1992/03/03City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE: John Roche
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: Kristine Thalman
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Gregory McCafferty
SENIOR PLANNER: Linda Johnson
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:05 p.m. on February 28, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the workshop portion of the meeting of March 3, 1992 to
order at 3:06 p.m.
City Manager, James Ruth. He introduced Maintenance Director, John Roche and
Public Works Director and City Engineer, Gary Johnson who will make a
presentation on the status of City streets and arterial highways in terms of
maintenance and impact of budget cuts on the Maintenance program.
132: STREETS AND SANITATION - CITY STREETS AND ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS:
John Roche, Maintenance Director. He is going to address the local streets and
if time permits will address three additional issues - the condition of
sidewalks in the City, sewer deficiency in Central City and a storm drain
plan. Local streets are neighborhood type streets - arterial highways are
those such as Ball Road under the jurisdiction of Public Works/Engineering.
(Mr. Roche's presentation was supplemented by slides.) Hard copies of the
charts, graphs, maps, etc., were submitted in a booklet entitled, City of
Anaheim - Department of Maintenance - Council presentation - March 3, 1992 -
made a part of the record. Based on annual surveys, the Department is able to
determine the deficiencies in local streets. The Local Street Condition report
showed the percentage of work presently needed on local streets. Only 20% of
the local streets do not require work at this time. He briefed street
maintenance techniques showing slides of City crews utilizing different
procedures (i.e., fog seal, slurry seal, resurfacing, etc.), explaining that
the City uses a combination of City crews and private contractors to repair and
maintain streets. He also briefed the average life expectancy of City streets
and cost of repairs.
After his presentation, Mr. Roche stated that the recommendation is to continue
with a good program of seal coating, resurfacing and reconstruction and to try
144
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
to prevent or eliminate potholes wherever possible. They have fallen behind
because of budget difficulties and in 1992 - 1993 as shown on the graph, the
department is almost 1 million dollars behind relative to maintenance. The
recommendation is to revert to a consistent funding program to keep the streets
well maintained.
council Members then posed questions on this portion of the presentation which
were answered by Mr. Roche.
ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS: Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works and City Engineer.
He noted first that Anaheim is not the only City experiencing difficulty in
maintaining their streets and street program; all other cities in California
are experiencing the same thing. The trend began two to three years ago when
the economy took a down turn. Relative to arterial streets, there is
competition with funding. It is necessary to provide for capacity enhancements
for new business to come into the City to promote economic growth. The goal is
to relieve congestion, but also balance the program and provide a level of
maintenance for the arterial system. Funds are not presently available to do
what they would like to do. There are almost 700-lane miles of arterials in
the City. Considering the system as an asset, just the pavement between the :
curbs, the arterial system is worth 135 million dollars. It is more than
double the local system (60 million dollars) if it had to be reconstructed.
Mr. Johnson's presentation was then supplemented by slides which showed certain
areas of the City and major arterials along with their average daily
capacities. He briefed road deterioration versus time. The typical pavement
life cycle is approximately 20 years. Public Works tries to intercede in about
the 10th year, but if arterials are allowed to continue in decline, there is a
40 percent increase in deterioration over a very short period of time. It is
very important to do something at about the 10th year or go into total
reconstruction of the street. The department has completed their Pavement
Management Survey. The map shown in the slides indicates the streets that are
in need of repair. A report relative to deficiencies will be submitted to the
Council at a later date. The deficiency in funding amounts to approximately
52 million dollars. A 10 year rehabilitation plan would require devoting about
8 million dollars a year to the arterial system whereas it is now 4 to
5 million. It takes slightly over 4 million dollars a year to keep the
deficiency at a level plane.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Johnson answered questions posed by
Council Members.
Both Mr. Roche and Johnson noted that rain causes deterioration in local
streets and arterials. Deterioration has been at a minimum over the past
5 years. Recent heavy rains have resulted in many potholes that were not
evident in recent past winters.
John Roche, Maintenance Director. He then briefed the Council regarding three
areas involving long-term funding issues - sidewalk repairs, sewer deficiency
in the Central City area and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). (These three issues were also covered in the
145
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
booklet submitted. Hard copies of a number of slides that were then shown were
contained in the booklet). An overview was given of sidewalk related
complaints and the necessary funding to effect a repair program. Sidewalks
have always been a general fund expense, but they could be financed by other
methods. The department will come back to the Council at a later date with a
proposal for funding other than from the General Fund.
SEWER DEFICIENCIES - CENTRAL CITY AREA= In the Central City Area (boundaries
depicted in a slide - hard copy included in the report), there is a 6 inch
sewer line system in that area. The numbers shown represent 1990 Census Tract
Data. The replacement of many single-family homes with multi-family housing
units in the Central City area has increased population density beyond the
capacity of the existing sewer system. With such large densities come
tremendous sewer problems. The normal cleaning schedule throughout the City is
eighteen months - in the subject area, it is every four months. Over $70,000
has been spent in overtime alone as a result of crews having to work weekends
and at night to handle sewer problems in that area. Maintenance along with the
Public Works Department is undertaking a sewer study of the area with
recommendations to be submitted to Council. The issue is how to fund almost
5 million dollars in upgrading and it must be addressed. There is a ~
possibility it could be done by special assessment districts or an extra charge
on sewer rates.
NPDES= The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System is one established
under the Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) in 1972. It regulates
the pollution levels of discharges into the waters of the United States.
Cities and Counties are mandated to develop a Drainage Area Management Plan
(DAMP) to comply with NPDES permit requirements. A number of the activities
required by DAMP are currently being performed and are included in the
operating budget of the Sanitation Fund programs; other activities are not
being budgeted and will require additional funding. The plan and
implementation schedule are included in the documentation provided. This is
another funding issue subsequently to be submitted to the Council for
consideration.
City Manager, James Ruth. The second presentation today is a legislative
update by Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Kris Thalman.
139: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Kris Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer.
She briefed the events taking place at the upcoming National League of Cities
Conference, March 8-11, 1992 in Washington D.C. which will be attended by some
Council Members and some City staff members. At the local (Anaheim) level
there are four highly significant issues which will be the focus when meeting
with the City's congressional members and representatives=
ARTIC/RAI~ - This is the proposed AnaheimRegional Transportation
Intermodel Complex (ARTIC) proposed near Anaheim Stadium.
(Documents relating to the system as well as a draft brochure -
'Anaheim on the Move' was submitted and made a part of the record).
She briefed the material contained in the brochure emphasizing that
a transportation system such as ARTIC is necessary for the City to
continue into the next century in order to maintain economic
viability, maintain mobility and improve air quality.
146
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAR. CH 3~ 1992, 5:00 P.M.
DRUG AND GANG ABATEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING - Members of Congress need
to know what the City is doing at the local level and that a drugs
appropriation is needed at the local level where it can truly make a
difference.
TAX AND BANKING LEGISLATION- Arbitrage rebate has been ongoing
since the beginning of time. Proposed legislation is a federal
income tax on tax exempt bonds. It is taxing municipal agencies who
issue bonds, funds they believe should be reinvested in the
community.
JOBS LEGISLATION- So far there are approximately eight
anti-recession plans dealing with the creation of jobs to stimulate
the economy. The funds are a shift in defense program funds to
domestic programs distributed to local government public works
projects. The criteria to capture these funds is the ability to
create those jobs quickly, some as quickly as 90-days. An internal
city task force has been established to identify those projects
within the City which are ready to go or on the shelf. She named
eight such projects which could create approximately 1800 jobs. -.
This schedule of projects will be brought to the City Manager within-
the next month and subsequently to the City Council for policy
direction. There is no indication at this time whether or not the
subject legislation will pass.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members thanked Mrs. Thalman for her presentation.
RECESS - REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a
Closed Session to consider the following items=
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), to wit:
Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 40-92-46~ Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized
representative regarding labor relations matters - Government Code
Section 54957.6.
c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1).
e. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates
any of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
147
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - .MARCH 3t 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Pickler motion to go into closed session, Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3=50 p.m. )
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:32 p.m. )
INVOCATION: Pastor Bruce J. Cramer, Anaheim First Christian Church, gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE= Girl Scout's Anaheim Honor Unit led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: ~ROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council=
Girl Scout week, in Anaheim, March 17-14, 1992
Tree City USA day, in Anaheim, March 4, 1992
Hire an Older Worker week, in Anaheim, March 8-14, 1992
Volunteer Recognition month, in Anaheim, March, 1992
American Red Cross month, in Anaheim, March, 1992
Mrs. Nancy Renzo and Pat Voas along with the Girl Scout's Anaheim Honor Unit
who presented the colors and gave the flag salute accepted the Girl Scout's
week proclamation~ Mr. Frank Jacobson, Doug Gibson and Larry Slagle accepted
the Hire an Older Worker week proclamation~ Volunteer Recognition Banquet Ad
Hoc Committee Members Kathleen Benson, Elsie Jones, Ruth Mendez, Ruby Rivers,
Betty Soto, Ruben Soto, Helen Ward and Linda Hoffman accepted the Volunteer
Recognition month proclamation~ Diana Burns and Anna Opelt accepted the
American Red Cross month proclamation.
119: PR~_SENTATION - INTRODUCTION - MISS ANAHEIM/AMERICA...- Mrs. Earline Jones,
Executive Director, Mrs. Anaheim/Miss America introduced Tammy Renae Konegni,
the new Mrs. Anaheim/Miss America who won the title at the Mrs. Anaheim
~¢hol~rship Pageant held February 28~ 1992.
