2000/02/08ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Sheryll Schroeder
ASST. CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
EXEC. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
POLICE DEPT.: Sgt. Russ Sutter
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:45 p.m. on
February 4, 2000 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the Workshop portion of the meeting of February 8, 2000 to order at 3:26 P.M. and
welcomed those in attendance.
City Manager, James Ruth. He introduced Doris Roush, Streets and Sanitation Manager who will give
the presentation today on AB939 and Recycle Anaheim.
AB939 AND RECYCLE ANAHEIM: Doris Roush, Streets and Sanitation Manager. Her presentation
today will give a detailed explanation of California AB939 and its effects on Anaheim during the past
decade and into the next millennium, outline Anaheim's decade of recycling, examine the educational
programs, review the City's current recycling methods, and subsequently detail what needs to be done.
Present today are Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Tom Vought, Anaheim
Disposal and John Nicoletti, Nicoletti Communications.
Ms. Roush then gave an extensive presentation, supplemented by Power Pointe slides, hard copies of
which were presented in booklet form entitled, "AB939 & Recycle Anaheim: It Works Because of You" -
Pages 1 - 26 - made a part of the record. The presentation covered the following: an explanation of
California Assembly Bill 939 (passed in 1989, cities and counties asked to divert 25% of waste by 1995
and 50% by 2000), statewide results (300+ cities have met the initial goal), a decade of recycling - 1989
to present (an historical overview of all the programs initiated and the accomplishments over the years
since the inception of recycling with emphasis on education), recycling in 2000-present methods (two-can
system/black for trash and green for recyclables - Anaheim Disposal introduces one-person automated
vehicles among the first to do so), 1995: Anaheim reaches 25% diverson rate and in 1998, 31%,
explanation of recycling methods (how trash separated, etc.), recycling in the future (yard waste and bin
waste), goals and objectives- 1 program - third brown can to be added for plant materials/yard waste,
O , nd ,, ,,
comprises 28Yo of Anaheim s waste, 2 program - separation of bin dumpster waste (both programs
will increase Anaheim's diversion rate to 51% thus meeting the mandate of AB939), technical
requirements (weekly pickups for all cans - additional brown can for recyclable materials - residents can
return unused black cans), $10,000 per day for non-compliance, 50,000 Anaheim homes will receive new
trash cans/services increase (all cans picked up every week/eliminates alternate weeks for green cans),
proposed 2% increase in 2000-2001 budget, public awareness campaign will be launched.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Ms. Roush outlined the recommendations to the Council as follows: (1) approve a restated Solid Waste
Franchise Agreement, (2) approve a 2% increase to trash rates effective July 1, 2000 to cover the
program and for the City to be compliant with no other increases proposed for 2000-2001, (3) approve
necessary changes to City Ordinance, (4) approve a public awareness/education campaign. She
reiterated, the plan guarantees 100% of Anaheim's City solid waste is processed for recyclables and
ensures that Anaheim meets the mandates of AB939.
During and after the presentation, Council Members posed questions relative to the proposed increase,
fines for non-compliance with AB939, pickup schedule, number of residents who now have extra black
cans, disposition of the yard waste, etc., which were answered by Ms. Roush. She also confirmed that
the proposal for the 2% increase is expected to be submitted to the Council at its meeting of March 21,
2000.
After further discussion and questioning, Mayor Daly stated it would be helpful when the proposal for the
2% increase comes before the Council that, as a separate report, the Council be provided with a
comparison of Anaheim's trash rates to those of other cities in Orange County. He then thanked staff for
the detailed and informative presentation.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existinq Litigation:
Name of Case: Vista Royale Homeowners Assn. v. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone
Company, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74 (and related cases).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existinq Litigation:
Name of Case: In the Matter of David Hauk vs. City of Anaheim, United States District Court
Case No. SA CV 99-711 DOC (ANx).
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Name of employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters' Association and Anaheim Police
Association.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Unrepresented employees: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
Title: City Clerk (Six month review).
