1999/06/22ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: MAYOR : Tom Daly
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken,
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER : Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White
CITY CLERK : Leonora N. Sohl
ASST. CITY CLERK : Ann Sauvageau
PLANNING DIRECTOR : Joel Fick
PARKS SUPERINTENDENT : Jack Kudron
ZONING DIVISI ON MANAGER : Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MANAGER : John Lower
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS PLANNER : Diana Kotler
POLICE: Russ Sutter
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER –DEVELOPMENT : Tom Wood
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 4:00 p.m. on
June 18, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
WORKSHOP
Mayor Pro Tem Shirley McCracken called the workshop portion of the meeting of June 22, 1999 to order
at 3:16 P.M., all Council Members being present with the exception of Mayor Daly who previously
declared a conflict on this issue and, therefore, is not involved in any discussion/decision relative to the
subject.
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the appointed time for a follow-on workshop regarding the City’s
Campaign Reform Law Ordinance. (Also see minutes of the May 4, 1999 workshop where the issue was
previously discussed.)
CAMPAIGN REFORM LAW ORDINANCE :
112: City Attorney, Jack White. This is a continuation of
the Workshop held May 4, 1999. Since that time, he has prepared two matrixes which are in front of the
Council today (see Report dated June 22, 1999 to the City Council from the City Attorney – Subject :
Campaign Reform Law – attached to which were two matrixes A and B). His recommendation (see page
2 of the report) is that the Council authorize his office to draft an ordinance which incorporates the
provisions shown in green on Matrix B and to schedule the ordinance on a future Council agenda.
He then explained that relative to Matrix A, he has outlined in yellow the provisions that are substantially
similar to current provisions in State law. Five different areas are outlined. The Endnotes (attached to
the Matrix) compare provisions in the Anaheim law with State law which he briefed. The second Matrix,
Matrix B, was prepared to show areas where the majority of the Council is in agreement with regard to
revisions to the ordinance. He has spoken to each Council Member individually and subsequently
prepared the matrix based upon his understanding of their views of the Campaign Reform Law. Council
Member Tait continues to believe they should not have an ordinance and would be prepared at this time
to repeal the existing ordinance. The other three voting members have indicated that they believe there
should be some type of campaign contribution limitation and Matrix B, with the provisions highlighted in
green, show the areas where those three members are in agreement as to provisions that should be
included in a campaign ordinance. There is actually agreement on 25 of the 30 provisions – three (of the
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
provisions) would propose to add language that doesn’t currently exist in the present ordinance and two
would take language out.
What he would propose as a talking point for today’s workshop is that the Council authorize the drafting
of an ordinance to be returned on a subsequent agenda which would include those areas outlined in
green where all three are in agreement (see Matrix B). The other five areas (where they do not agree),
he would suggest leaving them as they are currently in the existing ordinance. He does not believe ,
based upon their individual views, that there is a possibility they will end up with an ordinance that has
everything they all want. He noted that on Matrix B two areas that he circled, 2.1 (Prior Debt Retirement)
and 7.3 (Loans, Goods and Services) are both provisions in the current ordinance where there is not
unanimity on the Council to either delete or to keep either of them. He would, therefore, recommend
those stay the way they are. Even if nothing is done, those are going to remain in effect in any event.
The three choices are to either repeal the current ordinance, keep it the way it is, or amend it. Unless a
majority are prepared to totally repeal it, those two areas (2.1 and 7.3) would stay the same.
Extensive discussion, questioning and comments followed between Council Members and City Attorney
White wherein Council Members recounted their individual conversations/issues with Mr. White and their
understanding relative to specific areas of the Anaheim law as it now stands, State provision, areas on
which there is consensus and/or disagreement, etc. Mr. White stated, in fairness, this is the first time the
Council has seen the Matrix with the green markings on it (B); therefore, if they need more time, he does
not have a problem with that.
Further discussion and questioning followed wherein a member of the public, Shirley Grindle (author of
Orange County’s TinCup Ordinance) gave input relative to transfer of funds from one candidate to
another wherein she stated the provision under discussion prohibits a candidate from accepting a
campaign contribution from another candidate, State, Federal or local, but it does not stop the candidate
from using his/her campaign funds to give to another candidate as long as that candidate is not subject
to contribution limits. She later also urged the adoption of 5.2 (requires candidate with outstanding debt
to create a new controlled committee prior to accepting contributions for a subsequent election) because,
if not, a candidate would be able to collect $1,000 for his outstanding debt and another $1,000 for the
next election and put it in the same account. She questioned how anyone would know that was done.
Council Member Kring noted she puts an asterisk on her statement which indicates the funds are to retire
outstanding debt; Mrs. Grindle noted, however, that doing so is voluntary and from an auditing and
monitoring standpoint, having it in two separate committees is ideal.
Council Member Tait . He would agree but he would rather not have to set up a new (and separate)
committee ; City Attorney White. That issue can probably be cured with something short of creating a
whole new committee.
There was also discussion relative to in-kind contributions (loans, goods and services) as broached by
Council Member Feldhaus ; City Attorney White. The provision (7.3) is not meant to add a new obligation
as far as determining values because it is already there under State law. All the ordinance does, it says
the maximum discount or contribution of in-kind services or goods is $1,000 because it counts towards
the $1,000 contribution limit. With or without the ordinance, if it is repealed, the same issue continues to
exist under State law.
Shirley Grindle . State law says that in-kind services/goods are considered contributions. If there is a
limit, it is a campaign contribution and Anaheim has a contribution limit. She cautioned, they are asking
for trouble if they say in-kind contributions would not be added to contributions; she would take issue with
that.
City Attorney White. It is covered by State law only in having to report the in-kind contributions. What he
is suggesting is to leave it the way it is which counts in-kind towards the $1,000 limit. If they are going to
have a limit at all, it is necessary to have this provision.
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
After additional discussion, City Attorney White, noting that time was expiring for the Workshop, asked if
the Council would like to refer this all back to him and at an appropriate date, he will bring it back, or
would they like another workshop.
It was determined that another workshop would be held; Mr. White stated he would schedule it for late
July or the first of August.
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:
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and related cases and cross actions) Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case : Vista Royale Homeowners Assoc. vs. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone Company,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74,
( and related cases
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
3.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
J.G.D. Company, Inc., vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 79-
78-04
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
4.
Title:
City Manager
5. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency Designated Representative :
Dave Hill
Employee organization :
AFA Labor Negotiations
6. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT:
City Clerk recruitment
On motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCracken seconded by Council Member Feldhaus the City Council
recessed into Closed Session. (4:05 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of June 22, 1999 to order at 5:37 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Pastor David Koll, from the Anaheim Christian Reformed Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Kring led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
PROCLAMATION HOMEOWNERSHIP WEEK :
119: Proclaiming June 22 – 26, 1999 as
Homeownership Week in Anaheim.
Bertha Chavoya, Housing Manager, introduced Theresa Cameron, Department of Housing and Urban
Development who was present to make a presentation to the Council from HUD on behalf of
Homeownership Week.
Theresa Cameron, HUD Representative. She is present to acknowledge the City’s and staff’s efforts to
promote home ownership in the Anaheim community. They are to be commended on the numbers of
home owners the City has been able to produce. She thereupon presented a plaque to acknowledge
their efforts and to congratulate the City.
Mayor Daly. He thereupon presented the Homeownership Week Proclamation to both Mrs. Chavoya and
Cameron.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
th
1. DECLARATION recognizing Westview Services, Inc., on their 13 Anniversary.
2. DECLARATION recognizing the YWCA ENCORE plus Program.
3. DECLARATION recognizing Max Floweday as grand prize winner of the Calgary “Great Escape” Life
Saving Program Contest.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $5,947,590.50 for the period ending June
18,1999, in accordance with the 1998-99 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency Meeting . (5:36
p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting (5:39 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Stan Stossel , Business Representative, IBEW , Local 47. For over 100 years, Anaheim has been served
by a publicly owned and operated Utility and has served businesses and residents well. The Public Utility
has been here through good times and bad. Two years ago, the City examined strategic options. The
results have arrived. R.W.Beck were the consultants. They came back with a recommendation and it is
what Local 47 has been saying all along. Anaheim has a very fine Utility operated efficiently by a fine
work force. With an annual budget of over $300 million, they do not think the City wants to risk that and
the independence that comes with self rule. He urged them to not deconstruct the Utility because in the
future it will be difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct it. Last month, the Public Utilities Board voted
unanimously to adopt the recommendation of R.W . Beck which will keep the operation and maintenance
of the Utility in house; Utility staff and Ed Aghjayan , the Public Utilities General Manager, recommend it
be kept in house and the workers and the Unions recommend the same. On July 20, 1999, the item will
be coming before the Council for a vote. He urged that they accept the recommendations of widely
divergent and often confrontational groups who all agree on this issue. They hope the Council will do the
right thing next month.
PUBLIC COMMENTS – AGENDA ITEMS:
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
There were no public comments on agenda items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of June 22, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A30 :
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken , 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 Resolution No. 99R-138 for adoption. Mayor Daly offered
Ordinance No. 5691 for first reading and Ordinance No. 5688 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution/Ordinance Book.
A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Man agement.
The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Edward P. & Maria E. Exley for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about November 6, 1998.
b. Claim submitted by Cynthia Garcia for property bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 4, 1999.
c. Claim submitted by Miri Rida Mohamad for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about April 10, 1999.
d. Claim submitted by Judith Rodriguez for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about April 10, 1999.
e. Claim sub mitted by Ivan Laszlo Ruzics for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about December 26, 1997.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing the Investment Advisory Commission minutes for the meeting held
February 16, 1999.
