1989/12/27City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in an adjourned regular session.
The adjourned regular meeting of December 15, 1989 (see minutes that date) was
adjourned to this date and time.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood 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
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
(Planning Staff representatives, Traffic Engineering representatives and
consultants were also present.)
Mayor Hunter called the adjourned regular meeting to order, all Council
Members being present. (9:00 a.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
Company vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No..
40-92-46.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
e. To meet with and give directions to its negotiator regarding
possible acquisition of land from the Phoenix Club located at 1566
Douglass Road, Anaheim, California.
f. To meet with and give directions to its negotiator regarding
possible acquisition of property from Paul and Karen Root, located
generally at 1630 Douglass Road, Anaheim, California.
g. To meet with and give directions to its negotiator regarding
possible acquisition of an interest in property from Campanula
Properties, Incorporated, located generally at 1400 South Douglass
Road, Anaheim, California.
h. 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
1138
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
any of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to closed session all Council
Members being present. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (9:01 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS; Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present (10:35 a.m.).
179/155; PUBLIC HEARING- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 299,
RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-29, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO, 3224, AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVlEW~
APPLICANT:
OWNERS:
Orange County Flood Control District
400 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, California 92701
Paul Lawrence and Karen J. Root
1210 Polaris Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Phoenix Club German Association of Orange County, a Corporation
1566 South Douglass Road
Anaheim, California 92806
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is approximately 26 acres located north and
east of the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. The request
is (1) for a change in zones from RS-A-43,000(FP), ML and ML(FP) to PR and
PR(FP) on the westerly approximately 9 acres and (2) to permit a parking area
to be accessory to a multi-purpose sports facility with waiver of maximum
fence height on the easterly approximately 17 acres.
HEARING SET ON:
Request by Planning Commission for City Council review.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 4, 1989
Posting of Property December 6, 1989
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet December 5, 1989 (amended notice
mailed December 7, 1989)
P~_~ING STAFF INPUT:
See, extensive staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 13,
1989. Also see additional informational material for the arena project
including correspondence from interested parties, related material included in
exhibits A through M, draft EIR (DEIR) 299, final EIR (FEIR) 299 and EIR 299
Response to Comments.
Std Lindmark, Phillips Brandt Reddtck (PBR) 18012 Sky Park
1139
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m
Circle, Irvine. Since the December 15, 1989 public hearing, one
additional letter has been received from Old Mill Custom
Cabinets dated December 19, 1989, indexed as letter number 67.
PBR and City Staff met with representatives of the Angels to
review their response to the letter included in the EIR. The
discussion centered on parking. A letter was also received a
moment ago from the City of Orange, dated December 26, 1989, in
which are additional comments on the Draft EIR.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from those who wished to speak
relative to the subject project and proposed actions.
William D. Ross, Law Firm, Ross and Scott, 520 South Grand
Avenue, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California 90071-2094. He is
present on behalf of Anaheim Stadium Associates (ASA). His
comments are summarized in letter dated December 27, 1989 just
submitted. (See 47 page letter dated December 27, 1989, file
no. 149/3 which focused on "...the procedural and substantive
compliance of the FEIR with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act..." - made a part of the record.) Mr.
Ross' presentation revolved around the issues detailed in his
submittal and upon which he expanded. Among the issues of
concern were the following: their client would be prejudiced
unless there is a further extension of the Environmental
Review. Issues still to be addressed are the conclusionary
nature of some of the responses to comments contained in the
FEIR. Although the EIR seemsto comply with the State statute
regulations and the City's own CEQA regulations, it does not
appear to set forth a data base in support of its conclusions.
The project description is inadequate. (See letter, page 12.)
The specific area of the project is not precisely defined in
terms of a legal description nor are the legal issues of the
Exhibition Agreement with the Rams and the City, Agreement with
the Angels or Anaheim Stadium Agreement, analyzed in the EIR.
Some mention should also be made of the Superior Court Case -
Golden West Baseball Company vs. City of Anaheim, on this
issue. It makes no sense to analyze the project in a vacuum
The description of the environmental setting of the project is
inadequate. The wetlands issue has not been addressed. There
is not a complete consistency analysis of the project with the
city's General Plan Amendment (GPA) which would be required for
a Use Permit to be issued. The project should have been the
subject of a GPA to Commercial-Recreation area. It does not fit
within the definitions of Business, Commercial, Industrial or
Office Use as described in the General Plan. Other issues
related to seismic safety, inadequacy of analyzing land use
impacts as well as traffic and circulation impacts, air quality
impacts, acoustic impacts, hydrology impacts, biological
resources and geology and soils impacts.
