1998/05/05ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
May 5, 1998
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
EXEC. DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Aghjayan
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:45 p.m. on
May 1, 1998 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the Council Meeting of May 5, 1998 to order and welcomed
those in attendance (3:18 P.M.).
City Manager, James Ruth introduced Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development
who will make the presentation today and introduce additional presenters.
161: MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich,
Executive Director of Community Development. The workshop today regarding marketing
recommendations is an economic development strategy. As the Council will recall, they adopted a five-
year Economic Development Strategy Plan - 1995-2000. The specific recommendation(s) in the strategy
was for staff to devise a marketing program for all the different business sectors. Today, the focus is on
industrial development and job growth in the City. They have been working on this issue for a number of
months using economists to understand the economy of Anaheim and the impact of various business
factors on the job market in the overall local economy. The Natelson Company worked with Golin-
Harris, the marketing group, to do some surveys and research to help identify what target industries they
want to go after in the industrial development sector (commercial sector) that deals with job growth.
Staff has worked closely with the City Manager's Office and with Public Utilities as part of the Powerful
Partnership Program as well as the Planning Department and Finance Department. After briefing the
specifics of the focus, Mrs. Stipkovich introduced Steve Pontel, President of the LaJolla Institute,
California-based, non-profit, "think tank", a group staff has worked with on various issues. Mr. Pontel is
involved in "Pioneering the Community" -- a better understanding of how the community can be an
integral tool for enhancement of business competitiveness. Mr. Pontel will give an overview of some of
the issues for Anaheim setting the tone or framework for the marketing program they are going to be
proposing which will help the Council understand why they are going after this particular approach.
Following Mr. Pontel will be Mr. Greg Romano of Golin-Harris who will present the proposed marketing
program for the target industrial areas.
The following presentations were then made during which questions were posed by Council Members:
Mr. Steve Pontel, LaJolla Institute. (Also see, City of Anaheim - Economic Development Meeting -
LaJolla Institute - "Pioneering the New Community" -12-pages of statistics, i.e., Top 10 Counties
(nationally) with Job Gains: 1994 to 1995, Top Five Counties with Job Gains in Manufacturing, High
Technology Regions, Employment Multipliers (Southern California)-Average Annual Earnings, Taxable
Sales Activity-Major O.C. Cities 1993, etc.) He he will set the conceptual stage and subsequently the
Council will be presented with more detailed information as they proceed. He noted that Anaheim is an
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
economic power house in a number of different arenas -- from the tourism and visitor standpoint which is
a powerful and important part of the economy, but equally important is the fact that Anaheim has a very
mature and established industrial base. The question they need to be asking, is the perception and
future of Anaheim going to be determined by the image created, or by external factors. Mr. Pontel then
elaborated on this theme.
At the conclusion of Mr. Pontel's presentation, Mrs. Stipkovich stated she would like to try and rephrase
why they had Mr. Pontel come in and give an overview -- they want to explain the process they have
gone through, the process they have worked with with the City Manager's Office and other City
Departments, that they are trying to understand the job market and understand the overall economy and
why they chose certain companies and why this particular effort to attract businesses is geared to certain
types of firms. She then introduced Mr. Greg Romano.
Mr. Greg Romano, Golin/Harris. (Also see 1998/1999 Marketing Recommendations - Access Anaheim -
presented by: Golin/Harris Communications - April 1998 - made a part of the record).
He explained that they have spent the last several months working with Community Development, Public
Utilities and their partner, The Natelson Company, Inc. to develop a set of marketing recommendations
which they believe will help attract the companies that Mrs. Stipkovich referred to in the industrial sector.
It is based on a foundation of recognizing not only the need to attract businesses to Anaheim but also to
retain the businesses currently in the City.
Mr. Romano started his presentation (supplmented by Power Point slides) by outlining the goals for the
program which they believe are achievable through implementation of the recommendations outlined:
(1) Increase awareness of Anaheim to business locally, regionally and nationally, and promote the
benefits the City has to offer new and existing customers. (2) Encourage existing Anaheim businesses
and Public Utility customers to stay and expand within the City. (3) Attract desirable businesses from the
key growth industries identified by Natelson Company research. The presentation covered various
portions of the material presented in the Access Anaheim booklet which included - Strategic Approach,
Key Audiences, Key Messages, Marketing Strategy, Tactical Elements (Tier 1 and 2) Business Retention
Methodology and a Timeline and Action Plan. During the presentation, Mr. Romano noted, "Based on
the research which identified the primary reason businesses chose to operate in Anaheim -- its
convenient location -- and the services Anaheim provides, the key message and theme to be
communicated throughout this program is Access Anaheim (i.e., Anaheim offers easy access to ground
transportation, highway routes, rail systems, transportation programs; access to the nation's first end-to-
end Fiber Optic Network, access to the highly reliable, 103-year-old locally-owned Public Utilities
Department, etc.) The new theme, Access Anaheim, is a visible demonstration to audiences that
Anaheim is doing something new and different."
Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities, General Manager. He feels they have not made one point well enough.
He referred to the charts in the LaJolla Institute submittal - re: High Tech Employment, Distribution of
Square Footage, Employment Multipliers-Average Annual Earnings and Occupation of Reference
Person: Average Annual Expenditures and briefed each. In concluding, he stated the point he is trying to
make, that manufacturing/high-tech jobs are such an important part of the City's current economy. In the
Electric Utility, they receive about $150 to $155 million dollars a year in revenue from
commercial/industrial with 2/3's coming from that (manufacturing/high-tech) base. Manufacturing is
twice that of the commercial or resort side. The whole effort is to continue that diversity, keeping those
kinds of jobs, and bringing them to Anaheim. He emphasized, it is already a very vital part of the City's
economic base and they need to keep continue moving in that direction.
Further discussion followed wherein Mayor Daly and Council Member Tait posed additional questions
(addressed by Mrs. Stipkovich and Mr. Pontel) and gave their comments on certain points of the
presentation.
Mrs. Stipkovich stated in closing that the presentation was to give an overview and opportunity for the
Council to think about the program, review some of the materials and if there are any questions or
concerns, to advise staff. It is expected that the item will be on the agenda in the next month or so in
order to start the program as an official marketing plan.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Mayor Daly thanked staff and the presenters for the detailed and informative workshop. They will look
forward to a product or recommendation coming forward in approximately 30 days. In the meantime,
Council Members can pose questions to staff on the material that has been presented.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association, Anaheim Fire Association, and IBEW
Local 47.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existincl Liftclarion:
Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY:
Claimant: Ravinder Mehta
Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:08 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of May 5, 1998 to order at 5:08 P.M. and welcomed
those in attendance.
INVOCATION:
Pastor Bill Gardner of the Knott Avenue Christian Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Bob Zemel led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - ClNCO DE MAYO QUEEN AND HER COURT: Mr. John Kelly, Chairman,
Cinco de Mayo Fiesta Committee first thanked everyone involved that helped to make this year's Fiesta
and celebration one of the very best. He then publicly thanked individual committee members and
others who assisted. He subsequently introduced the 1998 Cinco de Mayo Queen, Johanna Sanchez,
and her court, Ofelia Sauceda, Elisandra Sanchez, Lorena Solis, Nerva Diaz and Johanna Chairez
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
(Karina Jurado, not present). As has been the tradition, he also introduced the Queen from Cruz Azul,
Mexico, Diana Rodriquez, her parents, and the Cruz Azul Committee. He again thanked the Mayor, City
Council, people of Anaheim and surrounding communities who made the Fiesta a "glorious affair."
Mayor Daly, on behalf of the Council and the City, expressed their congratulations on such a successful
Fiesta. Along with the Council Members, he then made presentations to the Queen and her Court as
well as to the Queen of Cruz Azul (both Queens were presented a bouquet of roses). He also thanked
Mr. Kelly for his over 20 years of outstanding service in making the Fiesta possible along with members
of his committee.
119: PRESENTATION CALIFORNIA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP BASKETBALL WINNERS:
Recognizing the East Anaheim National Junior Basketball 7th Grade All-Stars on winning the California
State Championship. The championship game was played on March 22, 1998 at Scripps Ranch in San
Diego.
Mayor Daly and Council Members welcomed the Team Coaches, John Clement and John B. Clement as
well as the nine young players: Robert Alvafez, Brett Avery, Danny Bennett, Jeff Clement, Dan Cook,
Manny Gamboa, Elliott Tyson, Andre Weldon and Timmy Williams. Each were presented with a Flying
"A" Certificate which acknowledged their outstanding accomplishment. Coach John Clement then gave a
summary of what it took to reach their ultimate goal of winning the State Championship.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,126,096.70 in accordance with the
1997-98 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency meeting. ( 5:33
p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:38 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
There were no speakers under items of Public Interest.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of May 5, 1998. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments on agenda items.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A14: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports,
certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-77 through 98R-79 both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
A1.
175: Receiving and filing an Order of Chief Judge Granting Late-Filed Petition for Leave to
Intervene, filed before the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Docket Nos. ER98-992-000, et al.) - California Independent System Operator Corporation.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held March 26,
1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meetings held February 5, 1998,
and March 5, 1998.
A2.
169: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $22,500 in favor of Sully Miller
Contracting, Inc., for the Harbor Boulevard Improvement west side from La Palma Avenue to the
SR91 Freeway.
A3.