By general consent, the council recessed into Closed Session. (3:55 p.m.)
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of February 8, 2000 to order at 5:56 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Bryan Crow from the Garden Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor ProTem Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATIONS:
PRESENTATION SUPERIOR AWARD OF TRAFFIC SAFETY: Presentation from the Automobile
Club of Southern California to the City of Anaheim -- the Superior Award of Traffic Safety. Mr. John
Lower, the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager, introduced the representative from the Automobile
Club, Rich DiLuvio.
Richard DiLuvio, Public Affairs Specialist, Automobile Club of Southern California. He explained the
program and how the award is determined. It is based upon a long history of success in promoting and
addressing traffic safety issues. Anaheim has earned the Superior Award from the Automobile Club for a
City of its size including 35 to 37 million visitors annually. It is the highest award that any city in the
United States received this year. He congratulated the City and its staff, especially the Police
Department.
Mayor Daly, on behalf of the Council and the City, thanked Mr. DiLuvio and the Automobile Club for the
award. He also acknowledged Lt. Ted LeBon of the Police Department and John Lower, Traffic and
Transportation Manager who were instrumental in the City being given this honor.
PRESENTATION - 1999 CANYON HILLS MIDGET COMANCHES FOOTBALL TEAM: Recognizing
the 1999 Canyon Hills Midget Comanches Football Team on winning the Orange Empire Conference
Orange Bowl Championship.
Mr. Kip Vernaglia, Head Coach of the Comanches. He explained that the team has been a Pop Warner
Team in the Canyon area for 26 years and this is the first time they have won the championship.
Besides being an excellent team, the boys are all honor students with an overall high "B" average. He
thanked Council Member Tait and Pastor Crow for their recognition and having the team invited to the
Council meeting; he also thanked Mr. Ed Winter, a benefactor, who provided the team with money for
their transportation costs. Mr. Vernaglia then introduced the members of the team who came forward to
be greeted and recognized by the Mayor and Council Members.
Mayor Daly on behalf of the Council and the City congratulated Mr. Vernaglia, team staff, and especially
the members of the team for winning the Conference Championship. The City is proud of their
accomplishment.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
119: DECLARATION recognizing the North Orange County Business and Professional Women's
Organization Women of Achievement for the year 2000.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,030,903.38 for the period ending
February 7, 2000 in accordance with the 1999-2000 Budget, were approved.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mark Ames, 136 W. Wilken Way, Anaheim - Re: Closure of W. Wilken Way (See minutes of 1/25/00
where this issue was previously addressed by Mr. Ames under Items of Public Interest). With him tonight
are some of the residents voicing the same concerns relative to traffic and speeding on W. Wilken Way.
(He also submitted letter of February $, 2000 attached to which was a petition of the 36 residents on W.
Wilken Way, 35 signing in favor of closure of W. Wilken Way at Oertly and W. Wilken Way.) He knows
there is an amendment that states renters do not have a vote on street closures. Wilken Way is a
residential homeowner and rental property street. He would like the Council to re-amend the amendment
for this case. If they don't count the residents that rent, 12 out of 35 homes on W. Wilken Way would
have no say on this important issue and would be considered a No vote. He explained for the Mayor that
the Traffic Engineer's Office polled 764 homes in the area which was a concern as expressed in other
material submitted by Mr. Ames stating, "The City gave 764 households the right to vote on what should
happen on OUR street - on W. Wilken Way." He emphasized that the residents directly affected, 35 of
the homes on Wilken Way, want a closure of W. Wilken Way and not speed bumps or a diverter.
Mr. Kent Harkelroad, 229 Wilken Way, Anaheim. It is his understanding historically there was an
agreement that was made when the condominium complex was built there was supposed to be an
access off Chapman for that complex; however, it did not come to fruition. They do not want speed
humps. It is not a solution and they are urging against them. The best solution is closure. If the City
does nothing, they do not want speed humps. A closure will preserve the neighborhood.