Receiving and filing the Investment Advisory Portfolio Report as submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3. 150: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, American Electric Company, in the
amount of $64,800 for Anaheim Hills Golf Course Photovoltaic Lighting Improvement; and in the
event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the
second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second
low bidders.
A4. 150: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Building Energy Consultants, in the
amount of $71,775 for Central Ball Field Lighting Control at Various City Parks; and in the event
said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second
low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low
bidders.
Council Member McCracken asked if there will be some kind of emergency contact if the lights don’t go
on since this will now be done totally by computer.
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent. This system will be in conjunction with their Roving Facility
Attendant and the Park Ranger Program. They will have the ability to turn lights on or off via the internet
if they get an emergency call
A5. 169: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Nobest, Inc., in the amount of
$137,645.14 for Euclid Street Improvements from Crescent Avenue to 490 feet south of
Crescent Avenue.
A6. 150: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R. J. Noble, in the amount of
$152,694.30 for Romneya Drive Street Improvements from State College Boulevard to East
Street; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the
contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low
and second low bidders.
A7. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, USS Cal Builders, Inc., in the amount
of $248,000 for Dad Miller Golf Course Clubhouse Improvements; and in the event said low
bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low
bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
Council Member Feldhaus commented that the bid of $248,000 for restrooms and a storage area seems
high to him.
Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent. The project scope is for two sets of restrooms, one at the Club
House level to support the banquet and restaurant trade and one by the snack bar which is at the golfer
level, and then a much needed storage room. The bids were all competitive; four bids were within about
$18,000 of each other which they felt was good. The original estimate for the job was $200,000. He
confirmed for the Mayor that the facilities are intended to last for 25 – 30 years. They are adding on to
and keeping the integrity of the Club House design. Jobs like this are typically higher and the current
bidding climate is high. They receive a lot of complaints from banquet patrons having to use the same
facilities as golfers.
A8. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle , Inc., in the amount of
$262,967 for Construction of Electrical Circuits to the Anaheim Resort Area; and in the event
said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second
low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low
bidders.
A9. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, General Pump Company, Inc., in the
amount of $266,102 for Pump & Well Improvement; and in the event said low bidder fails to
comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as
waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
A10. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Ecology Construction, Inc., in the
amount of $596,700 for Chlorine Conversion Project; and in the event said low bidder fails to
comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as
waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
A11. 150: Appropriating $260,000 from the 216 Fund Balance (Park Sites and Playground Fund) into
revenue account 213-216-4743-5797 and expenditure account 213-216-4743-9605 for this
project; and awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, EMMA Corporation, in the
amount of $795,500 for Ball Field Lighting and Park Improvements at Twila Reid and John
Marshall Parks; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award,
awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of
both the low and second low bidders.
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
A12. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, C.P . Construction, in the amount of
$1,010,584.50 for North Street & La Verne Street Water Main Replacement; and in the event
said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second
low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low
bidders.
A13. 175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Lambco Engineering, Inc., in the
amount of $1,208,743.88 for Direct Buried Cable Replacement (Primary & Secondary); and in
the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the
second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second
low bidders.
City Manager Ruth. He would like to add to this item, that in the event the low bidder fails to enter an
agreement with the City, that they reject all remaining bids and again go out to bid.
At the conclusion of the consent calendar, this item was approved with the added wording.
A14. 123: Approving an Agreement with Foodmaker ,Inc., and a Sale of Access Rights for the
appraised value to Foodmaker, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Quitclaim Deed.
Council Member Tait announced a conflict and abstained from voting on this item.
A15. 123: Assigning the Hill Partnership, Inc., Agreement to Cannon for design completion of Fire
Station No. 6. (1330 South Euclid Street)
A16. 175: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $150,609.62, in favor of Lamb
Engineering and Construction Co., for the construction of Southwest and Fairmont Substations;
and authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute Contract Change Order No. 1.
A17. 174: Approving an Ap plication for Federal Assistance to receive a $25,000 grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for participation and development of a public awareness
program; and authorizing the City Manager to sign the application.
Council Member Kring asked what is in place relative to marketing of this “Cleaner Air”.
Diana Kotler , Transportation Programs Planner. This grant is to develop the marketing and outreach
program to be part of the national campaign – TV media, the press and radio. She also explained what
the message would entail.
A18. 160: Accepting the low bid of Dilo Company, Inc., in the amount of $74,800 for one gas
reclaimer unit for the Utilities Department, in accordance with Bid #5911.
A19. 123: Approving a Credit Card Agreement among the City of Anaheim, American Heritage
Bankcard, and Imperial Bank for the term of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2004; approving the
Debit Card Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Imperial Bank for the term of July 1,
1999, through June 30, 2004; and authorizing the Finance Director, on behalf of the City, to sign
these agreements and all documents related to credit/debit card processing, and acquisition of
software/hardware necessary to implement this agreement.
A20. 128: Approving the FY 1998/99 write-off of uncollectible miscellaneous and paramedics
accounts receivable totaling $1,619,247.76.
Council Member Kring . She asked with the new billing system and new ambulance service, if the write-
off will decrease.
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
City Manager Ruth. They are taking an aggressive approach on this issue with the goal is to reduce the
write-off substantially next year.
A21. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 5688 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Section .150 of Chapter 1.04 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
appointing the Building Official as the Chief Building Inspector and Building Official. (Introduced
at the meeting of June 15, 1999, Item A24.)
A22. 153: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM providing for additional temporary partially paid military leave of absence and
continuation of benefits for City Employees called to active duty with the Armed Forces of the
United States. (Continued from the meeting of June 15, 1999, Item A30.)
City Manager Ruth. He requested a continuance of this item to July 13, 1999.
At the conclusion of the Consent Calendar, this item was continued to July 13, 1999.
A23. 123: Approving an Agreement, in the amount of $5,000 between the City of Anahe im and the
th
Canyon Hills Community Council for the 11 Annual July Fourth Festival at Peralta Canyon Park
on July 4, 1999.
A24. 185: Determining, on the basis of the evidence submitted by The Irvine Company, that the
property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development
Agreement No. 91-01 (Mountain Park Project) for the 1998-1999 review period.
A25. 123: Approving a Ninth Amendment to Agreement with PRC/Public Sector, Inc., in an amount
not to exceed $88,000 for consulting services in connection with Police Automated Systems
Development for FY 1999/2000.
A26. 123: Approving and authorizing the execution of Amendment No. One to Ground Lease between
the City and Glacier of Anaheim, LLC; and authorizing the City Manager and the Executive
Director of the Redevelopment Agency to execute all necessary and related documents.
A27. 130: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring it’s intention to approve the transfer of a cable television franchise from
Century Valley Cable Corp. and Century Communications Corp. to Century- TCI California, L.P.
and ordering a hearing thereon. (Public hearing date : July 13, 1999, at 6:00 p.m.)
A28. 123: Directing staff to negotiate a sales ta x sharing agreement, and property sale agreement
with Pointe* Anaheim, consistent with the criteria set forth, for future consideration by the City
Council.
This item was trailed until after the Public Hearing under Item D2. on today’s agenda. At the conclusion
of that item ; on motion made by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member McCracken, this item was
approved (see Item D2. For action(s) taken.
A29. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5691 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM exempting certain Conditional Use Permit applications from the provisions of
Ordinance No. 5677 .( Brookhurst Commercial Corridor, to allow pawn shop)
A30. 123: Approving Subcontract between the City of Anaheim and UCI to receive funds for traffic
systems enhancements.
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. (Council Member Tait abstained from voting
on item A14.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R- 138 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-138 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5688 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5688 duly passed and adopted.
A31. 000: FEE SCHEDULES
:
Council Member Tait . He had continued these for more study. He is going to register a No vote on
Resolution L, M and O because the fees increase greater than the CPI and he feels they should limit
increases to the CPI. Relative to Resolution K, it is actually below the CPI.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-139 through 99R-142, both inclusive for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
K. RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedule for planning, zoning and land use petitions, permits, approvals,
appeals, and inspections. (Continued from the meeting of June 15, 1999, Item A33K.)
L. RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedule for building and construction. (Continued from the meeting of June
15, 1999, Item A33L.)
M. RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM establishing fees to be charged by the Public Works Department of the City of Anaheim.
(Continued from the meeting of June 15, 1999, Item A33M.)
O. RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 142 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electricity and water as
adopted by Resolutions Nos. 71-478 and 72-600 and most recently amended by Resolutions Nos. 97R-
235 and 97R-97. (Continued from the meeting of June 15, 1999, Item A33O.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R- 139 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL M EMBERS : None
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-139 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-140 through 99R-142, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COU NCIL MEMBERS : Tait
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-140 through 99R-142, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
A32. 105: BOARDS/COMMISSIONS – APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO TERMS EXPIRING
JUNE 30, 1999:
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING
JUNE 30, 2003:
( Cason, Hibbard, Solari )
INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING
JUNE 30, 2003:
( Hitchman, Keaney)
LIBRARY BOARD FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2003:
( Tafolla)
MOTHER COLONY HOUSE FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING
JUNE 30, 2003:
(Harvey, MacLaren, Renner )
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING
JUNE 30, 2003:
(Bristol, Vanderbilt)
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING
JUNE 30, 2003:
( Lem, Schweitzer)
REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2003:
( Proussalis, Romero)
SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION FOR NEW TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2002:
( Jurado, Maclaren)
City Clerk, Leonora Sohl . They are still actively recruiting for new candidates and a complete candidate
list has not been submitted to the Council as yet.
MOTION. Mayor Daly. Those presently serving can continue to serve until appointments are made.
