consultants:
Bob Jacob, Principal with the CWA Group - he gave the opening
presentation regarding the Specific Plan Program supplemented by
slides. (See Pages 6-10 of the August 29, 1994 Transcript for the
details of his presentation.)
Joan Kelly, Principal and Regional Manager & Director of
Environmental Services with Michael Brandman Associates. She
worked with City staff to prepare the EIR for the ARSP and related
actions. (See document, Presentation Before the Anaheim City
Council - the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR - September 20,
1994 - made a part of the record.) Also see presentation before
the special meeting of the Planning Commission of August 29, 1994,
Pages 10-19. There were minor changes in the updated
presentation.
Bob Jacob, DSWA Group then gave a presentation on the Public Realm
Landscape Program. (See Pages 19-23 of the verbatim transcript of
the Special Meeting of August 29, 1994. The presentation was
accompanied by 30 slides.)
Margaret Sewall, Associate, Communication Arts, presented the
Identity Program and Non-Conforming Signage Program. (See
Pages 24-27 of the verbatim transcript of the August 29, 1994
meeting of the Planning Commission. The presentation was
accompanied by 31 slides.)
Mr. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager/Director of Maintenance. He
spoke on the financing program. (See Pages 28 & 29 of the
August 29~ 1994 transcript.) The area's impact on the City's
budget currently contributes in the range of a net $7 to
$10 million dollars annually which has the potential to increase
substantially before paying for infrastructure improvements.
Economic prosperity will not occur.without continued reinvestment
and roads both in private development and matching public
infrastructure. The public infrastructure costs for area-wide
improvements have been estimated as a gross $172.5 million.
Potential sources for such infrastructure and improvement funding
are=
Exploration of the feasibility of an increase in Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) coupled with TOT revenues presently being
placed in reserve, utilizing current Federal, State and Regional
Infrastructure Funding designated for the area-and the
opportunity to utilize savings from anticipated debt repayment
on Convention Center bonds that will be occurring in the near
future.
567
City Hallr Anaheim~ Californi& - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20~ 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He first recapped all of the actions
before the Council today:
· Environmental Impact Report No. 313
· General Plan Amendment No. 333
· Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2
· Identity Program
· Public Realm Landscape Program
· Non-Conforming Signage Program
on August 29, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of all
the actions and staff concurs. It is the closing chapter of the
comprehensive and exciting planning process within the Anaheim Resort.
This plan, coupled with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the
recently approved Hotel Circle Specific Plan will provide the impetus to
revitalize the Anaheim Resort and ensure its continued vitality.
Mayor Daly. Before opening the Public Hearing, he outlined the procedures to
be followed noting that a summary of the procedures is available for the
public at the table located in the lobby area. Upon concluding, he then
opened the Public Hearing asking first to hear from those in favor of the
actions proposed to be approved today. He noted that the Council has been
provided with a transcript of the proceedings before the Planning Commission
and any testimony given at that time need not be repeated today.
The following people then spoke and their comments summarized:
Mr. Thomas F. Steinke, Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon, 2100
Symphony Towers 750 B. Street, San Diego, 92101. He represents
Tiffy's Family Restaurant and the owners Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin
Hathaway, 1060 W. Katella, Anaheim. He prefaced his remarks by
stating he is not opposed to the ARSP but is not sure at this
point. He referred to his six-page letter dated September 20,
1994 with Exhibits A and B attached just submitted (made a part of
the record). They believe that Tiffy's is going to be adversely
affected by the ARSP (see letter dated September 20, 1994 for
specifics) and associated regulations. The proposed street
widening of Katella Avenue and West Street will result in the
relocation of Tiffy's real property line. They believe they are
going to be adversely affected because of the loss of real
property which will occur as a result of street widening and the
series of regulations which are going to involve landscaping
requirements, sign abatement and set back requirements. They
would like to know exactly what the impact of the regulations are
going to be on Tiffy's parcel. He is requesting of staff that
they show how his client's property is going to be affected. It
is an economic situation because it is one of the few parcels that
will have property taken'from both sides of the corner location.
The Hathaways want to continue operation of their family
restaurant which has been in business since 1970 and they want to
know if the proposed actions are going to adversely affect the
business operation.
B.J. Fair, Disney Development, 1313 S. Harbor, Anaheim. (Also see
testimony given at the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission
of August 29, 1994.) He first commended Planning staff who for
the last four years have worked tirelessly to create the ARSP.