Mayor Hunter presented Mrs. Konegny with flowers and extended congratulations
on behalf of the Council and the City on having won the recent competition.
Council Members wished her well in the Mrs. California competition ultimately
leading to the Mrs. America Pageant. Council Member Pickler extended special
thanks to Earline Jones who has dedicated many years to the
Mrs. Anaheim/America Pageants.
119= DECLARATION OF .CONGRATULATIONS= A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council congratulating United of Western
Medical Centers on their 90th anniversary of providing health care to the
community. Mr. Larry Slagle, Chairman of the Board, Anaheim facility, accepted
the declaration. Mayor Hunter and Council Members commended United Western for
their contributions to the community.
148
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3~ 1992, 5:00 P.M.
FINANCIAL D~~S AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,364,630.90 for the
period ending February 28, 1992, in accordance with the 1991-92 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5: 57 p.m. )
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:59 p.m. )
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments were received relative to
Item A17 (see discussion under that item).
ITEMS OF PU~C INTEREST:
Bill Cox, 1956 W. Harle, Anaheim, 92804. He prefaced his comments by
clarifying that he has respect and admiration for the City's Police
Department. His concern is with the difficulty in obtaining a police clearance
in the City of Anaheim. He briefed the incident which took place when he tried
to obtain a police clearance needed to get a visa for a passport. In Anaheim,
he was given a form to send to Sacramento and was told it would take 60-days.
It was also implied by the officer at the desk this was State law. He was ~
concerned over the time element involved. He called a number of cities in
Orange County to learn of their procedure. Of the seven cities and one agency-
he reported on, all but one gave police clearances on the spot at a cost from a
minimum of $5 to a maximum of $15. (The Orange County Sheriff's Department
will mail a clearance within three days). He obtained a clearance one
afternoon at the Sheriff's Department and found while he was there that several
people were asking for such a clearance in order to obtain a Job, which he
feels is an even more important issue than trying to'obtain a visa. He feels
it is not fair that Anaheim is the only city in North Orange County that has an
oppressive policy and it is not State law.
Mayor Hunter requested that an appropriate staff member contact Mr. Cox
regarding this issue.
Rick Vaughn, resident and businessman in Anaheim. He asked who is best
qualified to spend tax money, the government or the people. He referred to the
2% Anaheim Utilities User Tax enacted by the Council with the agreement that in
the next general election the tax would be proposed to the taxpayers. The next
election is June 2, 1992. The Orange County Registrar of Voters told him that
March 6, 1992 is the deadline to submit the necessary documents to the County
for inclusion on the June 2, 1992 ballot, otherwise it would be necessary to
wait until November, before doing so which by that time will cost taxpayers 3.3
million dollars in Utilities User Tax payments. He urged that the issue be
placed on the June ballot.
149
City Hall, Ana_he!_mm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3m 1992, 5:00 P.M:.
Dennis Hardin, 1300 S. Harbor Blvd., representing the Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce. He agrees with Mr. Vaughn and also urged that the issue be placed
before the voters on the June 2, 1992 ballot. Of the 3.3 million dollars that
would be paid between June and November, he would guess that the majority is
coming from the business community.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, 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. 92R-40 and 92R-41 for adoption and Ordinance Nos. 5287
through 5289, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance
Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS /ORDINANCES ~.. The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution
Nos. 92R-40 and 92R-41 for adoption and Ordinance Nos. 5287 through 5289, both
inclusive, for adoption. ) ~-
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions
and ordinances. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management=
a. Claim submitted by Tamera Bond for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 1, 1992.
b. Claim submitted by Bonny-Jo Ellis for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 2, 1992.
c. Claim submitted by Rafael Garcia for property damage sustained
purportedly due to action8 of the City on or about January 6, 1992.
d. Claim submitted by Michael D. Gerth dba Matterhorn Apartments for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
February 12, 1992.-
e. Claim submitted by Kathi S. Granik for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 17, 1992.
f. Claim submitted by Dennis A. Matthews for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 5, 1992.
g. Claim submitted by Mary Justine Hum~er for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 24, 1991.
150
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
h. Claim submitted by Duane Stout for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 29, 1992.
i. Claim submitted by Thomas J. Walls for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 4, 1992.
J. Claim submitted by Anthony Grossi for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 16, 1991.
k. Claim submitted by Jennifer Kerstner for property damage and bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 5,
1991.
1. Claim submitted by Sawas Roditis for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 29, 1991.
m. Claim submitted by Diana Lynn Sanner for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 13, 1991.
A2. 186: Receiving and filing Resolution No. APFA 92-1, fixing time and
place of regular meetings, and establishing the order of business and rules
for the proceedings of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority.
107: Receiving and filing the Building Division Annual Report for 1991.
107: Receiving and filing the Statistical Report Summary ending January 31,
1992, as submitted by the Building Division.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meetings held
January 16, 1992, and February 6, 1992.
178: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 8358 of the Board of Directors of
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, giving notice of
intention to consider and act upon recommendation to impose water standby
charges and availability of service charges.
A3. 175: Approving a Notice of completion of the construction of Meter Vault
Rehabilitation and Replacement (city-wide), by Atlas Allied, Incorporated, and
authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of
Completion.
A4. 123'. Approving a Cooperative Agreement with the State of California
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) for the maintenance of two changeable
message signs (CMS) located on I-5 in the Commercial Recreation Area, and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Cooperative Agreement.
The southbound CMS is located at Broadway and the northbound CMS is located
one-half mile south of Katella Avenue.
A5. 123: Approving the Second Amendment to Agreement with Kellogg
Corporation, extending the term of the agreement for claims consulting
services for the Police 2000 project.
151
City Hallt Anahelmt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - .MARCH 3~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
A6. 160: Accepting the low bid of VIP Motorcycles, in the amount of $35,310
for six police motorcycles, in accordance with Bid $5027.
A7. 123: Accepting the bid of Montgomery Elevator Company, in the amount of
$232,200, and authorizing the execution of an agreement with Montgomery
Elevator Company for the maintenance of elevators and escalators at Anaheim
Stadium, for a period of three years (July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1994), in
accordance with Bid $4926.
A8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Microage Corporate Center, in the amount
of $35,802 for computer hardware equipment, in accordance with Bid $5014.
Authorizing the transfer of expenditure appropriations from account no.
55-468-5115 to account no. 55-468-5515 in the amount of $35,802.
A9. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE INVITATION OF PROPOSALS FOR THE
PURCHASE OF NOT TO EXCEED $6,400,000 WATER REVENUE BONDS, 1992 SERIES; OF SAID
CITY; APPROVING THE NOTICE INVITING BIDS AND THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL
BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE DELIVERY OF THE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND
THE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL BONDS AND THE NOTICE ~'
INVITING BIDS.
Al0. 113:. R~SOLUTION NO. 92R-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN
100 DAYS OLD. (Erasure of Voice Recording Tapes $334 through $357 and $359
through #394 - Utilities Department, Systems Operations Division. )
All. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Orange County Consolidated
Transportation Service Agency, in the amount of $30,218 to provide
transportation services to senior citizens for the period of July 1, 1991
through June 30, 1992.
A12. 123: Approving the renewal of the agreement with Major League Softball,
Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $175,055 for scorekeeping services,
for the period of March 7, 1992 through July 1, 1993.
A13. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5288 - (ADOPTION}: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.94.040 AND ADDING SECTION 18.94.025 TO CHAPTER
18.94 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SENIOR CITIZENS'
APARTMENT PROJECTS.
--
155: Approving a Negative Declaration in connection with providing additional
affordable housing opportunities for very iow-income senior citizens, and to
provide for design review of senior citizen apartment projects city-wide.
A14. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5289 - (ADOPTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 18.99 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO DENSITY BONUS.
114: Amending City Council Policy Number 543 city-wide.
152
City Hall, Anahgimt California - COUNCIL MI. NUTES - MARCH 3t 1992~ 5=00 P.M.
155: Approving a Negative Declaration in connection with the implementation
of a density bonus program to provide affordable housing opportunities for
iow-income individuals and families.
A15. 123: Approving the Agreement Extending Tolling of Time Limitations with
Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, to extend the tolling of any applicable
statutory limits for legal action through June 30, 1992, for the Police 2000
project.
A16. 156: RESOLUTION NO. ---- : Authorizing the Chief of Police to accept
charitable contributions and issue receipts for said contributions in
connection with community programs which are managed by the Police
Department. (Continued from the meeting of January 28, 1992, Item A16. )
This item was removed from the agenda at this time as requested by the Police
Department to be rescheduled at a later date.
A17. 101= Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder
R.J. Noble, in the amount of $2,402,945.90 for Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot
Improvement; and in the event said iow 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.
Mr. Ed Lynch, 5380 Mountvernon Avenue, Chino. He is the owner of L & W
Engineering Contractors. His company is involved with the heater
scarification process which is one of the alternates on the subject bid. He
is a subcontractor on that bid. He urged the Council to accept the
recommendation of City staff. There are two alternative methods at issue -
one is the addition of the rubberized asphalt and the other is the heater
scarification process which he is involved in. His process is $130,000
cheaper. He reiterated his presence tonight is to urge the Council to accept
the City staff recommendation in this matter.