Since that is the case and in the interest of further recruitment, he moves to continue appointments
/ reappointments to the various Boards and Commissions until July 20, 1999. Council Member Kring
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, after Public Hearings, the Council returned to the B. Items to determine if there was
a desire to set any of the items (not already set) for a Public Hearing.
ITEMS B1 – B14 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JUNE 7, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JUNE 29, 1999:
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
B1. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN NO. 004, AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01
AGENT:
Anaheim Center for Entertainment, LLC, Attn: Robert Shelton, 30 Via Lucca, No. F-102, Irvine,
CA 92612
Western Asset Management Arizona, LLC, Attn: W. Guy Scott, President, 3875 N. 44th Street, Suite
350, Phoenix, AZ 85018
LOCATION:
The irregularly-shaped Pointe*Anaheim project area consists of ten parcels totaling
approximately 29.1 acres with frontages of approximately 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard,
1,483 feet on the south side of Freedman Way (future Disney Way), 887 feet on the west side of
Clementine Street (future Freedman Way) and 726 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue.
REQUEST :
Request for consideration of Development Agreement No. 99-01 between the City of Anaheim and
Pointe*Anaheim, LLC to vest certain project entitlements and further address the implementation of the
Pointe*Anaheim project. The Planning Commission’s role will be to look at the land use aspects of the
Agreement, specifically whether to make a recommendation to the City Council that the eligibility criteria
has been met, and whether the findings in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 82R-565 can be
made.
The Pointe*Anaheim project includes the following up to 565,000 gross square feet of
:
retail/dining/entertainment uses; two to three hotels comprising a maximum of 1,050 hotel rooms/suites
with approximately 86,985 gross square feet of related accessory uses (the hotel rooms/accessory uses
would encompass a maximum of 923,800 gross square feet) and an approximate 141,200 gross square
foot area on the top floor of the parking structure to be used to provide parking and/or hotel amenities
serving guests and patrons of the Pointe*Anaheim hotels only; up to three theaters with a total of 4,600
seats for live performances or, alternatively, a 24-screen movie theater with 4,757 seats; and, a
1,600,000 gross square foot parking structure with 4,800 striped parking spaces and 25 bus spaces with
provision to park an additional 400 vehicles which would bring the total number of vehicles that can be
accommodated in the garage to 5,200 cars and including a 21,600 gross square foot bus terminal/facility
for airport transport and to/from sightseeing venues.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004
previously approved ( PC99-95).
Recommended approval of the Development Agreement to the City Council
( PC99-96) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
See Public Hearing on this item D2 on agenda for June 22, 1999.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ( GPA) NO. 363-A, B C, D & E
B2.
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY:
City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
GPA 363-A :
A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this
area from the Commercial Professional land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use
designation.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Location:
Property has a frontage of approximately 535 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, located
between Crone Avenue to the north and extending 140 feet south of the centerline of Beacon Avenue,
also extending approximately 100 feet east of the centerline Euclid Street (.61 acre).
GPA 363-B :
A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this
area from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use
Location:
designation. Property is located on the east side of Hampstead Street between Beacon
Avenue to the north and Ball Road to the south, extending approximately 140 feet east of the centerline
of Hampstead Street, and property located on the south side of Beacon Avenue between Walnut Street
to the east and Hampstead Street to the west, extending approximately 157 feet south of the centerline
of Beacon Avenue (4.88 acres).
GPA 363-C :
A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this
area from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use
designation.
Location:
Property extends approximately 357 feet west of the centerline of Iris Street between the
public alley located south of Ball Road to the north and Hill Avenue to the south (1.38 acres).
GPA 363-D :
A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this
area from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use
Location:
designation. Property extends approximately 640 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood
Avenue, east of Dana Street and west of Oertley Drive (1.89 acres).
GPA 363-E :
A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this
area from the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land
use designation.
Location:
Property is located on the north side of Bluebell Place, at the terminus of Vern Street (.75
acre).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval of Exhibit A for GPA 363, A, B, C, D & E
( PC99-97) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
To be set for public hearing due to GPA. (July 20, 1999)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 365, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B3.
INITIATED BY:
City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Property is 2.53 acres, located on the north side of Rowland Avenue, extending 603 feet
east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue.
A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this area from
the General Commercial land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval of Exhibit A for GPA 365 ( PC99-98)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
To be set for public hearing due to GPA (July 20, 1999).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 366, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B4.
INITIATED BY:
City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Property is 2.15 acres, located on the east side of East Gates Street, extending 988 feet
south of the centerline of Ball Road.
A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this area from
the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use
designation
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval of Exhibit A for GPA 365 ( PC99-99)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
To be set for public hearing due to GPA. (July 20, 1999)
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
B5. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4115, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Melvyn Lane Henkin Trust, 1300 Quail Street #106, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT:
Bob Portale, 5242 Argosy, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
LOCATION: 5634-5636 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 3.2 acres located south and west of the
southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway.
To permit an amusement device arcade with up to 170 amusement devices within a proposed family
entertainment center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4115 GRANTED, for one year, to expire 6/7/2000 ( PC99-100)
(4 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if there was any opposition to the 170 amusement devices.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. There was no opposition but there were some questions of
concern from Cinemapolis; however, after they found out the conditions of approval and methods of
operation, they were not opposed.
B6. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4114, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street #105, La Palma, CA 90623
AGENT:
Jose R. Villaflor, 3150 West Lincoln Avenue #128, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite 128. Property is 5.8 acres located at the southeast
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue.
To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail
center and an existing liquor store and to permit a dance studio and public dance hall within the same
commercial center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4114 GRANTED for one year, to expire 6/7/2000 ( PC99-101)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Greg Hastings clarified for Council Member Feldhaus that no alcohol sales are involved in the proposal
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 280 ( PREV. CERTIFIED)
B7.
THE PACIFICENTER SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-3
(AMENDMENT NO. 3) AND FINAL SITE PLAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4119
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-129
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 10c and 10d:
OWNER:
Catellus Development, SF Pacific Properties, Inc. 800 N. Alameda, #100, Los Angeles, CA
90012
AGENT:
Fancher Development, 1342 Bell Avenue, #3K, Tustin, CA 92780
Planning Co. Associates, Inc., 550 N. Brand Blvd., #530, Glendale, CA 91203
LOCATION: 3610-3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001-1091 North Tustin Avenue - The Pacificenter
Specific Plan No. 88-3. Property is 25.71 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and
Tustin Avenue.
Specific Plan No. 88-3, Amendment No. 3 and Final Site Plan
- Request approval of Amendment No.
3 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan ( SP88 -3) (amending Exhibit Nos. 4 and 6, consolidation of
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Development Areas, amending Development Standards, including, but not limited to required parking,
landscaping, setbacks, etc., listed permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and the Sign Program
Appendix) and a Final Site Plan in order to create a single, unified Development Area for the
development of a mixed-use commercial center within the Specific Plan, including the development of
retail, office, hotel and other supporting uses.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4119
- To permit a drive-through fast food restaurant.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-129
- To permit a 5-lot commercial subdivision within the existing mixed-
use commercial center (to create a total of 11 parcels within the boundaries of the Pacificenter Specific
Plan ( SP88-3) Zone).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval to City Council of the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88-3 (AMENDMENT NO.
3) and Final Site Plan ( PC99-102)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
GRANTED CUP NO. 4119 ( PC99-103).
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-129.
EIR NO. 280 previously certified.
Approved request for City Council review.
Set for a public hearing on July 20, 1999; Planning Commission requested City Council review.
VARIANCE NO. 4349 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1
B8. ,
OWNER:
John H. and Donna M. Currie, 7570 Martella Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808
INITIATED BY:
City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION:
7570 East Martella Lane.
Portion A : Property is 1.0 acre, located 627 feet east of the centerline of
Martin Place.
151, 161, 171 South Canyon Crest Drive, 120 South Martin Place, 7540, 7550, 7551,
Portion B :
7560, 7561, 7570, 7571, 7580, 7581 and 7590 East Martella Lane and 180, 181, 190 and 191 South
Possom Hollow.
Property is 17 acres, located 270 feet south of the centerline of Canyon Crest Drive.
Waiver of (a) minimum private street width and (b) minimum front yard setback (on Portion A only) to
construct an 811 square foot garage addition for an existing single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4349 GRANTED, IN PART, waiver (a) denied, and waiver (b) approved ( PC99-104) (3 yes
votes, 1 no vote, 1 abstained, and 2 absent).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4124, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B9.
OWNER:
Daniel P. Zettler, 1315 Brasher Street, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT:
Daniel P. Zettler, 22182 Sunlight Creek, Lake Forest, CA 92630
LOCATION: 1315 North Brasher Street. Property is 0.6 acre located on the west side of Brasher Street,
385 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue.
To permit a cooking oil recycling facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4124 GRANTED, for one year to expire 6/7/2000 ( PC99-105)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B10. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4126, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Southern California Edison, Attn: Lou Salas, 100 Long Beach Blvd., #1004, Long Beach, CA
90802
AGENT:
Phillip R. Schwartze, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 1550-1600 South Lewis Street. Property is 5.71 acres located on the east side of Lewis
Street, 615 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
To permit a building material storage yard with an accessory modular office unit with waiver of minimum
required landscaping for screening of block walls (deleted) .
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4126 GRANTED, IN PART, for 20 years (to expire 6/7/2019)
( PC99-106) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Denied waiver of code requirement on the basis that the requested waiver of minimum required
landscaping for screening of block walls was deleted following public notification.
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1795, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B11.