Disney is the largest employer and one of the largest tax revenue
568
City Hall, Anahe£m~ California - COUNCIL M~NUTES - SEPTEI~r~ ~0, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
sources within the Anaheim Resort Area with a significant interest
in protecting and enhancing the surrounding environment. They
recognized the numerous opportunities to create a high quality
resort within the Specific Plan Area. They are very supportive of
the City plans to elevate the surrounding area to a true resort
destination and believe the entire city will benefit from the
fiscal opportunities and aesthetic improvements outlined in the
plan. It is their understanding City staff will present in the
future an outline of how the City intends to finance the
improvements and Disney looks forward to con~nenting on that issue
at the appropriate time, In addition to his comments, he has
submitted a letter to the Council consistent with the comments
presented to the Planning Commission (made a part of the record).
They support the City's determination to achieve the goals set
forth and pledge to work diligently with City staff to see that
the ambitious plan is realized.
Cynthia Wolcott, Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron, 2603
Main Street, Suite 1300, Irvine. She is present for purposes of
clarification and on behalf of the Pyrovest Corporation, owners of
the Anaheim Plaza Hotel which is included within the boundaries of
the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Ms. Wolcott then stated her
request as outlined in her letter dated September 20, 1994 (made a
part of the record), a copy of which had been faxed to the City
Attorney having to do with standards codified in Chapter 18.78.095
of the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) incorporating by reference
certain specific provisions of Chapter 18.48 covering the CR zone.
Adoption of the ARSP will result in renumbering of Chapter 18.48
thereby creating certain inconsistencies which she explained. Any
new or inconsistent requirements established by the ARSP are not
applicable to the Anaheim Plaza property. She requested that the
City provide her firm with a copy of the errata sheet for
Chapter 18.78.095 as soon as it has been prepared.
Lucy etd, 5412 Willowick Circle, Anaheim. She congratulated all
those involved on the beautiful plan which will improve the City
and make it so much more inviting to tourist, residents, families,
etc., as well as bring more jobs into the City.
The following people spoke in opposition, for purposes of clarification, or to
give their input. Their comments ere sum~arizod~
Mike Fendersen, Deputy 'City Manager, City of Garden Grove. He is
speaking on behalf of the Garden Grove City Council and the Mayor.
They support the project but do have major concerns with the EIR,
the substantial impacts that will be placed on their community and
the lack of cooperation they have felt they have received thus far
in working with the City on the impact issues. There are
significant issues that have not been adequately addressed which
had been previously submitted. (See letters dated July 29, 1994
addressed to the Planning Department, letter dated August 29, 1994
to the Planning Commission and letter dated September 14, 1994 to
the Mayor and Council Members - made a part of the record. Also
see testimony given at the special meeting of the Planning
Commission of August 29, 1994.) There are three areas that have
not been adequately taken into consideration - traffic, housing
and drainage concerns. It is also strange that the southern
569
City Ha11~ Anaheim, Califor~{a - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTE~R 20~ 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
boundary of the plan ends at Orangewood and not all the way to the
City's southern boundary. Garden Grove encourages the Council not
to adopt the EIR tonight but give staff a chance to work with
Garden Grove so they can wholeheartedly support the project.
Jay David Kennon, Development Services Manager, City of Garden
Grove. Again for the record, he first submitted the letters from
the City of Garden Grove which were previously made a part of the
record as outlined above. He addressed some of the issues of
concern covered in the documentation submitted - impacts on
several major intersections in Garden Grove, traffic volumes and
other related issues that might have an effect on residential
areas adjacent to the project area, drainage, inadequacy of low
and moderate income housing needs in both Anaheim and Garden
Grove, and that landscaping should continue to the boundaries of
Garden Grove. They are requesting that Council delay approval of
the EIR so that issues raised may be addressed and some effort to
mitigate their impacts to Garden Grove as well as Anaheim may be
developed.
Steve White, 856 N. Clementine, Vice President, Anaheim HOME.