Mayor Daly then posed a line of questions to Mr. Harkelroad relative to design issues/impacts of a
possible closure at the conclusion of which, the Mayor stated they will have the Traffic and
Transportation Manager further address the issue at the conclusion of public comments.
Linda Moore. She is a W. Wilken Way resident. Their neighborhood is long established and tight knit
with many 40-year residents. It is rare to find such a neighborhood. They want a safe street so that their
children and grandchildren will also want to live on the same street.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Daly asked Mr. Lower to comment on the Wilken Way closure mid block;
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. He explained what had occurred relative to the issue
which started about a year ago when Public Works and the Community Development Department
attended an evening meeting at the area park and discussed neighborhood improvements to be funded
by the resort project. There was consensus at that meeting that a diverter be constructed (he explained
the configuration and where it would be placed). They also conducted a survey of what the community
would like to solve the traffic and speeding issues. The highest percentage preferred speed humps
differentiated from speed bumps. Based upon the results of the survey, speed humps are being
incorporated into the current Public Works jobs design. Street closures or barriers as requested are
guided by City Council Policy which says 85% of the affected property owners have to agree.
Mayor Daly then posed a line of questions relative to closure options, the resultant impact, will a closure
work, specifics relative to the Council Policy, etc., which were answered by Mr. Lower; Council Member
Tait stated he feels staff needs to look at the policy since getting 85% of the people to agree seems to be
difficult.
After additional discussion and questions, Mayor Daly asked when some type of recommendation or
status report will be coming to the Council on the issue; Mr. Lower answered within a week if the Council
would like.
Mayor Daly. He would be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis covering all the issues brought
up this evening as well as identifying any other associated issues. The Council needs to see all the facts
to make an informed decision; Mr. Lower then requested two weeks.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Mayor Daly. He asked him to prepare a report and provide it to the Council, to Mr. Ames and to the
people on Wilken Way. He is not suggesting it be on the agenda but that he advise the Council and the
Council will then decide what to do.
Wally Gonzales, Project Dignity. She introduced two young tenants from the Lincoln Inn (formerly
Seville), John and Adam Martinez. They are concerned with the 30-day rule imposed on the motel (see
minutes of 1/25/00). One of the youngsters has written a letter in that regard and has asked her to read
it. She then read the letter which expressed concerns at not being able to stay longer than 30 days and
the impacts of such a mandate on the tenant families.
Jim Benson, 905 S. Lemon, Anaheim. He explained that he had gone to see the Seville Inn and that it is
in good shape and looks very nice. He is asking the Council to reconsider their actions relative to the 30-
day rule. They should consider the consequences of such an action in relation to future costs relative to
crime. He suggested a separate ordinance for motels where people can stay for a longer period.
Mayor Daly. He reiterated his concern that, in describing the Seville (Lincoln Inn), Mr. Benson described
it as a hotel and then an apartment which he feels goes to the heart of the issue. The Council has a
responsibility to guide the City according to a General Plan. A motel is not designed for long-term
habitation. The owners are abusing the law and the community they are operating in and are asking the
City to subsidize their operation. The City is contributing to a cycle of abuse if they allow it to continue;
Council Member Tail Perhaps they ought to consider changing the law because he sees the current
restriction creating a hardship to a lot of people. He does not see what is accomplished with a 30-day
limitation.
Art Castillo, 1431 W. Chateau, Anaheim. He worked in security at the El Dorado Motel a couple of years
ago where there was good management. Where good management exists, there is no problem. He is
concerned with the displacement of tenants at the motels and is especially concerned relative to the
children. He also relayed problems he has seen in some of the Jeffrey-Lynne apartments the City has
bought (mold, mildew, etc.). He has met with Code Enforcement on these matters. In some apartments
that Code Enforcement has been to and seen, subsequently nothing has been done. He is trying to get
the City and the people together and work things out.
PUBLIC COMMENTS -AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Public Comments.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of February 8, 2000. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A13: 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 Resolutions Nos. 2000R-21 through 2000R-24, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
Al.
105: Receive and file minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meeting held January 5, 2000.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
A2.