OWNER:
Karl Kocek, 1241 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Valerie Hosford, 250 W. Main Street, #101, Tustin, CA 92780
LOCATION: 1241 South Brookhurst Street - Bel Air Montessori School. Property is 0.24 acre located on
the west side of Brookhurst Street, 800 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road.
To amend the conditional use permit to permit students up to twelve years of age for an existing private
school.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to CUP NO. 1795
( PC99-107) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS
:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4047, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B12.
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS :
Cox Communication, 18200 Von
Karman Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612, requests review and approval of final plans for location, elevations,
and materials for screening (including all proposed landscaping) of ground-mounted equipment.
Property is located at 6900 East Canyon Rim Road.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final plans for CUP NO. 4047.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4098 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B13. ,
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS :
Paul Hwang, 1726 S.
Angel Court, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests review and approval of final landscape plans for a
previously-approved church. Property is located at 1565 West Katella Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final landscape plans for CUP NO. 4098.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTIONS TO CORRECT PLANNING COMMISSION (1)
B14.
RESOLUTION NO. PC99-77 ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION/MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004 ; (2) RESOLUTION NO. PC99-79
ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 92-1, (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
THE DESIGN PLAN AND THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN); AND (3) RESOLUTION NO. PC99-80
ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 4078 ( Pointe*Anaheim)
The Planning Commission Secretary requests adoption of three nunc pro tunc resolutions to correct
clerical errors and omissions to Planning Commission Resolution Nos. PC99-77, PC99-79 and PC99-80
adopted on May 19, 1999, in connection CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring
Plan No. 004 ( PC99-77), Amendment No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 ( PC99-79),
(including Amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards, the Design Plan and the Public
Facilities Plan, Waiver of Code Requirement and Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 ( PC99-80). The
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
property is an irregularly-shaped project area consisting of ten parcels totaling approximately 29.1 acres
with frontages of approximately 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, 1,483 feet on the south
side of Freedman Way (future Disney Way), 887 feet on the west side of Clementine Street (future
Freedman Way) and 726 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue. Subject property is within the City of
Anaheim’s Anaheim Resort area and encompasses the boundaries of The Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan No. 92-1 District A (18.9 acres) and a portion of the Parking District (East Parking Area)/C-R
Overlay south of Freedman Way (10.2 acres).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved nunc pro tunc resolution for PC99-77 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MONITORING
PLAN NO. 004 ( PC99-92)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved nunc pro tunc resolution for PC99-79 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 ( PC99-93).
Approved nunc pro tunc resolution for PC99-80 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 ( PC99-94).
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM JUNE 7, 1999.
ITEM B15 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
JUNE 3, 1999 - DECISION DATE: JUNE 10, 1999
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JUNE 25, 1999:
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 164
B15.
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061(b)3)}:
OWNER: Juan and Maricela Alvares, 1003 South Hilda Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1003 South Hilda Street. Property is approximately 0.18 acre located at the southwest
corner of Maverick Avenue and Hilda Street.
Waiver of maximum fence height to construct a 4- to 6-foot high block wall on the side yard (facing
Maverick Avenue) of a reverse-corner property developed with an existing single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED Administrative Adjustment No. 164 ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-19).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ADDENDUM – ITEM B16 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1999
INFORMATION ONLY, APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JULY 1, 1999.
B16. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-126 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER
: Gary P. and Joyce A. Bedrosian; Janice Bedrosian, Larry E. and Joan Q. Bedrosian, 710 E.
Ball Road, Anaheim CA 92805
AGENT: Walden and Associates ,18012 Cowan Suite 210, Irvine CA 92614
LOCATION 2890 EAST LAPALMA AVENUE
Property is 11.5 acres located at the southwest corner of LaPalma Avenue and White Star Avenue.
To establish an 8-numbered lot, 1-lettered lot industrial subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION :
Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-126 APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Joel Fick, Planning Director and Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager clarified questions posed by
the Mayor relative to the proposal.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
D1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4099, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Dong Hee Kang and Bu Sun Kang, 559 South Olive Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT:
Mr. Jae J. Chung, 10042 Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92840
LOCATION: 559 South Olive Street. Parcel 1 - is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
0.23 acre located at the northwest corner of Water Street and Olive Street, with frontages of 140 feet on
the north side of Water Street and 70 feet on the west side of Olive Street.
313 East Water Street. Parcel 2
- is a rectangularly -shaped parcel of land consisting of 0.12 acre with a
frontage of 48 feet on the north side of Water Street, and a maximum depth of 114 feet, located 175 feet
west of the centerline of Olive Street.
To permit a convenience/liquor store with a coin-operated laundry facility with waiver of (a) minimum
setback abutting a collector street, and (b) required site screening adjacent to a residential zone
boundary.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4099 GRANTED, IN PART ( PC99-56) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote,
and 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, approving waiver (a) in-part, and approving waiver
(b).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of April 6, 1999, Item B13. Review of the Planning Commission’s
decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken.
Public hearing continued from the meetings of May 18, 1999, Item D1, and June 15, 1999, Item D1.
Mayor Daly. This item was continued from previous meetings (see minutes of May 18 and June 15,
1999 where there was extensive discussion and input). Council had asked staff to return with additional
perspectives. He asked Planning staff and Police Department staff for any additional information they
may have.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. At the two previous Public Hearings, Council discussed the
land use issues. The hearing was continued from last week to allow the applicant to have the opportunity
to bring back speakers in support since they had left the Council Chamber due to the length of the
meeting. The options that exist – the Council may approve the project as proposed or as modified or, if
denied, the applicant can continue the market as it currently exists. Staff would work with the owner to
clean up the property and refurbish the building.
Sgt. Sutter, Police Department, answering the Mayor and Council Member Kring, clarified that the Police
Department continues to recommend against the proposal because of the crime rate in the area and the
over concentration of liquor licenses. In that reporting district, the crime rate is 100% above average.
That represents the total number of reports taken/crimes committed which average about 91. He also
reported that there have been 19 calls for service from the subject location since January, 1998 which
include numerous 911 hangup calls.
Council Member Tait stated the same liquor store will still be there if this request is denied. He asked
why the Police Department would care one way or the other if it doesn’t affect the proposed laundromat;
Sgt. Sutter stated they are not taking the laundromat into consideration but are just going on what is
happening currently in that location. The business has been there for so long, it was never under any
guidelines to begin with. It is established and it is there. They have considered that but, if it is approved,
the Police Department is in full support of staff’s recommendations on the CUP and the conditions that
apply.
Daniel Kang, speaking on behalf of his father, the owner of the business. The liquor store has existed
40-50 years. He questions the 19 calls for service. There have been a lot of kids making prank calls on
the pay phone calling 911. There are a lot of false alarms. The project, for it to be financially viable,
they need an additional income source. (Also see Mr. Kang’s testimony in the previous meetings.) He is
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
concerned about the crime rate but the store has been there for over 40 years. It is being used as a
scapegoat. They have never had any crime in the ten years they have had the store.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from those in favor.
Veronica Fernandez, 307 E. Ellsworth , Anaheim. She is present to support Mr. Kang’s request. There is
a laundromat down the street which they all go to, but it is disgusting. (She explained why.) They have
been going to the store for 15 years. They depend on the store, and a laundromat would help especially
knowing there will be a security guard. The store has been great to all her family and friends. It means a
lot to them.
Cecelia Herrera , 605 S. Olive St., Anaheim, across from the store. They would like to keep the store. It
is easy to go there and she does not have to drive when she needs something in a hurry. She has lived
there for 19 years and now her children go to the store and Mr. Kang is nice to them. She would also like
the new proposal because they do not have a washing machine and the other laundromat is too far.
Jose Castillo . He has lived in the area for 20 years. He would miss the business if it doesn’t continue.
He walks all the time and he can buy anything he wants at the store.
Carlos Sanchez, 605 Olive, Anaheim for 14 years. He would like to keep the store right there. It is close
to his house and it is easy for his children to go to. That way, they do not have to go far away. It is easy
for the family to get things at the store and they do not need to drive.
Anastasius Hernandez. Her sister spoke earlier. There is very little crime in the area or no crime at all.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition.
Rudy Escalante , 710 S. Philadelphia, Anaheim. (Also see testimony given at the meeting of June 15,
1999.) Those in the neighborhood are opposed to having a liquor store and laundromat due to the fact
that there is one on the corner of Water Street and Anaheim Boulevard. (He briefed the similar
businesses in the area.) They are also extremely concerned because, according to the Police
Department, the crime rate is 200% above the crime rate City wide. If they want to keep high quality of
life and public disorder down, they do not see that a laundromat will be a contributing factor to those
goals. They are all opposed to the laundromat and selling liquor in an area where there is too much of
that along with crime.
Javier Callaban ( sp), 301 E. Water St., Anaheim. A liquor store and laundromat is a bad idea. He lives
in very close proximity to the market where he has lived for 12 years. He has seen the quality of life in
the neighborhood go down.
Connie Mendoza, 308 E. Ellsworth , Anaheim. (See testimony given at the meeting of May 18 and June
15, 1999). She pointed out if the project is approved, the applicant never agreed to provide a security
guard. She also has not been assured that the wall on the north side would be solid. The list of 75
people promoting the project contains only about one property owner on Water Street. The typical
customer of the store works nearby. They buy a beer at lunch, drink it on the premises and discard trash
in the area. This is a stable neighborhood. She has lived there for 50 years. The owner does not
maintain the store.
