1990/03/278?
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Jonathan Borrego
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2:50 p.m. on March 23, 1990 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
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; Campanula Properties Inc. vs. City of Anaheim, et al.,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 61-46-64; Anaheim Stadium
Associates vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 61-46-82; Los Angeles Rams Football Company Inc. vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 61-46-74.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
d. 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.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:42 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Dr. John Porter, 1st Southern Baptist Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
284
88
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
119: PRESENTATION - FINAL READER BOARD INSTALLMENT: Mrs. Dorothy Chester,
President of the Soroptomists presented Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks,
Recreation & Community Services, with a final check completing payment of the
reader board at Pearson Park (total cost, $9,300) which was totally funded by
the Soroptomists. Mr. Jarvi, Mayor Hunter and Council Members all thanked
Mrs. Chester and the Soroptomists for their generosity and assistance. This
last payment completed the funding agreement after 7 1/2 years of successful
commitment to the project by Soroptomists International. The project has and
will continue to benefit the citizens of Anaheim.
119: DECLARATION OF APPRECIATION: A Declaration of Appreciation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mrs. Chester and the
Soroptomists for funding the reader board at Pearson Park and also commended
the work of the organization especially its commitment to the City of Anaheim.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Census Day in Anaheim, April 1, 1990,
GFWC Centennial Celebration Day in Anaheim, April 24, 1990.
Mr. Joe Montes, Regional Census Office, Fullerton, accepted the Census Day
proclamation. He also acknowledged Mr. Bill Griffith, Library Director, who
was present in the Chamber audience and expressed his appreciation for the
excellent cooperation given through Mr. Griffith and his staff in facilitating
Census taking in Anaheim.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of regular
meetings held February 13, 1990 and the adjourned regular meeting held
March 16, 1990. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,602,495.66, in
accordance with the 1989-90 budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution
Nos. 90R-88 through 90R-92, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance Nos. 5108
for adoption; and Ordinance No. 5112 for introduction)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinances. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Hunter,
seconded by Councilman Daly, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Hunter offered
Resolution Nos. 90R-88 through 90R-92, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance
Nos. 5108 for adoption; and Ordinance No. 5112 for introduction. Refer to
Resolution/Ordinance books.
285
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Al. 118 The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Dorothy Brennan for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 11, 1989.
b. Claim submitted by Loren Rea for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 24, 1990.
c. Claim submitted by Saint Katrina Corporation for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 15, 1990.
d. Claim submitted by Lorretta Bowen for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 5, 1989.
e. Claim submitted by Gall Sayer for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 6, 1990.
f. Claim submitted by David Christensen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 17, 1989.
g. Claim submitted by Marvin or Deanna Young for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 11, 1989.
h. Claim submitted by Walter Zippel for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 30, 1989.
i. Claim submitted by Alma Velazquez for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 20, 1990.
j. Claim submitted by Jeanette M. Genes for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 23, 1990.
k. Claim submitted by Rukiye Campbell for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 4, 1989.
1. Claim submitted by Frances Wantland for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1989.
A2. 107: Receiving and filing the Statistical Report Summary Ending
February 28, 1990, from the Building Division.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission
meeting held March 7, 1990.
114: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 3709 from the City of Cypress,
urging the Congress of the United States to revise the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984, and expressing general concern about the need for greater
local government regulatory authority.
286
48
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M,
A3 175: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Clayton Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $218,674 for construction of
drainage facilities at Walnut Canyon Reservoir.
A4 175: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Beylik Drilling, Inc., in the amount of $293,649 for construction and
development of Well No. 47.
A5 175: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Walsh Engineering Company, in the amount of $597,000 for South Inlet Control
Valve Station.
A6.150: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Brookhurst
Community Center Patio Cover by Abghari Construction, and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A7 150: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Pearson
Park Restroom Modifications by Abghari Construction, and authorizing the Mayor
to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A8 150: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Hansen Park
Security Lighting by Sturgeon Electric, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and
the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion.
A9 150: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Ponderosa
Park Ballfield & Security Lighting by Dewco General Contractors & Developers,
and authorizing the mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of
Completion.
Al0. 150/109: RESOLUTION NO. 90R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR BICYCLE AND/OR PEDESTRIAN FUNDS
UNDER SB 821 AND APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF ITS BICYCLE AND/OR PEDESTRIAN PLAN.
Ail. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement with Orange County
Water District for a water monitoring well, west side of Dupont Street, south
of Orangewood Avenue.
Al2. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement with Orange County
Water District for a water monitoring well on the north side of Coronado St,
700 feet east of Kraemer Boulevard.
Al3. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement with Kenney Golf
Enterprises, Inc., for electric and water lines across Carpenter Avenue, 202
feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street.
Al4. This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
(See end of Consent Calendar.)
Al5. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 90R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (88-21A) (Setting a date for public hearing
287
49
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
to consider abandoning certain easements for storm drain, hiking and
equestrian purposes located between Old Bridge Road and Country Hill Road
generally south of Santa Ana Canyon Road - suggested public hearing date is
April 24, 1990.)
Al6. 123: Approving an agreement with California Civil, Inc., in the amount
of $36,081 for the West Street Realignment Study at Ball Road, and authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement.
Al7. This item to be acted upon following the public hearing on same (see
public hearing portion of the meeting Item D6).
161.123: RESOLUTION NO. ----: Approving and authorizing the execution of a
Financing Agreement with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and making certain
findings regarding public improvements. (Marketfaire at Anaheim - River
Valley Project Area.)
ORDINANCE NO. ---- (INTRODUCTION): Amending Ordinance No. 1052 of the City of
Anaheim entitled "an Ordinance of the City of Anaheim imposing a city sales
and use tax; providing for the performance by the State Board of Equalization
of all functions incident to the administration, operation and collection of
the sales and use tax hereby imposed; suspending the provisions of Ordinance
No. 1013 during such time as this ordinance is operative; and providing
penalties for violations thereof," providing for a credit against the payment
of taxes under said Ordinance No. 1052 in the amount of sales or use taxes due
to the Redevelopment Agency of the City pursuant to Section 7202.6 of the
revenue and taxation code of California: and making certain other findings and
determinations in connection therewith.
Al8. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Grant Agreement with Anaheim
Interfaith Shelter, Inc., for an additional $5,300 grant to Anaheim Interfaith
Shelter to be used to upgrade and improve the plumbing system on property
located at 626 North Pauline (for homeless families in Anaheim), and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said First Amendment to
Agreement.
Al9. 174: Approving the 1990-1991 Community Development Block Grant Program
and Budget to be incorporated into the "Proposed Statement of Community
Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" for publication.
174: RESOLUTION NO. 90R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991 PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
1980, AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE THE
APPLICATION THEREFOR.
A20. 174: Approving the reprogramming of existing Community Development Block
Grant funds allocated in the fiscal year 89/90 budget from the Neighborhood
Improvement Program of Anaheim to the Code Enforcement Division.
174: Amending the Fiscal Year 89/90 Resource Allocation Plan to increase
account number 25-169 by $49,000 and decrease account number 25-215 by $49,000.
288
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
A21. 153; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89R-364 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT. (By
adjusting the salary range for the position of Engineering Support Services
Supervisor, effective September 29, 1989.)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 90R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89R-366 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL. (By adjusting
the salary range for the positions of Industrial Engineering Technicians I and
II, effective March 16, 1990.)
A22. 179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5112 - INTRODUCTION; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 18.03.085 TO CHAPTER 18.03 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REZONING. (after Resolution of Intent to
rezone.)
A23. 170/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5108 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING DEFINITIONS TO SECTION 17.06.020 OF CHAPTER 17.06 OF TITLE 17
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. (Pertaining to crib wall/retaining wall.)
A24. 150/162/000: Approving the request of the State Employment Development
Department to waive the fee for use of the Brookhurst Community Center on
Monday, May 7, 1990, for a Veteran's Job Fair.
A25. 150/153: Appropriating 2,600 hours in Object 4181, for Program 270, to
implement the recreation sports, and non-athletic component of Project S.A.Y.
at three Anaheim City School District sites.