1140
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
The most important aspect from their point of view is the fact
that the City took a critical view of its ability to provide
fire services and protection to the proposed near-term jail
facility immediately across the street (see page 3 of December
27, 1989 letter), principally basing it on two areas of concern
- the intersections by which to gain access to that property,
which are the same as for the subject property, are already at
capacity and response time would be diminished. The second
concern - there were special considerations concerning rescues
at any catastrophic or life-threatening event associated with a
1500 bed Jail facility at that location. Those same two factors
are present here and if there is difficulty with the custodial
facility, the same impacts are present when a major event is
taking place with 20,000 people. It also stresses the need for
"risk of upset" analysis. The public should have been involved
in the scoping process. This is a "rush" to the NBA franchise
door although it is not acknowledged. There has been no
assessment on the issue of employment that would be generated by
construction of the facility. The issues raised cannot be dealt
with by an addendum in the EIR because they are substantive
matters, especially the "risk of upset" and institutional bias.
There has to be a longer review period of the document. Because
of the consistency issue they raised earlier that the CUP be
consistent with the General Plan, they do not believe action can
be taken on any of the entitlements to use until consistency can
be achieved. Without a complete General Plan consistency
analysis, they believe that both certification of the EIR and
approval of the discretionary permits would not be supported by
substantial evidence. They reserve the right to comment on the
formal findings once adopted if the action goes forward. He
will make available to Planning Staff today a copy of the State
document Special Publication No. 99 (re: geology and soils) and
respectfully request that copies of Resolution No. 7469 and 7474
from the City of Orange concerning the 12,000 unit residential
development he referenced be included in the record.
(Resolutions submitted and made a part of the record.) They
have also referenced several documents they have examined, many
of which are in the possession of the City or are City documents
and request that official notice of these documents be taken.
City Attorney White. For clari£ieation, he stated that the
hearing originally scheduled for December 15, 1989 was continued
to this date. As part of the motion to continue, the Council
authorized an additional period through December 20, 1989,
Within which the City would receive written comments on the
proposed EIR 299. Mr. Ross, on behalf of his client today, has
submitted a 47 page document in part which addresses
environmental issues relating to EIR 299 and much of his
testimony has been related to addressing EIR 299. While the
Council may at its discretion today choose to allow public
testimony and receive the written documents relating to the EIR,
1141
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
there is nothing in the CEQA or the regulations promulgated
thereunder which requires a public hearing for adoption of the
EIR. The public period as required by law today relates to the
Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit. However, in the
interest of receiving the greatest amount of material by the
decision making body as it relates to potential environmental
effects, he does not believe Staff, Council or City's
consultants would object to receiving the information and
placing it in front of the Council today. Staff and its
consultants may comment on the material and testimony received
in conjunction with the EIR. The fact that this material is
received today relating to the EIR and Staff's response to any
of the comments raised today verbally or in writing to the EIR
should not be deemed an admission by the City of Anaheim that
the city is required to hold a public hearing relating to the
EIR or required at this late date to respond to either the oral
or written comments raised. In the interest of getting the
greatest amount of information to the Council upon which to base
its decision, he believes Staff will be addressing the issues
being raised today relating to the EIR.
Robert Coldren, Hart, King and Coldren, representing Jack
Stanaland and Campanula's properties, ground lessee of the
Orangetree Mobile Home Park (OTMHP) abutted by the arena on two
sides.
The first endorsed the comments made by Mr. Ross. His comments
today are applicable to the three proposed actions approval of
the Conditional Use Permit, Reclassification and the EIR
certification. He urges the Council to deny the request for a
CUP, deny certification of the EIR and deny the zone
reclassification. The Council has already received his December
4, 1989 comment letter to the DEIR previously submitted, the
December 13, 1989 letter and testimony he provided at the
Planning Commission and is now incorporating his December 15,
1989 letter to the Council and the summary of the testimony he
is going to be giving regarding the EIR, zone reclassification
and CUP (see letter dated December 15, 1989 attached to which
was an extensive outline of his presentation entitled, Anaheim
City Council, December 15, 1989 with attachments Exhibit A, B
and various newspaper articles - made a part of the record). Me
feels that the new information provided by the City today for
the first time significantly alters the scope, ramifications and
data concerning the project. This material was available for
the first time for the general public at approximately 9:00 a.m.
today. He has not had an opportunity to study the materials
submitted.