160: Accepting the low bid of Civic Helicopters, Inc., in the amount of $44,975 for one set of five
main rotor blades for Police Helicopter N1607A, in accordance with Bid #5788.
A4.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the final renewal of the purchase order to R.
J. Noble Company, in an amount not-to-exceed $62,730 for paving, as required, for a period of
one year commencing July 1, 1998, in accordance with Bid #5396.
A5.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the final renewal option of: Absolute Asphalt,
in an amount not-to-exceed $44,629 for an estimated 180,000 pounds of #9078 asphalt sealant;
and Koch Materials Company, in an amount not-to-exceed $31,719 for an estimated 165 tons of
SS-1H sealant and ten tons of L.M.C.R.S. sealant, including an estimated sixty hours of
spreading charges.
A6.
123: Approving legal services agreement with Derek G. Johnson, and authorizing the City
Attorney to execute said agreement on behalf of the City. (Continued from the meeting of April
28, 1998, Item A23.)
Mayor Daly and Council Member Tait stated they were abstaining on this item due to a conflict.
A7.
123: Authorizing the Finance Director to approve a Settlement Agreement among the City of
Anaheim, SCT Software and Resource Management Corporation, and the VM Software Division
of Sterling Software, Inc.
A8.
152: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM designating certain persons to act on behalf of the City of Anaheim in applying for and
obtaining Federal and/or State Financial Assistance pertaining to natural disasters.
A9.
106: Approving the schedule for review and adoption of the proposed budget, and setting public
hearings regarding said matter for June 2, and 9, 1998, at 5:00 p.m.
A10.
174: Approving the FY 1998-99 funding requests for federal CDBG, HOME, and ESG funding;
authorizing the Executive Director of the Community Development Department to prepare and
execute the required documents, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the FY 1998-99
Service Agreements approved up to $25,000 under the CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs, in
accordance with City Council approved funding allocations. (Continued from the meeting of April
28, 1998, Item A27.)
Council Member Zemel. For some time, he has been talking about this issue with regard to the 15% of
the funds that come from the funds that are allowed to be paid on "soft services" and specifically the
public service cap. He would like the Council to be more involved in giving the CDBG Board some
direction on important issues like the Bookmobile, gang enforcement, the $182,000 going to the City to
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
help with salaries and overhead for gang prevention intervention, etc. He would like the opportunity to
have the Council give their input and set public policy rather than year after year going along with what
staff and the CDBG members put forward. In the joint workshop held on March 3, 1998 (see minutes
that date), it seemed unanimous that the CDBG board members wanted to hear from the Council, i.e., on
gang prevention intervention whether it is funded through the General Fund or through Federal funds -- is
it a function of government or outside of government. Of the $590,700 that goes directly to the City,
about $105,00 is left to help non-profit agencies with about $200,000 from the General Fund. The
Council should make the tough decisions on what is government responsibility and perhaps they would
not have to backfill with General Fund money. It would also take away the annual discussion of what is
proper and right and are they taking away from non-profits. He is not saying he would necessarily vote
for the $200,000 backfill. He is talking about trying to change the system and the way they do business
in that area and it would seem they have the concurrence of the CDBG board members.
Mayor Daly asked if he had a proposal he would like to make; Council Member Zemel. He does not
know if there is enough time but would like the Council included on an up-front basis. If there is not
enough time and they are going to accept the recommendation as presented, he would be voting against
for that reason.
Mayor Daly. Because so much time and effort has gone into preparing the recommendation under this
item, he suggests that the Council consider supporting the package brought forward and during the
budget discussions in June, schedule some time to talk about the issue raised; Council Member Zemel.
He will vote no to record a message that they need to deal with it except not tonight.
City Manager Ruth. Staff has not disregarded Council Member Zemel's input and has considered how
they could work that and specifically if they could switch some of the funds this year. However, it is a
little late in the process. It could be considered for next year. It is up to the Council to set the policy. As
some history, a few years back, the Council spent many hours on this issue and at that point in time as a
policy direction, told staff they did not want to deal with the issue (at that level). Since it is a part of the
budget process, they needed to bring it to the Council separately and have the CDBG group and their
advisory body deal with it and come back with their recommendations for a Council decision. It did not
take the Council out of the Iccp but with less involvement than in the past. They have attempted to do
that and if Council Member Zemel is saying he would like to get more involved, staff has no problem with
that.
Council Member Zemel clarified he is talking about general policy issues. He does not want to go
through each one individually and he is not talking about micro-management of the CDBG board either,
just overall public policy decisions.
Council Members Zemel and Tait voted no on this item.
All.
139: Approving the recommended position on the following legislative proposal according to the
City's 1998 Legislative Program, and communicate their position to appropriate representatives
in Sacramento and Washington D.C. (Continued from the meetings of April 7, 1998, Item A33,
and April 28, 1998, Item A28.)
SUPPORT - AB 1368 (Villaraigosa) and SB 1857 (Brulte) regarding funding for alternative fuel
and energy efficient programs.
Council Member Zemel. This is a bipartisan bill(s) which suggests that excess State revenues be spent
on energy-efficient programs. This is not how he would apply excessive State revenues and he will be
voting no. He would also recommend that the Council vote no.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the City oppose AB 1368 and SB1857. Council Member
Tait seconded the motion.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly noted that the staff recommendation is to support the two bills
dealing with alternative feuls and energy efficient programs. The motion would oppose those bills.
A vote was then taken on the motion to oppose the bills and failed to carry by the following vote: Ayes:
Zemel and Tait. Noes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the City support AB 1368 and SB 1857 as recommended by staff (in
report dated April 7, 1998). Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Council Members Tait and
Zemel voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
A12.
123: Approving an Agreement with Coro Southern California, in an amount not to exceed
$31,275 to provide leadership training to Anaheim residents in neighborhood improvement
programs. (Continued from the meeting of April 28, 1998, Item A39.)
Council Member Zemel. This item was continued from last meeting for full Council action.
City Manager Ruth. This was part of the $500,000 program presented to the Council last year
(Neighborhood Improvement Program). Staff recommended it as part of the program, a community
education and leadership program.
Council Member Zemel. He is going to register a no vote.
Council Member Tait. He feels the City has more important priorities than spending $31,000 from the
General Fund for leadership training. He also feels it is something that staff can do.
Council Member McCracken. She thought the Council previously approved this and this is just
approving the agreement with a consultant. It is part of the package that was in the budget process last
year and it is what the neighborhood(s) wanted.
City Manager Ruth. When the Neighborhood Improvement Program was presented to the Council, that
part of the program was discussed at the time and staff indicated their intentions to recommend at some
time in the future hiring a consultant. The Council took no action and staff had to bring the contract
back. He then confirmed for Council Member Zemel if the Council did not approve this item, the $31,000
would be available in the budget.
Council Member Lopez. He is going to support the recommendation because the Council and staff
previously agreed on this. The program was created encouraging neighborhoods to form and he
believes there were four or five involved. This has put a tremendous burden on Steve Swaim, the City's
Community Services Superintendent and his staff. It is a real plus that the community is getting involved
in City government and he feels it is money well spent. This will probably save many hours of staff time.
It is a great program and will generate possible leaders and future leaders in the community.
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to deny Item A12. approving an agreement with Coro Southern
California. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. Council Members McCracken, Lopez and Daly
voted no. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.
Later in the meeting when the Consent Calendar was voted on, Item A12. was approved with Council
Members Tait and Zemel voting no.
A13.
123: Approving a Subrecipient Agreement with UAW-Labor Employment and Training
Corporation to provide training and related services for an Employment Training Panel (ETP)
Welfare-to-Work project; and authorizing the City Manager to execute said Agreement and any
modifications or amendments thereof, contingent upon execution of the final ETP master
agreement with the State.
A14.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
161: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM consenting to a joint public hearing regarding the Redevelopment Plan for the West
Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment project and the Environmental Impact Report
prepared in connection therewith. (Public hearing date: June 16, 1998, at 5:00 p.m.)
161: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM finding the provision of low- and moderate-income housing outside the boundaries of
the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment project will be of benefit to the project.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. (A6, Mayor Daly and Council Member
Tait abstained; A10, A11 and A12 Council Members Tait and Zemel voted no.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R-77 throuclh 98R-79, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-77 through 98R-79, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
A15.
149: RESIDENT ONLY-PERMIT PARKING:
To consider a resolution approving a restriction for "Resident Only-Permit Parking" on the
following streets: Ravenswood Drive from Fern Avenue to Gaymont Street, Gaymont Street
extending northerly from Ravenswood Drive to the cul-de-sac and Fern Avenue (west side only)
from Ball Road to Ravenswood Drive.
Submitted was joint staff report dated May 5, 1998 from the Director of Public Works and the Chief of
Police recommending approval of "Resident-Only Permit Parking" on the subject streets.
Mayor Daly. He noted that a petition was submitted containing signatures of 85% of the property owners
in the area asking for formation of a "Resident-Only Permit Parking" area. He feels the recommendation
is well crafted and makes sense and is in keeping with the wishes of the property owners on the streets in
question.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-80 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATING CERTAIN STREETS, LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH
OF BALL ROAD AND WEST OF FERN AVENUE, AS "PERMIT PARKING
ONLY" STREETS.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-80 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-80 duly passed and adopted.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
A16. 105: PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS:
Appointing one new member from the Private Sector Category for a four year term.. (Continued
from the meeting of April 28, 1998, Item A47.)