A26. 123: Approving an agreement with the Digital Equipment Corporation, in
the amount of $7,104 per month, for service on computer equipment used in
connection with the integrated library system, and authorizing the Library
Director to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
A27. This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
(See end of Consent Calendar.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-88 through 90R-92, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
289
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5;30 P.M,
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5108 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Al4. 151: ENCROACHMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR DECK, STAIRS AND SPA ON CITY
PROPERTY AT OAK CANYON NATURE CENTER (MR. & MRS. DON PAUL): Submitted was
report dated March 20, 1990 from the Public Works, Engineering Department,
recommending approval of the request for encroachment.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She wants a provision whereas if the property is sold,
that the encroachment be removed and that it end at that time.
City Attorney White. The standard procedure on an encroachment agreement is
to record the encroachment license against the property. The license contains
a 30-day termination provision. The City, on 30-day notice, can require this
or any subsequent property owner to remove the encroachment if the City needs
to utilize the property or for any other reason. If it is Council's desire,
staff can renegotiate the matter and attempt to make the change Councilwoman
Kaywood is suggesting. In the past, staff has felt that the 30-day
termination period protects the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood. It should be clear that if they sell the property, that
the improvements are to be removed. Under the circumstances, they would be
selling a piece of Oak Canyon Nature Center and getting more money for the
property because the improvements would be a part of the sale. The property
owner should not be rewarded for building on City property.
City Attorney White. If the Council feels more comfortable requiring removal
of the improvements upon sale of the property, that change can be made to the
agreement and an attempt made to get the document signed by the property owner
with that provision contained therein.
Councilman Pickler. The encroachment permit continues whether or not the
property owner sells the property or keeps it. If the encroachment permit is
approved, he sees no problem with it being passed on. If the City needs the
property for any reason, the improvements would be required to be removed.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services. The
encroachment is approximately 8 feet into the Nature Center property. 9ta£{
would prefer that the improvements not be there at all but because the
property owner had made a substantial investment, staff said they would allow
it but indicated they would prefer not to have the improvements there at all.
Councilman Pickler. The recommendation is to allow the encroachment. If the
property is sold, the encroachment agreement goes along with it but the new
owners could also be required to remove the improvements if the City wanted
them to.
City Attorney White. The City could, at the time of sale, require that the
improvements be removed. That could be done right now.
290
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M,
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the encroachment permit come to an end when
the property is sold and that the improvements be removed at that time.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly and Kaywood
Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
None
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to approve an Encroachment License Agreement
with Mr. and Mrs. Don Paul for encroachment of a deck, stairs and spa
equipment onto City property at Oak Canyon Nature Center. Council Members
Daly and Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
A27. LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE PHOENIX CLUB GERMAN ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE
COUNTY: Approving a License Agreement with The Phoenix Club German
Association of Orange County, in the amount of $115,000 in order to proceed
with required inspections and appropriate testing to provide essential
information relating to the construction of the proposed arena. Submitted was
report dated March 27, 1990 from Assistant City Manager James Ruth,
recommending approval of the subject agreement.
Councilman Pickler. He wanted to know how the $115,000 was arrived at. He
also does not understand why the City should be charged anything for right of
entry to the property and why the City has to spend more money with the
possibility of losing it.
Assistant City Manager, James Ruth. It was a negotiated agreement with the
Phoenix Club that provided for the City to have access and entry into the
Phoenix Club to do soil testing and some surveying. There is also a
negotiated amount included for legal fees that the Phoenix Club has incurred
to date as a result of the protracted negotiations. The City was supposed to
have handled that through the introduction of escrow, wherein the City would
have to put $150,000 up front entering escrow. They never went into escrow so
the money was never deposited in the escrow account for the Phoenix Club and,
therefore, they have not been able to pay their legal fees. Throughout the
negotiations, there have been expenses by the Phoenix Club as a result of the
City's involvement. The City initiated those negotiations and the Phoenix
Club incurred those costs. This will offset those costs.
Councilman Pickler. He does not understand why the City should be charged for
going on to the Club's property for testing purposes, property which the City
may not buy.
James Ruth. He clarified the majority of the costs are for the legal fees
incurred to date necessitated by the negotiations. Those costs would never
had occurred if the City had not initiated the action to buy the property.
City Attorney White. In the purchase agreement the Council approved
previously for purchase of the Phoenix Club, the language in that agreement
provides that the City is taking the property as is with regard to the
291
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
condition of the soil. There is a concern, since the City is buying the
property as is, that there are no toxic soil problems. In order to determine
that, it is necessary to go on to the property and inspect it and take core
samples to determine it is buildable in its current condition without major
problems. There is a need to have a right of entry and legally the Phoenix
Club has a right to withhold entry unless they are compensated. The charge
for that right of entry includes certain other costs the Club has incurred to
date as a result of the negotiations. This is the legal reason the matter is
on the agenda.
Councilman Pickler. He feels the City has paid more for the property than its
appraised value. If the property needs to be tested, there should be an
agreement to do so without charging over and above the legal fees.
Mayor Hunter. He wanted it very clear that the City has not, to date,
purchased the property. The agreement says if the City does purchase the
Phoenix Club property, the $115,000 would be applied to the purchase price.
The City has not bought the property yet. There are many conditions which
have not as yet been met. The matter is still in negotiation and the $115,000
would be applied to the purchase price. He also does not agree with the
figure stated by Councilman Pickler regarding the purchase price.
Additional discussion and debate followed between Mayor Hunter and Councilman
Pickler at the conclusion of which the Mayor stated it was only fair and
equitable that the City expend the money because of the time and energy and
attorneys fees incurred by the Phoenix Club. Ail they are doing is
reimbursing the Club for those costs. He thereupon moved to approve a License
Agreement with The Phoenix Club German Association of Orange County, in the
amount of $115,000 in order to proceed with required inspections and
appropriate testing to provide essential information relating to the
construction of the proposed arena. Councilman Pickler voted no.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF SANITATION CHARGES o
AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS AND ESTABLISHING A CITYWIDE RECYCLING AND AUTOMATIC
COLLECTION PROGRAM WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: To receive public comments
concerning the proposed addendums to the following agreements and to the new
fee schedule of sanitation charges. Submitted was report dated March 20, 1990
from the Director of Maintenance, John Roche, recommending approval of the
subject. Attactunent Exhibit A to the report contained (1) a sheet showin8
solid waste collection and disposal rates in Guide Cities and, (2) a sheet
showing Anaheim's existing rates per month and the proposed rates per month.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who
wished to speak to the solid waste collection and disposal charges and fees
and sewer maintenance charges including the establishment of a now Citywide
recycling and automatic collection program within the City of Anaheim. There
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler moved to (1) approve a Third Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Agreement for the Collection and Disposal of Residential Solid Waste
292
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
within the City of Anaheim with 3aycox Disposal Company, Inc., and its
successor Anaheim Disposal, Inc., (2) approve Addendum Number 2 to the Amended
and Restated Agreement with Jaycox Disposal Company, Inc., and its successor
Anaheim Disposal, Inc., to establish a citywide recycling and automatic
collection program within the City of Anaheim, (3) approve a Fourth Amendment
to the Amended and Restated Agreement with Anaheim Disposal, Inc., for the
collection and disposal of commercial and industrial solid waste within the
City, (4) approve a Fourth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement
with Consolidated Volume Transporters, Inc., for disposal services.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-93)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 90R-93 for adoption, adopting a new
fee schedule of sanitation charges and repealing Resolution No. 89R-256 as
recommended and outlined in the staff report of March 20, 1990. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF SANITATION CHARGES AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-256.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-93 duly passed and adopted.
179: ITEMS B1 - B4 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1990 -
DECISION DATE: MARCH 15, 1990
MARCH 30, 1990
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
B1.
VARIANGE NO. 4032 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: AMANO ELECTRICS OF AMERICA, INC., 1485 N. Manassero St.,
Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: H. MATSUNAGA, C/O NIKKEN AMERICA, 333 S. Hope St.,
Suite 2650, Los Angeles, CA 90071
LOCATION: 1485 North Manassero Street
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an 18,000
square-foot addition to an existing industrial building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4032 APPROVED (ZA90-14).
Approved Negative Declaration.
293
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
B2, VARIANCE NO. 4033, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: DAVID LLOYD, 547 N. Janss Way, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 547 North Janss Way
Waivers of accessory living quarters and minimum side yard to retain
a guest living quarters.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
WITHDRAWN by the Applicant.
B3.