167: Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Peek Traffic Signal Maintenance, Inc.,
in the amount of $108,100.31 for hazard elimination safety installation of missing or damaged
street name signs, and approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign an Escrow Agreement
pertaining to contract retentions with Peek Traffic Maintenance, Inc.
A3.
123: Approve an Easement Deed and Temporary Construction Easement Deed Agreement for
the south side of La Palma Avenue, west of Imperial Highway, due to Imperial Highway Smart
Street Widening improvements (R/W 5260-12 & 13), authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute said agreement and authorize the payment for processing costs of $1,500.
A4.
123: Approve Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects No. 12-5055,
Program Supplement No. M063, for the Katella Avenue Street Improvement Project from
Nutwood Street to the west City limits.
A5.
143: Approve the submittal of 63 improvement projects to the Orange County Transportation
Authority for funding under the Combined Transportation Funding Program for Arterial Highway
Rehabilitation Program.
A6.
160: Authorize the issuance of change orders on two purchase orders to Advanced Resource
Management, Incorporated, for lighting retrofits of the Police Department and City Hall East to
increase the dollar amount by $6,444.03 and $9,089.81, respectively.
A7.
153: Approve the Health Improvement Program (HIP) incentive of a healthy day off (8 hours/40
hour week or 11.2 hours/56 hour week) on an ongoing basis. (Continued from the meetings of
January 11,2000, Item A22, and January 25, 2000, Item A14.)
Council Member Tait. Relative to this item and the next (A8), both were discussed previously (see
minutes of 1/25/00 under item A14 and A15, and minutes of 2/1/00, Items of Public Interest). He is just
going to lodge a no vote today on both items, A7 and A8.
Council Member Feldhaus. Since, as he understands, this proposal is for the year 2000 budget, and
because item A8 was negotiated under an MOU, he is going to vote in favor.
Mayor Daly. Council Member Feldhaus is questioning his understanding that these items are for the
current fiscal year or the coming fiscal year; City Manager Ruth clarified it is for the calendar year 2000.
A8.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-22 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Police Association and
the City of Anaheim implementing policies and procedures for a healthy day off (12 hours for
sworn Police) to each full time employee who successfully completes the required elements of
the Police Wellness Incentive Program. (Continued from the meetings of January 11, 2000,
Item A26, and January 25, 2000, Item A15 .)
A9.
123: Authorize the Human Resources Director to amend the temporary services contracts of
PDQ Personnel, ABS Inc., CalWest Personnel, and Beg Power to retain engineering personnel
at their current rate of pay when Electronic Engineering Associates temporary agency contract
was cancelled.
Al0.
156: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-23 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police, on behalf of the City of Anaheim, to file an
electronic application with the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, to
participate in the FY 2000 "Bulletproof Vest Partnership" grant program and authorize the Chief
to execute all required grant documents.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
156: Accept partial funding from the FY 1999 "Bulletproof Vest Partnership" grant program and
increase revenues and expenditures in the Police Department's budget in the amount of
$14,000.
All.
156: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-24 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal, on behalf of the City of
Anaheim, to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for the 1999-2000 Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Program.
156: Accept an augmentation to the 1998 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
allocation in the amount of $757 and increase revenues and expenditures in the Police
Department's FY 99/00 budget in the amount of $757.
A12.
123: Approve and authorize the Chief of Police to execute a loan agreement with the U. S.
Government in the amount of $300,000 for domestic disaster preparedness equipment.
A13.
114: Approve minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held January 11, 2000 and the
adjourned midyear budget review meeting of January 11,2000 held January 22, 2000.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-21, for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-21 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-22 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-22 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 2000R-23 and 2000R-24 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 2000R-23 and 2000R-24 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B6 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2000 -
INFORMATION ONLY, APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 10, 2000:
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
B1.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4376, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: John F. Lee, 517 South Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706
LOCATION: 942 North Claudina Street. Property is 0.04 acres located on the east side of
Claudina Street, 85 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue.