Mayor Daly opened nominations.
Council Member McCracken nominated Frieda Walden; Council Member Zemel nominated Daug
Shively.
On motion by Council Member Zemel seconded by Mayor Daly, nominations were closed. MOTION
CARRIED.
A vote was then taken on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated:
Frieda Walden - Ayes: McCracken,Tait, Zemel, Lopez. Abstained: Daly.
Daug Shively - Ayes: Zemel, Daly. Noes: McCracken, Lopez. Abstained: Tait
Frieda Walden was thereupon appointed to the Private Industry Council, Private Sector Category for a
four-year term.
A17. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Appointment to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy of Julie Mayer, term expires June 30, 1999.
(Continued from the meetings of March 24, 1998, Item A15, and April 7, 1998, Item A42.)
Mayor Daly. Approximately 20 names have been submitted as potential candidates. He is requesting
an additional one-week continuance since he has had a difficult time reaching a couple of people.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the subject appointment to the Planning Commission for one
week. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1-B6 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1998:
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 5, 1998:
B1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 615,
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 21:
OWNER: Larry Hauperf, 18341 Cerra, Villa Park, CA 92807
INITIATED: City Initiated (Code Enforcement Division), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
OPERATOR: Francisco Gutierrez, 1266 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1266 East Lincoln Avenue - Gutierrez Tires. Property is 0.28 acre located on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue, 810 feet east of the centerline of East Street
To retain an existing tire sales and service facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Amended conditions of approval of CUP NO 615 for one year to expire
April 13, 1999 (PC98-55) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
B2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3662, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
LOCATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT:
OWNER: JGD Company, Inc., P.O. Box 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817-8021
INITIATED BY: City-initiated (Planning Commission), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
LOCATION: 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 1.19 acres located on the south side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard.
(A) City-initiated (Planning Commission) request to review a previously-approved private educational
facility (pre-school to 3rd grade) and a church with waivers of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum
setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone and (c) minimum structural setback abutting a
Scenic Expressway to consider modification to the overall entitlement including the 3-story design of the
building.
(B) Property owner requests review and approval of the location of playground equipment for a
previously-approved educational facility (this portion of the request was continued from the March 30
Commission meeting to allow portion (a) of this request to be advertised).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Modified CUP NO. 3662 (PC98-56) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
Approved playground plan submitted as revised at the meeting.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
This item has been set for public hearing on May 12, 1998 pursuant to requests made by Council
Members Zemel and Tait.
B3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3617, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: R.S. Hoyt, Jr., Raymond Runo and George Manavian, trustees of the Bryan Industrial
Properties, Inc., Profit Sharing Trust, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: California Auto Refrigeration Distributors, Attn: Nancy Krancz, 1141 North Kraemer Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1141 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is 0.88 acre located on the west side of Kraemer
Boulevard, 530 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street.
To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval
pertaining to a time limitation to retain the sales, installation and servicing of automotive air conditioning,
cruise control and power window/door lock systems.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Amended conditions of approval for CUP NO. 3617- to delete the time limitation condition (PC98-58) (5
yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B4. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4017 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Lincoln Plaza Development Company, P.O. Box 1839, Orinda, CA 94563-6839
AGENT: Sherwood G. Oklejas, 215 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 101 South Euclid Street. Property is 0.51 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Euclid Street.
To permit a 22,300 square foot expansion of an existing automobile sales lot (on adjacent property) with
waiver of minimum landscaped setback and minimum number of street trees.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4017 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC98-59)
(5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
Waiver of code requirement GRANTED, IN PART, denied the portion of the waiver pertaining to the
required ten foot landscaped setback, and approved the portion of the waiver pertaining to the location of
the trees.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member Lopez
and public hearing will therefore be advertised.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
B5. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT
NO. 2 TO AMEND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
City of Anaheim (Planning Department Staff), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, requests
Planning Commission to initiate Specific Plan Adjustment No. 2 to amend The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan No. 92-1 Zoning and Development Standards. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area
is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between Ball Road and
Katella Avenue (with approximately 24.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue) and east of Walnut
Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated adjustment to Specific Plan No. 92-1.
B6. REVIEW AND INITIATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY FOR SELF-STORAGE
FACILITIES. City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805,
requests Commission review and consideration of a draft policy, prior to its finalization and initiation as a
Commission policy pertaining to self-storage facilities.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Commission's draft policy to be submitted to City Council at a future date.
Marilyn Hauk, 607 Via Cotter, Anaheim. This item deals with self-storage facilities. She referred to the
March 24, 1998 Council Meeting (Workshop portion) where the Council directed staff to work with the
Planning Commission. The conclusion of staff was that, "Due to the numerous storage facilities located
throughout the City, it appears prudent to preserve the City's supply of commercially zoned properties for
traditional commercial uses." She finds it odd and coincidental that this is on the agenda and at the
same time there is another issue on the agenda tonight under D2. which deals with a self-storage unit of
171,674 sq. ft. Her opinion on these units is that Anaheim is quickly becoming the self-storage capital of
Orange County. Unless a moratorium is placed on self-storage units, Anaheim is not going to be known
as the City that this Council and prior Councils as well as staff and employees of the City have worked
hard to make it -- the No. 1 City in Orange County.
City Clerk Sohl noted that this item is for Council information only. It is a recommendation coming
forward from the Planning Commission to be acted upon by the Council at some future date.
Council Member Zemel. He asked if this is basically a recommendation for a moratorium.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. This item was an outfall of the joint workshop with the Council and Planning
Commission (see minutes of 3/24/98). Staff did take a report and recommendation to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission modified that recommendation. They talked about challenged
parcels and focused on architecture, landscaping, signage and aesthetic concerns that keep the door
open for proposals to be received on both commercial and industrial properties. Because of the
modifications, staff recommended they ought to take that back to the Planning Commission at least one
more time for confirmation and subsequently bring it back and schedule it for Council consideration. He
also confirmed for Council Member Zemel that it was not necessary for the Council to pull the item at this
time since it would be coming back to them.
Mayor Daly. It is worthwhile highlighting this is not a final Planning Commission recommendation. The
preliminary recommendation of the Commission is that, "Self-storage facilities shall continue to be
permitted in commercial, light industrial, and heavy industrial zones subject to the approval of a C.U.P.,
etc ..... "As the Planning Director stated, the subject is still under consideration by the Commission and
will be returning to the Council in the future.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
ITEMS B7 - B 8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1998:
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 7, 1998:
B7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-212, REVISION NO. 1
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Gary Calkins and Elaine Calkins, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 6263 East Trail Drive. Property is 3.75 acres located on the north side of Trail Drive, 162
feet west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive.
To establish a 2-lot single family residential subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212, Revision No. 1
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Answering Council Member Zemel, Joel Fick, Planning Director confirmed that on this project, all
concerns were 100% resolved. The original proposal was for four lots and there was a lot of resident and
neighborhood concern in the immediate vicinity. Following continuances, it was revised and the parcel
map came down to a two-lot subdivision and satisfied the neighbors.
B8. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 354
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-13
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4004
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14259
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
OWNER: State of California, 2501 Pullman, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Paul T. and Beverly S. Salata, Trustees, 98 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: CGC Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Camille Politte, 3248 Roblar Avenue, Santa Ynez, CA 93460
LOCATION: 4000 East Riverdale Avenue. Property is 10.5 acres located on the south side of Riverdale
Avenue, 875 feet west of the centerline of Finch Street.
General Plan Amendment No. 354: To redesignate this property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the Hillside Medium Density Residential land use designation.
Reclassification No. 97-98-13: To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the RM-
3000(SC) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4004: To construct a 118-1ot (including 20 lettered lots), 98-unit, detached
residential condominium subdivision with waivers of (a) minimum structural and landscape setback
adjacent to a freeway, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family zone, (c) minimum floor
area per dwelling unit, (d) minimum structural setback adjacent to a private street and (e) minimum
distance between buildings.
Tentative Tract Map No. 14259: To establish a 118-1ot (including 20 lettered lots) subdivision for the
development of a 98-unit detached residential condominium complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA 354 DENIED (PC98-69) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Reclassification No. 97-98-13 DENIED (PC98-70).
Denied waiver of code requirement.
CUP NO. 4004 DENIED (PC98-71).
Denied Tentative Tract Map No. 14259.
No action on request for City Council Review.
ITEM B9 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
ITEMS FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1998
DECISION DATE: APRIL 30, 1998
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL MAY 11, 1998:
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
B9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-186 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: JUN and MARCIA NISHINO, 1780 N. Winlock Street, Orange, CA 92665.
AGENT: BYZEN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, Attn: Jeffrey H. Gyzen, 2081 Business Center Drive,
#128, Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 201 South Peralta Hills Drive. Property is 2.31 acres, having a frontage of 90 feet on the
south side of Peralta Hills Drive, having a maximum depth of 476 feet and located 1569 feet south of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to establish a 2-lot detached single family residential
subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-186 (ZA DECISION NO. ZA98-11).
Approved Negative Declaration.