VARIANCE NO, 4034, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: NABIL ARIF, 801 S. Priscilla St., Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 801 South Priscilla Street
Waivers of maximum lot coverage and open space requirements for
additional bedrooms over 3 in a single residence to construct a
second story addition to an existing single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4034 APPROVED (ZA90-15).
Councilwoman Kaywood posed questions to staff relative to the number of
bedrooms proposed and the sufficiency of parking; City Attorney White
clarified that the appeal period ends March 30, 1990 and two Council Members
could notify the City Clerk on or before Friday, March 30, 1990 if they wished
the matter set for a public hearing.
B4.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0045, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
Waivers of minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback and
maximum lot coverage to construct and reconstruct additions to an
existing single-family residence including a new garage at 2854 W.
Monroe.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment 0045 APPROVED (ZA90-16).
End of the Zoning Administrator Items.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5111 ADOPTION:
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5111)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5111 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5111: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 56-57-57
located at 2283 West Lincoln Avenue, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL zone.)
294
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M,
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5111 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5109 AND 5110 - ADOPTION:
WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES; The titles of the following ordinances were
read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 5109 and 5110)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 5109 and 5110 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5109: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 18.74 RELATING TO ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-01 (SP90-O1) ZONE.
(ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL)
ORDINANCE NO, 5110: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-01 ANAHEM HILLS FESTIVAL).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5109 and 5110 duly passed and adopted.
179~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2460, 2461, AND 2462 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME'
REQUESTED BY: Farano & Kieviet, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: The property is located at 300 West Katella Avenue (Riviera
Mobilehome Park).
Submitted was report dated March 20, 1990 from the Planning Department, Zoning
Administrator, Annika Santalahti, recommending approval of the requested
extension on Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and 2461, but recommending denial
of the time extension on Conditional Use Permit No. 2461.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2460: Request for a retroactive time extension
(from October 1, 1989) to expire on October 1, 1990 to comply with conditions
295
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
of approval. To permit a 17-story, 171-foot high, 852-room hotel with
accessory uses and on premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2461: Request for a retroactive time extension -
to permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office buildings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2462: Request for retroactive time extension (from
October 1, 1989) to expire on October 1, 1990, to comply with conditions of
approval. To permit two 234-foot high, 180-unit residential condominium
towers.
Councilman Ehrle moved to approve the requested extensions of time on all
three Conditional Use Permits, 2460, 2461 and 2462, noting that even though
the Planning Department recommended denial on No. 2461, the request is only
for a time extension. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before further action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if a time
extension is granted on Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, she does not want to
take action that would be misleading.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The reason for recommending denial
(re: Extension of Time on Conditional Use Permit No. 2461), the CR area
enhancement program in process does not include primary uses of offices. They
are only secondary. There was also an economic study done in the area, the
Lesser Study, copies of which have been submitted to the Council. It
addresses the situation and recommends against having office-type uses.
Councilman Pickler interjected and asked if that portion could be set for a
public hearing.
City Attorney White. If the Council denies the extension of time, the
recourse for the property owner is to file a new application for a new permit
which will necessitate a public hearing. There is no public hearing in
connection with an extension of time.
Annika San=alah~i. An important point is the whole issue of mitigation
factors tied into such developments. It has been five or six years since the
project was approved and now there are a number of new regulations and EIR
issues that need to be addressed. There is currently a mitigated Negative
Declaration and a number of issues that would be brought into play if that
office building came before the Council. The CUP proposal would have the most
significant effects on the area and, therefore, the greatest EIR mitigation
measures that would have to be taken. With the CR Study under way eliminating
the use, the Lesser Study results, as well as the mitigation measures tied
into the EIR, this was not something staff would want to see done there and
would like to have that one off the books.
Councilman Ehrle. He notes that the applicant and agent are present and he
would like input relative to the mat~er.
296
2 $
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, ~;30
Floyd Farano, attorney representing the applicant. At the present time, plans
are under way and studies are being done to design a new project and that has
been before the Planning Department for a number of months. Ori§inally the
client did not think too much about allowing the CUP to expire so it was not
renewed earlier. Since that time with everything that has been happening,
they did not want to be left without any entitlements on the property
considering the significant investment involved. A number of the reasons why
the project was delayed was due to rather onerous conditions placed upon
them. They understand the consultant's study is going to substantially limit
the number of projects and types of developments that can be brought into the
CR area as a matter of right. Until those studies are actually adopted and
there is agreement that office buildings are going to be eliminated in the GR
area, perhaps the project should not take place. Re does not feel that
anybody knows at this point what is going to fit. The findings of the study
have not generally been made available to the public.
Councilman Ehrle. He does not feel that on a project such as this one in
process for a number of years that they now should take away what has been
given. The developer is going to look at the new report, statistics, vacancy
factors, etc. and make a sound economic decision whether or not the project
will be built.
Gouncilman Ehrle clarified his motion approving all three requested extensions
of time.
Before a vote was taken on the motion, Councilman Pickler spoke against it
noting that the GR area is of great concern to the Council. The Planning
Department is saying that the office use under CondiTional Use Permit No. 2&61
is not appropriate for the area at this time. This is the first time in many
years where somethinE has been~approved and subsequently the Planning
DeparTment has recommended denial.
Councilman Daly moved for a continuance of a decision on the requested
extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, in order to get input
from the Plarn%inE Director who is out of tow~ this evening. Councilman Bunter
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
It was determined.that =he continuance on the requested extension of time on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 be to Tuesday, April 17, 1990.
~ne previous motion to approve the remaining two extensions of time
(Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460 an 2461) carried.
179: ITEM FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 26. 1990:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), SPECIMEN TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 90-!:
OWNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 22699 Old Canal Road, Yorba
Linda, CA 92686.
AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport
Beach, CA 92660.
LOCATION: Subject property comprises the off-site storm drain improvement
area and is located northerly of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
297
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M,
(SP87-1) Deer Canyon open space acreage and south of Santa Ana Canyon Road
approximately 1,000 feet east of the centerline of Eucalyptus Drive and Santa
Ana Canyon Road. Petitioner requests the removal of eight (8) specimen trees
in conjunction with Deer Canyon off-site storm drain improvements.
Submitted was an excerpt from the Planning Commission meeting of March 26,
1990 wherein a public hearing was held on the subject Specimen Tree Removal
Permit No. 90-1. The Planning Commission approved the permit subject to five
conditions (see Planning Commission minutes of March 26, 1990).
Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked if the trees to be removed were in Deer
Canyon.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that they are in the Deer
Canyon area. The trees are offsite between Deer Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon
Road. Yesterday the Planning Commission made a determination that four of the
trees may or may not need to be removed. Of the four trees that may not need
to be removed, a condition imposed was that a field inspection be made of
those trees at the time the drainage facilities are to be installed. He
clarified that if they can be saved they will be saved and further, that the
proposed storm drain which necessitates removing the trees is a required
improvement in relation to the Highlands Development.
City Attorney White. He clarified that the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the specimen tree removal permit because of a Commission policy.
However, there is no requirement in the Code for a public hearing unless it is
in conjunction with another permit. That is why the subject tree removal
permit is not the subject of a public hearing tonight.
Councilman Daly. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request
including a condition which is typical of other tree removal requests
requiring a two to one replacement of any trees removed.
Councilwoman Kaywood. Deer Canyon is an exquisite and delicate area where
trees are 100 years old or older and not replaceable by a 15-gallon can. She
requested that there be all due diligence to assure that no trees be removed
that do not need to be removed.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the request for the removal of
eight specimen trees in conjunction with Deer Canyon offsite storm drain
improvements subject to the conditions imposed by the City Planning
Commission. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood
abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
162/106: CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA - FUNDING REQUEST: To consider a funding
request of $5,000 from the Anaheim Cinco de Mayo Fiesta Committee for the 19th
Annual Cinco De Mayo Fiesta to be held May 5 and May 6, 1990 at La Palma Park.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She questioned why there was a big increase in the
request which was usually $1,500 and now is $5,000.
298
6O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
Amin David. He is present on behalf of Rene Lopez, Chairman of the Fiesta,
who could not be present this evening. There has been an increase and it is
due to the increase in cost of entertainment.