Waiver of (a) maximum lot coverage, (b) minimum front yard setback, (c) minimum
number, type, design and dimensions of parking spaces, and (d) required site screening
to construct a single family home.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN by the applicant (7 yes votes to accept the withdrawal).
B2.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4169, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Williams Family Trust, c/o d. Tilman Williams and Sally R. Williams, Trustees, 12291
Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92840
AGENT: John F. Swint, 707 West North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 517 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.0 acres located on the west side of
Brookhurst Street, 250 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Ryder Truck Rental).
To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing
commercial retail center and to establish a truck rental facility within a commercial suite.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN by the applicant (7 yes votes to accept the withdrawal).
B3.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4389, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Goldstone Holdings, LLC., 32685 Caspian Sea Drive, Dana Point, CA 92629
LOCATION: 511 North Brookhurst Street: Property is 1.93 acres located at the southwest
corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street (Bryman College).
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit a private business/trade school within
an existing 3-story office building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4389 DENIED (PC2000-8) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
The decision of the Planning Commission was previously appealed by the applicant; therefore, a Public
Hearing before the Council is scheduled for March 7, 2000.
B4. 170: SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-01 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
15061¢b)¢3):
OWNER: Heath Terrace California Limited Partnership, C/O Woodbridge Development, Attn:
Jon Head, 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 230, Mission Viejo, CA 92691
AGENT: Woodbridge Development, Attn: Jon Head, 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 230, Mission
Viejo, CA 92691
LOCATION: 195 South Heath Terrace: Property is 7.0 acres with a frontage of 38 feet on the
south side of Heath Terrace, 331 feet south of the centerline of Rio Grande Drive (Lot No. 2 of
Tentative Tract Map No. 15837).
To permit the removal of one specimen tree.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-01 (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt
absent).
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
B5.
B6.
170: SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-02
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15061(b)(3):
OWNER: Begonia Village LLC, 1421 North Wanda Road, Suite 160, Orange, CA 92867
AGENT: Salkin Engineering, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 2, Orange, CA 92866
LOCATION: 5101 East Copa De Oro Drive: Property is 0.85 acres located on the north side of
Copa De Oro Drive, 230 feet north of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road.
To permit the removal of one (1) specimen tree.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-02 (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt
absent).
179: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-15
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Property is 807 acres bounded by the Santa Aha River on the east, the Anaheim
City limits on the south, the Santa Aha Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west, and the Southern
California Edison Company right-of-way on the north (Anaheim Stadium Business Center).
To establish a resolution of intent to reclassify certain properties within the approximately 807
acre Anaheim Stadium Business Center to the Sports Entertainment "(SE)" Overlay Zone (a
request to finalize the "(SE)" Overlay Zone on such properties will be required from each
property owner).
Resolution of Intent to adopt the "(SE)" Overlay Zone would allow individual property owners to
request the finalization of the Sports Entertainment Overlay as outlined in Chapter 18.50 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code. The proposed Overlay Zone will provide the benefit of enhanced
economic opportunities resulting from expanded land uses with greater development intensities.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 99-00-15 GRANTED unconditionally (PC2000-9)
(6 yes votes, Commissioner Bostwick voted no).
EIR NO. 321 previously certified.
ITEM B7 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 2000 - INFORMATION
ONLY, APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 10, 2000:
B7.
179: FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 99-14 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
David Wendy Chert, 915 South West Street, Anaheim, CA 92802, request for review and
approval of a Final Site Plan to install one new wall-mounted hotel identification sign and one
new freestanding directional sign. Property is located at 915 South West Street (Super 8 Motel).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Final Site Plan, Exhibits 1 - 4, on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance
with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (7 yes votes).
Joel Fick, Planning Director clarified for the Mayor that the signage is 100% in compliance with resort
standards and that staff is comfortable with the signage package.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
B8. ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION:
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5719 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 99-00-08 located at 101-311 North Beach Boulevard and 3001-3021 West
Lincoln Avenue from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL zone.