Relative to the resolution on the zone reclassification, it is
his understanding that one of the individuals listed in the
resolution is deceased, there is nothing in the resolution
1142
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9;00 a.m.
wherein the Planning Commission finds the project is consistent
with the General Plan, the resolution relative to the
certification of the EIR by the Planning Commission bears
little resemblance to the testimony given at the Planning
Commission meeting of December 13, 1989. The EIR was flawed
from the inception by failing to address the scope of the
project. There is no information to evaluate that aspect of the
project.
Mr. Coldren then addressed certain sections of Planning
Commission Resolution PC89-316 which certified FEIR 299,
addressing among other things, items on pages 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and
10 relative to cumulative traffic impacts, the lack of a sound
absorption wall as a noise mitigation measure, the change of
land use character which he feels is a concession on the part of
the Planning Commission that the project is not consistent with
the present land use designation for the area, reference to the
potential of hazardous materials on site, social and economic
benefits of the project to the City, whereas the Planning
Commission at their meeting was' concerned about the lack of any
such significant benefits, and the determination that the Santa
Aha site as an alternative was rejected because it did not meet
the City's fiscal goals.
In view of the public controversy over the arena project, Mr.
Coldren feels it is incumbent upon the City Council to consider
scheduling the matter for an election. Further, in view of the
"stack" of documents which he feels has dramatically changed the
EIR, he is requesting a minimum of a continuance of the matter
and also requests either a supplemental or additional EIR be
prepared and insists that the CEQA process be started over and a
new EIR prepared in a fashion consistent with the letter and
spirit of CEQA requirements.
Mr. Coldren continued his extensive testimony contained in his
aforementioned submittal dated December 15, 1989. It outlined
the many areas of concern of his client. He elaborated further
on most of the issues contained in his 14 page presentation
consisting of related correspondence, documentation, newspaper
articles, petitions from residents of Orangetree Mobile Home
Park, and a portion of the Santa Aha Draft EIR. (Also see
comments section of Final EIR 299-30, letter from 3ack
Stanaland, president, Campanula Properties, Inc., dated December
4, 1989, which contains 67 pages of comments/concerns relative
to Anaheim Arena/DEIR/SCH No. 89070512/DEIR No. 299/comments to
DEIR and exhibits A through M.) It also posed questions which
he emphasized needed to be answered before any action can be
taken, relating specifically to the EIR, but also to the
Reclassification and CUP. His presentation referred to
correspondence/comments by the California Angels, the Los
Angeles Rams, City of Orange, County of Orange and the
1143
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), comments which for the
most part supported many of the conclusions reached in their
December 4, 1989 correspondence commenting on the deficiencies
in the Draft EIR documents. He addressed the CUP which, because
it was denied by the Planning Commission, the majority of
on-site parking spaces have been eliminated. He also outlined
what the findings will have to be if the Council approves the
CUP.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Coldren stated if the City
Council decides to move forward today in the face of all the
objections presented, at a minimum, for the benefit of the
residents of the Mobile Home Park, the Council should consider
the following mitigation measures: (1) a sound absorption wall
on two sides of the project figured from parking lot grade and
approximately 12 feet above that grade. It should be sound
absorption as opposed to sound attenuation. (2) A guard at the
front entry (of the Mobile Home Park) two hours before and after
each event for emergency vehicles and to allow residential
access to and from the Mobile Home Park. (3) Reverse the
location of the 10 foot landscaped median so that the wall is
directly adjacent to the parking lot and then provide for a 10
foot buffer on the Mobile Home Park side, landscaped and
maintained by the City or Ogden. (4) Sidewalk on Douglass to be
completed as a pre-condition to anything occurring with the
arena. (5) No parking along Douglass and that it be enforced.
In closing, he quoted comments/concerns voiced by Planning
Commissioners made at their December 13, 1989 meeting.