Donna Carlson, Laguna Niguel, Public Relations Consultant, representing the
Asphalt Rubber Division of Manhole Adjusting which is a
subcontractor/materials supplier which calls for the addition of scrap tire
rubber to the asphalt. Her client has previously submitted information to the
Council. She would be happy to answer any questions since they may not be
technique familiar with this paving technique. This paving project is
different in that this is a facility that cannot stand a great amount of time
being tied up in tbs paving process. The difference in time is an additional
20-days that would be involved in the process recommended by staff. Twenty
(20) days means twenty more times to send out City inspectors and workers.
There are additional cost factors that should be examined by the Council -
lifecycle cost and maintenance that may be required.
Council Member Pickler asked for clarification relative to the staff
recommendat ion.
Gary Johnson, Public Works, Director of City Engineer. Staff is recommending
the Conventional Application. He also clarified that the second, third and
fourth bids are those recommended since the lowest bidder withdrew their bid
153
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
due to an error in preparing the bid. Answering Council Member Ehrle,
relative to the time frame for completion, the specification requires the
contractor to work around the events schedule at the stadium so that it will
not be inconveniencing any tenants.
A18. 175: ORDINANCE NO. 5287 - {ADOPTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 4415 OF
THE CITY COUNCIL (AS HERETOFORE SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED). (Redefining
surplus moneys from water revenue bonds. )
Al9. Approving the minutes of February 4, 1992.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-40 and 92R-41 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-40 and 92R-41 duly passed and adopted.
-.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5287 through 5289, both inclus£ve, for
adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5287 through 5289, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar.
BOARD AND COMMISSION ITEMS:
A20/A21. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: (1) Appointment to the Senior Citizens Commission
to fill the unscheduled vacancy (Seymour, term expires 6/30/92). (2)
Appointment to the Community Redevelopment Commission to fill the unscheduled
vacancy (Feldhaus,-term expires 6/30/95).
Mayor Hunter. He would like to continue the subject appointments for one or
two weeks; Council Member Ehrle. He is ready to nominate a gentlemen tonight,
but is agreeable to waiting.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to continue the subject appointments to
the Senior Citizens Commission and Community Redevelopment Commission to
Tuesday, March 17, 1992. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
154
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
ITEM B1 FROM TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 1992, INFORMATION
ONLY - APPEAL PER~OD ENDS MARCH 5, 1992:
B1. 170: TENTATIVE. TRACT MAP NO. 14429, VARIANCE NO. 4136 (WITHDRAWN),
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 91-07 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE. CLARATION:
OWNERS: ED STERN, LINDA STERN, MANFRED A GLASTETTER, CHRISTA
GLASTETTER, GARY F. LYONS, DONNA LEE LYONS, RAYMOND W. PEARSON,
PAMELA J. PEARSON, CURTIS B. PEARSON, REITA BETH PEARSON, FRED
GLASTETTER AND LORI GLASTETTER
AGENT: FRED GLASTETTER, 25012 Via Del Rio, E1 Toro, CA 92630
LOCATION: Property is approximately 8.4 acres located on the west
side of Henning Way approximately 350 feet south of the centerline of
Quintana Drive.
Waiver of minimum lot width to establish a 7-lot (plus a common lot,
RS-HS-22,000 (SC), single-family subdivision.
To remove fifty-eight (58) specimen trees.
ACT~.ON TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 APPROVED.
NOTE: Variance No. 4136 and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 91-07
have a 22-day appeal period and will appear before Council on
~/~?/9~-.
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B2. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5290 FOR ADOPTION:
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5290)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5290 for adoption, amending Title
18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 89-90-48, located at 1521 N.
Imperial Highway, from the RS-A-43,000(SC) zone to the CL(SC) zone. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5,290: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 89-90-48, located at 1521 N. Imperial Highway, from the
RS-A-43,000(SC) zone to the CL(SC) zone.)
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5290 for adoption:
AYES.- COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5290 duly passed and adopted.
155
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
B3. 179: REOUEST FOR REHEARING - VARIANCE NO. 1323~ CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT~
CLASS 21=
Submitted was a request for a rehearing on the subject variance submitted by
Carl and Franceska Honigmann, owners, Barbary Coast, 2230 W. Colchester Drive,
Anaheim.
At a public hearing held before the Council on February 4, 1992, the City
Council modified Variance No. 1323 which included a six-months review of the
business in six months as outlined in Resolution No. 92R-24 (see minutes that
date where extensive input was received).
Also submitted was letter dated February 19, 1992 from Jeff Farano, Farano &
Kieviet, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., Attorneys for the Honigmanns outlining in detail
the reasons for the request for a rehearing (previously made a part of the
record).
Mr. Jeff Far&no, Farano a Kieviet. He is representing the owners of Barbary
Coast, Mr. & Mrs. Nonigmann. At the public hearing on February 4, 1992
regarding Variance No. 1323, the Council at that time agreed that there was
insufficient evidence to revoke the variance for the Barbary Coast to operate~
Just as there were insufficient reasons at that time to revoke Barbary Coast,
he believes the evidence was insufficient to revoke the variance within six
months. At the hearing on six separate occasions, it was discussed that the
matter would be up for review in six months. He (Farano) agreed to that. Upon
reviewing the resolution (92R-24), the condition placed in the resolution was
that the variance would terminate within six months and come back for renewal
at that time. His request for a rehearing is to modify the condition from a
termination to a review period as it was the intention of the City Council at
the hearing and what he agreed to. There is a substantial difference between a
review in six months and a renewal in six months. The renewal simply means
they have to come back and ask for another permit, i.e., it expires in six
months. He reiterated, since the evidence was insufficient to support
revocation at this point, it is insufficient to support revocation within six
months.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to deny the request for a rehearing on
Variance No. 1323. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
B4. 179= REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 4111 NUTWOOD PARK
APARTMENTS: -
The request was submitted by David F. Larson, Real Estate Investment Brokerage,
2907 Baker Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. The property is located at 1668 S.
Nutwood Street. The petitioner requests an extension of time retroactive to
February 7, 1992, to expire on May 7, 1992, to comply with the conditions of
approval.
Variance No. 4111 is for waiver of minimum structural setback, minimum number
of parking spaces, minimum floor area per dwelling unit, to retain two
illegally constructed apartment units.
156
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH.. 3t 1992~ 5=00 P.M.
Submitted was report dated February 19, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending the 90-day time extension as requested by
Mr. Larson in his letter dated January 30, 1992 retroactive to February 7, 1992
to expire May 7, 1992.
MOTION.: Council Member Pickler moved to approve the requested extension of
time for 90-days retroactive to February 7, 1992 to expire May 7, 1992 as
recommended by staff. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. Council
Member Daly voted no since he voted no when the item was originally heard by
the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
BS. 179= REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 4091=
The request is by Duane R. Mahan, 15308 Bixler, Paramount, CA 90723. The
property is located at 2831 West Ball Road. The petitioner requests an
extension of time to expire on February 26, 1993 to comply with conditions of
approval on Variance No. 4091 relating to the retention of a 13th dwelling unit
within an existing 12-unit apartment complex.
Submitted was report dated February 20, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending approval of the time extension to expire
February 26, 1993.
MOTION= Council Member Pickler moved to approve the extension of time on
Variance No. 4091 to expire February 26, 1993 as recommended in report dated
February 20, 1992. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member
Daly voted no since he voted no when the item was originally heard by the
Council. MOTION CARRIED.
B6. 179= REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2651=
The request is by Dwight D. Belden, Vice President, Hillman Properties West,
Inc., 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 304, Newport Beach, CA 92660-7640. The
property is located at 2400 and 2420 E. Katella Avenue. The petitioner
requests an extension of time retroactive to February 26, 1992, to expire on
February 26, 1993. The Conditional Use Permit is to permit a hotel and office
complex with accessory uses and certain waivers.
Submitted was report dated February 25, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending that a time extension be granted retroactive to
February 26, 1992 to expire February 26, 1993 subject to three conditions as
listed on page I of the report.
--
Mr. Dwight Belden, 450 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach. He would like to
express their understanding of the conditions to extension of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2651 recommended by City staff=
1) Ail parking spaces shall comply with the minimum parking stall
dimensions in effect at time of building permit issuance.
2) Should a building permit - other than Permit $28123 which is
currently in effect - be issued or reissued for the second office
tower, then each and every fee required for new construction in the
Anaheim Stadium Business Center shall be paid at the rates in effect
157
City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARC.H 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
on the date of any subsequent building permit issuances; less credit
for fees previously paid under the existing permit No. 28123.
3) In the event of any building permit reinstatement, the appropriate
reinstatement fee shall be paid to the building division.
He trusts that the interpretation is correct.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. It is essentially correct. He mentioned to
Mr. Belden there may be some fees under the building code with respect to that
specific permit issuance that need to be repaid, but effectively the major
items under the Stadium business fee program, which he believes is the major
concern, staff will credit those.
MOTION:. Council Member Hunter moved to approve the requested extension of time
retroactive to February 26, 1992 to expire February 26, 1993 on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2651 subject to the three conditions listed in staff report dated
February 25, 1992. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
112: ~W~AR 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. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 324, RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 91-92-10, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3482 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: ELSIE MENUEY, 27681 Via Turina, Mission Viejo, CA 92692.
LOCATION: 2260 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 0.9
acre located on the south side of Orange Avenue and approximately 715
feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street.
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating
subject property from the existing Low Density Residential designation
tO the Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000
(Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone.