They do not feel EIR 313 should be approved (see testimony given
at the August 29, 1994 Special Meeting). He is concerned with the
air quality issue and under EIR 313, Section 4.4.1 it identifies
that even with all feasible mitigation measures, emissions from
motor vehicle travel will exceed as CAQMD Standards for thresholds
for ROG, NOx, CO & PMiO emissions both on a project specific and
cumulative basis. Specifically for NOx levels measured at the
agricultural station directly to the north of the project exceed
on occasion twice the Federal standard for NOx and three times the
State standards.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim (HOME). He is present to
again restate the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission
Hearing (see verbatim transcript of August 29, 1994). He feels
the response to those concerns was inadequate and on that basis,
the EIR should not be approved. The EIR does not address the
subject of park land. A special type of worker will be attracted
that will need schooling and housing, but apparently no park land
which is inconsistent with EIRs previously approved. The EIR
needs further study and revision before approval. The Council
needs to be more responsible in making a good value judgement
whether they are really going to get the financial benefits. He
feels also it is a myth that the City.has been neglecting the
CR district. In doing a conservative study of TOT, Anaheim has
the highest rate of 13% but the contribution to the General Fund
is the lowest at 6.9%. The CR area does need to be maintained as
a vital component but not overlooking the problems he has
mentioned in this project and the Disney project and both'the
Planning Commission hearings and this hearing.
Betty Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut, Member of Anaheim HOME. (Also see
testimony given at the meeting of August 29, 1994.) The
residential areas will be impacted as they are at present. She is
concerned with the increase in noise that will occur. Three major
points of concern are the cul-de-sacing of West Street so that
traffic will be diverted to Walnut, the off ramps coming from the
I-5 south going into the Disney parking area and adjacent to a
570
City Ha~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
residential street with no sound walls and the 24-hour
construction noise. It is impossible at this time without
lowering the selling price to sell a home in the 92802 zip code
area. It is difficult for residents to maintain a quality of life
even now. She agrees with Mr. Kirsch and the City of Garden Grove
and their concerns. She also questions where are the financial
benef£ts going to come from. Anaheim needs a City Council that
has the ambition to see that the entire City has a fair share.
Richard Anthony, 1205 S. Walnut, Anaheim (HOME). (Also see his
testimony before the Planning Commission at the August 29, 1994
hearing.) The City is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
bury high voltage utility lines and at the same time create visual
blight on residents by creating a concrete ramp and fly-away
within approximately 150 feet of residential homes along with
fumes, trash, compromising air quality, etc. He referred to
response to comments and questioned the response given relative to
visual blight to the residents, visual impact and quality of life
concerns. He also addressed the funding of the project and the
projected revenues. In concluding his comments, Mr. Anthony
stated in his opinion it is a taxpayer "rip off" and makes no
sense to him at all.
Curtis Stricker, 1117 Wakefield Place, Anaheim. He expressed his
concern that the streets as depicted, especially Katella Avenue,
are not wide enough to accommodate the traffic that will be
generated and the improvements shown in the slides and renderings
during the presentations. He feels generally that it is a poor
plan and that the money should be spent on the rest of the City.
In his opinion, the Council has to change their ethics and do the
things that are right for the City.
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates. On behalf of Melody Land, Rank
Leisure.and Tarsadia. (See verbatim transcript of the August 29,
1994 Planning Commission hearing wherein Mr. Elfend presented
testimony, Pages 50-57.) They feel that the plan presented is
very novel and they support any plan to revitalize and rejuvenate
the CR area. However, before the Council approves the plan, they
(the Council and his clients) should have the basic information
regarding the financing of the area wide infrastructure
improvements. They would like to know the basis and the
allocation for the fair share cost'required in the mitigation
monitoring report to the tune of 172.5 million. They would also
like to understand the implementing financial mechanism. They
have been told that on October 4, 1994, the Council will look at
the alternatives. They believe if there is not a financing
mechanism approved by the City that it would be tragic and their
client or any client they represent would not be able to construct
anythin~ in the City. They al~o have gome legal questlong which
will be addressed by Mr. Bill Ross of Ross & Scott. The EIR must
contain the information on fair share costs to be adequate
pursuant to CEQA. Another concern they have on why they feel
these matters should be heard concurrently is exacerbated by a
letter received from the Director of Public Works, a copy of which
was attached to a letter they sent to Mayor Daly dated
September 14, 1994 (see letter dated September 14, 1994 from
Elfend & Associates and letter dated September 7, 1994 to
Mr. Elfend from Gary Johnson - made a part of the record).
571
City H&llt Anaheimt Californi& - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTE~HR 20, 1994 - 5=00 P.M
Mr. Johnson suggests that they not meet to develop the Hotel
Circle fair share until the Council has considered the area wide
program. He does not understand why. It would be a two-week
continuance to have the matters heard concurrently to October 4,
1994. He reiterated they do not understand why the matter cannot
be held over for two weeks so they can all understand what the
costs are, how they are going to be allocated and to ascertain
whether there is a proper nexus for the allocation. Lastly, there
was a letter sent to the City today but dated December 15,
regarding their representation of Rank Leisure and how staff
proposes to grandfather existing CUPs. Rank is the owner of the
King Henry's Feast project. Ail they would like to have done on
that tonight, and he spoke to Joel Fick before the hearing, is to
have it confirmed that this project would also be grandfathered
from building set back and sign requirements.as set forth in the
staff report. They are requesting a continuance of the matter
before the Council tonight and a clarification with regard to Rank
Leisure.