Councilman Ehrle. The Fourth of July Committee requested and received $5,000
and were able to reimburse all of the funds. The City helped them get
started. The City has supported Cinco De Mayo, Halloween parades and other
activities. He has no problem with the $5,000 request but he did not see an
itemized budget from the Committee which he feels will be helpful.
Mr. David stated there would be no problem in providing that information.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the funding request of $5,000 received
from the Anaheim Cinco De Mayo Fiesta Committee to assist in funding the Cinco
De Mayo Fiesta with funds to be allocated from the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114/163: ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL COORDINATING COMMITTEE: Discussion regarding
the possibility of developing a formal Anaheim City School Coordinating
Committee. The discussion was requested by Councilman Daly at the meeting of
March 20, 1990, and scheduled for this date.
Councilman Daly moved for a 3-week continuance on the subject discussion to
April 17, 1990. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (6:52 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:02 p.m.)
134/179: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 289, RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 89-90-39 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 289: Subject area consists of
approximately 9 acres and is located north and west of the northwest corner of
Ball Road and Western Avenue havin8 approximate frontages of 398 feet on the
north side of Ball Road and 1,070 feet on the west side of Western Avenue.
LOCATION: Reclassification No. 89-99-39: Parcel 1: 919 South Western
Avenue; Parcel 2: 3221 West Ball Road.
General Plan Amendment No. 289: A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan redesignating subject area from the Medium Density
Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
Reclassificatiod No. 89-90-39: A City-initiated reclassification of
properties from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the RM-2400
(Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone. Subject area consists
of 2 parcels.
299
61
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended approval of GPA NO. 289
Modified Exhibit A (PC90-43) (6 yes votes, 1 absent) excluded those
properties at the southwest corner of Western and Teranimar and southwest
corner of Western and Faircrest. (Modified Exhibit A, to exclude four
parcels, located at the corner of Teranimar and Western and Faircrest and
Western.); Reclassification No. 89-90-39 granted (PC90-44) covers apartments
at Western & Ball in connection with GPA. (6 yes votes, 1 absent): Instructed
Staff to initiate GPA proceedings for four parcels at Teranimar & Western and
Faircrest and Western (excluded in GPA 289).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 15, 1990.
Posting of property March 13, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 16, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 1990.
Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner.
This General Plan is in conjunction with the ongoing Housing
Study. The recommendation is to redesignate the property from
medium density residential to low medium density residential to
provide compatibility with the single-family residences to the
north and west. Also being recommended is a reclassification of
two properties both of which are currently developed with
apartment complexes. These complexes are currently developed at
a density compatible with the low medium density residential
designation. He noted that on the General Plan Amendment, the
approval was modified by the Planning Commission and excluded
two areas, one on the southwest corner of Taranimar and Western
and Faircrest and Western. The Planning Commission recommended
a General Plan Amendment be considered for those areas for the
low density residential designation given that they are
developed with single-family RS-7200 and RSA-43,000.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Non~.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Daly, 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
300
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M,
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. 90R-93 and 90R-94)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 90R-93 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 289, modified Exhibit A and; Resolution No. 90R-94
for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 89-90-39. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-93-A: 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 AMENDMENT NO. 289, EXHIBIT "A" AS MODIFIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-94; 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.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-93-A and 90R-94 duly passed and adopted.
134/155: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 290 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: Subject area consists of those 6 parcels located on the north side
of Palais Road having a combined frontage of approximately 420 feet on the
north side of said street.
A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
redesignating subject area from the Medium Density Residential designation to
the Low Density Residential designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended approval of GPA No. 290,
Exhibit A, (PC90-45) (6 yes votes, 1 absent); approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Public hearing necessitated due to the General Plan Amendment.
301
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 15, 1990.
Posting of property March 13, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet March 16, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 1990.
Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner.
This General Plan Amendment is in conjunction with the ongoing
Housing Study. The recommendation is a redesignation from
medium density residential to the low density residential
designation to reflect the RS-7200 zoning of the area and the
low density nature of the area.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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 - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-95)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-95 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 290, Exhibit A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-95: 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 AMENDMENT NO. 290, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
302
64¸
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-95 duly passed and adopted.
179/155: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3993 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Leslie Crowell and Arlene Crowell
P.O. Box 1728,
Lucerne Valley, CA 92354
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1110, 1112 and 1114 West Pearl
Street. The petitioner requests waivers of (a) minimum number of parking
spaces, (b) minimum site area per dwelling unit, (c) maximum structural height
and (d) minimum side yard to construct a 4-story, 12-unit apartment building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Variance No. 3993 denied (PC90-23)
(7 yes votes); approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by the owner, Leslie Crowell, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 15, 1990.
Posting of property March 13, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 16, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 29, 1990.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Richard Hansen, Project Architect.
There seems to be some inconsistency in the report. He attended
the Planning Commission meeting and this was one of the initial
proposals for the project. It was a 4-story building with a
subterranean garage. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting,
the plan was revised to 10 units and a 3-st0ry building with
1-story of parking on ground and 2 stories above. No parking
waivers being requested. The Planning Commission observed they
might have had a 1-foot encroachment at the living units at the
second and third floor 1-foot into the side yard. He agreed
at the time to reduce the overall building width by 1-foot and
they would comply. He believes they are now complying relative
to the waivers listed.
Mayor Hunter.
He asked staff if the Council denies the request and the
developer does not ask for any waivers can the project then be
built to code.
303
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
That is correct if all the waivers are eliminated. On
February 26, 1990 the Planning Commission considered a General
Plan Amendment for the area to reduce land use designation to
the low medium designation and for RM-2400 zoning which is
coming to the Council next week, April 3, 1990. If the Council
denies the request and the applicant chose to make modifications
to the plans to bring the project to code, he would have to have
those changes through for a building permit prior to Council's
action on the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification.
Richard Hansen.
It is his understanding since they were turned down at the
Planning Commission they would not be able to get a building
permit. The drawings they presented to the Planning Commission
reflected all the corrections. They did not want to be present
tonight if they did not have to be.
Annika Santalahti.
This is a deck-type project. The new ordinance effective in
February requires that a deck-type project take a CUP. If he
went back with some of the characteristics that are posted in
the documentation on the Chamber wall, he could not do that
project but would have to have a revised plan. It could not
include a deck which means they would be parking at the first
level or underground and the next level is the open space for
the project. If he makes modifications and meets code, he can
file for something under 12 units and possibly get a permit. He
would be limited to 2-stories.
Richard Hansen.
As he understands, if he meets the City's code requirements, he
could build his project and not have to come back.
Mayor Hunter stated that was correct.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She noted that 16 people were opposed and there is a petition
with 120 signatures in opposition. (It was determined that
approximately 20 people were present in opposition as noted by a
show of hands.)
Annika Santalahti.
She clarified that the General Plan for downzoning the area to
RM-2400 is set as a public hearing before the Council scheduled
for next Tuesday, April 3, 1990.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
304
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M,
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Gale Berkowitz, 221 North West Street, and owner of rental
property at 1106 West Pearl.
She is urging the Council to vote no on this 4-story, 12-unit
apartment building. The Planning Commission agreed this is no
place for apartments. The proposed building site is in the
boundaries of the proposed downzoning of Pearl Street which the
Planning Commission approved and which is coming to the Council
on April 3, 1990. They are all in favor of the downzoning. She
then submitted a petition containing signatures of concerned
neighbors opposing any building standing taller than a
single-story level (made a part of the record). She also
submitted 10 mounted photographs showing several properties in
the area, the building site, overcrowding of parking on the
alley, the closeness of adjacent properties to the building
site, etc. which she elaborated upon during her presentation.
Parking is a problem. They do not want any more apartments on
the street; the project does not fit the area. She urged the
Council to stand behind the residents and vote no.
Carmen McWilliams, 1212 West Pearl Street.
She asked if the applicant was permitted to build 2-stories with
parking underneath making it 3-stories and also if next week the
Council votes for downzoning the area, what would the applicant
be permitted to build.
City Attorney White.
When the RM-2400 ordinance goes into effect, 30 days thereafter
the applicant would have to abide by those regulations. It is
unlikely someone could pull a building permit and obtain a
vested or grandfathered right in the current zone within that
30-day period. The regulations will change and go from whatever
they are in the current zone to whatever they would be in the
new zone.
Annika Santalahti.