To permit a 16-unit condominium complex with waiver of maximum
structural height.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA NO. 324 GRANTED (PC92-09) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Reclassification No. 91-92-10 GRANTED, modified to RS-5000 (PC92-10).
Waiver of code requirement DENIED.
CUP NO. 3482 DENIED (PC92-11).
HEARING SET ON ~
A public hearing was set due to General Plan Amendment No. 324.
158
City Hallf Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3r 1992r 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin- February 20, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 19, 1992
Posting of property - February 21, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 27, 1992.
Staff first clarified for Council Member Pickler that the request is to go from
the low-density designation to iow-medium density and the implementation zones
within that designation are RM2400, RM3000 or RSS000. The designation just
sets the overall density category under which several implementing zones could
actually take place.
APPLICANT
STATeMeNT
Blash Momeny, Business Center Drive, Irvine. He has not agreed
to the reclassification to RSS000. He does not think RSS000
would be a good project in the subject location. The property is
.9 acres. He is proposing a 16-unit condominium project which he
described. He is going to brief the site plans ~osted on the :
Chamber wall.
Mayor Hunter. His understanding is that the discussion tonight
will only involve the reclassification since the Conditional Use
Permit was denied by the Planning Commission and that decision
was not appealed.
City Attorney White. Four items were originally taken to the
Planning Commission. (1) the CEQA Finding for the Negative
Declaration, (2) the General Plan Amendment to amend the land use
element for the property from the existing low density to
low-medium density, (3) the Zoning Reclassification - Property
owner requested reclassification from the current RSA43000 to the
RM2400 zone, (4) a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 16-unit
condominium complex with waiver of structural height.
The Planning Commission approved the Negative Declaration, the
R$5000 and modified the Reclassification request to RSS000
consistent with the General Plan. The property owner had
requested RM2400. The Conditional Use Permit for the 16-unit
condominium complex was denied.
The General Plan Amendment and Reclassification automatically
came to the Council because the City Council has to act on all
General Plan Amendments approved by the Planning Commission. The
property owner did not appeal denial of the CUP. The Council
tonight is acting on only the Negative Declaration,
Reclassification and General Plan Amendment, but has no
jurisdiction to consider plans on the CUP because it was not
appealed. If the applicant wants to pursue specific plans for
that project, depending upon Council's action tonight, he would
159
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992t 5=00 P.M.
be required to submit another application to the Planning
Commission consistent with the zoning the Council decides to
impose upon the subject property tonight.
Mayor Hunter then asked that Mr. Momeny speak only to those items which the
Council can act upon tonight - the Reclassification and the General Plan
Amendment.
Blash Momeny. He is requesting reclassification to RM2400 since, as he stated
RSS000 is not a good idea at all for the property. No one will buy
single-family homes at that location. It would be an odd project. This is an
infill project and he believes RM2400 is the best zone and consistent with the
area. His eastern neighbor is an apartment complex.
Council Member Ehrle. He considers this piece of land a buffer between
apartments and single-family homes. He questioned if the RS3000 zone was
discussed as an alternative - condominiums but requiring additional space.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff's original recommendation was to consider
a redesign of the project originally submitted. When the Planning Commission..
considered the request, they felt the project was overbuilt and not a well
designed project. Upon hearing testimony from the neighbors and with
single-family land uses to the north, west and south, they felt RSS000 was the
most appropriate zoning to recommend to the Council.
Blash Momeny. Staff never recommended reclassification to RSS000. The first
time at the Planning Commission he proposed a 20-unit project and staff
recommended approval of eighteen. The second time he reduced his project to
16-units and now staff has recommended he redesign the project in order to have
more recreational area. He confirmed for Council Member Ehrle that
economically he could not build single-family homes on the property. Nobody is
willing to purchase, sell or develop single-family adjacent to apartments and
nobody will buy the homes.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and first asked to hear from those in
favor of the project~ there was no response. He then asked to hear from those
in opposition, hopefully a spokesperson since by a show of hands approximately
~w~n~y-£iv~ ~0pl~ w~r~ pr~s~n~ in 0pp0si~i0n.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN OPPOSITION~ _
Eric Olbricht, 9861 Theresa, Anaheim. It is not exactly true
that the property is adjacent to an apartment complex. The
adjacent property shares a garage and a single-family home as a
buffer already between the apartment complex and the subject
property. Secondly, he stated the Commission never recommended
RSS000. They recommended a redesign of his property. He reduced
it to 16-units.
Patricia Daniel, 9882 Miriam, Anaheim. It is an overly ambitious
project and not suitable to go into their neighborhood. The
160
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992~ 5.-00 P.M.
SUMMATION BY
APPLICANT =
street will not carry the traffic. It will cause trouble with
their school children. It is not an appropriate project at any
time in this area.
Bob Carter, 513 S. Aaron, Anaheim. He first confirmed they are
not opposed to having single-family homes built on the property
and are encouraging RSS000. One-and-a-half miles away at
Cerritos and Gilbert there is another lot identical in size that
has two-story, single-family homes built on it and they are all
sold. He then addressed the buffer issue and also gave the
results of his survey conducted in the area relative to land
use. At any given time during the week day, two times a day,
there are approximately 2,000 students/children on Orange
Avenue. Their concern is density. Anything adding to that area
has one more potential for tragedy. He is asking the Council to
honor its commitment to the community to down zone property in
the area wherever possible and to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision to rezone the property to RSS000.
Thomas Olbricht, 9441 Thistle, Anaheim. All the residents
present wearing Orange Ribbons are in favor of the property being
rezoned RSS000. Any zoning other than single-family homes is
unacceptable and would adversely effect their quality of life and
infringe on their rights of safety, privacy, peace and general
welfare.
Jim Parcher, 9321 Thistle, Anaheim. This project would expand
the pressure on an already crowded Disney School. He reported on
other large lots in the vicinity. If this high density use is
permitted, it would be just a matter of a few years until the
Council is faced with seven or eight similar requests for high
density uses.
Judith Krause, 601S. Greenwich, Anaheim. They are very
concerned about the domino theory. If this property goes to
medium density, there is nothing to stop variances being granted
on either aide. She also spoke with a Mrs. Harris at Disney
~ch001 who is h0rr£££ed a~ ~he ~h0ugh~ 0£ even grea~er enr011men~
at the school. They are on the verge of having to bus children
to other schools. Orange Avenue cannot take additional traffic.
If the other two lots are granted a similar development, there
will be close to 100 extra automobiles generated. She urged the
reclassification to RSS000.
Blash Momeny. He has had meetings with the neighborhood and
discussed the project in every detail. He has not been able to
accomplish their acceptance thus far. He has also contacted his
immediate neighbors who would be most affected and all have
agreed they would like to see RM2400 zoning. He thereupon
submitted copies of letters signed by adjacent property owners in
favor of his proposal. Also attached was a diagram showing
surrounding land uses indicated by various colors. He briefed a
site plan posted on the Chamber wall wherein he explained he
161
City Hall, Anaheim, Cali.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
would have probably been able to buy his next door neighbor's
property and put in a cul-de-sac and develop them both to
single-family. He will end up with a piece of land that is not
wide enough to accommodate another cul-de-sac and he will have
apartments on his east. He cannot develop country-type streets
like Anaheim Hills. This is a mixed area and nobody will do
that. He also pointed to a piece of property that was developed
with only one-half cul-de-sac (later reported by staff that the
development occurred in the County of Orange and that piece of
property is still in the County).
(~)UNCIL ACTION: There being no further persons who wished to speak; Mayor
Hunter closed the public hearing.
Council Member Ehrle. He did not realize the adjacent land was vacant or
almost vacant. It is the Council's responsibility to encourage the best
possible land use. RS5000 would perhaps be the best use because it encourages
the adjoining neighbor to also put his into RSS000, enabling the consolidation
of land into a package which would be the best thing for the neighborhood,
rather than piecemeal development. Upon reflection of the site plan, they
should stay with single-family homes in this neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS.- The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-42 and 92R-43)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the readings in full of the resolutions.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-42 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amen~en~ No. 324, Exhibl~ A and offered Kes01u~£0n No. 92R-43 for
adoption, approving Reclassification No. 91-92-10 for RSS000 zoning. Refer to
Resolution Book.
--
RESOLUTION NO- 9~R-42~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATED AS AME~~NT NO. 324, EXHIBIT 'A'.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN
ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-10)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-42 and 92R-43 for adoption
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
162
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992t 5:00 P.M.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS = None
ABSENT = COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-42 and 92R-43 duly passed and adopted.
It was reaffirmed that the Conditional Use Permit was not an item for
consideration at this hearing since the denial of the Conditional Use Permit
was not appealed.
RECESS~_ By General Consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes.
AFTER RECESS= The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:20 p.m.)
D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 67-68-68:..
PORTION .1:
Initiated by the Anaheim City Council under authority of Section
18.03.085 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to consider termination of
Resolution No. 68R-220 (as such resolution applies to the hereinafter
described property). Said Resolution was adopted in connection with
Reclassification No. 67-68-68 and approved a resolution of intent to
RM-1,200 zoning on certain property, including the following=
A rectangularly-shaped parcel consisting of approximately 0.4 acre
having a frontage of 95 feet on the east side of East Street, being
located approximately 240 feet south of the centerline of La Palina
Avenue, and further described as 752 North East Street.