City Attorney White. He again clarified that a de novo hearing
is being held today. Mr. Coldren made numerous references to
testimony received by the Planning Commission at the Planning
Commission hearing. It is his opinion the City Council having
obtained jurisdiction over the process and project renders the
decision of the Planning Commission moot and testimony received
by both the public and statements by individual Planning
Commissioners are not part of the record of the hearing today,
nor if a transcript were offered of the Planning Commission
hearing that the City Council would be required to receive
that. In any event, no such transcript has been offered nor is
available today. That is also moot. Any statements that have
been made relating to comments made by either members of the
public or individual Planning Commissioners at the Planning
Commission hearing are hearsay with regard to this hearing and
in his view are irrelevant since this is a hearing that is
required to stand or fall based upon the testimony that is
received at this hearing in front of the City Council. In that
regard the City may, at its discretion, regard those comments
that relate to statements made at the Planning Commission
hearing.
1144
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9;00 a.m.
Malet Bennett, boarder at Rancho Del Rio Stables and 4-H project
leader. (Comments no. 29 in FEIR, 29-1 to 29-77). The City
received 15 letters and several calls on the hotline in regard
to the proposed arena and its effect on the stables. Based on
the summary provided by PBR, Rancho Del Rio Stables will not be
addressed because it is not impacted by the proposed arena. She
then proceeded to explain how, in her estimation, it will effect
the stables, explaining that they have met with the City on four
occasions She also submitted the following documentation for
Council review:
(1) Notes from the initial meeting with the City regarding the
stable issue, November 6, 1989. (2) Boarders questionnaire
entitled - Proposed Questionnaire Rancho Del Rio Stables).
(3) Physical criteria - the uses and needs as far as equipment
(see - needs of the English barn - needs for the Gymkahana Rodeo
group - needs for the 4-H group - needs of the trail group -
needs of the Weston pleasure group). (4) Response to question
no. 5 (describe your use of Rancho del Rio). (5) Letter dated
November 27, 1989 to Jim Ruth, assistant City Manager,
addressing mitigation measures relative to fly and odor control
in effect at the stables. It also addressed visual impact and
dust. (Also see letter dated December 1, 1989 from Ms. Bennett
Comment No. 29 in FEIR 299 14 pages.) The stables are a
unique situation. PBR has stated any references to the Phoenix
Club relocation should be stricken from the EIR document. She
has been told that relocation of the Phoenix Club to its new
site will happen simultaneously once the EIR and CUP have been
approved. She questioned why the stables have not been included
in the EIR or why they have not been contacted relative to
relocation and if they will be provided assistance. PBR has
stated 78% of the 162 planned events in the arena will be at
night, starting at 7:00 p.m. or later, and 25% of the arena's
attendants will choose to park off-site. She addressed issues
relative to safety of patrons walking from the off-site parking
lots to the arena as well as biological resources in the Santa
Aha River bed which will be disrupted as a result of the
project, the latter also not having been addressed in the FEIR.
She is opposed to the arena and area of its site. The site is
too small for the scale of the project being proposed. The EIR
should be redone and the stables included in it as well as the
biological resources.
Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, Orange - homeowner and resident
in the vicinity of Tustin and Katella Avenue. She has lived in
Orange for 31 years. Her concern for the project is what effect
it will have on the City of Orange and the traffic impacts it
will bring. They are already impacted by traffic. It is an
area where traffic never stops. There is also bumper to bumper
traffic on the 91 Freeway at peak hours and during the day. She
asked the contingency plans for traffic problems for those who
1145
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
live in adjacent residential areas. She believes that
redevelopment is causing tremendous traffic nightmares.
Andrew Starrels, Loeb and Loeb, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite
1800, Los Angeles, 90017, representing the Los Angeles Rams
Football Club. He made comments at the earlier meeting (see
minutes of the adjourned regular Council meeting of December 15,
1989) and requested that those comments be added. Those
comments remain major points of concern. They have not been
adequately addressed for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
(Also see comments no. 64 in FEIR 299 letter dated December 5,
1989 from Mr. Rober Meyer of Loeb and Loeb.) Specifically he
questioned the adequacy of the EIR analysis to address and
disclose the potential impact of the project. They believe that
the mitigation measures proposed by the FEIR and proposed
project are insufficient and undervalued and responses to
comments in the EIR assessment process are inadequate generally
as well as both procedurally and substantively. There is an
insufficient record to support the necessary findings to approve
the project in its 3 or 4 component parts and the assumptions
made by the EIR process are unreasonable in both the Draft and
FEIR. Adverse impacts threatened by the proposed project are
exacerbated even more by the Planning Commission's proposed
recommendation to deny the CUP necessary for the on-site
parking. Mr. Starrels then addressed specific responses to the
written responses (see no. 64-2, -3, -4, -5, -6 and -7 on pages
61 through 63 of FEIR 299) and explained why his client feels
the responses to their comments (see Comments portion of FEIR
299 and Loeb and Loeb letter dated December 5, 1989) are
inadequate.