As of now in this zone technically there could be 9 units, and
10 are proposed. But putting in the site development standards
including the height limit of 2-st0ries maximum including any
parking, the applicant could only have 2-stories. He has an
extra story. Even today if he were to come in he would probably
be able to build 5 or 6 units at best in the RM-1200 current
zone. If rezoned, he could have a maximum of four units.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative
305
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5~30 P.M.
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 RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-96)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 90R-96 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3993. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3993.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-96 duly passed and adopted.
179/155: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3236 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Norbert A. & Ruth M. Waters
Attn: Bob Carr
6045 Slauson Avenue,
Commerce, CA 90040
AGENT:
L. A. Cellular
Attn: Bob Carr
6045 Slauson Avenue,
Commerce, CA 90040
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2501 East Ball Road. The
request is to permit an unmanned cellular telephone station including one
60-foot mono-pole with waiver of maximum structural height and minimum
structural setback along an arterial highway.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP No. 3236 denied (PC90-32)
(4 yes votes, 3 no votes); waiver of code requirement denied; approved
Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by
Jerome Buckmelter, Jerome Buckmelter Associates, Inc., authorized agents for
Cellular Telephone Company, and public hearing set this date.
306
68
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 15, 1990.
Posting of property March 15, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 16, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 1990.
Letter dated March 19, 1990 from Jerome Buckmelter, agent, was received on
March 21, 1990 requesting a continuance of the public hearing to April 10,
1990; letter dated March 26, 1990 was also received from Norbert Waters, owner
of the subject property, asking for a continuance of the public hearing (both
letters made a part of the record).
City Clerk Sohl announced receipt of the letters requesting a continuance of
the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present in the Chamber audience opposed to a
continuance.
From the audience several people answered yes and asked that they be heard
tonight.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Jerome Buckmelter, Jerome Buckmelter Associates. He is
representing L. A. Cellular Telephone.
They are requesting a continuance because a key issue is that
they substantiate that no other sites are available. Their real
estate coordinator has a serious illness and is under doctors
care and has not been able to do the investigation necessary to
come up with the substantiation indicated by the Planning
Commission. The owner of the property, Mr. Norbert Waters, had
a death in his family and he flew to the funeral in Utah today.
He has no objection to the Council taking testimony from the
opposition tonight but he does not think it would be fair to
hold the public hearing and for the Council to make a decision
this evening. He is requesting that the Council postpone a
decision on the matter.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished
to speak.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Tom Elser, 1176 South Hilda.
One of the Planning Commission's recommendations was that the
applicant investigate alternative sites. As of three or four
days ago one of the residents inquired of the people who own the
307
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
primary alternative site and no one has contacted him. Nothing
has been done. They will come back, but they do not want to
have to come back more than they have to.
Councilman Pickler.
The Council usually grants a request for a continuance. Since
there is no meeting on the 10th of April as requested by the
applicant, the continuance would be in three weeks. He asked if
the residents could come back at that time or do they want to be
heard tonight.
Tom Elser.
They prefer not to speak tonight.
Councilman Ehrle.
He would like to know how many such unmanned telephone stations
there are in the City.
Annika Santalahti.
Staff has just been hearing of these recently. There is a
possibility that they are being located in industrial zones.
The subject request is in a commercial area very close to
residential uses. The pole is 60-foot high and structurally
what they are talking about will have an impact because of the
nearness of the residences. She is almost positive if in an
industrial zone and not on the edge, that such uses have been
allowed to go in by right but not at the subject type location.
She knows of at least two such applications but in industrial
areas.
Dorothy Mezey, 237 Magnoll, Placentia.
She received a notice from the City relative to the public
hearing. The location of the property is indicated as 2501 East
Ball Road. She has a deed with her showing that she owns 50% of
2501, 2503 and 2505 East Ball Road. She is opposed to the
request and she is 50% owner of the property which she can prove
by the document she has brought with her today.
City Attorney White.
The issue is one of land use and not property ownership. Even
if the permit were to be granted, it is possible if the
permittee has no legal right to exercise the permit due to other
restrictions, that is a separate legal matter. The Council's
decision is to be based on whether it is appropriate to have the
use at the subject location. The legal right to build the use
if permitted is something that goes to a different forum and is
not something that can be ajudicated by the Council.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager.
When Mr. Waters applied for the application, he gave the
addresses being part of his property. Only a portion of
property is under his ownership.
3O8
7O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Donald E. Repp, 1191 Hilda.
Besides the height of the pole, a waiver is being requested for
a building to be placed 2 feet from one neighbor's property
line. The little piece of property in the corner is not of any
value to the shopping center but the landlord can realize an
income from that non-valuable piece. His main point of
opposition is that a building will be very close to a
residential property line.
John Douglas, 1184 South Hilda.
The building and the mono pole will be directly behind his
property. His fence is approximately 7 1/2 feet high but a 10
to 12-foot building will tower over the fence and it will be
only 2 feet away whereas by Code it should be 20 feet away. He
does not want the pole or the building behind his house in any
case.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Jerome Buckmelter.
At L. A. Cellular, they have real estate coordinators assigned
to different sites. There is one assigned to this project but
he is under doctors care. He (Buckmelter) will take any
suggestion they have relative to sites. If they fit their needs
from a technological standpoint, they would be glad to look at
those sites. Hopefully Mr. Carr (L. A. Cellular) is recovering
and they would like to have him give substantiation to the
Council. The Planning Commission denied the request 4 to 3
without prejudice and asked that they substantiate that there
are no other sites available. That is key to their issue.
Mr. Waters owns 100% of the property where the pole is going to
be located and it was discussed at the Planning Commission
hearing. He cannot make a decision independent of Mr. Waters.
At present, they have a pole in the middle of Nellie Gale
Ranch. People do not understand what they are proposing nor do
they understand what a 60-foot high pole. He would not object
to one next to his residence.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Councilman Daly.
While he respects the applicant's hardships, this is not a
reasonable application. He is even surprised that three members
of the Planning Commission voted yes. It is a residential area
and a completely inappropriate use for the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman 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
309
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M,
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-97)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-97 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 3236. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3236.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-97 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She abstained because she cannot remember any instance since she
has been on the Council where the land owner and applicant
requested a continuance that it was not granted. It does not
mean she would not have voted no. The right to be heard should
be upheld.
134/179: REHEARING CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED), GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 272 (READVERTISED), RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-23
(READVERTISED), WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (READVERTISED), CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3214 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Jafar Oahanpanah
520 N. Rexford Drive,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
AGENT:
Ronald J. Crowley
1700 Raintree Rd.,
Fullerton, CA 92635
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1585 West Katella Avenue. The
request is for a change in zone from RS-10,000 to RM-2400. Petitioner
requests an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a
redesignation from the existing Commercial Professional designation to the
Low-Medium Density Residential designation. To permit a 24-unit, RM-2400
condominium complex with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum
building setback, minimum recreational leisure area, and maximum fence height.
310
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: GPA No. 272 denied (PC89-295) (4 yes
votes, 3 no votes); Reclassification No. 89-90-23 denied (PC89-296) (6 yes
votes, 1 no vote); Waiver of code requirement denied (5 yes votes, 2 no
votes); CUP No. 3214 denied (PC89-297) (5 yes votes, 2 no votes): approved
Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and Councilman Ehrle at the meeting of December 12, 1989, and public
hearing scheduled for January 16, 1990, which was continued from the meetings
of January 16 and February 6, 1990 to February 13, 1990.
At its public hearing held February 13, 1990, the City Council approved
General Plan Amendment No. 272-Exhibit B, approved Reclassification
No. 89-90-23, and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 3214.
Subsequently a request for rehearing was submitted by the Agent, Ronald J.
Crowley, which was granted by the City Council at its meeting of February 27,
1990, and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 15, 1990.
Posting of property March 13, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet March 16, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See original Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 4, 1989
and subsequent report dated February 6, 1990 to the City Council.
City Clerk Sohl announced that preceding the meeting, a request was received
from Massoud Monshizadeh for a one week continuance.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present opposed to a one week continuance;
there was no response.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
Her understanding is that there are revised plans on the project
which staff has not seen as yet. If there is only a one week
continuance, they cannot submit a staff report. She has
discussed the matter with Mr. Monshizadeh. The Council may wish
to continue the public hearing for three weeks.