ITEMS B9 - Bll FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF - JANUARY 27, 2000 -
INFORMATION ONLY, APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 14, 2000:
B9. 179: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER NO. 2000-01 - TO
PERMIT EIGHT (8) ADDITIONAL SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS DURING THE 2000 CALENDAR
YEAR - CEQA EXEMPTION CLASS 4: Deborah Krebs, Manager of the Anaheim Marriott hotel, 700
West Convention Way, Anaheim, CA 92802-3483, request to permit eight (8) additional special
events to be conducted at the Anaheim Marriott Hotel, resulting in a total of twelve (12) Special Event
Permits for outdoor conferences and/or convention-related activities during the 2000 calendar year.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved Special Circumstances Waiver No. 2000-01.
B10. 170: FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 86-335 RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RECORD A PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED AND SIGNED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP: Joseph
G. Truxaw, 721 N. Euclid Street, Suite 311, Anaheim, CA 92801, request for retro-active time
extension to record a previously-approved and signed final parcel map to consolidate numerous
lots into one lot.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved extension of time to record the Final Parcel Map No. 86-335.
B11. 170: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-204 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 15:
OWNER: TWA Anaheim Limited, 200 E. Long Lake Road, #300, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
AGENT: Jeffrey Farano, Walter H. Kallaher, 2300 East Katella Ave., #235, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 105-125 South Festival Drive: Property is 4.42 acres located at the southwest corner
of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Festival Drive.
To establish a 2-lot, commercial subdivision within the Festival Specific Plan (SP90-01).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-204 (ZA DECISION NO. 2000-08).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
This item (D3.) was taken out of order since a letter of withdrawal had been received.
D3. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTCONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. USE PERMIT NO. 4130, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Jon M. Dowell, Nancy E. Dowell, Gabriel Patin, Virginia Patin, Shirley Almand,
William U. Almand, Willa Jean Cornett, Wilton B. Abplanalp, Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3335 W.
Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: Al Marshall, 1041 W. 18th Street #104-A, Costa
Mesa, CA 92627
LOCATION: 3335 - 3345 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 2.98 acres located on the north
side of Lincoln Avenue, 1,070 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street (Lazy Living Mobile
Home Park).
To construct a 104-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex with waiver of (a) permitted
encroachments in setback areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) minimum side and
rear landscape setback adjacent to one-family residential developments, (d) maximum structural
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
height, (e) required elevators, (f) minimum floor area, (g) location of required private storage
areas, and (h) minimum required affordable units.
Continued from Commission meetings of June 21, July 7, August 16, August 30, September 27,
and October 25, 1999.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4130 Granted, In Part, (PC99-191) (6 yes votes: Bostwick, Bristol, Koos, Napoles,
Vanderbilt, and Arnold. Commissioner Boydstun absent).
Denied waivers of code requirements.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of November 16, 1999, Item B12. Review of the Planning
Commission's decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member Feldhaus.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of January 11,2000, Item D3.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: December 30, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: December 30, 1999
Posting of property: December 31, 1999
Mayor Daly. A letter dated February 7, 2000 was received from the developer of the subject project, Mr.
Albert Marshall, Pacific National Development, stating he is withdrawing the request because he has
redesigned the project and is bringing it back through the Planning Commission. In essence, he is
starting over. The Mayor then asked if anyone was present on this hearing (one person indicated his
presence).
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to accept the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 4130. Council
Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4135, NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
OWNER: Joseph T., Emma W., Roger and Randy Kung, 20866 East Quail Run Drive, Diamond
Bar, CA 91789
Location: 5555-5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 5.03 acres located at the
northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway (Imperial Canyon Shopping
Center).
To construct 1 retail pad building with roof-mounted equipment, subdivide one unit into an office
and retail unit (for a total of 2 units), and amend conditions of approval pertaining to permitted
monument signs and maximum number of units in an existing commercial center with waiver of
(a) minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4135 approved in part, denied request for freestanding retail pad Building Y with roof-
mounted equipment. (6 yes votes: Bostwick, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt, and 1
vacant seat)
Negative Declaration approved. Waiver of Code Requirement approved.