Summation by Applicant : Daniel Kang. He rebutted many of the statements made in opposition. The
business is a convenience store and it has existed for 40 years because people in the community
patronize it. If not, it would have gone bankrupt years ago. The neighborhood is in need of the services
provided and they are the ones who came up with the idea of the laundromat. A lot of conditions have
been imposed that are desinged to address the concerns of crime and security. In order to put a lot of
money into improvements, it is necessary to offer something that will provide that. If the laundromat
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
doesn’t work, the store will disappear. They know the community wants it and that is what his family is
counting on.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly then reiterated his concerns with the proposal and emphasized that staff has recommended
against the application. He continues to feel strongly it is not a use to continue into the future.
Council Member Tait . He disagrees. The existing market can operate indefinitely. The owner is trying
to invest about a half million dollars into the location and build a laundromat. Rather than one not very
good laundromat, there will be competition which will improve the neighborhood along with a security
guard that was not there before. A yes vote will provide a new building, a laundromat, competition, and
a security guard. A no vote will perpetuate a 40-year old building into the future.
Council Member Kring . She will be supporting the proposal. Mr. Kang has obtained financing from the
bank and no banker will lend money unless they feel it is a good enough project to pay for the loan. Sgt.
Sutter reported on the 19 calls for service, a lot were hangups and from the other crimes he mentioned,
they are not in the location of the liquor store. The money being invested will result in a much-improved
corner. Relative to putting up a wall, that is one of the conditions along with a security guard, three
employees on the premises at all times and the lighting enhanced.
Council Member Feldhaus . He believes the owner has a piece of property he is trying to improve in an
area that needs improvement although he has been there for 10 years without making any
improvements. He is suggesting that the owner be given the opportunity to invest in improvements with
some caveats such as placing a five-year limitation on the Conditional Use Permit with a five-year
option, that construction begin within three months and that Code Enforcement report to the Council
after year one and again year three. With those restrictions, he can support Council Member Tait and
Kring.
City Attorney White, answering the Mayor relative to the five-year CUP with a five-year option, the
Council could limit the term of the CUP. At the end of five years, it would expire and it would then be up
to the applicant to reapply. The Council could then grant it for an additional period; Council Member
Feldhaus stated that was his intent, that they have the option to reapply.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
On motion by Council Member
Feldhaus seconded by Council Member Kring the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the
public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Council Member McCracken voted no .. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 99R-143 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit
No. 4099 subject to the conditions imposed including a five-year time limit on the CUP with the option to
reapply for an additional time period, that construction start within 90 days minimum and that Code
Enforcement report back to the Council at year one and year three on the state and conditions of the
CUP to insure that the conditions as imposed by the Planning Commission are adhered to. Refer to
Resolution Book.
99R- 143 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4099
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White explained for the Mayor that if the resolution is adopted,
the CUP would expire at the end of five years. The applicant may then reapply for an extension upon or
prior to expiration and the Council could consider extending the CUP for another five years or any other
period of time.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Mayor Daly. He respects the effort to strike a balance but has strong feelings the existing land use is
wrong for the neighborhood and to continue it would be wrong. He will be opposing but respects Council
Member Feldhaus’ view; Council McCracken stated she also opposes. The neighborhood has been
working to make itself a stable residential neighborhood. The neighbors are saying they do not want a
laundromat. This is a changing neighborhood. Some of the factories are disappearing and they are not
going to have the same kind of community with this kind of use. If the owner has not done anything for
10 years, it is only extending the problem. It is not the use for this community.
Council Member Tait . He is going to support the resolution offered, but if he had a choice, he would
remove the time limitation. It is very difficult to invest a half-million dollars on a five-year permit. It was
approved without a time limitation in 1995 by the Council even though staff recommended against, the
Planning Commission approved it 5-1 without any time limit.
Council Member Feldhaus . He feels it is necessary to prove to the neighborhood that the man fully
intends to comply.
Joel Fick . The construction schedule will be tight unless the applicant has architectural drawings close to
being submitted; Mayor Daly asked if five months is a realistic start date.
Joel Fick . Five months would be more realistic but in the interim, staff could work with the property
owner in terms of trash and debris on the property; Council Member Feldhaus stated he was going to
stay with three months.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution as offered.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R- 143 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/CO UNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait,
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : McCracken, Daly
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-143 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - POINTE*ANAHEIM LIFESTYLE RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT
D2.
CENTER PROJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ERRATA/MITIGATION MONITORING
PLAN NO. 004, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 359, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE DESIGN PLAN AND THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN),
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIRED PARKING,
AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01.
PROJECT LOCATION :
The irregularly-shaped project area consists of ten parcels totaling approximately 29.1 acres with
frontages of approximately 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, 1,483 feet on the south side of
Freedman Way (future Disney Way), 887 feet on the west side of Clementine Street (future Freedman
Way) and 726 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue. Subject property is within the City of Anaheim’s
Anaheim Resort area and encompasses the boundaries of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1
District A (18.9 acres) and a portion of the Parking District (East Parking Area)/C-R Overlay south of
Freedman Way (10.2 acres) (see project boundary map).
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
An off-site improvement is proposed in connection with the project actions which adds a dual left-turn
lane on westbound Freedman Way at Clementine Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION :
Request for approval of the Pointe*Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and Entertainment Complex to include the
following: up to 565,000 gross square feet of
retail/dining/entertainment uses; two to three hotels comprising a maximum of 1,050 hotel rooms/suites
with approximately 86,985 gross square feet of related accessory uses (the hotel rooms/accessory uses
would encompass a maximum of 923,800 gross square feet) and an approximate 141,200 gross square
foot area on the top floor of the parking structure to be used to provide parking and/or hotel amenities
serving guests and patrons of the Pointe*Anaheim hotels only; up to three theaters with a total of 4,600
seats for live performances or alternatively, a 24-screen movie theater with 4,757 seats; and, a
1,600,000 gross square foot parking structure with 4,800 striped parking spaces and 25 bus spaces with
provision to park an additional 400 vehicles which would bring the total number of vehicles than can be
accommodated in the garage to 5,200 cars, and including a 21,600 gross square foot airport and
sightseeing bus terminal/facility.
PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIONS :
1. General Plan Amendment No. 359 :
The Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan cur rently refers to The Disneyland
Resort and describes five land use districts (Theme Park, Hotel, Parking, Future Expansion and District
A) as well as the C-R Overlay. General Plan Amendment No. 359 is proposed to amend the Land Use
Element to incorporate the Pointe*Anaheim Overlay and its associated density in the description of The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1.
2. Amendment No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 :
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would add the Pointe*Anaheim Overlay designation to District A
and the portion of the Parking District (East Parking Area)/C-R Overlay south of Freedman Way. This
new Overlay would provide for the development of the Pointe*Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and
Entertainment Complex as an integrated development to be constructed in one single continuous phase
subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4078. The Specific Plan Amendment includes text
and exhibit changes throughout the document to reflect the new Pointe*Anaheim Overlay, including, but
not limited to, the following:
·
Amendment to the Development Plan to show the location of the Pointe*Anaheim Overlay
boundaries;
·
Amendments to the Design Plan to add a Conceptual Site Plan depicting the layout of the
Pointe*Anaheim project and amendments to the design guidelines and street cross-sections to reflect the
Pointe*Anaheim project components;
·
Amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards to establish the zoning standards for the
Pointe*Anaheim Overlay including the proposed list of uses, project density, driveway locations and new
provisions for on-site commercial signage; and,
·
Amendments to the Public Facilities Plan to reflect improvements to Freedman Way and Clementine
Street including dual left-turn lanes on northbound Clementine Street at Freedman Way; a through right-
turn lane on eastbound Freedman Way at Clementine Street; right-turn lanes along southbound
Clementine Street, south of Freedman Way; and, mid-block breaks in the Freedman Way and
Clementine Street landscaped medians to permit turns into and out of the Pointe*Anaheim project area.
3. Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 :
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 is proposed to permit the development of the Pointe*Anaheim Lifestyle
Retail and Entertainment Complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (7,668 spaces
required; 4,800 striped parking spaces with provision to park an additional 400 vehicles which would
bring the total number of vehicles that can be accommodated in the parking garage to 5,200 cars
proposed). The Pointe*Anaheim project would include the uses identified in the above-mentioned
Project Description with the retail/dining/entertainment square footage further defined as including the
following: banking facilities; children’s, men’s and women’s apparel, shoes, jewelry and accessories;
entertainment facilities (amusement arcades, skating rinks, outdoor recreational playground areas, etc.);
shopping services; specialty merchandise, gifts and toys; transportation/travel services including an
automobile rental agency office; radio and television studio to enable live and/or taped broadcast
facilities at the site; baby-sitting services; fast-food/food court-type and walk-up/specialty restaurants;
enclosed and semi-enclosed full-service and theme-type restaurants/clubs with on-site sale and
consumption of beer, wine and alcoholic beverages and associated entertainment uses (billiards,
dancing, live and recorded performances, etc.); and art galleries/museum uses.
In addition, the Conditional Use Permit would permit an indoor amphitheater (the square footage of this
use would be deducted from the maximum theater square footage); outdoor events/uses held within the
confines of Pointe*Anaheim , out of view of the public right-of-way and not directed towards the public
right-of-way including open-air festival events oriented towards tourists and guests (i.e., for public
gatherings, speeches, concerts, presentations, or shows); outdoor booths, kiosks and stands; and,
outdoor special lighting effects.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 would entitle the types of uses, maximum gross square footage,
conceptual site plans and elevations with detailed Final Site Plans to be submitted for Planning
Commission review and approval as a Report and Recommendation item prior to issuance of building
and sign permits.
4. Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program Amendment :
Request for approval of an amendment to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape
Program to modify the landscape concept plans for Freedman Way and Clementine Street
to reflect mid-block median openings
5. Development Agreement No. 99-01 between the City of Anaheim and Pointe*Anaheim LLC :
Request for consideration of Development Agreement No. 99-01 vesting certain project entitlements and
further addressing the implementation of the Pointe*Anaheim project.