No one was opposed to a three-week continuance.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to continue the subject public hearing for
three weeks to Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134/179/185: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 289,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 271, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-22, WAIVER OF CODE
REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3206, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-02,
311
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO, 89-02 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Savi Ranch Associates
c/o Hillman Properties
450 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 304,
Newport Beach, CA 92660;
MARKETFAIREi
and
Koll Company
Attn: Ron Keith
4345 Von Karmen,
Newport Beach, CA
92660-221
AGENT:
Community Systems Association
1717 S. State College Blvd., #100,
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1001 to 1100 Pullman Street
(Marketfaire at Anaheim). The request is for a change in zone from ML (SC) to
CL (SC). Request for amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
proposing a redesignation from the existing General Industrial designation to
the General Commercial designation to amend and restate Development Agreement
No. 83-02 between SAVI Ranch Associates and the City of Anaheim to govern and
permit a commercial retail center, one free standing restaurant with on-sale
alcoholic beverages and entertainment, one drive-through restaurant, an
automotive repair center, a service station and mini-mart with fast food and
off-sale beer and wine, and an automotive car wash, with building heights in
excess of 35 feet, with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, required
site screening and required landscaped setback.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: No action taken on GPA No. 271;
Reclassification No. 89-90-22 (Revised) approved (PC90-33) (5 yes votes, 1 no
vote, and 1 absent); Waiver of code requirement granted; CUP NO. 3206
(Revised) granted, in part, (PC90-34) sale of beer and wine prohibited; no
action taken on Development Agreement No. 83-02; Development Agreement 89-02
approved (PC90-54).
HEARING SET ON:
A public hearing was set for and continued from the meeting of March 13, 1990
tO this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 1, 1990.
Posting of property March 1, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 2, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 12 and report dated
March 15, 1990 from the Planning Director to the City Council.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager.
There are a few minor changes in the project but the only major
change is that the parking waiver which was no longer necessary
312
?4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
is again necessary. The total requirement is for 1,820 parking
spaces and 1,810 are being provided because of some of the
spaces being increased in size. The changes are noted in the
March 15, 1990 report.
Marshall Krupp, President, C.S.A. Real Estate Development,
partner in the project with the Koll Company.
The last time the project was presented to the Council it was to
Site Plan No. 1. The site plan is now No. 15 as a result of a
variety of input including staff, the residential neighborhood
who participated in meetings, Redevelopment Agency staff and the
Planning Commission. Two additional critical participants have
been the Home Club and Costco. The most recent change in
parking is a result of Costco's input. Although parking
standards have changed to allow for a smaller width of stalls,
Costco believes that 10-foot wide stalls are necessary for the
kind of retailing they do. Therefore, the westerly end of the
project has been redesigned resulting in the elimination of the
car wash and 10 parking spaces.
Mr. Krupp then briefed the site plan which was posted on the
Chamber wall. It includes 117,000 square feet for Costco and
over 100,000 square feet for the Home Club. Ail of the
documentation for both majors have been completed and
negotiated. The autoplex is an indoor auto service operation of
14,000 square feet. It will provide services such as car
phones, radios, tires, wheels and instant lube and tune. There
is a 30,000 square-foot retail center on the east side of the
Home Club. There was a concern raised previously relative to
parking for the theatre. The theatre has since been eliminated
and they have moved the building previously in front of the
parking area back up against the freeway so that all parking is
now in front of retail businesses. There was also a 30,000
square foot retail center that backed up to the Santa Aha
River. Originally there were two restaurants and a bank. The
bank has been eliminated. They have maintained the fast-food
restaurant and expanded the full service restaurant to 10,500
square feet, eliminated the corner use and included in it a
service ~tation with a 1,000 ~quare foot mini mart 0paration.
Previously it was 2,500 square feet. They had also previously
asked for beer and wine. The Planning Commission denied the
beer and wine and they were going to appeal that decision.
However, they are not now asking for beer and wine. One of the
major concerns was relative to the residential neighborhood to
the north. That neighborhood is a little more elevated than
their building and is approximately 1/2 mile away from the
property. The only thing that obscures that residential
neighborhood from the property is the Santa Aha River and the
park area. Concerns were raised by the neighbors. He then
briefed the concerns that were addressed.
313
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Traffic They will be providing for improvements along Weir
Canyon Road. They feel comfortable that the traffic analysis is
acceptable for the area.
Noise from the property - There are two noise generators, the
autoplex and the Costco service loading area. They have
proposed the installation of an 8-foot wall behind the autoplex
as close to the rear entrance to the bays as possible and have
also proposed a screen wall around the Costco loading area.
They will not generate any noise that would be adverse to the
residential neighbors to the north.
Visibility of buildings They have reduced not only the scope
of the entire complex, but also the towers as well. They have
removed anything that would extend above in an obtrusive way to
screen the view of the freeway.
Aesthetics The recommendations of the citizens were to be more
in line with the residential character north of the project.
The word Mediterranean was used as an architectural style.
There were concerns about the colors being too strong in
nature. They have provided a color board this evening. The
colors have been toned down and they have added some additional
architectural characteristics to the buildings which face the
residential neighborhood.
They have carried the theme into the Costco and Home Club
buildings and will carry the same theme into the restaurants and
service station.
In concluding, he stated one of the conditions of approval they
would like to have the Council reconsider relates to Condition
No. 1 of Reclassification No. 89-90-22 dedicating vehicular
access to Weir Canyon. The property does not front on Weir
Canyon so they cannot make such dedication. Relative to the
Redevelopment Agency, there is a Development Agreement they have
asked be entered into that will allow them to implement the
program and a Redevelopment Owner Participation Agreement. All
of the documentation is a single-package and they are asking if
a decision is made on one that it be made on all.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
The following people spoke to the project and expressed concerns as summarized
(also see minutes of the Council meeting of January 23, 1990 where some of the
issues were first broached).
Bill Taraschi, 1201 North Melanie.
He clarified residents are approximately 800 feet from the site.
314
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Easement on the ~roDerty Mr. Krupp told them he had talked to
Southern California Edison (SCE) and they assured him nothing
could be done to buffer the easement from their view. He
(Taraschi) called Edison who said they never handle requests
over the telephone and they are unaware of any formal request to
do anything with the easement. There is no landscaping
whatsoever on the north side of the easement. He clarified that
if permission is granted to have the easement landscaped, the
residents would like it done before the project is approved.
Traffic 85 acres are being developed for the Anaheim Festival
Project, 45 acres for Marketfaire and there is another project
being proposed that will have 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 average
daily trips. This area is getting all the commercial
development. The freeway is a disaster. He is recommending
that the project not be built until something definitive is done
to ease the traffic situation in the area.
Harold Schaffroth, 8183 East Woodsboro.
He first asked questions relative to parking which were answered
by the Traffic Engineer. Relative to the autoplex, he is
concerned that it is increased in size and is still concerned
with the noise that will be generated from that use.
Greg Hastings.
Plans originally approved by the Planning Commission called for
a 17,000 square foot autoplex. After the Council public hearing
when the plans were again submitted to the Commission, it was
increased to 20,000 square feet. Revised plans now call for a
14,000 square foot autoplex; Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that
the car wash is also deleted.
Robert Kosch, 8124 East Woodsboro.
He is concerned about traffic but a major concern within the
center is the autoplex which will probably be the main source of
noise. The 8-foot wall being proposed to mitigate noise fails
to consider that the service bays are 12 feet tall. Mr. Krupp
also indicated their homes are set higher than the center. That
being the case, the noise will travel over the wall to the area
of their homes. The acoustical evaluation the developers
commissioned stated in order to overcome the noise, there must
be a blockade of that sound in the line of site. An 8-foot wall
probably will not satisfy that.
Signage - They have recently seen with other developments signs
appearing on the 91 Freeway which are low quality and "tacky" in
appearance and not consistent with Anaheim's concerns about what
signs should look like. Placement of additional signs along the
91 Freeway would be out of character for the area. If nothing
else, they would like to see a resolution passed that no signs
should be allowed along the 91 Freeway either north or south.
315
??
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
The signs he is speaking about advertise commercial/retail
centers. It is an example of what they do not want and they do
not want the sign to be a "foot in the door."
Mayor Hunter referred to a sign which looks like it is situated
on state property advertising E1 Pollo Loco, Carl's Jr., Burger
King, etc. located in the existing center off the 91 Freeway.