NEW ITEM - QUESTION REGARDING ZONING MATTER:
Mayor Daly. Some citizens in West Anaheim contacted him about the proposed single-family home
development at Brookhurst and Lincoln which he understands was going through the Redevelopment
Commission and Planning Commission. He asked if that has been through the Planning Commission as
yet; Joel Fick, Planning Director. That project was approved by the Planning Commission. He will check
and advise the current status. (RE: General Plan Amendment No. 352; Reclassification No. 97-98-09;
Conditional Use Permit No. 4000; Tentative Tract Map No. 15610)
Mayor Daly. He does not believe it has been on the Council agenda.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Fick reported that the proposed project on Brookhurst is scheduled as a Public
Hearing before the Council on next Tuesday, May 12, 1998.
D1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 105 South State Colle.qe Boulevard - Insta-Tune and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located
at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street.
To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square foot lubrication, oil change and
smog check and minor auto repair facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3966 GRANTED, for two years, to expire 1/21/00 (PC98-7)
(4 yes votes, 3 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Council Members Lou Lopez and Tom Daly
at the meeting of February 10, 1998, Item B1.
Public hearing continued from the meetings of March 17, 1998, Item D2, and April 7, 1998, Item D1.
Mr. Walter Friedman, Owner, answering Mayor Daly, stated that he has been in correspondence with
Greg Hastings of the Planning Department.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Hastings as well as Mr. Friedman if they have reached any recent agreements in
terms of the project and what staff is recommending.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He has spoken with Mr. Friedman on the telephone. There
has been no change since the last Council meeting on March 17, 1998. The applicant and staff were in
agreement with the development of the property pertaining to all of the issues previously unresolved.
Mayor Daly surmised then that the previous memo from staff dated April 7, 1998 is complete from the
Planning staff's perspective; Mr. Hastings answered that is correct.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Mr. Friedman stated he had nothing else to add. The memo from the Planning Department to the City
Council dated April 7, 1998 with the conditions contained therein are acceptable.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter, either in favor or in opposition; no one
wished to speak.
Mayor Daly. He and Council Member Lopez asked for the Public Hearing, the first one held on March
17, 1998 and ultimately continued to this date. He asked Council Member Lopez if he had any questions
at this time; Council Member Lopez answered, no. He has reviewed the documentation.
Council Member McCracken. The Council received a letter this week from the resident, a renter in the
property adjacent to the business to the rear. There were issues she (McCracken) wanted staff to
address which she believes have been corrected or are going to be corrected by the new construction.
Greg Hastings answered that was correct. The issues of concern to the renter will be addressed by the
reconstruction of the property particularly the block wall which will separate the residential property from
the commercial.
Mayor Daly. Speaking to Mr. Friedman, he noted when they met, they discussed some additional
changes to the property. He asked if he (Friedman) had any additional thoughts.
Mr. Friedman answered that he concurred with Mr. Hastings. Basically he stated that the
recommendations to the Council would be the same regardless of the issue that he and the Mayor
discussed.
Mayor Daly. His concern is the existing billboard and his goal was to see it removed. Based on the staff
report from the Planning Department, it appears requiring removal of that billboard carries with it quite a
bit of difficulty at this time. It is unfortunate and he is disappointed that it will not be removed but it is
balanced by the variety of improvements being made to the site including a major increase in
landscaping and cleanup of the property.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
City Clerk Sohl noted that the Planning Commission granted the use for two years. The Planning memo
of April 7, 1998 recommends that the time limit is no longer necessary. She asked if the intent is to
remove the time limit.
Mayor Daly. Planning staff sees no need for a time limit. He asked to hear from the Planning Director.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Deletion of the time limit is covered in staff's recommendation to delete
Condition No. 32. The reason staff is proposing the deletion is for the reasons outlined -- a substantial
increase in landscaping as well as the other conditions which were the primary reasons a time limitation
was originally imposed. Those issues were not resolved at the time. They have now been resolved and,
therefore, staff is recommending that condition (on the time limitation) be deleted.
Mayor Daly. Point No. 4 (in the staff report) mentions the existing billboard and says that it will have to
be modified or removed when the intersection widening occurs. He asked if that is still the feeling.
Joel Fick. He confirmed that was correct. Based upon its existing location and future right-of-way needs
at that location, when that widening does occur that billboard will need to be addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly
seconded by Council Member Zemel, 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
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-81 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3966
subject to the City Planning Commission condition, as adjusted in the April 7, 1998 staff report and with
no time limit on the Conditional Use Permit.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Resolution No. 98R-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-81 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Nonel
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-81 duly passed and adopted.
D2. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 353
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-11
REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS
POINT STUDY - EXHIBIT NO. 7
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4005
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 98-01
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
OWNER: The Hazel Maag Trust, Attn: Lloyd Copenbarger, 4675 MacArthur Court #700, Newport Beach, CA
92660
John R. Schantz, Melvin R. Schantz, Attn: Robert H. Pernell, etal., 21 Chelsea Pointe, Dana Pointe, CA 92629
AGENT: Keisker and Wiggle Architects, Inc. 15751 Rockfield Boulevard, #210, Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION: Property is 24.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
General Plan Amendment No. 353 - to redesignate a portion of the subject property from the Hillside Low-Medium
Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. Reclassification No.
97-98-11 - to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the CL(SC) Zone. Revision to Santa Ana
Canyon Road Access Point Study - Exhibit No. 7 - to revise the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Points Study -
Exhibit No. 7 to permit one additional access point on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No. 4005
- to construct a 243,180 square foot commercial center with heights in excess of 35 feet, roof-mounted equipment,
a 4,685 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-through lane, a 171,674 square foot self-storage facility and a
28,350 square foot electronics sales store with vehicle retail parts installation facilities with waivers of:
(a) permitted commercial center identification sign, (b) permitted directional signs, (c) permitted types of signs, (d)
permitted wall signs, (e) minimum number of parking spaces, (f) minimum parking lot landscaping and (g)
minimum drive-through lane requirements and (h) minimum structural and landscape setbacks. Specimen Tree
Removal Permit No. 98-01 - to approve the removal of 29 specimen trees.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy)
Recommended approval of GPA NO. 353 to City Council (PC98-40).
Reclassification No. 97-98-11 GRANTED (PC98-41).
APPROVED Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study - Exhibit No. 7 (PC98-42).
Approved waivers of code requirement.
CUP NO. 4005 GRANTED (PC98-43).
Approved Specimen Tree Removal No. 98-01.
Approved request for City Council review.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Informational item at the City Council meeting of April 7, 1998, Item B12. Scheduled for a City Council public
hearing due to the General Plan Amendment.
City Clerk Sohl. The Council is aware and her office has forwarded numerous correspondence received
by concerned citizens both by mail and by FAX. To date 118 letters have been received in opposition as
well as five petitions with 36 signatures and 44 telephone messages. Last minute names of those in
opposition have also just been submitted to the Council.
Mayor Daly first explained the process to be followed for the Public Hearing and subsequently asked
staff to summarize the project and the Planning Commission's decision.
Mr. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He described the project/proposal as outlined in the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission dated March 30, 1998. Staff had also identified several issues,
which he briefed, and all issues were considered by the Planning Commission along with testimony given
at the Commission meeting.
Following Mr. Hasting's presentation, a line of questions were posed by Council Member Zemel to clarify
some aspects of the project including signage, a former plan for widening Santa Ana Canyon Road, and
traffic and circulation which were answered both by Mr. Hastings and John Lower, Traffic and
Transportation Manager.
During the discussion, Mr. Lower, answering Council Member Zemel, reported that the Santa Ana
Canyon Widening study was brought before the Council approximately three years ago as part of an EIR
and it was not approved by the City Council. He believes a vote did occur and direction given to staff not
to propose widening on the south leg of Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road (SACR) until the opening
of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) which is scheduled for late this year. Comparing the former
widening proposal with this project, he explained that far less trees would be removed with this project
because the widening is restricted to the intersection of Via Cortez. It is less intensive because it does
not involve widening west bound in front of the Rinker property (shopping center at Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Imperial). Some trees are impacted in the existing median for east bound, second left-turn
lane construction and lengthening of that existing left-turn pocket.
Council Member Zemel noted his recommendation is that there is no impact to traffic; Mr. Lower stated
there is definitely an impact and why mitigation measures were identified and attached to the project.
Those include widening the intersection of Via Cortez to mitigate both the added traffic as well as the
existing problem. There is also an existing deficiency in terms of signalization needs at the intersection
of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Solomon Drive. This project is conditioned to provide a traffic signal at
that intersection. It is an Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) funded project as part of the
Smart Street project funding which goes all the way from SACR north to Orangethorpe and widens that
entire stretch of Imperial Highway.
Council Member Zemel expressed concern relative to the ability of getting emergency vehicles down
SACR about 3:30 on any given afternoon. He asked if this project will make it worse or better; Mr. Lower
stated the project adds traffic to SACR. The level of deterioration is not measurable east of Via Cortez.