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and circulated for
public/responsible agency review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA)
and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. Responses to the comments received on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration have also been prepared. An Errata, which identifies refinements and
revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, was also prepared.
Related actions addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration include, but are not limited to, final site
plans; financing mechanisms/agreements; abandonments of easements; building and sign permits;
demolition permits; grading permits; encroachment permits; street name changes; and, other ministerial
actions related to the proposed construction, development and operation of the Pointe*Anaheim project.
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 19, 1999
(7 yes votes):
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, Errata and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 ( PC99-77), as
modified.
Recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 359 to City Council ( PC99-78).
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Recommended adoption of Amendment No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1,
(including amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards, the Design Plan and the Public
Facilities Plan), as modified ( PC99-79).
Approved waiver of code required parking.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 ( PC99-80), as modified.
Recommended adoption of an amendment to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program
( PC99-81), as modified.
Action on Development Agreement No. 99-01 was continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of June 7, 1999
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 7, 1999
(5 yes votes, 2 Commissioners absent):
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration , Errata and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 ( PC99-95)
Recommended to the City Council that eligibility criteria have been met and that required
findings in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 82R-565 can be made in conjunction
with Development Agreement No. 99-01 ( PC99-96
See extensive Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 7, 1999 with Attachments A through
D - applicable documentation - attached to which were related exhibits. For a listing of all the documents
submitted pertaining to the Pointe Anaheim Project, see Memorandum dated June 18, 1999 from the
Planning Director to the City Clerk. (All documents made a part of the record.)
Mayor Daly. He asked staff to comment on the background and any last-minute details the Council
should know. They appreciate all the letters, phone calls and other messages from interested citizens.
The Council has copies of correspondence that has been sent as well as the phone messages.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. He is pleased to present the series of actions relating to the Pointe
Anaheim Life Style, Retail and Entertainment Complex. Following his presentation the applicant will
make a presentation on the project itself. The Council has received extensive documentation relative to
the project including the June 18, 1999 staff report to the Council, staff reports to the Planning
Commission and associated environmental documentation, resolutions that set forth the
recommendation and also certified transcripts which detail the proceedings of the meetings (i.e.,
Planning Commission Meetings of May 19 and June 7, 1999). Since the Commission meetings, there
have been several additional errata items and refinements which are proposed to be incorporated into
Council consideration and proposed actions this evening. They include the items set forth in Attachment
B to the staff report and also Errata Sheet provided tonight which provides a refinement to the project
phasing addressed in the Specific Plan (SP) text and CUP conditions of approval defining the
percentage of retail, dining and entertainment ( RD&E ) and theater development required for completion
at the grand opening. It also adds a new condition to the CUP providing for public art and adds a note to
the CUP illustrative exhibits clarifying that all signage must comply with the SP which is consistent with
Commission’s action. The applicant has received a copy of all the wording changes just described and
concurs with the modifications. Copies have also been made available for viewing by the public. A
number of letters have been received and provided to the Council. One was from the Arts Council and
their interest was addressed with the new condition mentioned a few minutes ago.
With the incorporation of the outlined modifications, staff recommends the Council find, as the Planning
Commission unanimously did, that the project actions insure a quality environment, that they are
consistent with the goals and policies of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and General Plan, and they
also further the goal of transforming the Anaheim Resort into a world-class destination by providing
another quality venue for the area and that the Council approve the proposed actions including the
additions and refinements set forth in the June 18, 1999 staff report and as presented this evening.
Planning Staff, along with Joan Kelly of Bontera Consulting who prepared the environmental
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
documentation, as well as staff from a number of City departments who played key roles in the analysis
of the project are present to answer any questions.
Mayor Daly. He noted the language , “The property owner will use all reasonable commercial efforts to
open not less than 526 hotel rooms concurrently with the grand opening of the retail, dining and
entertainment.” He asked how that will be enforced or monitored.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. City Attorney White can provide some additional backup on the issue but
the conditions of approval, through the SP, through the conditions of approval of the CUP and also
through the development agreement are all interwoven to insure that occurs.
John Erskine, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, speaking for the applicant, Pointe Anaheim,
referred to his letter dated June 22, 1999 submitted today (made a part of the record) that has been
distributed and a copy also distributed to Mr. Millston representing Disney. He would like to offer brief
comments for the record relative to the June 18, 1999 Pointe Anaheim Staff Report and the letter from
Latham & Watkins on behalf of Walt Disney World Co. (“Disney”), dated June 18, 1999 which they just
received today. Mr. Erskine then read his letter (two pages), the main points of which were as follows:
“With respect to the staff report, Pointe Anaheim is in support of the Planning Commission’s findings and
recommended conditions of approval, as revised by City staff for the entitlement actions before you, and
in concurrence with the Planning Commission-approved Development Agreement No. 99-01, as revised
by the City Attorney.”
Relative to traffic improvements, the letter stated, “ . . . that despite Pointe Anaheim’s willingness to
make certain traffic improvements not identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND ) as
necessary to mitigate significant adverse impacts to a level not significant, our concessions do not
convert these design features or conditions into MND -required mitigation measures. Accordingly, we do
not concur in Latham’s assessment that in the absence of these conditions or design features,
“transportation impacts of the Project would be unmitigated.” He noted that reference is on Page 2 of the
Latham letter.
After reading the letter, Mr. Erskine stated he would like to add a few comments that staff suggest they
clarify on the record. They support the Additional Errata/Refinements submitted by staff (made a part of
the record). They have reviewed the changes and have no issues with those changes. They also want to
stipulate to a clarification that the reference throughout the conditions and in the Development
Agreement to retail, dining and entertainment ( RD&E) includes theaters. They had a conversation with
Disney’s attorneys today and he believes they are in agreement that whatever language City Attorney
White comes up with, they trust him and will live with that language. It will clarify that no theater can start
before the RD&E. If there are questions, their development team is present as well as Paul Wilkinson of
Linscott Law and Greenspan ( LL&G). They would like to reserve time at the conclusion of the Public
Hearing for rebuttal. They have about a 12 ½ minute multi-media presentation to present and have
limited the number of speakers to four or five although he notes that others are present as well.
A video was then presented first introducing the Jerde Partnership and the development team involved
and then describing the Pointe Anaheim Project. During the presentation, Mr. Stan Hathaway, a
principal of the Jerde Partnership presented additional background on Jerde first by explaining the
principles the Jerde Partnership uses in its design philosophy – to create a great sense of place and a
unique experience for the pedestrian. He then briefed many of the projects (supplemented by a slide
presentation) that Jerde has planned ( Horton Plaza, Universal City Walk, Fremont Street Experience/Las
Vegas, Canal City, etc.) In concluding, he stated they have assembled a unique video presentation that
goes through Pointe Anaheim in detail describing level from level and exact details of the project.
Pointe Anaheim is the best mixed retail use project in Southern California divided into three zones – a
family zone, dining and entertainment zone and live theater zone. He also briefed the benefits the
project will bring to Anaheim.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
John Erskine . This concludes their presentation; however, there is one issue George Millston of Disney
asked him during the presentation to clarify. It is a point in the LL&G letter which was attached to the
Nossman letter (see letter dated June 22, 1999 from Paul Wilkinson, LL&G ), the statement at the bottom
of page 4, “In our opinion, questionable design features (Category 3) should be reconsidered as the
project moves to final design.” They wanted to clarify that is not something they are advocating with the
agreement with Disney. It is LL&G’s professional opinion but the Council is free to disregard that. They
cannot control their consultant who is truly independent.
Mayor Daly stated he has a question about phasing of the project. There are three hotel buildings
totalling approximately 1,050 rooms. He asked if the Development Agreement allows for different
configurations of those hotel buildings.
Joel Fick . The issue is very detailed in the conditions of approval both for the CUP, the Specific Plan
and the mitigation measures. He then read the the applicable condition subsequently noting it is very
precise in terms of the opening. He asked the City Attorney to comment relative to the liquidated
damages that would apply if the provisions are not met.
City Attorney White. Probably more time was spent in the negotiation of the Development Agreement on
the issue of guaranteeing the construction of hotel rooms to make sure that this project would be an
integrated single-phase project that would have 1,050 hotel rooms in it than any other aspect of the
negotiations. In addition to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the proposed condition to be added to the
CUP that has been provided to the Council and is in front of them tonight which requires that prior to or
contemporaneously with obtaining the building permit for any of the RD&E uses that the developer must
obtain the building permit and commence construction of the first 526 hotel rooms. In addition, prior to
obtaining an occupancy permit or actually commencing use of any of the RD&E, the conditions require
that the developer have obtained building permits and be under construction or have completed all 1 ,050
hotel rooms. Those are secured under the Development Agreement if it is approved by the Council by
liquidated damages so that in the event that the first 526 hotel rooms are not completed within 30 months
of commencement of construction and that the developer has received a Certificate of Occupancy for
any portion of the RD& E prior to the hotel rooms being open, the City obtains liquidated damages based
upon the loss of revenue to the City for lost TOT based upon an amount established in the Development
Agreement and set at $60,000 per month. That number has a feature that allows it to be modified over
time. That is the security the City has. There are other provisions in the liquidated damage provision
that actually guarantee the RD&E construction and the entire buildout of the 1,050 hotel rooms.
After additional questions posed by Mayor Daly which were answered by Tom Wood, Assistant City
Manager-Development and Joel Fick, the Mayor asked first to hear from those in favor of the project.