The basis for the proposed action is that the proposed RM-1,200 zoning
does not comply with the Low-Medium Residential Density of the Anaheim
General Plan. Said property is currently zoned RS-7,200 which zoning
complies with the current Anaheim General Plan.
PORTION 2:
Initiated by the City of Anaheim under authority of Section 18.03.090
of the Anaheim Municipal Code to consider termination of Resolution
No. 68R-220 (as such resolution applies to the hereinafter described
property). Said Resolution was adopted in connection with
Reclassification No. 67-68-68 and approved a resolution of intent to
RM-7,200 zoning on certain property, including the following:
An irregularly-shaped parcel consisting of approximately 0.9 acre
having a frontage of 150 feet on the east side of East Street and
being located approximately 335 feet south of the centerline of
La Palina Avenue~ and
A rectangularly-shaped parcel consisting of approximately 1.4 acres
located on the northeast corner of Wilhelmina Street and East Street,
and having frontages of approximately 221 feet on the east side of
East Street and 271 feet on the north side of Wilhelmina Street.
The basis for the proposed action is that (1) the proposed RM-1,200
zoning does not comply with the Low-Medium Residential Density of the
163
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
Anaheim General Plan, and (2) the owners of the subject parcels have
failed to satisfy all conditions of approval (applicable to the
aforesaid parcels) imposed in Resolution No. 68R-220. Said parcels
are currently zone RS-7,200 which zoning complies with the Anaheim
General Plan.
City Clerk Sohl. She announced that at 3:18 p.m. today she received letters
from two of the property owners, Robert Pacho at 752 N. East Street and
Fred Sodemeyer regarding the property at 744 N. East Street which relate to the
subject properties or some portion of those properties. Both letters are
asking for a two-week continuance of the public hearing.
City Attorney, Jack White. This item is divided into two parts relating to the
resolutions of intent adopted in 1968 by the Council indicating at that time
the Council's intent to rezone the property from R1 to R3. Those designations
have been replaced - the R3 designation is commensurate with the current RM1200
zone. They previously received a request for one of the parcels to finalize
the zoning on that parcel to RM1200. The Council several weeks ago, because of
a change in the General Plan, that would have made the zoning inconsistent with
the General Plan, failed to introduce or adopt the rezoning ordinance, thus ..
necessitating that the Council schedule a public hearing to consider
termination of the resolution of intent on that particular parcel.
The second portion of the matter relates to the other remaining properties that
are under resolution of intent in this area that are basically in the same
position as the single parcel previously mentioned. Staff determined to set
these for a hearing tonight to consider terminating the resolution of intent as
to those additional parcels. These are separate actions which need to be taken
because of different ways in which the items came to the Council. There are
six parcels involved, five in the second portion of the hearing. One is owned
by Massoud Monshizadeh, and two of the five property owners have requested a
continuance. Because this is City initiated, he would be inclined to grant at
least one continuance as to those parcels. As to Mr. Monshizadeh's parcel, if
the Council wishes, they can consider that tonight.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present oppose to a two-weeks continuance of
the foregoing iteme~ there was no response.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 67-68-68, Portions I and 2 to Tuesday, March 17, 1992 at
6=00 p.m. Council_Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Daly asked that at that time, the agenda summary be laid out
differently since it is difficult to understand and the staff recommendation as
well.
D3. 155= PUBLIC _~!~_ARING - ENVIRONM~_NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 298~ ~ENERAL PLAN
AMRNDMI~NT NO. 317 (PORTIONS 1 AND 2}, AND CYPRESS CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-3
(INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN}=
LOCATION= Subject property, which is described as the 1,546.5-acre
Coal Canyon property (including the northerly 663-acre Cypress Canyon
project area and the southerly 883.5-acre Tecate Cypress Preserve
164
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992, 5:00 P.M.
area), and is unincorporated land located within the County of Orange
in the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence, and generally bordered
on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) and the Coal Canyon Road
interchange, on the west by the Gypsum Canyon property (Mountain Park
development) recently approved by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) for annexation to the City of Anaheim, on the south
by unincorporated property within the County of Orange in the City of
Orange's sphere-of-influence, and on the east by unincorporated
property within the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence and by the
Cleveland National Forest.
REOUEST= General Plan Amendment No. 317 (Portions i and 2) is a
request for an amendment to the Land Use, Environmental Resource and
Management and Circulation Elements of the City of Anaheim General
Plan. Portion i (northerly 663 acres) is a property-owner initiated
request and Portion 2 (southerly 883.5 acres) is an Anaheim Planning
Con~ission initiated request. Also requested by the property owner is
adoption of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan for the northerly 663
acres (Portion i of GPA 317) to serve as preannexation zoning and
subsequently regulate the development of the site. A Fiscal Impact ~
Report has also been submitted as part of the project application.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 298) 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. A Response to Comments
document has been prepared to address the public/responsible agency
comments on the Draft EIR. At the time Draft EIR No. 298 was
circulated for public review, the original Cypress Canyon project
acreage included the entire 1,546.5-acre Coal Canyon property.
The southerly 883.5 acres has subsequently been acquired by the Nature
Conservancy (a non-profit organization acting on behalf of the State
Department of Fish and Game and the State Wildlife Conservation Board)
for the preservation of a Tecate Cypress Tree Habitat Area. As a
result of said sale, the applicant's proposed General Plan Amendment
(GPA 317 Portion 1) and the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan project area
have been reduced to 663 acres. The Planning Commission has initiated
GPA 317 Portion 2 for the southerly 883.5 acres in order for the
General Plan to reflect the preservation of permanent open space for
said area~
The ~eneral Plan Amendment request includes, but is not limited to,
proposals which would amend the existing Land Use Map for Portion 1 to
establish revised boundaries and acreages for Hillside Low and
Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential, school, park and open space
land use designations, delete the Hillside Estate Density Residential
land use designation, add the Medium Density Residential designation,
increase residential densities to allow for a maximum of 1,550
dwelling units, decrease General Commercial acreage from 10 to 8
acres, delete the Commercial Recreation designation, modify the
location of the fire station site and establish a site for an
165
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
electrical sub-station and for Portion 2 to delete the Hillside Estate
Density Residential, school and park designations and redesignate said
areas for open space uses; amend the existing Circulation Map for
Portion i to establish revised alignments and road classifications for
Coal Canyon Road, Oak Canyon Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road, add new
collector roadways, and amend existing bikeway and riding and hiking
trail plans to establish revised alignments and classifications and
for Portion 2 to delete the Coal Canyon Road designation; and, amend
the existing Environmental Resource and Management Map for Portion 1
to establish revised locations and boundaries for the neighborhood
park, open space, and trails and for Portion 2 to delete a
neighborhood park designation and establish revised boundaries for
open space and potentially for trails.
The proposed Cypress Canyon Specific Plan No. SP90-3 (including Zoning
and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan) would provide
for the development of up to 1,550 residential dwelling units, 8 acres
of commercial uses, one elementary school, open space, and
governmental uses and public improvements including, but not limited
to, streets, sewers, public utilities, a fire station site, an
electrical sub-station site and one neighborhood park.
Related actions will include the Local Agency Formation Commission's
(LAFCO) consideration of an application to annex the project area to
the City of Anaheim, requests to the County of Orange for
consideration of amending the Master Plan of Arterial Highways
component of the County of Orange's General Plan Transportation
Element, request for a Development Agreement between the City of
Anaheim and Coal Canyon Company (the project applicant),
infrastructure financing programs, subdivision plans, grading permits,
and other actions related to the proposed development of the Cypress
Canyon Specific Plan community.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA NO. 317 (PORTIONS 1 AND 2) GRANTED (PC92-06) (6 yes votes,
I absent).
Specific Plan No. 90-3 GRANTED (PC92-07)
Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards Granted (PC92-08).
l~c ae~£on ~k~n on ~.IR NO.
HEARING SET ON:
Public Hearing necessitated by General Plan Amendment No. 317.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin- February 20, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 19, 1992
Posting of property - February 21, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT =
See Staff Report dated February 24, 1992 to the City Manager/City Council
submitted for the March 3, 1992 public hearing before the City Council with
attachments A-F.
166
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. Thirty (30) minutes will be allowed proponents and opponents of
the project and subsequently the applicants will have a short rebuttal period.
The 30 minutes will have to be proportioned among those who are going to
speak. There will first be a project introduction by staff.
(Note: Additional time was allowed to many of the speakers, both proponents
and opponents. )
Linda Johnson, Senior Planner. She first described the project as outlined in
the documentation and confirmed the request before the Council tonight. Draft
EIR No. 298 was prepared to address the Environmental Impacts of the project
and was circulated for public agency and interested party review in compliance
with CEQA and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA guidelines. Three volumes of
response to comments on the draft EIR have also been prepared. As the lead
agency, the City of Anaheim staff conducted their own independent evaluation
and analysis of the draft EIR and response to comment documents prior to
releasing the documents for public review. The project is the result of
numerous hours of City staff review and Planning Commission public hearings.
Ail of the EIR documents as well as the Planning Commission resolution
recommends City Council approval of the project. In the February 24, 1992
staff report to the City Council submitted for their March 3, 1992 meeting, it
is noted staff and the Coal Canyon Company have reached concurrence on all
aspects of the project including project zoning and development standards,
conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. Staff recommends
certification of EIR No. 298 with a statement of overriding considerations,
adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 317, Portions 1 and 2, and adoption of
Specific Plan No. 90-03. Staff recommended findings are set forth in greater
detail in Attachment C of the February 24, 1992 staff report.