Informational item from the November 2, 1999 meeting, Item B5.
Letter of appeal submitted by owner.
Public Hearing continued from the meetings of November 16, 1999, Item D1, January 11,2000,
Item D1.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: November 4, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: November 4, 1999
Posting of property: November 5, 1999
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Mayor Daly. He gave an overview of what had transpired relative to this application and why it was
continued to this date. The matter was again before the Planning Commission on January 19, 2000 to
evaluate revised site, elevation and signage plans as directed by the Council at its meeting of 11/16/99 -
see minutes that date - ultimately continued to this date. His understanding is that the Planning
Commission has reviewed the new design details and is still recommending against this proposal. He
asked to hear from staff.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
January 19, 2000. Although the Commission felt that the revised plans were an improvement, they still
had concerns regarding the proposed building elevation based on the renderings. They reiterated their
previous recommendation of denial. After the January 19, 2000 meeting, the applicant again met with
staff which resulted in the submittal of revised plans showing improvements to the color and architecture
of the building. Staff feels these are distinct improvements and if Council wishes to approve the
proposal, recommend several additional architectural enhancements be made as outlined in staff report
dated February 8, 2000 from the Planning Department - Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 4135 -
Analysis of Revised Plans. The photo simulations that Planning staff saw are attached along with the
new revised copy with additional enhancements. Staff believes, from an architectural standpoint, the
building is now compatible with the two existing buildings. The second major issue was parking and
circulation. There have also been some plan changes in terms of the access to the site (see On-Site
Traffic Circulation and Parking - pg. 1 of the 2/8/00 staff report). John Lower, the City's Traffic and
Transportation Manager has been working closely with the applicant. He believes the plan is adequate,
that it does now comply and they are satisfied with the parking study.
Mayor Daly. He asked for clarification that the most recent design changes have not been seen by the
Planning Commission; Joel Fick, Planning Director confirmed that was correct. He clarified it is the
colored rendering attached to the report that looks most like a photograph rather than a drawing. Staff's
suggestion is that the fa(~ade facing Imperial should be constructed in a manner compatible with the two
buildings on the site, i.e., there should be real columns and an arch. It should be a true arcade as is the
case with the adjacent buildings.
Mayor Daly. He surmises that they do not have a visual representation of what will actually be built on
the site; Joel Fick. That is correct. The photograh simulation was submitted after the Planning
Commission meeting dropping the building in that Ioction. From a visual standpoint, he believes it is
accurate with the exception of the pop-out enhancements.
Mayor Daly. The language he is suggesting would require the design to conform to the other two
buildings, i.e., Don Jose's and the bank building; Mr. Fick answered yes, in order to make the building
compatible. He clarified the mechanism to enforce the language would be, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, it would require a more precise elevation drawing be submitted to staff showing
conformance and if there is any concern or the applicant does not agree, they could refer that item to the
Planning Commission.
Council discussion and questions followed relating to the parking and circulation on the property. John
Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager addressed the issues, specifically the ingress off Imperial and
subsequent circulation and parking scenarios relating thereto as well as the existing waiver of code
required parking. Relative to the latter, he explained that the situation actually gets better since the total
number of available spaces existing is 253 plus 39 new spaces for a total of 292. The demand for
parking spaces as measured by the consultant is 262 during the peak period. The new building parking
demand is 23, and for employee parking, 39 spaces. He later clarified that the information relative to
parking was from the parking study which was modified slightly by the site plan modification. The code
still requires 347 spaces and the number provided would be 286. He is comfortable with that because it
is about 8% more spaces than forecast to be used by a shared-parking analysis.