Greg Hastings.
The sign on the south side of the freeway was approved by
variance by the Planning Commission. There is an integrated
sign program for the entire center. They chose to put all their
signs on one large monument sign. In the Scenic Corridor in a
commercial zone signs are limited to a 3-foot high wall sign.
There was a variance approved for the height of the sign which
combined all the signage allowances for the property in terms of
freestanding signs into one sign.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked staff to check out the situation to see what was
happening in the area. She considers it a freeway billboard
since it can be seen from the 91 Freeway.
Mr. Kosch continued noting that Mr. Krupp stated this was design
15. The residents have not been privy to the latest designs.
Every time they talk to the developer, they find new things have
appeared that have come out of nowhere but are told they were
there all along. There is a general lack of candor. Answers
are pointed and limited. They found out at the Planning
Commission hearing that a tire-changing facility is involved
with Costco. They had been concerned about that but their
questions had been directed at the autoplex. There was no
volunteer of the other information. They feel that there may be
other similar surprises that will come out if not looked at.
They questioned the concern of the developer and the developer's
interest in working with the community in making sure that the
residents are satisfied or simply meeting the letter of the law
by talking with the residents. With those concerns, he urged
the Council to deny the development.
Clifford Lester, 818 East Woodsboro.
The residents feel that their area is one of the last areas in
Anaheim representative of the nice tranquil feel represented in
the City of Anaheim emblem and this project is in direct
deviation. They are concerned with the color scheme. The color
of the roof area is turquoise which they feel is very bright and
will be an eyesore in their area. The size of the development
alone will give the development presence. It is better to have
a more tranquil version of the color on the roof. He also wants
to re-emphasize the traffic problem which will worsen since
traffic is already a problem. The project should be halted at
316
78
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M,
this point until a real solution is found to the traffic
situation.
Ben Parikh, 8176 Woodsboro.
The project should be delayed. If the traffic problem is not
solved, he does not feel it should be ignored by going forward
with the project.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He confirmed for the Mayor that traffic studies had been done
and as a result, very formidable conditions were placed on the
development. The developer is going to widen Weir Canyon Road
from two lanes to three and in some instances four lanes, in
order to mitigate the traffic impact as well as the installation
of traffic signals at the ramps. The improvements are in excess
of $1 million.
There being no further person who wished to speak, the Mayor asked to hear
from the applicant.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Marshall Krupp.
They have attempted to be a good neighbor. Sharon Lazarro has
been the coordinator of the residential community and they
regularly kept in touch with her through correspondence as well
as sending her site plans as they started to refine them.
Tire repair - It was because of the concern expressed by the
residents that they asked their noise engineer to evaluate the
noise that would be generated putting tires on cars. There was
an awareness that the autoplex would have that operation.
Landscaping - The Edison easement will be fully landscaped
including the hillside where the towers are. It will not be
landscaped within the fence area of the towers themselves.
There will be trees, bushes and shrubs used throughout the
easement and along the river. The difficulty is the height
since the easement precludes planting of a tree of certain
height and diameter because of fire danger to the towers. It is
also not possible to build a wall 45 feet high which would be
needed to screen it from residential. Edison is in control of
the easement. They will be landscaping in compliance with
Edison's requirements and what would be allowed in the area.
There is a space requirement and height restriction all
controlled by an easement over which they have no control.
Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development.
They do have some problems with certain types of landscaping
under an Edison easement. She emphasized that both Planning and
Community Development staff are not asking for any approval of
new landscaping plans. They do not have plans for the Council
317
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
to review. Nothing the Council sees tonight represents a
specific plan. The Council will be reviewing, at a later date,
a landscape plan both as the City Council and Redevelopment
Agency and at that time they will know more about specifics.
Relative to the colors and materials, that is something as an
Agency they will be considering later in the agenda when the
Agency is reconvened. The developer wants colors and materials
approved so they can move forward. She clarified for Councilman
Daly that beyond the landscaping plans, the other item coming to
the Council and Agency will be the signage package which will
include all the signs. When the landscaping and signage plans
come back, technically they do not require public hearings but
anybody who wants to receive notice can leave their names and
addresses, and staff will be happy to notify them when those are
to be presented.
Nancy Ferguson, Assistant Planner.
In the mitigation monitoring program established for the
project, it was taken into account the fact that the project
borders the Santa Ana River. As such, certain things are
required of landscaping that go beyond the realm of the City.
She then read from the first page of the mitigation monitoring
program at the conclusion of which she noted that the Resource
Management Plan for the Santa Ana River written in 1987 set
forth certain types of landscaping that the task force wished to
see. There is a new plan in process (Santa Ana River Habitat
Enhancement Plan) which does cover this section of the river. A
task force was set up to pursue enhancement of the river which
meets on a regular basis. A member of the Parks and Recreation
Department sits on the task force. They would be working in
conjunction with the task force and County Environmental
Management Agency and the Parks and Recreation Department to
establish landscaping criteria that at this point are not sure
what it would entail.
Marshall Krupp.
There is a condition in the mitigation agreement and conditions
of approval that they conform with that. They have indicated
all along they would conform with the plan. The problem is the
one strip in the Edison easement. Although they may want to do
it, and would do it, they do not have control over that. With
regard to traffic, Mr. Singer and his staff have basically told
them what improvements should be done. It does not include
"stealing the shoulder" as also indicated but rather widening
the road in order to accommodate lanes and turning movements.
Relative to the colors of the buildings, this property is part
of a larger area of development. They also have tenants who
have their own color and signage requirements. What they wanted
was to have a compatible color scheme vs. one where people could
do as they pleased and have the Home Club or Costco colors stand
out and be obtrusive in terms of the overall development. The
318
8O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
proposed colors are state-of-the-art in California and fit into
the area. They are asking the Council to maintain that color
integrity. The development approved on the south side of the
freeway has the same color scheme with the exception of the roof.
Bill Mason, Architectural Firm of McClendon, Cruse, Gaylord.
They met with the owners two or three times and discussed the
roof and the colors of the buildings. The colors are not as
intense as they appear on the color board. As a retailer, they
need to have some presence to the building. The colors proposed
were a happy meeting point. The residents were not opposed to
the colors when they met with them at their homes, although they
were not totally pleased.
Marshall Krupp.
They have to meet their tenant and patron needs. They have
strong competition in that area. They are ready to move forward
just as Home Club and Costco. Every time someone has raised an
issue, they have tried to address that and modify the scheme to
reflect those concerns.
Councilman Pickler stated that the turquoise was not something
he wanted to look at for five or ten years.
Mayor Hunter.
If the Council approves the project tonight, as the
Redevelopment Agency, they also have the ability to approve the
aesthetics of the project. He asked if the aesthetics/color
scheme could be continued for a week.
Lisa Stipkovich.
Redevelopment staff does not have any need for the
Council/Agency to approve the color scheme tonight. It could be
brought up separately. It does not have to be in conjunction
with landscaping. She suggested that the basic concept drawings
either be approved or conditions placed on those so that the
developer can proceed with preliminary plans. The colors can be
decided at a later tim~. ~h~ would appreciate it if the
developer would show the material board to the neighborhood
since they did not have an opportunity to see the colors and
materials.
Mayor Hunter.
Mr. Krupp mentioned the Trammell Crow (Anaheim Festival)
property across the freeway using the same colors except the
roof is different. He feels the more traditional "Santa
Barbara" look being used for that project is one that will last
for a long time, more so than the "south west" look of the
subject project. He surmises the general feeling of the Council
is to have Marketfaire carry on the same look as the Trammell
Crow project which he feels would be more acceptable.
319
81
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Marshall Krupp.
He emphasized that they have to design a scheme around their two
major tenants - Home Club and Costco. They cannot put tile
roofs on buildings like that. He would like the Council to
consider approving the color scheme except for the roof and they
will subsequently bring in three, four or five different color
schemes and the Council/Agency can then make their decision.
Councilman Ehrle.
He likes the project but does not like the style. They are
going to have to look at the project for 20 years or so. The
Santa Barbara look is going to be beautiful. He is going to
have to be convinced that the subject project style is the most
architecturally suited for that area.
Marshall Krupp.
They have delayed the project for three months for a variety of
reasons. He does not want to see the issue of an aqua roof
jeopardize the project which would delay them further and to
capture the value they are bringing to the community.