Mr. William D. Ross, Ross & Scott, 520 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 300,
Los Angeles, 90071-2610. (See letter dated September 20, 1994
from Mr. Ross to the Mayor and City Council Members.) His
comments will be on the sufficiency of the FEIR relationship to
the Specific Plan and most specifically to its relationship with
the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. It is the issue of whether viable
legally adequate mitigation measures are proposed in the EIR.
Their concern focuses on fair share allocation for infrastructure
improvements associated with the plan. There is no environmental
analysis of the infrastructure economic feasibility issue
especially with respect to those three critical areas in the
mitigation monitoring plan~ (1) Transportation and circulation,
(2) public services and utilities and, (3) ground water and
surface hydrology (see letter of September 20, 1994). Mr. Ross
briefed the comments contained in his letter. In concluding, he
stated it would be in everyone's interest to wait until October 4,
1994 when the necessary information will be available and at that
time could be incorporated into the environmental document.
Dina Harris, Best, Best & Krieger, Legal Counsel, Anaheim Union
High School District (AUHSD) and Anaheim City School District
(ACSD). She submitted four letters for the record which the
Council may or may not have seen - letter dated September 20, 1994
from Best, Best & Krieger - Re= Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan/Proposed Mitigation of Impacts on Anaheim City School
District, letter dated September 20, 1994 from Best, Best &
Krieger - Re: Anaheim Resort Specific Plan/Proposed Mitigation of
Impacts on Anaheim Union High School District, letter dated
September 19, 1994 from Cynthia Grennan, Superintendent - Anaheim
Union High School District, letter dated September 19, 1994 from
Meliton Lopez, Superintendent, Anaheim City School District and
also letters previously submitted dated July 29 and August 26,
1994. The letters expressed the districts' serious concerns
relative to the ARSP. Ms. Harris then briefed letter dated
September 20, 1994 containing final comments regarding the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan on behalf of the Anaheim Union High School
District (from Best, Best & Krieger) summarizing their prior
letters and concerns about, "the tremendous impacts that the
Specific Plan will have on public school services and facilities".
572
City Hallo Anaheim. Californ£a - COUNCZL MZNUTES - SEPTEMBER 20. 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
The EIR concludes that impacts on schools are unavoidable and that
no feasible mitigation measures are available. For the reasons
discussed in the letter (made a part of the record) they do not
believe that the Council in good faith can make such a
determination. The City Council has the power and authority
either to deny the Specific Plan or impose conditions tailored to
mitigate impacts on schools. The district is not asking for
greater fees but some form of mitigation that is feasible and
appropriate for each new development on a case by case basis.
They respectfully requested that the decision to certify the EIR
and approve the Specific Plan be postponed to allow time for
serious consideration of feasible mitigation of school impacts.
Mayor Daly asked if there were any additional speakers this would be the last
opportunity for them to come forward. There were no additional speakers.
The public input portion was thereupon concluded.
City Attorney White. He requested a ten minute recess for staff to have an
opportunity to consider the comments made and prepare the necessary response.
To be clear, if anyone else wishes to speak, they must do so before the
recess~ no one came forward.
RECESS= By general Council consent the Council recessed for ten minutes.
(9=15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS= The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Council Member Simpson. (9:30 p.m.)
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Responses to comments received have resulted in
approximately 220 pages that comprehensively addressed many of the questions
addressed in the presentation. Many of the issues that were presented to the
City Council tonight have already been addressed with written responses. Some
of the concerns raised by Cynthia Wolcott that Errata be prepared to make
numbering consistent, staff concurs and if approved, staff would support such
process. The issue has been discussed at staff level prior to tonight.
The City of Garden Grove addressed issues previously addressed. The ARSP will
ultimately have benefits to Anaheim's neighbor to the south. Staff has
addressed in written responses all the items raised tonight.
Mr. Elfend requested signs and set backs be grandfathered for King Henry's
(Rank Leisure) and that is the case. There are several technical or specific
areas where staff will be providing additional commentary.