APPLICANT · S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Mike Mohler, Coal Canyon Company, 25200 La Paz,
Laguna Hills. His presentation will include a short slide show,
state their position and then reserve time for questions and
perhaps greater rebuttal time. The first slide, showed the
general development plan depicting the project in relation to
other adjacent properties which included the Saba project in
Yorba Linda and Jasoneth Development also called the Mindeman
R~nch. Re~pond£ng ~o ~heir commi~m~n~ ~o ~h~ Friend~ of Teca~
Cypress and the State Fish & Game Department Conservancy in
April, 1991 Coal Canyon deeded 953 acres to the State of
California on a discounted land value, 883 acres in Anaheim's
sphere-of-influence and 70 within the sphere-of-influence of the
City of Orange. This resulted in the splitting of the GPA before
the Council tonight into two portions. One is the 663 acre
Cypress Canyon's Specific Plan and the other the City Planning
Commission initiated GPA for the 883 acres south of the Specific
Plan Area. That second request was to clean up certain public
facility and road items. Development items were included in the
piece deeded to the State. This project is a logical conclusion
of land uses as they push to Riverside County. All of the
salient points relative to the project are contained in the staff
report. Amongst the slides presented were those showing land use
167
City Hall, Anahe~mt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992~ 5=00 P.M.
statistics, a general open space breakdown, traffic mitigation
measures, an overview of the property, the Tecate Cypress
Preserve, wildlife crossings, etc.
Mr. Mohler then addressed other issues. One-half hour before the
hearing, a letter was received directed to the Council from
Dr. Paul Beier dated March 2, 1992. He referred to and read
several portions of the letter as well as portions of a report by
Dr. Beier dated August 1, 1990. (Cougar surveys in the
San Joaquin Hills and Chino Hills - Orange County Cooperative
Mountain Lion Study - previously made a part of the record. )
which addressed wildlife travel corridors. He agreed that
paragraph 4, page 2 of Dr. Beier's March 2, 1992 letter had
merit, the last two sentences of which stated, 'It is absolutely
incumbent on the City to require the developer to monitor animal
use of these alternative strips. If animal use of these strips
is monitored, the failure or success will help reserve viable
corridors in the future'. Mr. Mohler thereupon suggested that
Planning Commission Mitigation Measure 3-12, if he is identifying
it correctly, be amended to include a monitoring program at such
time as the Wildlife Corridor Plan is submitted to the Planning
Commission. They feel it would adequately address what they
think is a very legitimate issue in an otherwise negative
letter. He will be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Bruce Young, 8280 Country Lake Drive, Orangevale,
representing Jasoneth Development and Corona Highlands which owns
880 acres directly adjacent to the property. They have applied
to annex the Riverside County portion of approximately 700 acres
into the City of Corona. On the property are two culverts
underneath the 91 Freeway which they feel provide a lasting
alternative to the migratory path of wildlife. In Yorba Linda,
they have already approved what has been called the Saba
property, a development that would block off the Coal Canyon as
any kind of viable alternative. Reality is, entitlements exist
on that property and to ignore that puts some jeopardy to the
existing ability for wildlife to migrate from the Santa Ana
Mountains - Cleveland National Forest. They believe they have an
alternative. They have proposed working closely with the Coal
Canyon Company and City of Corona and would like to continue to
work-with Anaheim City staff to develop a fully dedicated
wildlife corridor that will remain in perpetuity to allow
wildlife to migrate from the Santa Ana Mountains - Cleveland
National Forest underneath the freeway without fear of vehicular
interference and allow a permanent path from their property
underneath the freeway without any develo~nent on the other side
threatening that access and corridor.
They looked at the report from Dr. Beier of August, 1990 and he
(Beier) felt it was acceptable then and now he is saying it is
not an acceptable corridor. He (Young) will venture to say at
the Planning Commission hearing in Corona, Dr. Beier will be
168
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
saying this is the only corridor. The rhetoric changes between
locations. They believe it can be developed. Along with the
Coal Canyon Company, they have been working to memorialize this
in an agreement. From their observation, Coal Canyon has shown
great sympathy to the environment and dedicated a significant
amount of land to the Tecate Preserve. They have the same
concern and sensitivity. The Council and environmentalists
should take clear note that the property of Mr. Saba and
Mr. Nasser, who owns Jasoneth Development, have had conversations
and clearly that is going to be developed and the path for
wildlife will be closed out. They have an alternative. They
want to offer that alternative and work with it and come back to
the Council and Planning Commission and show that it will
continue to work for as long as both developments exist.
P~BLIC DISCUSSION
IN FAVOR=
Tom Tate, resident of Anaheim. He lives in the Weir Canyon
area. The Cypress Canyon Project is well thought out and
provides a great deal of open space for non-threatening ~
wildlife. However, because of the safety issue, he believes the
mountain lion habitat is not a compatible use with a residential-
development and should be encouraged in remote areas and not in
urban areas.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members then asked for a briefing relative to the
models that were on display in the Council Chambers~ Mr. Mohler explained what
the topographical models represented. The larger model showed the entire
boundary of the General Plan Areas - Portions 1 and 2. He also pointed to the
various areas dedicated to a City park site, the Tecate Preserve, the school
site approved by the Orange Unified School District, the housing sites and the
commercial sections. The Specific Plan allows for a maximum of 1550-units. It
is a maximum range. They believe it will be an eight-year project. There is a
fire station included designed to be a joint facility for both Mountain Park
and Cypress Canyon.
PUBLIC DIS~SSI~
IN OPPOSITIO~
The following twenty-one people spoke in opposition to the proposed Cypress
Canyon Project and their major concerns/recommendations are summarized.
Several read prepared statements some of which were provided in hard copy and
made a part of the re¢ord~
Dr. Paul Beier, 26215 Via deGavilan, San Juan Capistrano, 92675.
(Presentation supplemented by elides.) Major concern is relative
to corridors for wildlife movement (see Dr. Beier's letter of
March 2, 1992 attached to which was draft copy of his manuscript
titled, 'Determining Minimum Habitat Areas and Corridors for
Cougars' - made a part of the record). He urged that they keep
the vital Coal Canyon Corridor, which is the only one used by
wildlife, intact. The Mindeman corridor is not a viable movement
169
City Hall, Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3r 1992, 5=00 P.M.
corridor since it is straight down cliffs. The consultants
should be asked if the 2500 foot strips proposed as alternatives
would allow mountain lion movements in Chino Hills in numbers
sufficient to sustain cougars. He is certain that is not the
case. He is pleased to hear from Mr. Mohler if the project moves
forward there will be a monitoring program. They have requested
the City to invoke CRMP, the Coordinated Resource Management
Plan, but to date he has received no response. It is an ideal
vehicle to address impacts to the rest of the corridor including
the Saba Property. The City's EIR also states, 'The project will
result in the loss of potential for a mountain lion population to
occur in the Chino Hills'.
Mark T. Palmer, Conservation Director, Mountain Lion Foundation,
P.O. Box 1896, Sacramento, 95812. Four reasons/concerns were
expressed in letter dated March 3, 1992 opposing the project and
urging that it be denied. Also submitted was a copy of 'Status
Review for the Population of Mountain Lions (Fells Concolor) in
the Santa Ana Mountain Range (SAMR) - February 19, 1992' - both
made a part of the record. If a determination is made to go "
forward, he asked that the Notice of Determination not be filed
until such time as the Council has an opportunity to review the
proposal under the appeal process.
Doug Padley, President, the Wildlife Society, Southern California
Chapter, 675 Ebcreek Drive SM, Corona, 91720. Submitted prepared
statement - letter dated March 3, 1992 (portions read) - made a
part of the record. Opposes the development of the bottom of
Coal Canyon and elimination of the regionally significant
wildlife corridor. Questioned the economic feasibility of the
project. Read letter dated February 26, 1992 from Boyd Gibbons,
Director, State Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento in response
to a letter he (Padley) had written to the Governor - also made a
part of the record - encouraging local agencies to defer
certification of projects in potential corridor areas until the
Scientific Review Panel has completed its recommendations and
NCCP (National Community Conservation Planning) process has been
completed for the region.
Cheryl Hefley, Wildlife Biologist, California Department of
Fish-& Game. (Read from prepared statement - not submitted)
Their original response to the draft EIR No. 298 dated April 3,
1991 requested a copy of the City's response to their comments
and any additional comments. To date, they have not received any
further documentation from the City regarding the project. The
Department reserves the right to provide additional comments
regarding the current General Plan Amendment and Response to
Comments once they receive them from the City as provided by
CEQA. The project still does not adequately address their
concerns originally submitted April 3, 1991. She briefed the
concerns revolving around the need to maintain remaining wildlife
corridors. The current GPA for Portion i does not provide
170
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3m 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
adequate mitigation and compensation for the permanent loss of
habitat to fish and wildlife resources that utilize Coal Canyon.
The department recommends that the City reconsider the approval
process until their concerns have been adequately addressed.
Linda Johnson, Senior Planner. Answering Ms. Hefley's statement
that the department has not received any further documentation
from the City regarding the project, Planning Department records
indicate that they (Department of Fish & Game) did receive all
the public notices for the Planning Commission meetings as well
as the City Council. Further, they did submit a letter dated
January 21, 1992 to the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on that item. As part of the Planning Commission notice,
they did indicate the availability of all of the documents.