The following people spoke in favor of the project giving their reasons why, urged Council approval
and/or commented relative to specific aspects or concerns relative to the proposal, some offering
recommendations to the plan regarding what they would or would not like to see occur, and posed
questions which were answered/clarified later in the hearing: (Also see minutes/transcript of the
Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 1999 where a number of the following people also gave
testimony ( Kaywood , Royalty, Dominguez , Neben , Pawlowski , Terrell, Manes).
Miriam Kaywood , Anaheim resident, former Anaheim City Council Member/Planning Commissioner.
(She also had questions/concerns/recommendations relative to traffic, landscaping, and the renaming of
Freedman Way.)
Ray Torres, 5987 E. Avenida LaVida , Anaheim.
Nancy Gordon, 2132 Minerva , Anaheim.
Irv Pickler , 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, former Anaheim City Council Member.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Fred Young, District Representative for the 25,000-member Operating Engineers, 3311 W. Ball Road,
Anaheim.
Mike Potts, Los Angeles/Orange County Building Trades Council (100,000 members).
Jack Dutton , 1400 S. Sunkist, #181, Anaheim, former Anaheim Mayor and Council Member.
Carol Latham , 434 S. Loara , Anaheim, President, Anaheim Arts Council. (She first read a
letter of support from Floyd Farano who could not be present tonight and then added her
own comments in support of the project.
Ron Bengochea , 1630 W. Chanticleer , Anaheim. (He also had questions and expressed a concern about
traffic.)
Reed Royalty, President, Orange County Taxpayer’s Association (also see testimony given at the
Planning Commission hearing of May 19, 1999 – transcript of the meeting is on file). They support the
development but within the Specific Plan guidelines. The Planning Director and City Attorney said the
provisions will work and Mr. Erskine said that Pointe Anaheim has agreed to them. If that is the case,
O.C.Taxpayer’s urges the Council to adopt those provisions.
Roy Brown, 1401 Calle Diaz, Anaheim.
Mike Neben, Executive Vice President/Anaheim Chamber of Commerce.
Jim Higgins representing IATSE, Local 504.
Stan Pawlowski , 1433 W. Jeanine, Anaheim. (He expressed concern about any delays emphasizing the
need for the 1,050 hotel rooms to open before the retail stores and theater is completed.)
Mel Miller, Banker in Anaheim for 23 years (residence, 5311 Yale Avenue, Westminster). (In case the
developer decides after three years to terminate the development agreement, the City needs to make
clear it gets the hotels and TOT revenues and are protected with some penalties for non-performance.)
Jackie Terrell, 1307 W. Jasmine, Anaheim. (She hopes the development presented tonight will be the
one they finally see in reality. She would like to see the proposed “ Jumbotron” sign – an electronic
billboard flashing messages – removed from the project and also that no icons be allowed on the outside
of the project.)
Ron Dominguez, 18472 Rosenall Dr., Villa Park (owner of property at 1200 S. State College Blvd.,
Anaheim) former executive with Disney. When he was working for Disney, he helped develop the Resort
Specific Plan. He is in favor of the plan and urges the Council to adopt all conditions of approval and
mitigation measures recommended by staff and also encouraged the Council to require the developer to
adopt a quality standard as presented in all the renderings.
Bill O’Connell, Anaheim businessman for 30 years. He urged the Council to endorse the Planning
Commission’s approval of the project as recommended by staff. Everybody is present to make sure
everything that the Commission/staff took into consideration regarding signage, icons, parking, traffic,
etc. and the mitigation measures recommended are adhered to.
“Slim” Terrell, 1307 N. Jasmine, Anaheim. (He expressed concern that three live theaters are a part of
the project, that the news media has commented that the Anaheim Plaza Hotel is beginning to back out
of the project, and the fact that Pointe Anaheim is asking for a 50% rebate on their taxes.)
Manny Sauni, resident of Irvine (involved in two hotel projects in Anaheim).
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Ralph Puga, long-time Anaheim resident and business person. (His issues are fair housing and the work
force and if the developer has determined where both are coming from in the future.)
Andrea Manes, 1475 Wedgewood Drive, Anaheim. She feels it is important that they retain the
visuals/renderings on the project as presented and that they be made a part of whatever approval is
given tonight to insure that is what will be built in the future.
Ken Sammons , 709 Agate, Anaheim. He asked that the plan as City staff approved that that plan remain
firm and they do preserve the vision they have for the City.
Tim Conahan , 5205 Old Mill Road, Riverside.
Doug Shively , 2720 E. Diane, Anaheim. He urged unanimous Council support of the project since it will
send a powerful message.
No one spoke in opposition.
Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager -- Development. He would like to comment on material that was
entered by the developer at the beginning of the hearing. Within the last two hours, the City first saw the
letter from LL&G, Traffic Engineers for Pointe Anaheim. After review, City staff takes exception to a
number of their conclusions. While independently developed, staff continues to believe that the design
features are necessary and appropriate and in the best public interest for the project. They believe the
developer is in agreement and to insure there is no disagreement, they request the developer to confirm
the following: (1 ) Improvements are not subject to reimbursement. Rather, agreed improvements that
are included on the master plan of arterial highways will be credited in accordance with applicable
ordinances. (2) The developer is not withdrawing any of the features identified. (3) The developer will
fully indemnify the City as set forth in the Development Agreement. If the developer could confirm that
in the rebuttal that would be appreciated.
George Millston, Latham & Watkins representing the Walt Disney Company. He has submitted a letter
on behalf of Disney (see letter dated June 18, 1999) detailing their presentation with regard to the project
which he will not repeat at this time; however he would like to make a couple of comments. He first
complimented City Staff and the Planning Commission and City Attorney’s Office for addressing the
significant issues that have been raised by the community, business leaders and Disney. They have
done a spectacular job of addressing these significant issues. The staff recommendations presented
provide for significant additional mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and design features
designed to deal with critical issues and impacts of the project and to mitigate those impacts. It is critical
that these mitigation measures, conditions of approval and design features be included in the project
approval as it moves forward. If the Council decides to approve the project tonight, they respectfully
request that they adopt all of the measures that have been recommended by staff. They respectfully
disagree with all the conclusions set forth in the LL&G report submitted today. If all the mitigation
measures, conditions of approval and design features are included in the project approval and the
developer complies with them and it is built and operated in accordance with the assumptions set forth in
the traffic analysis, they believe the project would be a complement to the Resort Area but it is critical
that all these measures be included and adhered to.
Tim Regalen, Senior Vice President, Walt Disney Company. After opening comments relating to the
more than 40-year partnership between the City and Disney and the benefits that have accrued, he
spoke to the Pointe Anaheim project. His comments are summarized as follows : Early this year, Disney
and other business and community leaders expressed concern regarding the Pointe Anaheim project as
originally proposed and the developer’s Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND). At that time, they
(Disney) made a few simple points – they said, fix your traffic, fix your parking, adhere to the signage
ordinances, build the hotels you describe in your plan and build the plan as a single-phase integrated
project. He emphasized that their focus and dedication to preserving the Specific Plan has paid off.
Since February when the MND was released by the developer, Disney has been very encouraged by
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
important changes in the project. The changes have come through recommendations of staff, additional
mitigation measures, and conditions of approval recommended both by staff and the Planning
Commission. With the corrections and recommendations presented today by staff and the protections
provided by the City Attorney in the Development Agreement, if the applicant is able to assemble all 29
acres and if the project is constructed in strict compliance with all the provisions described in staff’s
report today, they believe that the Pointe Anaheim project could be very complementary to the Resort
Area. Mr. Regalen then briefed all of the issues that were of concern at the outset which he believes
have now been addressed. He emphasized during his presentation, if the project is not built as
represented, the project approvals should be revoked and he reiterated the importance of the
developer’s commitment to building the hotels.
In concluding, Mr. Regalen stated, if the Council decides to approve the Pointe Anaheim Project, they
respectfully request that the design features, conditions of approval, mitigation measures and provisions
recommended by staff and the City Attorney be a part of that approval. Any change to the
recommendations, a reduction in conditions and mitigations, an increase in signage rights or icons, or
changes in the site plan, design features or phasing of the project, including the commitment to construct
all of the hotels, they believe would create unacceptable impacts to the area. On the other hand, if the
Council approves the project with all of the staff recommendations and the project is developed in
accordance with those recommendations, he reiterated , the project could be very complementary to the
Specific Plan and the Resort Area. By continuing to work together, the City, community and area
st
businesses can insure that the Anaheim Resort Area is vibrant and successful into the 21 Century.
Mayor Daly invited any closing comments from the developer especially with regard to the three points
Mr. Wood asked be confirmed/concurred in by the developer.
Mr. John Erskine . They do concur with the three items that Mr. Wood laid out. They wanted to clarify
the letter was put into the record to deal with the potential that the Council might in their legislative
prerogative choose a different mitigation or design feature and deal with the possiblity of potential
litigation. He confirmed, they agree.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, then responded to some of the issues/concerns expressed during public
input relative to maintenance, landscaping, signage, water conservation, street name changes,
phasing/timing of the project, adherence to plans/renderings submitted, mitigation measures, traffic, etc.
If there are additional questions relative to traffic and traffic-related issues, which have received a
tremendous amount of scrutiny, John Lower, Traffic & Transportation Manager is present to
answer/clarify any additional questions. Questions relating to financial participation can be addressed by
Mr. Wood.
After a few questions by Council Members which were answered by Mr. Wood and the City Attorney,
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. A question was raised by one of the citizens regarding the
finance agreement and request of the developer that a certain portion of future sales tax be reimbursed
to the developer. He is not sure of the exact mechanism that might be worked out. Staff is
recommending that they be directed to continue negotiating on that point. There is no final
recommendation this evening on a financial agreement. That item would return to the Council some
time in the next 60-90 days. That would be a separate decision at a future date and is not linked legally
to the proposed entitlements to be granted this evening.