Joan Kelly, EIR Project Manager. She first corrected a figure she gave in her
earlier presentation wherein she stated that full build out of hotel rooms is
13,000 - the figure should be 16,318. She then addressed the issues/concerns
broached in the presentations relative to air quality, recreation and noise.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney addressed the issues raised relating to
school impacts and the sufficiency of the EIR in that regard.
Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director~ She also addressed issues raised
relating to school impacts noting that staff considered a number of relevant
facts. The City's General Plan and zoning have for more than 25 years
provided for commercial, recreation and convention uses in the area. The
573
City Hall, Anahsimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - $~?TEMBER 20, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
proposed specific plan would not change that. Hotels and other uses
supporting the area could be built today without any General Plan Amendment or
rezoning. The project does not involve any residential use and impacts are
indirect. During her presentation, she submitted a survey done by staff of
all the cities in Orange County and the City and County of Riverside and
Riverside and Corona wherein it showed that neither the General Plan nor the
City requires new development (residential, commercial, industrial) to pay for
school mitigation beyond the State's statutory fee with the exception of the
City of Corona and Riverside County (residential only). In concluding, she
stated in light of the evidence presented staff recommends that feasible
mitigation measures have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan which
requires payment of fees in accordance with State statute and to adopt the
Specific Plan without the changes requested by the school district and also
adopt the findings of fact in Statement of Overriding Considerations before
the Council today.
John Lower, Traffic & Transportation Manager. He addressed five issues that
were broached relative to traffic=
The cul-de-sacing of West Street - it will not be cul-de-saced but
realigned at grade at the intersection of Ball Road.
Soundwalls - I-5 Southbound off ramps - they are not a part of
this project but a part of the certified I-5 widening project to
be under construction in late 1996 or 1997.
west Street fly over - it is not part of this project but is a
part of the Disney expansion project and is part of the certified
EIR.
Street widths along Katella - the renderings shown are not
engineering drawings. The adeqUacy in street widths necessary to
accommodate traffic has been planned for and is part of the
project.
Traffic on Katella - planned traffic improvements are compatible
with the OCTA Smart Street by the year 2010. Parts of that Smart
Street are currently in the final engineering stage.
Tom Winfield, Special Counsel. He spoke in response to Mr. Steinke
representing Mr. & Mrs. Hathaway and Tiffy's Restaurant wherein he stated that
they felt the matter had been clarified previously - that there is no impact
on Tiffy's Restaurant. He also spoke to the issues raised by Mr. Elfend and
Mr. Ross concerning the financial feasibility of mitigation measures. He
concluded that no development will take place pursuant to the ARSP until the
mitigation is in place. What the developers aren't concerned about is how
they will be financed. It is not an inappropriate consideration, but not one
that has to be dealt with in the EIR process. It is unknown which project
will come in next or whether the Council will decide on October 4, 1994 or
thereafter to have a substantial public participation in the financing of the
infrastructure. Until they know which particular developments are asking to
develop and when, they do not know how best to reqUire and determine that the
mitigation for those projects as identified in the EIR will be reqUired and
caused to happen. That is the time when they are required by law to address
the matter and not tonight.
Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager/Director of Maintenance. He reiterated the
gross capital program necessary to accomplish that which has been presented
574
City Hallf Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20~ 1994 - 5500 P.M.
tonight is approximately $172.5 million. They have successfully secured from
other funding sources - State, Federal, Measure M and other sources - over
$110 million, leaving $63 million. That amount is well within the City's
ability to finance through a number of different sources that in no way impact
the taxpayer and the City. In concluding his remarks, with the ARSP, they are
hoping to "grow" the business - to make the business of having a tourist
destination resort a better deal than it is today. It is to secure the
future.
Mayor Daly and Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Wood relative to
the financing mechanisms, estimated life of the project, etc.
Council Member Hunter. He felt that a lot of people did not understand the
delineation between the ARSP and the Disney Resort Specific Plan. He gave
some background history starting in 1987, the point being that the ARSP was
going to happen no matter what Disney and Mr. Eisner were going to do. It was
independent of the Disney Resort Project. He then spoke to the need for
proceeding with the ARSP and its importance to the City.
Mayor Daly. It is important to emphasize the Specific Plan before the Council
today needs to go forward regardless of the Disney Resort Specific Plan. It
is a message that Anaheim intends to improve the area around Disneyland
regardless of Disneyland's timetable.
Council Member Hunter. He is going to vote for the plan but thinks there
needs to be a string attached - that there also be a financing plan.