RECESS; By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (12:45 p.m.).
AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (12:55 p.m.)
Mr. Starrels continued addressing specific responses to their
written comments (nos. 64-9, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15, -18 and
-19, pages 63, 64 and 65 of FEIR 299). He asked that the Rams'
written comments be appended to the public record of proceedings
today and that the Rams' objections to the project and concerns
with the environmental impacts of the project are set forth in
that comment and are also embraced in the other comments
received by the City Council today and in writing by other
partcipants in the assessment process. Basically, the Rams
would like to Join in the comments stated here today with
response to ASA. The Rams are one of the partners in that
partnership and are, therefore, particularly close to that set
of comments.
Eileen McGregor, 2621 East Katella, Environmental Seal and
1146
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
Security. PBR has now recognized them as being part of the
property to be acquired by the City. The City is acquiring the
property and when the plans are decided on, there will be a
separate environmental assessment. There are also no current
plans to relocate them. She does not want to be a buffer or
barrier for the dust and noise that will occur as they have been
with the Katella widening project. She wants to know what is
proposed for the corner now and when.
Furman Roberts. As a citizen and individual, he represents only
his own viewpoint as well as those of some residents who live
along Sunkist - (southeast corner of Sunkist and Palladin). The
Public Resources Code discusses the need for a monitoring
program to analyze the on-going impacts of a project. He asked
if there has been an in depth analysis such as those done on the
Santa Ana proposal and what happens when an intersection breaks
down or when traffic stacks up at Katella and Douglass.
Motorists will take an alternate route and one of the major
alternate routes is Sunkist. He urged that the Council
carefully consider that situation It is a major impact that
deserves discussion and analysis.
Floyd Farano, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, representing the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and its entire membership. The
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, within the last
60 days has adopted a strong position in support of the sports
arena under consideration. The responses and work done on the
EIR are on target with the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The
subject area is one that has been studied to death from the
standpoint of the EIRs. He has been involved in no less than 6
major projects in the immediate area. The EIRs prepared for
those projects are not necessarily noticed and cannot be
incorporated in what is being done today, but Staff had to have
those EIRs in mind when they prepared the Notice of
Preparation. The Chamber is comfortable that the City has
proceeded with the best interest of the City at large in mind.
The Chamber also recognizes the concerns of the Rams and Angels,
since they are a vital part of the community. The sports arena
iS not a surprise. As much of an impact as it will be on the
Mobile Home Park, mobile home parks historically in the City
have always been an interim use, knowing that ~ometime in the
future they will be supplanted with a more permanent use. To
allow the arena to go unfulfilled because of the impact on the
Mobile Home Park is not justified.
In 1985/86 th~ City of Anaheim created the "Platinum Triangle".
The term was coined by Council Members when the Council examined
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 214 and mapped out the boundaries,
GPA 214 considered a sports arena in it but it was not located
at the time because it was not known then exactly where it was
going to be. The fact of its presence now cannot be said to be
1147
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 27, 1989, 9;00 a.m.
a sudden tragedy that has befallen the community. The sports
arena has always been there, the question being a matter of when
and where and the assembly of the right circumstances that would
permit it to happen. The Stadium area/Platinum Triangle has
been established as a high density, high traffic area - office
buildings, retail uses, commercial-recreation uses, even a jail
appears in other EIRs. Other sites have been reviewed and
studied, but because of certain physical characteristics of the
subject site, it is ideal because of its compatibility with
surrounding land uses with the exception of the Mobile Home
Park. When North Orange County booms, the Platinum Triangle
will be the center of the market itself. The freeways are right
there. There will not be much traffic that will traverse other
parts of the City. He reiterated the location is ideal.