He continued, on further questioning, that the real question is, what is generating the traffic on SACR
now. With the extension of Imperial Highway connecting into south Orange County, traffic has increased
on the City's segment from before the extension from about 2,000 trips per day to about 20,000 trips per
day. There is a lot of commute traffic from south Orange County jobs to homes in Riverside/San
Bernardino and to some extent, Anaheim Hills. One of the heavy movements is the north bound
Imperial Highway traffic making right turns to proceed east on SACR. With the opening of the Eastern
Transportation Corridor scheduled for October or perhaps December of this year, he anticipates a
substantial reduction in that through traffic. The study was done by an independent traffic engineer, Joe
Foust. The traffic modeling done for the project would have assumed the ETC to be in place so the
service levels referenced in the report assume that corridor.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Applicant's Statement: Mr. Gary Wiggle, Keisker and Wiggle Architects. (Also see documentation
submitted by Mr. Wiggle dated May 5, 1998 from G.M.E. Development - Re: Imperial Crossroads - Santa
Ana Canyon Road at Via Cortez from Martin Hannigan, General Partner, attached to which were three
Exhibits which gave additional information on the project, what had occurred since G.M.E. Development
began planning the project, summary of community meetings, etc. - made a part of the record). The
project is designed to serve the families of Anaheim Hills. Preliminary work on the project started in
1996 and the design team started meeting with citizens and citizen groups in mid-November, 1996.
Since that time, they have met with groups on seven different occasions (also see, Summary of
Community Meetings, Ex. 1, March 5th letter). Their last group citizen meeting was April 22, 1998.
From these meetings, they were able to respond to many of the comments and legitimate concerns
expressed. On March 23, one week before the Planning Commission hearing, a new letter from a
"concerned citizen" was circulated (see letter dated 3/23/98 from Jay Bradford, part of Ex. 3). The letter
made many alarming points, all emotional and none factual, and urged people to attend their public
presentation on March 25 at the Hanford Hotel. The individual is an officer with a competing
development company who owns the project across the freeway in the Weir Canyon-Savi Ranch area in
Yorba Linda who had known about the project for some time. The only concern he has is making sure all
the sales tax revenue this project is going to generate for Anaheim will stay with his subsidized project in
Yorba Linda. The "Concerned Citizens of the Canyon" formed approximately a week after that letter was
sent. The developer was disheartened to see the misleading information. The validity has to be
questioned when the printed literature is so misleading and inaccurate used solely for gathering
signatures on a petition. He made enlargements of two of the petitions they got in front of markets which
he then briefed and subsequently rebutted the "facts" that were presented.
Mr. Wiggle then made what he called his factual presentation working from the posted site plan of the
project. The project has two major components -- the eastern portion is a self-storage facility with a
landscaped buffer and the western portion is a retail center which includes a drive-through restaurant at
the Via Cortez and SACR intersection. He then explained how the circulation would work noting there is
no access proposed along Solomon Drive. Their goals for the site were stringent: no access to the
adjoining neighborhood, provide a large landscaped buffer between the street and the project, a quiet
use, high standard of architecture and aesthetics, minimize traffic generation. As they reviewed the
potential users that met the criteria, a self-storage facility became a strong contender. They discussed
the use with the adjoining neighbors along Solomon and, as stated, there is no access from Solomon
Drive. There is also a 50' landscaped buffer which will be installed and maintained by the developer the
total length of the property parallel to Solomon. The facility has no occupants with limited hours from
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Access to the storage area is through a controlled gate from the shopping center
parking lot. The architectural design of the Solomon frontage is residential in scale, detail and materials.
No exterior storage of goods or vehicles is allowed anywhere on the storage project. The use removes
20% of the total site from traffic generating use.
He then briefed the retail component. The citizens of Anaheim Hills shop at the stores they are
proposing except they have to go to Santa Ana/Main Place, Brea, Tustin or the City of Orange. Theirs
will be an upscale, community-oriented shopping center with high-quality, national retailers. Relative to
design parameters, they worked with the established setbacks and scale of the neighboring buildings.
The site slopes down and away from SACR approximately 25'. The highest point, building lB, is only 23'
above SACR which is 2' below the height of residential development. The highest point on any building
relative to the SACR pavement height is only 28' above the street. The architectural design is a well-
detailed, high-quality center with sloping tile roofs, curved copper canopies, decorative steel trellises and
overhangs and a rich pallete of deep earth tone colors. He referred to the sketches and renderings
previously submitted along with a plan that shows the circulation system through the site.
Twenty-five specimen trees in the middle of the site are to be removed, 22 are living and three are dead.
The wind row along Solomon is to be preserved. Code requires that they replace 50 trees for the 25. In
fact, they are putting 464 trees back in their place; code requires 150 be within the parking lot but they
are providing 252 in that area. There will also be three times the amount of landscaping in the parking
lot than code requires.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
The Planning Commission carefully reviewed the project and gave a 6-0 vote in favor. Their approval
contains 71 conditions, some of which have to do with mitigating the traffic. He then described in detail
the traffic related mitigation measures required for the project which he felt would not only mitigate traffic
but improve traffic flow. He referred to and noted that the traffic report was approved by City Traffic
staff. He further noted that of the 71 conditions of approval, nine require follow-up information with the
Planning Commission.
In concluding, Mr. Wiggle stated that the project translates into a first-class project designed to serve the
residents of Anaheim Hills with a high-quality, community based center that will serve the shopping
needs of families in the area. He then introduced their Traffic Engineer, Mr. Joe Foust, Austin-Foust
Associates, a recognized expert in the field.
Mr. Joe Foust, Principal in the firm of Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (Also see, Santa Ana Canyon Retail
Plaza - Traffic Analysis - Febraury 1998 - Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., previously made a part of the
record.) He would like to make three points about the project. A project of this size, approximately
250,000 sq. ft., generates a lot of traffic but at the same time it is generating a lot of mitigation. The
project essentially is doubling the capacity of Via Cortez and providing a second east bound left-turn lane
for the project. They are providing a lane for the Rinker development as well. Although they are adding
traffic to the intersection, they are also increasing the capacity of Via Cortez as well as eliminating the
"bump" coming north bound on Via Cortez which is a major realignment.
In terms of SACR itself, they are providing a state-of-the-art coordination system which includes
surveillance so that the system in City Hall will be able to see and sense an emergency or congested
situation and make appropriate adjustments. They looked at the traffic in the "worst case" and added the
project's traffic on top of the intersection volumes currently existing to see what would happen if they do
not get the expected relief out of the Eastern Transportation Corridor. He is not saying they are not
adding a lot of traffic, but much of that traffic is already on the roadway. He then referred to the new
access, the additional right-turn driveway in and out of SACR. It provides significant relief to the Via
Cortez access. Traffic can come out of the site and turn right and proceed westbound rather than going
to Via Cortez.
Council Member Zemel interjected and noted they are sending the right-turn traffic directly into the
intersection and that is the only ingress and egress, where the problem is. The driver has only one
choice, to make a right turn; Mr. Foust stated that is correct. The motorist ends up westbound on SACR
at Via Cortez. It is the eastbound movement that is the heavy movement in the P.M. peak hours at that
intersection.
After additional discussion regarding traffic issues, Council Member Zemel asked for clarification that Mr.
Foust was additionally saying that eastbound traffic coming off the freeway and making a left (from
Imperial) on SACR could opt not to go into the double left lanes (at Via Cortez) but continue on to
Solomon Drive and make a "U" turn and come back into Via Cortez and he considers that a mitigating
factor; Mr. Faust answered that a motorist could do that. He is saying that gives an opportunity to
distribute the traffic rather than all of it coming into and out of the Via Cortez driveway.
Mr. Foust continued, in terms of SACR, the increasing congestion caused by this traffic which is no small
concern is offset to the extent possible by an improved signalization, coordination and surveillance
system that monitors and detects the traffic and makes adjustments in the timing to utilize the existing
information system and roadway capacity to the best of their ability.
Council Member Zemel asked, relative to the double-left-turn Mr. Foust suggested was a mitigating
factor to get into the center eastbound, will the development double that number, triple or quadruple it;
Mr. Faust. It will cause the number to go up materially -- five-fold, from 100 to 600. The intersection is
going to be 5% worse off, instead of 81% of its capacity, after adding the additional 500 cars, it will be
86% capacity. They are talking about a substantial increase in the capacity of the intersection when they
are all done.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Council Member Zemel. The question they need to know, is the substantial improvement in volume
opportunities enough to handle the project; Mr. Foust answered, in his opinion, it is. He would like to call
it a complete offset but it is not. However, they are still within a level of service that is acceptable. By
urban standards and City of Anaheim standards, it is considered a satisfactory level of service and, as
stated, they are providing a significant upgrade of the surveillance and control on SACR as well as
providing signalization at Solomon which really does not help this project unless considering the
capability to make a "U" turn at that point. That signal does not provide direct access to the project.
Mr. Bob Craddock. He works for McDonalds and lives in San Diego. He does not have any presentation
prepared, but if there are specific questions relative to the McDonalds proposed to be a portion of the
project, he will be glad to answer those.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from any additional speakers in favor of the project.
Mr. Chris Abbott, 240 N. Solomon Drive, Anaheim (13 years). The residents on Solomon have been
working with the developer for some time. They are the residents closest to the project. He then read a
letter he had written along with a letter from the developer. His letter indicated that they have no
objection to the project as presented by the developers in the March 25, 1998 community meeting of the
Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition and as presented to the Planning Commission on March 30, 1998. The
project will have no access to Solomon and that is very important to the residents. They do not oppose
the facilities as long as conditions in the letter of May 3, 1998 from the developers are met. He then
stated all the conditions stipulated to by the developer. In concluding, Mr. Abbott submitted a letter
noting that seven out of nine residents had signed on the project. Three were a little misled in reference
to office buildings or a community center and they did not want that and because of that they have
resigned the petition.