City Attorney White. He would not recon~end in favor of recommending that
type of condition. Staff has attempted in tonight's presentation including
responses to comments to indicate the mitigation measures and how this will be
paid for. It would be his recommendation if this goes forward that it not
have a string attached to it in that regard.
Discussion ~hen followed between Council Members and staff relative to the
Mayor's question whether on October.-4, staff will be prepared to answer every
question about the fair share issue or the $63 million remaining to be funded
or if it will still be conceptual; Tom Wood explained that it will be a
breakdown of the project by categories, ~.e., how much of the $172 million
will be for street improvements, public safety, sewer lines, but not the
segment detail from this point to that point at this particular size. It will
be a gross cost.for facilities, gross cost for storm drains, etc.
Council Member Hunter. His point is that the burden should be on the
tourists. When the Council comes to policy decisions on October 4, regarding
fair share, that fair share ought to be on the TOT that goes to the tourists
and not the developers.
Council Member Pickler. He has been on the Council since 1982 and this
Councll and the previous Counc£1 always considered improvements to the
CR area. It is now coming to fruition. He also does not agree with HOME that
this will deteriorate their property values but instead will enhance their
area. The project will be a benefit both aesthetically and environmentally.
He feels the schools are getting carried away in some of their requests. He
does not believe the schools would like the City telling them what to do. The
schools have always been a very high priority for the City and there are many
things the City does which benefit the schools. The City of Garden Grove has
been a good neighbor and will benefit from what Anaheim is doing outside of
the Westcot Project. It will also be an economic benefit to Garden Grove. He
575
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20r 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
is very pleased that the plan that they have talked about for many years has
finally come forward.
Mayor Da1F closed the public hearing.
Council Member Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-234 for adoption,
certifying EIR No. 313 and adopting the Statement of Findings & Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program
No. 0085 based upon the findings set forth on Page 39 of the Planning
Commission staff report dated August 29, 1994. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM (A) CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313, (B) ADOPTING
A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND (C) ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
NO. 0085.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-234 for adoptions
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-234 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-235 for adoption, adopting
General Plan Amendment No. 333 pertaining to the Landuse, Circulation and
Environmental Resource and Management Elements of the General Plan. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-235: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 333.
Roll Call VOte on Resolution No. 94R-255 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-235 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-236 for adoption, approving the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (INCLUDING ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A DESIGN PLAN AND GUIDELINES, AND A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PLAN).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-236 for sdoptionl
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
576
C£tv ~&llo P~uahe$~r Ca~$£oF~$a - cOUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20. 1994 - S:00 P.M.
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-236 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-237 for adoption, approving the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, Zoning and Development Standards.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-237~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 92-2.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-237 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES~
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-237 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 5453 - INTRODUCTION: Amending Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to Zoning and Development Standards for the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5453 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5453= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER
18.48 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2.
ORDINANCE NO. 5454 - INTRODUCTION: Amending the Zoning Map for Specific Plan
No. 92-2.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5454 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5454: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 92-2.
council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-238 for adoption, adopting the
Anaheim Resort Identity Program. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-2~8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE ANAHEIM RESORT IDENTITY PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-238 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-238 duly passed and adopted.
577
City Hall. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20~ 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-239 for adoption, adopting the
Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-239 for adoption:
AYES=
NOES=
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL-MEMEERS:
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-239 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-240 for adoption, adopting the
Anaheim Resort Nonconforming Signage Program. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE ANAHEIM RESORT NONCONFORMING SIGNAGE PROGRAM.
Roll Cell Vote on Resolution No. 94R-240 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES=
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS=
Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
Simpson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-240 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly. He complimented and congratulated staff for a job well done. It
is a plan both visionary and comprehensive. It is a tremendous package of
improvements for the ~ourism area surrounding Disneyland. The adoption of the
plan is a great mile stone for the City and offers a clear signal that Anaheim
is serious about making major improvements designed to help keep a vital
economic engine running strong well into the future. It is important to know
that the vast majority of the Anaheim business community including the hotel
and motel industry and he believes the vast majority of Anaheim residents are
in strong support of the plan.
C3. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
114: ORANGE COUNTY FIXED GUIDEWAY:
Council Member Pickler asked that a letter be prepared to send to the Central
Orange County Fixed Guideway Agency relative, to Anaheim withdrawing from that
Agency. He asked that the matter be placed on the agenda for formal Council
Action.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of September 20,
1994 was adjourned. (10:30 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
578