From the standpoint of the economic security of the area, the
arena will bring business, tax revenues, and enhance the
development of the Platinum Triangle as planned in GPA 214. The
sports arena will be the economic catalyst that will permit the
Platinum Triangle to mature in the way the City visualized it
would when it adopted GPA 214. The Chamber hopes that the City
Council will undertake to see that the project moves forward.
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for a lunch break. (1:25
p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:35 p.m.)
bid Lindmark, PBR. He will give the introductory remarks
relating to the availability of public documents for the project
and then will proceed to answer the testimony in order with
input from his staff and from Greer and Associates. The FEIR
has been available since December 11, 1989 and addresses some
500 comments and 66 letters. Four letters in the 66 comprise
the bulk of the public comment on the DEIR. They have responded
to all 66 letters. Staff reports for the project were available
on December 13, 1989 for the public and City and included the
findings for the project, Statement of Overriding Considerations
and the mitigation monitoring program. There were comments
about substantial new material only being available to the
public this morning. That is not the case. There was one
letter which he identified in his introductory remarks (no. 67,
containing 6 comments) from Old Mill Cabinet Shop. It was the
only new additional information other than the letter dated
December 26, 1989 from the City of Orange received at this
meeting. The 30 day review period for the project is
appropriate as granted by the State Clearinghouse. The DEIR
itself is very comprehensive in its form both in terms of its
definition of the project, its evaluation of project impacts and
1148
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
mitigation measures proposed. The levels of specificity in the
draft and final, looking at the scope of the analysis, they have
evaluated more intersections than are usually considered for a
project of this type, more locations in terms of quality
impacts, looked extensively at parking areas on-site and
off-site and the impacts of parking in those areas. They have
been very thorough in terms of the approach to the adequacy and
sufficiency of the document. There have been very few new
impacts identified during the public process and very few new
mitigation measures that have been recommended during the public
hearings and the time this document has been available. The
document in its entirety serves as the informational tool it is
designed to be and has provided the Council with a body of
information that both discloses the potential impacts of the
project and makes appropriate mitigation measures as
recommendations.
Ken Ryan, PBR, Fred Greves, PBR, Larry Greet, Greer and
Associates (traffic consultants) addressed specific
issues/concerns/comments broached by Mr. Ross, Mr. Coldren, Ms.
Bennett, Ms. DeNiro, Mr. Starrels, Ms. McGregor and Mr.
Roberts. Mr. Ryan, among other issues, spoke to the following:
sufficiency of the EIR, wetlands issue, consistency of the
project with the City's General Plan, geotechnical issues,
grading plan, seismic safety, air quality issues, adequacy of
the hydrology analysis, safety relative to the otl pipeline in
the area, hazardous waste issue, economic factors, why the Santa
Ana arena site was not included as an alternate, the fact that
the stables are not part of the project as defined by CEQA, the
fact that it has not been determined whether the Phoenix Club
will be relocated, adequate parking is available and identified
in exhibit A of the FEIR, biological resources, and additional
mitigation measures requested by Mr. Coldren.
Mr. Greves spoke to the noise impacts and the mitigation
measures that were developed in that regard.
Mr. Greet spoke extensively to the wide range of traffic related
issues and the proposed mitigation measures. He also addressed
the Los Angeles Rams' comments relative to traffic and
emphasized that the mitigation measures regarding traffic are
adequate. He also reported that the 162 event days do no=
include a hockey team. A hockey team has 40 home games a year,
which will increase the number of event days. If hockey is
included, there will have to be some supplemental traffic
analysis and other environmental analysis at that time since 40
additional home events would generate additional opportunities
for coincident events to occur.
Mr. Lindmark also addressed issues/comments posed by Mr.
Roberts, explaining that the environmental analysis included
1149
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
Ball Road and Sunkist as well as air quality issues and
reiterated that comments were already on the record relative to
comments by Ross and Scott.
Councilman Daly temporarily left the Council Chamber (3:15 p.m.)
During Mr. Ryan's statements in answer to concerns expressed
relative to GPA consistency, he explained that, incorporated by
reference in the documents, were the Anaheim Stadium Area Study
Land Use Strategy Plans, which considered 5 different land use
alternatives. The area in which the project is located is
designated as a business, office, service, industrial land use
designation on the General Plan. This was established with the
adoption of GPA 214 in conjunction with EIR 274, which was
adopted to reflect the emerging character of the Stadium
Business Center of which the site is included from under
utilized low industrial uses to more intense development.