Grady Hanshaw, 7819 E. Margaret, Anaheim. He supports the position of the Planning Commission and
Planning staff. He would like the opportunity for himself and his family to spend some of his money in
the City and in the neighborhood instead of driving across the freeway to spend it in Yorba Linda or in
Orange. He has visited two of the developers other sites in Tustin and Lake Forest. They are well
developed and perfectly maintained with good aesthetic quality, the type of development they need in
the community.
Peter Trapolino, Senior Vice President/Development, Hanford Hotels, Inc. They are not in support or
opposed to the development. They own the hotel at 201 N. Via Cortez at the cul de sac. They are
concerned with the traffic and would like to see a possible alternate way of getting to Via Cortez, maybe
by shortcutting or a vehicular passageway over Imperial that would mitigate the traffic going through the
intersection of Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road and also possibly eliminating some traffic at Via
Cortez. They want to make sure they are not stuck in the back and can't get anybody in and out of their
project (hotel).
The following people then spoke in opposition expressing a number of concerns as summarized:
Stefanie O'Neill Perry, 5949 Avenida Arbol, Anaheim, Co-founder of the newly-formed Concerned
Citizens of the Canyon. She submitted signatures of 1,500 residents who are opposed to the project.
The petition heading stated, "We the undersigned residents of Anaheim Hills, strenuously oppose the
project proposed for the 24.5 acres located at the north east corner of Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon
Road in the City of Anaheim and the related zone change. We request the City deny all related
approvals. The project is inconsistent with zoning, with the City's land use plan, and with the needs to
the environment and the quality of life. If the project is given further consideration, we respectfully insist
that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared as required in these circumstances by the California
Quality Act." She then elaborated on some of the other documentation submitted including the flyer they
used emphasizing that nothing in it is false. On behalf of the residents of Anaheim Hills, she is asking
that the Council consider their request to leave the zoning as is but if the Council feels it must be
rezoned, that they require an Environmental Impact Report.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Susan Sigmund, 6831 E. Kentucky Avenue, Anaheim - on behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. They are concerned that the following information is still not provided:
specific design of intersection reconfiguration, finished pad elevations, visual impact of the project,
building design, color scheme and materials, no delivery hours specified, no interior landscaping is
shown for the storage facilities, impacts to existing merchants in the Canyon, signage, traffic and
deterioration of level of service. Further, the community does not want SACR widened, the regional use
is inconsistent with the Canyon Area General Plan, traffic will be detrimental to the general welfare of the
community, there is no way to guarantee mitigation measures will work and there is no alternative
available as a backup plan. Given the unmitigated concerns, they feel the project should be denied.
Jim Biddinger, 233 S. Calle DaGama, Anaheim. Via Cortez is connected to Scout Trail by the street on
which he lives which is mitigating some of the Imperial/SACR congestion. Motorists are avoiding that
intersection by cutting through his street which is a problem. He also questioned the Traffic Engineer's
calculations, specifically only a 5% increase with five times the volume of traffic.
Maria Bessem, 130 N. Avenida Cordoba, Anaheim. The development is an attractive one, but when it is
put into the proposed location it does not make sense. Her concerns revolved around traffic especially
on SACR and whether they had taken into account all the new residential developments that have been
approved between Coal Canyon and this location. A "U" turn at Solomon is asking for a fatality. A
storage facility was recently approved east of Eucalyptus on SACR which means they are going from no
storage facilities to two within a short distance of each other. Signage is a problem.
Roy Brown, 140 Calle Diaz, Anaheim. He addressed traffic concerns (also see input given at the 3/30/98
Planning Commission hearing) and what he considered were underlying problems in the traffic report. He
elaborated on these in detail first noting that with help, he learned a little about traffic engineering
methods and although the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method was used he knows that the
high-capacity method (HCM) is actually the more accurate way to determine the impact on traffic at
intersections. (He also presented photographs he had taken last Thursday afternoon on SACR at
Imperial, Via Cortez and Solomon to justify his conclusions). Before concluding, he also touched on the
concern over emergency vehicles being able to get through the traffic. The traffic report submitted is not
one that can be relied on. The proposal is not appropriate for Anaheim Hills.
Debbie O'Neill, 5949 Avenida Arbol, Anaheim, Co-founder of Concerned Citizens of the Canyon. She
spoke on the topic of crime referring to report submitted, re: Crime Statistics, April 1, 1997 through April
1, 1998, Festival-Vons Center-Canyon Plaza, containing crime statistics in those centers as reported by
the Police Department. An additional shopping center of this size would not only increase the crimes
already mentioned but the criminal activity in their neighborhoods. She requests the Council deny the
project, but if not, she also requests that an Environmental Impact Report be provided.
Maurice Miller, 265 Avenida Segovia, Anaheim. He is concerned that Anaheim has so many shopping
centers with hamburger "joints" with their attendant cups, utensils (trash) ending up in resident's yards.
Debra Maktari, 2509 W. Crescent, Anaheim. She is present on a different subject but wanted to
comment although she does not live in Anaheim Hills, her children participate in sports there. She can
verify it takes her longer to get from Imperial to El Rancho Jr. High School on SACR than it does from
Brookhurst down the 91 and off at Imperial. She supports the residents.
At this point, Ms. Maktari made comments relating to the next item listed on the Council agenda, i.e., the
Public Discussion Regarding the Issues of Sexually Oriented Businesses. See discussion under that
item.
Pat Tavares, 6020 Avenida Arbol, Anaheim. She spoke on the vast amount of vacancies at shopping
centers in Anaheim Hills - 9 at Canyon Plaza, 9 at Anaheim Hills Plaza, 7 at the Festival, one being the
anchor store (some never occupied), with other area shopping centers with at least one vacancy. She
questioned, will the proposed development put other faithful proprietors of the area out of business; will it
create a commercial negative impact on the community.
2O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Linda Denmark, 5813 Avenida Portola, Anaheim. She spoke to the General Plan that was adopted for
the Canyon Area on March 8, 1977 and revised in 1984. The General Plan is for the future of the
Canyon Area as a planned community concept and commonly referred to as Planning Area B. The
Maag ranch property was zoned RSA43,000. There are four types of residential zoning in Planning Area
B, some of which includes the Maag ranch property within the scenic corridor. During her presentation
she referred to and read portions of the General Plan comparing certain aspects of the proposal with
what the General Plan allows, those things not in conformance with the General Plan, as well as how the
plan relates to SACR. The General Plan, Municipal Code and State laws should not be taken lightly. As
concerned citizens, they do not want the Council to break any laws or guidelines. Protect the guidelines
that have been established for the community. Preserve the area and require an EIR.
Madly Hauk, 6071 Camino Cotter, Anaheim. She is present on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of the
Canyon. She first requested denial of all the Planning Commission approvals and further requested an
EIR be required of the developer. The request is based on the Initial Study of Environmental Impact -
"Findings of Fact" - November 11, 1997 (previously made a part of the record) which she referred to and
portions of which she read refuting/questioning the information provided by the developer leaving many
questions relative to environmental impacts unanswered. Amongst other issues addressed, she clarified
that none of the people in the Chamber (in opposition) have been in contact with the person who
represents Savi Ranch. She feels it is a guise to misdirect the issues away from what they really are.
Also, everyone in the room (by a show of hands, all but a few) want what is best for their area and this
project is not that. At the least, they are asking for a continuance of 60 days for the Council to look into
an EIR. At the most, they would like to see the project denied and the developer sent back to the
drawing board. She also does not believe that anyone would have objections to another meeting in the
area to have some real input on the development.
Wade Perry, 5949 Avenida Arbol, Anaheim, Co-founder of Concerned Citizens of the Canyon. He is
requesting that the zoning be left as is but if they should fezone it, that an EIR be prepared. Also, should
the project move forward, that they address more closely the issue of self-storage facilities. He referred
to the report requested by the Council on March 24, 1998 asking that staff and the Planning Commission
work toward formulating a policy that would limit self-storage facilities to only certain areas, the subject
property being inappropriate for such use. In concluding his presentation he reiterated their request is
that the Council leave the zoning on the subject property at RSA43,000 in the best interest of Anaheim
Hills and also take into consideration the comments on self-storage in the report submitted regarding
these facilities.
Bobbie Flory, 7878 E. Margaret Court, Anaheim. A storage facility and drive-through McDonalds will be
a "death knell" for surrounding property values. They do not need this development; keep the
community the way it is -- either deny the development or at least table it. Answering the Mayor
regarding what she would like to see as an alternative, she would rather see it be town houses or homes,
a park would be nice and they probably need another school.
Manuel DeLeon, 6016 E. Calle Cedro, Anaheim. He suggested they could take the property, turn it into
historical land and pay for it with new assessment taxes.
Ted Larvick (sp). He addressed traffic issues, the fact that presently there is a Taco Bell across from the
high school and additional (fast food) facilities will bring with it additional trash. He questioned who would
use the storage facility.
Deacon Thomas Klos, San Antonio Church, Solomon Drive. He is present on behalf of the church to
express concern over the additional traffic that would be generated which has not been mitigated, the
effect it will have on their parishioners particularly the traffic on SACR. Even though the proposed signal
at Solomon will help, the potential of people making a "U" turn at Solomon to access the development
will be a detriment. Another concern is the type of noise and distraction that will affect their services with
a shopping center directly across the street.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Linda Burnett, 6909 Rutgers Drive, Anaheim. These projects only add crime and traffic to an area.