City Attorney White. That is correct. Before the Council tonight are the zoning aspects as with any other
development. If there is to be a financial agreement, that will come to the Council later as a separate
item not connected with what they are doing tonight.
Tom Wood. He clarified for Council Member Tait that there is no binding financial agreement or decision
to be made tonight. The Council’s action is to give staff guidance in negotiations and Council will then
review whatever the outcome of the negotiations are.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Mayor Daly. He asked if they are to understand that the entitlements will go away in three years ; City
Attorney White. Entitlements in the Development Agreement are separate issues as well and need to be
regarded as separate in nature. This project could proceed only with entitlements in the absence of a
Development Agreement. The period in the Development Agreement that allows for three years, if the
Development Agreement expires or is terminated, that does not automatically terminate the entitlements.
However, the Development Agreement contains a provision that would allow under certain
circumstances, if through the fault or default of the developer, or if the developer unilaterally terminated
the Development Agreement , the City could go back and terminate the entitlements. It would not be
automatic but the City would have the right to do that prior to the time the DA was actually exercised and
the project started.
Council Members Kring and Feldhaus then posed questions to staff relating to traffic and certain other
issues relating to the Development Agreement which were answered by Tom Wood and the City
Attorney.
At the conclusion of further discussion and questioning, Mayor Daly stated, they have heard over two
hours of input from the public and detailed presentations by the development team and professional
Planning staff. There is a remarkable degree of consensus on what has been a very complicated
project. There is also remarkable qualified support for the project from the largest property owner in the
Anaheim Resort Area, mainly, the Walt Disney Company. On the basis of all the facts they have
received and all the very positive input on what is a project with enormous potential to help the City,
residents as well as visitors, he is ready to initiate the recommended actions. All of the actions are
exactly in keeping with the professional staff recommendation being made by Planning staff, the City
Manager’s Office, and the entire professional staff and are consistent with the recommendations of their
advisory Planning Commissio.
Before action was taken, Council Member Tait stated this project has resulted in universal consensus
and agreement and it does not happen by chance or easily without a great deal of hard work by City
Manager Ruth and his staff. On projects this complicated, the Council has to rely on staff and
appreciates their doing the right thing. He also thanked the developer for bringing the project to
Anaheim. As Mr. Erskine stated, it fulfills the vision they have of Anaheim. He thanked them for
bringing that vision to them and taking the risk and their patience to see the process through. He
expressed his appreciation to Disney for their scrutiny of the project and for coming to an agreement.
Council Member Kring . She would like to echo all that was just said and also what Mr. Glen Hale said at
the Planning Commission hearing, “This truly does put the icing on the cake for the Resort Area.”
Council Member McCracken . When David Rose and Robert Shelton brought the project to them over
two years ago, it seemed quite visionary. She is glad they “stayed the course ” and met the challenge.
She wishes them great success. The project will make a difference for the community and Resort Area.
Mayor Daly. They have all seen projects approved with a lot of fanfare that for a variety of reasons were
never built. He hopes that this project with the extraordinary high standards set can go forward, all the
tenants secured, that major, genuine hotel operators will be a part of the project, and that the project can
be built as close to the beautiful renderings as possible. He congratulated the development team and
everyone involved. It is a very complicated project and they deserve a lot of credit. He looks forward to
the financing agreement coming back to the Council, to the announcements of tenants and the people
who will be on site with the project.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 99R-133 through 99R-137, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 133 . CEQA FINDING : APPROVING THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN NO. 004, FOR THE POINTE* ANAHEIM PROJECT,
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
INCLUDING THE ASSOCIATED ERRATA, AND DETERMINING THEIR
ADEQUACY TO SERVE AS THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIONS.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 134 . APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 359 (LAND USE ELEMENT)
RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 135 . AMENDING THE DISNEYLAND
RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-01 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION
NOS. 93R-146, 93R-147 AND 96R-177 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED,
ACCORDINGLY. ( AMENDMENT NO. 4)
RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 136 . GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 4078 WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIRED PARKING.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 137 . AMENDING THE ANAHEIM RESORT
PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM. (POINTE* ANAHEIM)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-133 through 99R-137, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-133 through 99R-137, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5689 and 5690 for introduction:
ORDINANCE NO . 5689 . (INTRODUCTION) AMENDING ORDINANCE
NOS. 5377 AND 5378 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-01, AMENDMENT NO.
4 (CHAPTER 18.78 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE)
ORDINANCE NO. 5690 (INTRODUCTION) ( i) APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND POINTE* ANAHEIM LLC, (ii) MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS RELATED THERETO, AND (iii) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
The Council then acted on Item A28. on today’s agenda which was trailed until this time.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to direct staff to negotiate a sales tax sharing agreement and property sale
agreement with Pointe* Anaheim, consistent with the criteria set forth, for future consideration by the City
Council. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Relative to the foregoing motion, Mayor Daly noted that will be a crucial agreement and they look
forward to all the details coming back to them.
RECESS: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting was recessed for 10 minutes (9:35 P.M.).
After recess, the Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (9:55 P.M.).
30
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
D3. 126: PUBLIC HEARING – CREATION OF THE ANAHEIM RESORT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT :
Submitted was report dated June 22, 1999 from Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager –Development
recommending that the Council adopt a resolution establishing the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District
and actions relating thereto.
City Clerk Sohl announced that notice has been given in the manner and form as required by law.
Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager-Development. Briefing the subject report, he stated this is the final
action relative to the establishment of the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District to secure Anaheim’s
place as a distinctive resort destination. They have met with property owners, conducted briefings,
answered questions and mailed ballots and are recommending the establishment of the Maintenance
District which will ensure the high level of care needed to maintain a distinctive place. He then
announced that the assessment ballots have been tabulated and there is an 86.1% affirmative vote for
establishment of the District. He will be happy to give an extended presentation if the Council desires.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing asking that each speaker identify themselves and their property.
He asked first to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. Joel Kew , Attorney, Palmieri , Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron , 2603 Main Street, Irvine. His firm
has been retained by Pyrovest Corporation, the owner of the property located at the corner of Harbor
Boulevard and Disney Way. He referred to letter dated June 22, 1999 which he would like to be made a
part of the record today, the first paragraph of which stated, “For reasons stated herein, Pyrovest votes
against the proposed assessment and objects to its implementation.” The 8-page letter listed the
objections of Pyrovest in detail; Mayor Daly acknowledged that the letter had been received by the
Council and it is considered as part of the record.
Mr. Kew was satisfied that was the case and had nothing further to offer at this time.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone else was present in opposition; there was no response. He then asked to
hear from anyone present in favor; since no one was present, he closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from the City Clerk to give the official report of the tabulation of the
assessment ballots.
City Clerk Sohl . She first asked if anyone was present in the Chamber audience who still had ballots to
turn in; there were none. She then reported the following:
Final Tabulation – Yes -- representing $2,090,918.0l (amount of assessment the ballots
represent) or 86.1%. No – representing $337,460.93 (amount of assessment the ballots
represent).
The assessment ballot report is that 86.1% are in favor of establishing the Anaheim Resort Maintenance
District.
There being no further input by staff, Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-144 for adoption
establishing the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-144 : ESTABLISHING THE ANAHEIM RESORT
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
MAINTENANCE WORK, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL
ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 IN THE ANAHEIM
RESORT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
31
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R- 144 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
Mayor Daly declared Resolution No. 99R-144 duly passed and adopted.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C2. 114:
Council Member Kring :
She would like to make a motion that in the future Council Meetings not go
past 10:00 or 10:30 P.M. noting that two recent meetings did not adjourn until almost 2:00 A.M.
Meetings that last until 11:00, 12:00 or 2:00 A.M. place an unfair burden on the applicant and those
present on the applicant’s behalf and other members of the public as well as a burden on staff who have
to be present early the next day. It is also a matter of safety having to drive at that late/early hour after a
long day. She thereupon offered a motion to that effect. (There was no second).
Mayor Daly. He feels it is worth considering as an idea and the Council should be mindful of the
situation. He also feels a hard and fast rule would be difficult to uphold and would needlessly encumber
the Council. He respects the goal and will do everything he can to meet that.
Council Member Kring . Before concluding, she stated there needs to be some flexibility of rescheduling
the last items on the agenda.
Council Member Feldhaus :
For a number of Council Meetings, it seems to him they never get the B.
Items (Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator Consent Calendar Items) until the Council come
out of Closed Session to start the 5:00 P.M. portion of the meeting. He asked if that could be improved
upon.
City Clerk Sohl . There are a couple of reasons why that happened this week. This is the last meeting for
two weeks and they are forced to give those items to the Council in advance of when they normally
would be submitted. Planning had very little turn-around time to submit the items and were also busy
working on Pointe Anaheim. This week it was an unusual circumstance; Mayor Daly also noted that it
was a very busy couple of weeks and, he understands, the Planning Commission Agenda contained 22
items.
Before concluding, City Clerk Sohl referred to a letter received from Solevar Community Development
Corporation, a copy of which was sent to her and the City Manager but delivered to the Mayor and City
Council concerning the next Council Meeting (July 13, 1999). This would be the last opportunity for
Council to give direction if they wish to make any changes in plans, i.e., holding the Council Meeting at
another larger facility.
Mayor Daly. He is not in favor of that; Council consensus was that the meeting be held in the Council
Chamber.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of June 22, 1999 was
adjourned (10:07 P.M.). No Council Meetings are scheduled for June 29 and July 6, 1999. The next
scheduled meeting is July 13, 1999.
32
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
June 22, 1999
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
33