Connie Spenger, President, Friends of the Tecate Cypress,
138 E. Glenwood Avenue, Fullerton, 92631. She read portions of
her prepared statement - eight page letter dated March 3, 1992,
the first page listing four reasons why the Friends consider EIR
No. 298, GPA No. 318 and Specific Plan No. 90-03 are inadequate:
and illegal. Also submitted with the letter were the following
(all made a part of the record)= Puente (Whittier) Hills Animal
Survey, November, 1990 to December, 1990~ letter dated
February 27, 1992 to the Anaheim City Clerk from Ms. Spenger;
letter dated August 15, 1991 to Ms. Spenger from Paul Zedler,
Professor of Biology, Department of Biology, College of
Scientists, San Diego State University~ Los Angeles Times
article, Saturday, February 1, 1992~ letter dated January 28,
1992 from Brooks Harper, Office Supervisor, US Department of the
Interior, Fish & Wildlife service, Laguna Niguel Field Station to
Dr. Jack Bath, California State Poly Technic University Pomona -
all made a part of the record. Ms. Spenger's presentation
included a number of slides as outlined in her statement, the
first showing Southern California from space and that most of the
remaining habitat for wildlife is in the hills and mountains of
Southern California noting that 'Coal Canyon is the last
remaining wildlife corridor across State Route 91 between the
Diamond Bar Hill complex to the north'. In concluding, she
stated, 'If the Council approves this project, Friends of the
Teca~e Cypress will petition for reconsideration. Therefore,
please direct your staff to not file the Notice of Determination
until after a decision is made on our request for
reconsideration. '
Ed Harrison, Southern Representatives of the California Parks and
Conservation Association, l140-B Border Avenue, Corona, 91720.
Submitted and read letter dated March 13 (3), 1992 - made a part
of the record. He urged that the Council support the
preservation of the nationally established wildlife corridor.
171
City Hallt Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992t 5:00 P.M.
Gordon Ruser, speaking for the Sierra Club Angelus Chapter,
1221 S. Sycamore, Santa Aha. The model of the project shows how
flat the ridge lines will become as a result of the proposed
development. The Council will not be preserving ridge lines, but
aiding and abetting destruction of very prominent ridge lines of
what is intended to become the City of Anaheim. If the Council
wants to preserve ridge lines as some have previously stated,
they will have to vote no on the project.
Richard Arklin, resident of Whittier. If the project is
approved, that could be the end of Mountain Lions in Whittier.
Wildlife is under siege. They do not need another development.
Dr. David Cossack, 39 S. Vicenta, Laguna Beach. Chair, Canyons
Committee and Sea & Sage Audubon. He is concerned about the
failure to recognize the Tecate Agricultural Preserve as a
distinct and independent property illustrating the need to
prepare and circulate a new draft EIR. He also spoke to the
mitigation for Mindeman and B Canyons, that the EIR does not
reflect whether other property owners along the potential
Mindeman and B routes are prepared to assure the long time
rights-of-way for wildlife movement, the financial ability of the
project to pay for itself, and the need to recognize that the
biological value of Coal Canyon far exceeds any benefits of
building the project. He also urged the City to initiate the
CRMP process.
Council Member Daly. He interjected and stated he had a plane to
catch and will be unable to do so if he does not leave the
meeting at this time. Council Member Daly thereupon left the
Council Chamber. (8~35 p.m.)
Matthew John Lockhart, 1525 W. Elm Avenue, Anaheim, 92802.
Mountain lions are wild animals. They cannot predict what an
animal is going to do. Any cutoff to its natural instinctive
habitat is going to have certain adverse affects on the animal.
He urged a no on the project.
Scott Johnson, 4366 Village Drive, Chino Hills. By allowing the
development company to proceed with the development at Coal
Canyon, the only identifiable wildlife corridor connecting the
wilderness areas north of the 91 freeway to the large wilderness
areas to the south will be destroyed. He urged the Council to
commission an independent environmental impact report.
Verna Jigour, 2524-C N. Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, 92705. She is
representing herself and the Tri-County Conservation League
(TCCL). She submitted a three-page statement dated March 3, 1992
containing her comments relative to the project and also
submitted six additional documents listed on page 3 of her
statement - all documents made a part of the record.
172
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992t 5=00 P.M.
Carlin Marsh, Biological Consultant, 30262 Acorn Lane,
Silverado. She was the biological consultant that prepared the
Santa Ana River Canyon Research Management Plan, the lower Santa
Ana River Biological Resource Inventory and Management
Recommendations and has done two biological surveys in Coal
Canyon. She has been concerned for a number of years about
wildlife connections between Chino Hills and the Santa Ana
Mountains and the crucial role Coal Canyon plays in this wildlife
connection. She then spoke to the EIR which she felt, although
very detailed, was quite weak and overlooked the aesthetic
section. Before concluding, she recommended the following= (1)
Do not find overriding considerations with respect to the
unresolveable impact on regional wildlife dispersion posed by the
project. She supports a no project alternative although a
limited project may have some merit. (2) The City should seek
with the property owner and California Parks and Recreation
future state bonds or other funding to set aside the area as a
broad open space connection between the Chino Hills, Santa Ana
River Canyon open space and Cleveland National Forest. (3) If
the project is adopted as proposed, the applicant should be :
required to purchase the so called Mindeman B Canyon open space.
If it is the only alternative, they will need it all and not just
a narrow corridor.
Richard Cunningham, 435 S. Ranchview Circle $94, Anaheim. He
asked that the Council reconsider the development. The project
should be set aside until a serious wildlife corridor is
established.
Janet Baker, 271 E. Brillo SA, Costa Mesa. She is a member of
different environmental organizations. The issue of the
preservation of open space is something that must be faced. She
has dedicated herself to preserving some of that unique beauty.
Dorothy Boynton, 5594 Vista DeAmigo, Anaheim. She spoke to the
severe traffic congestion on La Palma Avenue and Santa Ana Canyon
Road near the Imperial junction with the 91 Freeway. Traffic
problems on the streets in and around that area date to the
housing develo~ents constructed east of Anaheim Hills and
Yorba Linda. The development of Coal Canyon would pose a severe
traffic safety problem. Traffic mitigation measures discussed in
the EIR would only give temporarily relief. She supports a no
vote on the project.
Greg Ballmer, President, Tri-County Conservation League.
Speaking on behalf of the league, they are particularly concerned
about maintaining wildlife resources along the river and open
space for public uses and also water quantity and quality. He
then spoke to the viability of a corridor through Coal Canyon and
referred to a document submitted by Mrs. Jigour sponsored by the
Corps of Engineers. He urged that the Council deny the project
173
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992~ 5=00 P.M.
or delay any approval until after all of the resource management
observations necessary to guarantee a corridor are complete.
Karen Drew, 541 Paseo Lucero, Anaheim. Citizens such as herself
who vote for the Council will be aware of the Council's decision
tonight.
Steve Loe, Certified Wildlife Biologist, 33421 Avenue F, Yucaipa,
92399. He submitted a prepared statement dated March 3, 1992
which he read (made a part of the record) emphasizing the fact
that Coal Canyon is one of the most important wildlife habitats
in Southern California due to its role as link between the Chino
Hills and Santa Ana Mountains. He urged the involvement of all
agencies and land holders in a coordinated effort to come up with
an environmentally superior alternative to protect wildlife and
assure viable movement corridors.
Marybeth Gustafson, District Manager/Trabuco Regional District of
the Cleveland National Forest, 1147 E. Sixth Street, Corona.
Although the Forest Service has responded to the development .
plans, they have continuing concerns over the viability of the
wildlife corridor. They support the CRMP process and have had
excellent experience using CRMP to resolve controversies. A
Mr. Richard Wagner who represents the Corona and Riverside
Conservation District is willing to participate in a CRMP at the
City's request. The Forest Service would also like to
participate. It would be the best possible solution at this
point without making a premature decision.
Bob Frazier, He has raised cattle in the Cleveland National
Forest and practices law in Santa Aha. He is deeply concerned
about the Mountain Lion situation. He asked that each of the
Council Members consider themselves trustees for the rest of the
people and the whole community in preserving the corridor along
the suggestions made by Dr. Beier.
Mary Marcus, 10462 Ramona Way, Garden Grove. The property does
not yet belong to the City. She is speaking for the present
residents of the area - the mountain lions, eagles, etc., and
they do not want to be annexed.
--
BY THE APPLICANT=
Mike Mohler, Coal Canyon Company. Relative to the concerns
expressed, they believe that the majority of speakers are sincere
and have been sincere during the entire process. Coal Canyon has
spent 4 years with the groups working through the cooperative
process. They have attended meetings in Yucaipa, Chino and
cities beyond Anaheim's jurisdiction in an attempt to forge some
consensus. The public record more than adequately documents
their participation in those meetings if the speakers did not
174
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
document it tonight. He then responded to some of the concerns
expressed relative to the EIR and the wildlife corridors.
Further, they cannot walk away from the reality that if the Saba
property is developed, they would be funneling wildlife to a dead
end. There are existing stables and BMX bicycle activities at
that site even now.
With respect to Fish & Game, sometimes it is difficult to know
which head of the Fish & Game they are talking to. They
constructed an interaction with Fish & Game which happily took
the 883 plus 70 acres with great platitudes to Coal Canyon.