There is no amount of money that the City could receive from the developer that would be worth the
safety of their children. The addition of this property (development) is not a benefit to those who live in
the community.
Jerri Jacobs, 7291 E. Drake Drive, Anaheim. The proposed development would only magnify the traffic
problems they currently experience. Additionally, she is opposed to removal of additional trees and
clearing of the land to develop the project. She is not interested in another fast food restaurant, storage
facility or more cars driving through her community. She is strongly opposed to the proposal.
Christine Voltatel, 7291 E. Drake, Anaheim. She is opposed to rezoning the property, removal of the
trees from the center section and defacing of the land. This continues the degradation of the land in
Anaheim Hills. She also addressed traffic, congestion and safety issues.
Karyn Schonherz, 791 Goldfinch Street, Anaheim. She presented an article from the Anaheim Bulletin
dated August 1, 1979, i.e., "Land Grabbing Agencies Devour Woman's Farm" (re: the subject Maag
property). She read portions of the article. She wonders with the passioned plea that Mrs. Maag gave to
the City Council (at that time) whether or not she would be "turning over in her grave" now to find that her
treasured farm is going to be turned into a retail shopping center and storage space. She (Schonherz)
has lived in the area for almost 24 years and she has fought against all the things they felt were wrong
for their community. This and prior Councils have listened. She is asking that they do so again.
Kevin Gillette, 170 Avenida Pina, Anaheim. His house faces the farm. It will be horrible zoning to put
anything commercial or industrial on that property. He is concerned about the safety of his two-year old
son. They do not need any more shopping centers or traffic. He would like it to remain as is or
residential.
Cathy and Haley Matson, 6015 Hillcrest Circle, Anaheim. Mrs. Matson stated that (her daughter) Haley
had waited three hours to read a statment to the Council. Haley Matson thereupon read her letter to the
Council asking them to please not take away the strawberry patch.
Paula Harold, 955 S. LaSalle Circle, Anaheim. She formerly lived in a lovely neighborhood that was
literally destroyed by one after another of these developments. Students at Canyon High School were
writing articles for the school paper concerning the environment. This proposal does not respect the
land, property, trees or their quality of life. There have already been accidents with kids going to the
Taco Bell (across from Canyon High School). McDonalds is not the best attraction for their
neighborhood. There could be better uses for the property such as recreational.
Mr. Chris Abbott then spoke again noting that the letters from the residents on Solomon Drive were from
owners and renters. Answering Council Member Zemel asking for clarification whether he was for or
against the project, he stated the developer has worked with them moreso than any other developer. He
knows a lot of people are against the storage units but for them it is probably the best thing. The
buildings do look like homes and there will be a 50' landscaped area. He is not saying it is the best
project, but it is not the worst.
Mayor Daly. This concludes the public input portion and is time for the developer to respond, but he first
suggested a short recess be taken at this time.
RECESS: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting was recessed for 10 minutes (8:47 P.M.).
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (9:03
P.M.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE (summarized): Gary Wiggle, Keisker and Wiggle Architects. Relative to
traffic, it is the obligation of the project to mitigate its own impact but not to cure the traffic problem that
is there today without a shopping center. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a very
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
straight forward law. A Negative Declaration was approved with mitigation. In a fully developed area
such as this, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required. The General Plan is a fluid
document; it is a goal document. State law mandates it be changed. It is to be revised every five years.
They have provided everything staff requested and 71 conditions will be controlling their destiny on the
project. They are continually working with staff and making the project better and better as each day
goes on. There are two additional speakers -- the person who created their economic study, Mr.
Tarantello, and Mr. Foust has additional comments on traffic.
Mr. Rocky Tarantello, 250 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach. He was asked to prepare the retail
potential study for the site (see, Analysis of Retail Sales Potential for Imperial Crossroads - Imperial
Highway and Riverside Freeway - Anaheim Hills, California - 1-12-98 - previously made a part of the
record). His extensive presentation stepped through findings of his study some of the highlights being:
(1) Within a three-mile radius of the site, there is approximately $240 million of sales leaking outside of
that three-mile area for the year ending 1997. Within a five-mile radius, his analysis calculated a
leakage of approximately $580 million leaking out on an annual basis. Dividing the leakage into the
average sales per sq. ft. (as is done every two years by the Urban Land Institute) suggests that there is
potential development capacity inside the three-mile area of approximately one million sq. ft. The center
is proposing to build approximately 230,000 sq. ft. (2) What makes the project technically different
whether or not it is approved -- it is high-volume, low-margin retail. There is a vast difference between a
convenience center or a strip mall and the type of retail that would occupy this center and it is not made
for a supermarket. It is nothing close to a regional center which is anchored by major department stores.
It is a compendium of high-volume, low-margin retailers.
Mr. Joe Foust, Austin-Foust. The traffic study looked at the worst-case scenario. With reasonable
mitigation measures, the degradation of service is tolerable. November-December is the peak shopping
season and that is when they did the peak counts. If the project is opened before the ETC opens up, that
would probably be the worst-case situation and that is the one they analyzed. They looked at the
opening of the ETC as well as the buildout of the rest of the region. They do expect some improvement
of SACR off the 91 freeway. For the reasonable future, they have seen the worst and things are going to
get a little better already demonstrated with the opening of the 91 HOV lanes. They did not count the
opening of the ETC as a mitigation factor.
Council Member Zemel interjected and stated that it was in the report; Mr. Foust stated he does not
believe that is the worst-case scenario. In the Negative Declaration, he had to address the worst-case
scenario. The basic study was based on the November-December period traffic count but there have
been a lot of counts done since that time. In terms of methodology (as addressed by Mr. Brown), he
noted that he has expertise in the high capacity methodology (HCM) because he helped develop it and is
partially responsible for that methodology. However, he can assure that the ICU (intersection capacity
utilization) methodology that the County, City and region has adopted is a far better methodology than
the HCM. He stated the bottom line is, he cannot say everything is going to be improved when this
project goes in but he can assure that the impacts caused by the project compared to its mitigation is in
line with any project they would consider at that location.
After some additional brief closing comments by Mr. Wiggle, Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. He
then asked staff to comment once again on the need for an EIR.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. In conjunction with this project, the Planning Commission approved a
mitigated negative declaration. In their review, they recognized there would be impacts but felt they
would be mitigated to a significant level. The Council got more input than the Planning Commission.
Eight members of the public spoke at the Commission meeting and the Planning Commission imposed
conditions that they felt mitigated the concerns raised. In terms of a site such as this, in order to have a
negative declaration and not do an EIR, there has to be a finding by the approving body. There are two
options -- one is a negative declaration which means there are no impacts that will be adverse, or a
mitigated negative declaration as was the case here. The impacts that were identified have been
mitigated to an insignificant level. The largest issue on a site like this would be traffic impacts. With a
project like this, a traffic study is prepared by the applicant's engineers and submitted to Public Works
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
and the City's Traffic Engineering staff subsequently makes a recommendation as to their belief of the
adequacy of that report.
Mayor Daly. Summarizing the net reduction of existing trees on the private property and then the net
increase of trees, the way he reads it, 25 eucalyptus trees will be removed and 464 replacement trees
installed; Greg Hastings. He believes that is correct. There are three diseased (eucalyptus) trees that
can come out without Council approval.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager also confirmed that with the recommendation of street
widening for the dual left-turn lanes on to Via Cortez, three trees would be removed.
Council Member McCracken. After posing questions relative to data concerning the infrastructure, she
noted that the zoning on the property has not changed since 1966 and a freeway has been built next to it.
That property is in the Santa Ana flood control area. She sits on the Flood Control District Board and it is
a major issue. In good conscience, she could not vote for residential use on that property because of the
danger of flooding. It may or may not be considered a flood zone, but it can easily be impacted by the
Santa Ana River. The danger that exists from the Prado Dam hopefully will be mitigated by the raising
of the dam and the addition of the Seven-Oaks Dam but those improvements will not be completed for
several years.
Council Member Zemel. He emphasized, this is a General Plan Amendment. It is not the offering of
construction for something that is planned. Regarding the economic analysis, it cannot be compared to a
loss of revenue because they are not planning on any revenue from that property. By not building the
project, the net loss is nothing. The price that the Maag Trust is asking for the property is driving this.
The answer to why such a big project on the property is so that it will make the project pencil out. He
believes the seller is asking too much. It is not the City's responsibility to help make all these things
come together. It is not an investment until it is an investment and it is still not a closed escrow so there
is no investment of property. This is a development that will not only affect the immediate residents, but
every single citizen and resident in the hill and canyon area from Lakeview to Weir Canyon and beyond.
This is the entrance to a community, a residential area and a trademark of Anaheim Hills. Also,
directional signs off the freeway indicate that it is somewhat regional in nature and not for local citizens.
He has been telling people for so long when the ETC is completed, they will get relief and he still
believes that is true. It is not going in to create an opportunity to overdevelop a piece of property.
Relative to the proposed "U" turn (at Solomon), he asked Mr. Lower if that was the "Anaheim Way."
Mr. Lower answered it is not the Anaheim Way and it should not have been brought up tonight because
no "U" turns were assumed in the traffic study. He then answered additional questions relative to traffic
posed by Council Member Zemel.