Councilman Ehrle.
He feels they can move forward on the general concept without
getting into the roof color. However, he does have concerns
about the architecture.
Councilman Pickler.
As long as they will have an opportunity to look at these issues
later on, he is ready to move forward tonight.
Nancy Ferguson.
Earlier Mr. Krupp made reference to a noise study. It was
undoubtedly an oversight, but Planning staff has not received a
copy of that noise study. She is requesting that it be made
available to staff and become part of EIR No. 289.
Bill Taraschi.
What conc~rn~ him about tha ~a~m~nt i~ that a procedure has
been identified by Edison and Mr. Krupp has not followed that
procedure. The residents are against the project.
Marshall Krupp.
Relative to the landscaping over which Council expressed
concern, he will make a copy of the easement attached to the
title report so staff can use it to go back to Edison to find
out what that actually means.
Mr. Robert Kosch.
He reiterated the residents concern relative to traffic. It is
a primary issue that is being side stepped. Answering the
Mayor, he stated a use that would be appropriate on the site,
320
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M,
would be one that perhaps generates 2,000 or 3,000 average daily
trips as opposed to 17,000. The use could be one of light
manufacturing.
Paul Singer.
The project with the mitigation measures is intended to mitigate
all of its impact with the exception of one off ramp on the
freeway which is not mitigable as discussed previously, there
are serious regional problems on the 91 Freeway. Caltrans is in
the process of designing and holding public hearings to attempt
two additional HOV lanes (two eastbound and two westbound)
subject to the funding of those lanes which will substantially
reduce congestion on Weir Canyon Road. As well, the Eastern
Transportation Corridor will have a major positive impact to the
area by reducing the demand on the 91 Freeway.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Lisa Stipkovich.
On the basic concept drawings and colors, several comments were
made by Council Members that led her to believe they are looking
for a different architectural style. Therefore, she recommends
that they approve the site plan which identifies building
footprints but not the elevations because those would speak to
architectural style. She needs to have clarified whether they
want to have the developer study architectural styles and color
and materials or color and materials only. If architectural
style, they should not approve the elevations presented at this
time. Approval of the site plan with the footprint of the
buildings would enable them to proceed. In terms of colors and
materials, whenever they are submitted, staff will bring them
forward and will also notify the neighborhood. She requested
that they leave their name and address with her. Her
understanding is that relative to the landscape drawings, the
Planning Commission imposed a condition that would require
landscaping plans to come in under a public hearing so the
hearin§ will automatically be noticed.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She also is not fond of the aqua roofs and suggests that the
color be something that will blend in with trees or a soft
green. There are two distinct projects involved and to say that
one should be made just like the other is a mistake and should
not be so.
Councilman Hunter then clarified the general consensus is that
they want to talk about colors only and not any revisions to the
architectural drawings or style proposed.
321
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5~30 P.M,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 289 CERTIFICATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council finds that
Environmental Impact Report No. 289 is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act that City and State guidelines as recommended by the
City Planning Commission and as previously certified, is adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for this revised report. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-98 through 90R-100, both
inclusive, for adoption)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 90R-98 through 90R-lO0, both
inclusive, for adoption; the first, approving General Plan Amendment No. 271,
Exhibit A, the second, approving Reclassification No. 89-90-22, deleting
Condition No. 1, and the third, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3206.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-98: 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 AMENDMENT NO. 271, EXHIBIT "A."
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-99: 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3206.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-98 through 90R-lO0, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5113 AND 5114 INTRODUCTION: Councilman Pickler offered
Ordinance Nos. 5113 and 5114 for adoption, the first relating to Development
Agreement No. 83-02 and the second, relating to Development Agreement No.
89-02.
ORDINANCE NO. 5113: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-02 BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND SAVI RANCH ASSOCIATES, (ii) FINDING THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY
322
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
OF ANAHEIM, AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
ORDINANCE NO. 5114: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 89-02 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC., AND WJS INVESTMENTS, LTD.,
(ii) FINDING THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to recess the City Council meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:09 p.m.)
Chairman Hunter reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting, all
Agency Members being present. (9:09 p.m.)
161.123: OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,
INC, AND WJS INVESTMENTS, LTD., (MARKETFAIRE AT ANAHEIM - RIVER VALLEY PROJECT
AREA: Submitted was report dated March 20, 1990 from the Community
Development Department, recommending approval of the subject agreement as well
as adoption of an ordinance enacting a sales and use tax, as well as approving
the basic concept drawings and colors and materials for Marketfaire at Anaheim.
Agency Member Pickler offered Resolution No. ARA90-15 for adoption, approving
and authorizing the execution of an Owner Participation Agreement with
Community Systems Associates, Inc., and WJS Investments, Ltd. ("Participant")
and in connection therewith, making certain findings. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA90-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC., AND WJS INVESTMENTS, LTD.
("PARTICIPANT") AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES'
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS'
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Daly, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARAgO-15 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. ARA-001 for first reading, enacting a
sales and use tax in connection with the subject project.
ORDINANCE NO. ARA-O01: AN ORDINANCE OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ENACTING A SALES AND USE TAX.
As discussed under the Council public hearing on the Marketfaire project,
staff is recommending a motion approving only the basic concept drawings of
the project at this time with colors and materials to be decided at a later
time.
323
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1990, 5;30 P,M,
Agency Member Pickler moved to approve the basic concept drawings for
Marketfaire at Anaheim. Agency Member Hunter seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Hunter moved to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency
meeting. Agency Member Kaywood seconded the motion carried. (9:16 p.m.)
Mayor Hunter reconvened the Anaheim City Council meeting. (9:16 p.m.)
123: FINANCING AGR~RMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND SALES TAX ORDINANCE (MARKETFAIRE AT ANAHEIM - RIVER VALLEY PROJECT
AREA: Submitted was report dated March 20, 1990 from the Community
Development Department, recommending adoption of a resolution approving the
subject agreement and adopting an ordinance, amending Ordinance No. 1052,
relative to City sales and use tax.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-101)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-101 for adoption, approving and
authorizing the execution of a Financing Agreement with the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and making certain findings regarding public
improvements. (Marketfaire at Anaheim - River Valley Project Area.) Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FINANCING AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-101 duly passed and adopted.
108/171/142: ORDINANCE NO. 5115: Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance
No. 5115 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5115: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1052 OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM IMPOSING A CITY SALES
AND USE TAX; PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
OF ALL FUNCTIONS INCIDENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION, OPERATION AND COLLECTION OF
THE SALES AND USE TAX HEREBY IMPOSED; SUSPENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 1013 DURING SUCH TIME AS THIS ORDINANCE IS OPERATIVE; AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF," PROVIDING FOR A CREDIT AGAINST THE PAYMENT
OF TAXES UNDER SAID ORDINANCE NO. 1052 IN THE AMOUNT OF SALES OR USE TAXES DUE
324
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 1990, 5:30 P,M,
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7202.6 OF THE
REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF CALIFORNIA; AND MAKING CERTAIN OTHER FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
114: ORANGE COUNTY WALK OF STARS: Mayor Hunter explained that he and
Councilman Daly attended the event at the Hilton relating to the Walk of
Stars. He recommends that there be a non-obtrusive sign at Harbor Boulevard
and Convention Way to formalize and inform people that the Orange County Walk
of Stars is located there.
Councilman Daly. He suggested that the Hilton be contacted to see what they
feel would be compatible with that project.
City Manager, Bob Simpson. He has a meeting with the Executive Committee of
the Visitor and Convention Bureau on Thursday. He will broach the situation
and see what kind of reaction there is.
114: TRIP TO MITO, JAPAN: Mayor Pro Tem Pickler briefed the Council on his
recent trip as the City's representative to Mito, Japan where he attended the
grand opening of the Art Theatre/Mito. It is a beautiful $67 million facility
which is subsidized, in part, by the City of Mito. It contains a theatre,
concert hall and art gallery. The Mayor of Mito and Council Members also send
their regards to the Council and citizens of Anaheim. He also went to Tokoyo
where he met with representatives from HSST, the high speed maglev train. He
rode the maglev and the bullet train, and the subway. Those systems are
something that are necessary in California. It was an interesting and
productive tour.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn.
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:20 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Councilwoman Kaywood
325