Tonight he has heard contrary testimony. He referred to and
submitted an article from the Orange County Register dated
February 28, 1992 talking about a Fish & Game Biologist
questioning the Endangered Species Act as potentially being
abused with respect to mountain lions. Tonight, one developer
and one party has stepped forward with a solution. He has heard
a lot of problems identified tonight, but only one solution.
Actually there are two developers so two parties have stepped
forward indicating that they are willing to legislate with deed-.
restrictions in perpetuity.
Relative to technical issues, the top ridge which Mrs. Spenger
showed in her slide about grading will not be graded, but the
ridge below that. Mrs. Marsh complimented much of the EIR except
for aesthetics. Much of the wind-eroded sandstone she talked
about is facing Mountain Park on the outside of the development
areas and will be preserved in perpetuity as their open space
abuts Coal Canyon's open space edged to their project.
The CRMP process, as they understand it, is a cooperative
effort. He would like to again emphasize the 4 years of
cooperative effort that has taken place with adjacent cities and
all of the groups represented. He has an idea of one more time
going back to the Planning Commission condition with respect to
the wildlife corridor - the idea he had added tonight about
including a monitoring program to that. He suggested with due
respect to the Council that they include the CRMP process with
respect to perfecting those wildlife corridors prior to submittal
to the Planning Co=~ission for approval, keeping in mind that the
condition does state that must be in place prior to grading.
Thoy ~ool ~ha~ ~o ~ho groa~B~ ox~on~ o~ wha~ many o~ %he
legitimate groups are asking for can be fulfilled by adding to
that condition and they will be happy to accept that condition
tonight. They respectfully request that the Council move the
staff report and approve the General Plan Amendment, certify the
EIR and move on.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Council Member Pickler. He complimented Planning Department's staff for the
excellent job on the EIR. He reviewed the EIR and the 234 conditions that were
175
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
imposed on the project. Many of the same people who spoke at the Council today
also expressed their concerns and recommendations to the Planning Commission at
their previous hearings (see minutes of Planning Commission meetings of
December 9, 1991, January 21, 1992 and January 27, 1992). Staff along with the
applicants took all of the concerns under consideration and reflected those
concerns in the EIR and answered their comments. Relative to the mountain
lions, looking at Condition No. 130, and in addition to what is going to be
asked to be included - 'Prior to approval of the first tentative or parcel map
for building purposes or mass grading plan, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall, A. Submit a wildlife corridor plan prepared
by a qualified biologist for the Mindeman and B Canyon Culverts (as shown in
aerial photo - wildlife corridors, Exhibit 22 of the EIR No. 298 document) for
review and approval by the Planning Commission, and; B. Ensure that the
corridors are in place in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction
of the Planning Commission (3-12).' To him, that is one of the key elements to
answer much of the concern expressed. It received serious consideration by the
Planning Commission and staff and will be looked at as the project progresses.
He does not feel everyone can be satisfied, but feels most of the issues have
been handled. The proposal should be approved.
Council Member Ehrle. The decision the Council is faced with tonight is not
one they have been considering for only. the past two hours, but for the past
couple of years. Even though they did limit discussion, most people spoke for
more than 3 minutes and whoever wanted to speak had the opportunity to do so as
evidenced by the testimony. Also, the Planning Commission's public hearings
were of three and four hours duration and much testimony given. The input
received is not to be taken lightly. Only about two people were probably
actual residents and taxpayers of the City. Everyone has the opportunity to be
heard and speak their opinion. Their purpose as Council Members is to decide
land use. The applicant/developer is providing over 60% of the project with
open space. To those who are not residents of Anaheim, it is interesting that
the City has been in the process of fighting the County since the County has
proposed a 6,900 bed jail in the heart of the Canyon area. Tens of thousands
of people signed petitions, came to rallies, to the Council Chamber and
protested the proposal. Tonight, only two residents and tax payers of Anaheim
are opposing a 600 residential unit project covering hundreds of acres. It
tells him the people of the City do not want a jail but can live comfortably
with a master planned, well thought out project and that is what is being
proposed. If the Council approves the project, the City will abut the
Riverside County line which was the dream of the City's forefathers - their
dream to see AnaheTm became a large City. He is proud to say it is a part of
fulfilling that legacy and dream. He supports the project thoroughly.
city Attorney, Jack White. One additional technical item that needs to be
taken care of before any action is taken, having received the public comments
tonight, for the record it is necessary to determine from staff and the
technical consultants, especially the EIR consultant, whether there were any
comments raised tonight that need additional responses at this time before any
action is taken on the EIR.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The environmental consultant will respond;
however, there is also an additional technical item he wanted to comment on
176
City Hallm Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M.
relative to the issue of fiscal balance. Earlier speakers commented on the
fiscal impact report. He wanted to assure the Council that the fiscal impact
report has been reviewed by the program development and audit staff. They have
been through several revisions of that document and are comfortable with it.
Above and beyond that, there is a Condition No. 224 which explicitly lays out
and prescribes a guarantee to the City that prior to the approval of the first
tentative tract map, there is a fiscal mechanism in place to guarantee these
revenues will come into the City whether or not a hotel is built and whether or
not they reach the occupancy rates. Effectively, this condition will guarantee
that what is provided to the City in terms of fiscal balance will, in fact,
take place.
Jay Bullock, Orange Coast Group, the coordinating firm on the EIR along with
other firms in conjunction with the City of Anaheim's EIR. A lot of testimony
has been presented tonight. Letters have also been received by the Council
over the past several weeks. While there has been a lot of information
presented this evening, none has involved new issues or significant impacts
that have not been addressed as part of the environmental process, EIRs and
response to comments documents which were part of the final EIR.
Council Member Pickler. He is ready to move on the CEQA Finding.
City Attorney White. This would be a motion to certify Environmental Impact
Report No. 298 and to adopt the recommended environmental finding by reference
as set forth in Attachment C and also in Attachment F of the February 24, 1992
staff report including the additional mitigation measure that was presented by
the applicant this evening concerning the wildlife corridors.
MOTION= Council Member Pickler moved to certify Environmental Impact Report
No. 298 and adopt the recommended environmental finding by reference as set
forth in attachment C and also in attachment F of the February 24, 1992 staff
report including the additional mitigation measure that was presented by the
applicant regarding wildlife corridors. Council Member Hunter seconded the
motion. Council Member Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 298 - CERTIFICATION= Environmental Impact
Report No. 298 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the
city Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and
the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon
such information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Council Member
~£ckler, ~ec0nded by Council Member SimDe0n, that Env£r0~ental ImDact ReD0rt
No. 298 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City
and State guidelines and adopting the reco~m~ended environmental finding by
reference as set forth in Attachment C and also Attachment F of the
February 24, 1992 staff report including the additional mitigation measure that
was presented by the applicant this evening concerning wildlife corridors.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION~ The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-44)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member
Daly was absent.
177
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1992, 5.-00 P.M.
Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-44 for adoption, approving an
amendment to the Anaheim General Plan designated as Amendment No. 317
(Portions I & 2), the land use element, Exhibit A; the circulation element,
Exhibit A; the Environmental Resources and Management Element, Exhibit A; and
Trails Element Map, Exhibit A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT
NO. 317, PORTIONS i AND 2, (LAND USE CIRCULATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AND
MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS, AND TRAILS ELEMENT MAP).
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated the findings for the
General Plan Amendment are also contained in Exhibit C and those will be
incorporated by reference.
Mayor Hunter. This development is the last link going east of the boundaries
of the City of Anaheim. It represents a build out of the City. Once the Coal
Canyon project is annexed through LAFCO, the City will be approximately
50 square miles or the largest geographic city in Orange County. It is a
balance between the environment and the population. This project has been in'-
the making for four years, it is not something the Council is approving on a
· knee-jerk' reaction. A lot of work and effort has gone into this development'
by staff, the Council, adjoining developers, etc. As Mayor of the City, he has
the opportunity to vote on the project and 'finish out' the City of Anaheim.
He believes it is a good project and the mitigation factors in relation to the
mountain lion and wildlife corridor will be satisfied. The testimony from the
environmentalists are taken seriously. The fact that they are present shows
their concern and the Council appreciates their input. As they weigh on a
balance a project of the magnitude proposed with 60% open space, with the
quality of the project in the single-family homes that are going to be built by
Hun Development in Coal Canyon, will be something to be proud of in the City.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS.' Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS.' Daly
The Mayor declared-Resolution No. 92R-44 duly passed and adopted.
City Attorney White. The other two items on the agenda relate to ordinances
for the Specific Plan which require the Council to make findings that the
Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan which has Just been amended
by resolution. Pursuant to a court decision, the General Plan Amendment is
regarded as a Legislative Act which does not take effect for 30 days and,
therefore, it would not be appropriate to introduce or act upon the Specific
Plan Ordinances until the General Plan Amendment approved by the Council's
action this evening is effective. It is staff's recommendation that the two
178
City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 3t 1992m 5=00 P.M.
ordinances be continued for Council consideration and agendized for the Council
meeting of April 7, 1992. There will be no additional public testimony taken
at that time. The hearing has been closed, but these items will appear on the
Council agenda and no further action will be taken on these items until
April 7, 1992.
MOTION.-. Council Member Pickler moved to continue the ordinances relative to
Specific Plan No. 90-03 to Tuesday, April 7, 1992. Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT.'.. Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn. Council Member Pickler
seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
(9=36 p.m.)
No Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 1992, since no quorum is
anticipated. Some Council Members will be attending the National League of
Cities Conference to be held in Washington D.C., during that period.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
179