In concluding, Council Member Zemel stated ultimately, this is a traffic issue and he cannot go forward
with this proposal. This is the entrance to the hill and canyon area and he cannot see adding to that.
Council Member Tait. In order to approve this, the Council must find that the impacts from this
development have been mitigated to an insignificant level and traffic cannot be significantly worse than it
is today. Mr. Foust is a highly respected Traffic Engineer but he (Tait) feels common sense would
dictate when there is a five-fold increase in traffic coming off Via Cortez into a high-volume center, he
does not know how that can be mitigated to an insignificant level. The bottom line is, even though this is
a first-class development by a developer who has an excellent reputation for first-class projects, it is
trying to put a round peg into a square hole. The infrastructure does not support this project, the traffic,
streets, etc. He cannot see approving this project because of the impacts on traffic.
Council Member McCracken. She feels they have to be honest and say what actually is going to happen
when the expressway happens. When the gravel pit on SACR goes away, SACR is going to be the
secondary road into Corona. That was the plan when the 91 freeway was built. SACR is going to
have to be changed. Although they can say it is not going to have to be widened, they are being
dishonest. When it is opened up to Corona, what is going to happen if it is not widened. Two people
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
have been killed at Solomon, without a traffic light. They have to deal .with the fact that improvements
are going to be made particularly on lights and on turns. It does not make any difference if it is this
development or any other, they are going to have to make changes to SACR. They can say that the
Maag Trust is charging too much for the property but if they wait five years, it is not going to be less.
The Trust is going to have to pay taxes if it comes out of the agricultural preserve. They will be paying
taxes on property that has no income. They are going to have to bite the bullet -- improve that area and
improve SACR. It was a highway and the only highway many years ago and the only way to get to Las
Vegas without the freeway. It is basically a no-win situation for everybody involved.
Mayor Daly. He believes it is a problem when Anaheim residents have to leave Anaheim to shop and
have to be careful before reaching conclusions it is OK for these stores to end up in Yorba Linda. The
City needs the revenue that would be generated. Sales tax is the single-most important source of
revenue in the City. The proposal has high quality stores and he believes that additional shopping
opportunities in the City of Anaheim are good for the community. The estimated revenue from this
project exceeds a half-million dollars a year to the community which can be used for important
community projects. He noted there was a mention by a member of the public that residents who live on
Via Cortez north of SACR have had a problem with traffic cutting through to bypass Imperial; John
Lower, Traffic & Transportation Manager stated that issue has not been reported to them in the past.
The process would be for community residents to contact the Traffic Engineering Office. There are a
number of measures that can be utilized.
Mayor Daly asked that Mr. Lower look into that problem. He also knows some residents who live on a
cross street to Solomon with the same concern, people are using that street to bypass SACR traffic. He
continued relative to the project that it has been reviewed by the City Planning Commission, seven
citizen volunteers from all over Anaheim who voted unanimously to approve the project and applied 71
conditions to it. Although the property has been vacant for decades, there will be development and the
question is what is the best possible development. The residents immediately across the street on
Solomon are adamant about no access off Solomon and they do not appear to be in support of
residential. When factoring in those issues, he believes this project is a good project for the community
at this time and will be voting in favor. Further, he thinks the introduction of the 14 stores to the site does
improve the access of the shopping center next door which has had access problems for years.
Council Member Zemel. The cut throughs and pass throughs discussed are only going to get worse with
five times more traffic. Also, if residential does go into that property, he does not envision a flood taking
those homes out. Further, access to Solomon would be reasonable by routing it a couple of different
ways.
Council Member Lopez. The main concern he has is traffic; however, he also feels the developer has a
right to develop the land. Mrs. Hauk suggested a 60-day continuance. He's wondering if that would
make a difference and if the developer could bring something back that would be acceptable to the
residents, perhaps of smaller scale. (Mrs. Hauk interjected that they do not want that). It appears that
this development is too much. He is going to ask for a 60-day continuance with the possibility that the
developer can bring back something smaller that can be acceptable to the community.
Council Member Zemel. They do not need a continuance. Council Member Lopez just gave reasons
why the project should be denied just as Council Member McCracken did. He suggested that they do the
right thing and vote tonight. A continuance is not needed.
Council Member Lopez noted that he (Zemel) has always been a supporter of business and that the
individual has the right to develop his property; Council Member Zemel answered that they are asking for
a General Plan Amendment and that is completely different. If they knew that the zoning was
commercial when they bought the property he would look at it differently, but they are asking for a zoning
change in order to build the project. They should not confuse property rights of a developer if he does
not have the entitlements in the first place. As Council Member Lopez said, the traffic is too much. He
reiterated they should do the right thing and not walk away from the issue.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
Mayor Daly. He can suport a continuance if there is an opportunity to try to improve this project
somehow in working with the planning staff.
Council Member Tait. He does not think it is fair to the developer. There might be some "tweeking" that
could be done. He feels they need to give the developer and residents an answer on whether or not this
use belongs there. He believes the answer is, no. They should not change the zoning. People who
bought their homes expected residential zoning.
After additional Council discussion, Council Member Zemel moved to deny the CEQA Negative
Declaration finding.
Mayor Daly interjected and stated he believes there was a motion to continue the matter.
MOTION. Council Member Lopez confirmed that was correct and reiterated his request for a 60-day
continuance of the Public Hearing on the subject. Mayor Daly seconded the motion.
City Attorney White confirmed that the motion to continue takes precedence over the main motion and
will be voted on first.
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue for 60 days (July 21, 1998) and carried by the following
vote: Ayes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly. Noes: Tait, Zemel
108: PUBLIC DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ISSUES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
(SOB'S): Receiving and filing the SOB Task Force update report.
The following comments were received during the Public Hearing, Item D2. This item was scheduled to
be heard at 7:00 P.M., but due to the length of the Public Hearing and the lateness of the hour, one
member of the public, speaking for herself and others, spoke to the issue as follows:
Debra Maktari, 2509 W. Crescent, Anaheim. As a citizen of west Anaheim, several residents were
present this evening for questions on the Task Force dealing with Sex Oriented Businesses (SOB's). At
the time the task force was established, they were told there would be a town hall type meeting and they
are asking that the Council come through with that meeting so that citizens of west Anaheim can attend
and get answers to the questions they still have. They understand that the task force has been doing a
lot of positive things since it was established and they would like to discuss that with the Council.
Council Member Zemel. The Council had a long discussion on how to handle the matter. They are
trying to do it after tonight's meeting anticipating the discussion would take place around 7:00 P.M. He
does not see that happening now before 9:00 or 9:30. He asked if the Council would like to reschedule
the discussion for a real town hall meeting on a separate night.
Ms. Moktari informed the Council that residents are present but most are planning on going home at this
point because of the lateness of the hour. Most are out in the lobby area because they are unable to get
into the Chamber due to the crowd. She reiterated, they would like a town hall meeting and look forward
to having one.
Mayor Daly moved that the subject discussion regarding SOB's be continued and the item re-scheduled
for 7:00 P.M. next Tuesday. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, discussion followed wherein Council Member Zemel spoke against the motion
because he feels the same thing would occur next week. It should be rescheduled as a separate
meeting.
Mayor Daly noted that currently no Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 26, 1998. He
suggested scheduling a meeting for that date to focus on the subject of SOB's; Council Member Zemel
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 5, 1998
stated he would be supportive of that. (Council Members McCracken, Tait and Lopez also indicated that
it was acceptable to them).
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that a public discussion regarding the issues of Sexually Oriented
Businesses be held on Tuesday, May 24, 1998 at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber. Council Member
Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White announced that a handout is available, Question and Answers Concerning Sex-
Oriented Businesses prepared by City staff and copies are on the table in the Chamber corridor. If none
are lelY, a copy can be obtained by contacting either the City Clerk or his office.
Cl. Request from Council Member McCracken to discuss POW-MIA flag either on special occasions
or year round, and to consider an ordinance adding new Section 11.08.040 to Chapter 11.08 of Title 11
of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to flagpole displays at the Anaheim Civic Center. (Continued
from the meetings of April 7, 1998, Item C1, and April 28, t998, Item C1.)
ORDINANCE NO. 5361 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding
new Section 11.08.040 to Chapter 11.08 of Title 11 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to flagpole
displays at the Anaheim Civic Center.
MOTION . Display of POW Flag.
Council Member Zemel requested a continuance of this item.
Council Member McCracken. She is going to delay any discussion or implementation relative to the
flying of the POW-.MIA flag; however, this is merely the second reading of the ordinance which allows
them to fly flags under certain conditions which she would like to offer for adoption tonight.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the subject for one week in the interest of time.
Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
Mayor Daly. As Council Member McCracken stated, this is simply a second reading of the ordinance
which gives the City the option of flying the flag. It is not the implementation; Council Member
McCracken. She just wants to vote on the ordinance 'but is willing to continue consideration on
displaying the flag to next week.
Council Member Zemel confirmed his motion was to continue adoption of the ordinance as well.
A vote was then taken on the motion. Mayor Daly voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
C3. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Lopez. Something that came up under Council Comments last week referred to the
Housing Program offered Police Officers to encourage them to live in Anaheim. For the record, he did
not take advantage of that program.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council meeting of May 5, 1998 was adjourned.
(10:40 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
27