Incorporated by reference in those documents were the Anaheim
Stadium Area Study Land Use Strategy Plans which looked at 5
different land use alternatives within that Stadium Business
Center area and which analyzed various development intensities.
Council approval of both GPA 214 and EIR 274 reflects the
alternative level of intensity. It is important to note the
possible siting of a potential 20,000 seat sports arena was
assumed for all land use scenarios, including the alternate IV
level of intensity which was ultimately approved. He also
emphasized that, although the impression was given that hundreds
of pages of new information was submitted, that was not the case
and as Mr. Lindmark indicated, a letter was received from the
Old Mill Cabinet Shop and also a letter from the City of Orange.
James Ruth, Assistant City Manager, spoke to the economic impact
question. He feels it is appropriate to include in the public
record the economic benefit the arena will have on the City of
Anaheim. Ogden has estimated the arena, if built for
$60,000,000, that the construction impact that would be spent in
the area would be half of that, or $30,000,000. The project
will also generate 250 full time positions during the period of
construction. In the Laventhol and Horwath Economic Analysis
(see - "Review and Evaluation of the Proposed Westdome Arena" -
Anaheim, California . August, 1987). The arena operations would
generate $13,000,000 annually. Operation of an NBA franchise
would generate approximately $12,000,000 annually into the local
economy. Fan expenditures are estimated to be an additional
$7.5 million per year based on an average spending per capita of
$5.00. That is conservative but it would be an absolute
minimum.' Total expenditures within the local economy are
projected to be approximately $32,000,000 annually. Local tax
revenues would be another $250,000 annually. Total spending,
employment and income are as follows:
Annual sales volume would be $23,221,000 a year
1150
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCI~ MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9;00 a.m.
Induced sales, $55,759,000
Total sales - $78,980,000
Employment full and part time after the construction - 286
full time, 437 part time jobs
700 to 800 full and part time jobs that will continue on in
the economy
$32.5 million annually minimum income
Major expenditure of at least $30,000,000 in construction
costs during construction and also 250 jobs during that
time.
The arena would be a catalyst to the area and generate and
stimulate additional growth and quality development in that
area. It will be a significant economic benefit to the City.
After the City's consultants answered all of the comments expressed by the
public at the meeting, City Attorney White gave his input on two items, since
they were legal in nature.
In response to the inquiry raised as to why the scope of the EIR
did not include an analysis of the horse stables in the event
the Phoenix Club is relocated to that site, this project does not
require the relocation of the Phoenix Club. The project
requires the Phoenix Club site, as it exists, to be acquired and
incorporated into the arena project, but does not provide that
there will necessarily be a relocation of the Club to another
site. The Phoenix Club will have the option to relocate to
another site in the City or any other site, or not reestablish
itself at another location should the membership desire. If the
Phoenix Club decides to continue operation at a different site
within the City, that in itself will be a project which will
require separate environmental review under the terms of CEQA.
Impacts upon the surrounding area and the environment and the
site to which the Phoenix Club would relocate would be
identified and analyzed at that particular time.
The economic study by Laventhol and Horwath was referred to as
part of the economic documentation. That report, dated August,
1987, has been given to the Council, together with a one-page
cover memorandum from the Administrative Services Director of
the City, which memorandum is dated this date, and also a two-
page s,~mmary entitled, "Economic Impact of Proposed Anaheim
Sports and Entertainment Arena", also prepared by City Staff and
presented to the Council in conjunction with analyzing the
economic effects and impacts of the proposed arena project.
That material is not part of the EIR and is not required to be a
part of that report. It has been submitted for consideration in
Council's deliberation as to whether or not there are overriding
considerations applicable to this project to determine whether
or not the EIR will be certified. Those documents are also a
part of the record today.
Councilman Daly entered the Council Chambers (3:55 p.m.).
1151
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
Mayor Hunter. The Council is concerned and sensitive to the
concerns expressed by all who spoke and submitted comments, and
one of the reasons the 30 day review period was extended an
additional two weeks. During that period, two more letters were
received. He disagreed with Mr. Ross, who stated that this was
a "rush" to the NBA door. There are many people who are vitally
interested in Anaheim and Orange County. Anaheim has a proven
track record of attracting many millions of visitors each year
who come to Dtsneyland and other attractions, as well as
millions who attend sporting events and conventions. Anaheim is
able to move people and will continue to do so. The City is a
world tourist destination city and it will continue to be. the
arena will mean a great deal to the City and the area.
Councilman Ehrle. He is satisfied with the reports and
documentation the Council has received. Concerns have been
addressed, State/CEQA requirements have been met, and during the
two weeks extension, only two letters were received in a City of
240,000. The project has been endorsed by the Chamber of
Commerce. It is a project that can only benefit the entire
community. Concerns expressed were mainly centered around
parking and not only has that question been addressed, but the
City did not even begin to address future parking that will be
available in the area with the construction of commercial and
htghrise parking facilities This project will highlight
Anaheim on the cutting edge of transportation systems - the
bullet train will be coming to Anaheim, the people mover system
from the commercial recreation area to the Arena and the
Stadium, feeder systems from Riverside and South Orange county -
all having a destination, that being the Platinum Triangle,
where Anaheim Stadium is located and where the Anaheim Arena
will be located. He fully supports the project and feels
comfortable moving ahead with it.
Councilman Pickler. He is going to vote against the project.
The City has been on a fast track. He has concerns about
traffic and parking. He wants the arena badly, but feels it is
necessary to slow down and look closer to be certain everything
is in place in order to move ahead. More time is needed,
perhaps 20 or 30 days. He does not feel all the questions have
been answered. He will be voting against certification of the
EIR and the Condittona~ Use Permit but has no problem with the
Reclassification.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-471).
MOTION:..Gouncllman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the
resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-471 for adoption, certifying
1152
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
Environmental Impact Report No. 299, making certain findings in connection
therewith and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-471: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM (A) CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 299, (B) MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND (C) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
Pickler
None
Mayor Hunter declared Resolution No. 89R-471 duly passed and adopted.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-472.)
MOTIONi Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the
resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution NO. 89R-472 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 89-90-29. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-472~ 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
Mayor Hunter declared Resolution No. 89R-472 duly passed and adopted.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-473.)
MOTION; Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the
resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Daly offered Resolution No. 89R-473 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use permit No. 3224. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-473; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3224.
1153
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-473 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION; Councilman Hunter moved to appropriate $3,207,550 from the General
Benefit Fund Reserves to acquire certain real property in connection with the
Anaheim Arena. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler
voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to approve the acquisition of property
generally located at 1630 Douglass Road, Anaheim, California (Root) and
authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute all agreements, escrow
instructions, and other instruments as may be required to consummate said
transaction. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted
no. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White. An additional item is a resolution that
would authorize the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, or
their designee to accept and consent to deeds or grants
conveying real estate or any interest therein to the City of
Anaheim in connection with the acquisition of the Anaheim Sports
Arena and related sites. The Council will first need to waive
the 72 hour posting provisions of the Brown Act in order to act
on the resolution today. The resolution would authorize a
blanket acceptance of the deeds rather than requiring that they
be returned to the Council on a piecemeal basis.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the 72 hour posting provisions of the
Brown Act. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted
no. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-474 for adoption, authorizing the
City Manager, Assistant City Manager or their designee to accept and consent
to deeds or grants conveying real estate or any interest therein to the City
of Anaheim in connection with the acquisition of the Anaheim Sports Arena and
related sites. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89g-474; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITer COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTMORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, OR THEIR
DESIGNEE, TO ACCEPT AND CONSENT TO DEEDS OR GRANTS CONVEYING REAL ESTATE OR
ANY INTEREST TMEREIN TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION
OF THE ANAHEIM SPORTS ARENA AND RELATED SITES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
1154
City Hall, %naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 27, 1989, 9:00 a.m.
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Mayor Hunter declared Resolution No. 89R-474 duly passed and adopted.
City Attorney White. Before concluding, he confirmed that the
Council has also adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program
identified in the Staff Report prepared and previously given to
the Council as part of the Resolution certifying EIR 299. It is
part of the Resolution the Council adopted today.
ADJOURNMENT; Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn the adjourned regular meeting
of December 15, 1989 which was adjourned to this date. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:12 p.m.).
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1155