Joel Fick. An additional comment about parking, because there are a number of concerns about the
parking supply on site, they included in their recommendation a condition that if the parking variance is
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
granted, it does require the use to be consistent with the operation assumed in the traffic study, i.e., a
day time retail use. Currently it is anticipated to be a computer-parts store, but if some other type of
evening use, video rental or a restaurant, for example, it could dramatically impact parking. The
condition requires conformity with assumptions of the parking study which is the mix of uses for the
entire center.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney if they agreed before the last hearing that they would reopen the
hearing and take new comments; City Attorney White. Due process would dictate that since the plans
have been revised, that the Public Hearing be reopened.
Mayor Daly re-opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant.
Applicant's Statement: Joe Kung, 5581 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim. He agrees with the
conditions attached to the staff report and would do a very good job to meet the City requirements. He
confirmed for Council Member Kring that he is agreeable to changing the arcade of the building and the
columns to match the other buildings. If needed, he will make another new drawing but because of the
lack of time, it was not possible. They agreed they would do it in the architectural design phase.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from those in support of the project:
Stefanie Perry, 430 S. Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim. She referred to the letter submitted today. The
Concerned Citizens have no problems with the project. The two major concerns - the roof mounted
equipment and the parking - have been mitigated. They are asking that the project be approved.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from those in opposition. The following people spoke in opposition, the
reasons for which are summarized below:
Earl McManus, 5581 Edgemar, Anaheim
Lisa Francise, 5574 E. Edgemar, Anaheim (her husband James gave his input in opposition at the
Council Meeting of January 11, 2000 - see minutes that date). Also submitted photographs showing the
parking and over-parking situation currently on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Patrick Pepper, President, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors
(also see letters submitted dated 10/11/99 and 1/19/00 - previously made a part of the record)
Concern relative to parking and circulation in the subject center at present and how those concerns will
be exacerbated by the proposal, existing congestion and traffic in front of the Post Office (Avenida
Margarita), loading and unloading of trucks and the unsightly conditions presently existing on Old Santa
Ana Canyon Road, the center is already congested and the residents directly affected on Edgemar have
to constantly deal with traffic, noise, spotlights, etc., all of which are an intrusion into their residential
neighborhood, an expansion of the center will only add to the already existing problems, circulation will
be such that people are going to be backing out of spaces as people are entering the center (off Imperial)
creating an unsafe condition, Edgemar and Wade Street residents do not want the proposal approved
which will further intrude on their quality of life, the process/enforcability relative to parking when uses
change.
During and after the presentations by those in opposition, questions were answered by appropriate staff.
Council Members also posed questions for purposes of clarification which were answered by the
Planning Director and Traffic and Transportation Manager especially relative to to parking and circulation
at the conclusion of which, Council Member Feldhaus stated that it seems to him highly irregular for the
Council to be designing and putting together a different plan between the Planning Commission hearing
and the hearing this evening. They are trying to design parking, traffic and circulation and instead he
feels the proposal should go back and start all over.
Mayor Daly. He agrees. He is not comfortable with plan changes made between the Planning
Commission hearing and the continued Public Hearing tonight. It is unfair to the Commission to ask
them to do their job and then have the plans change before coming to the Council; Joel Fick. The
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
reason the item is before the Council tonight, the Council has jurisdiction over the matter and it is the
only way plans can be sent back to the Commission. On this permit, the deadline under the
Streamlining Act expires March 3, 2000. They wanted to get the information to the Council as soon as
possible.
After additional discussion between Council Member and staff, Council Member McCracken asked, if
there was no parking allowed on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road, would that impact the parking issue for
the center; John Lower. The current parking on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road is largely employees.
Modifications call out, per the parking study, 39 employee parking spaces relocated from Old Santa Ana
Canyon Road.
Council Member McCracken surmised that they could then post "no parking" on Old Santa Ana Canyon
Road; Mr. Lower concurred.
Summation by Applicant: Joseph Kung. He answered/rebutted the concerns expressed relative to the
loading and unloading on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road, the existing trash problem on that road, he has
worked with the City Engineer and the Post Office to resolve the problems on Avenida Margarita, ingress
from Imperial and the potential problems that were broached, noise problems which he believes are
emanating from the pizza business which he will address directly with the employees, noise and trash
problems will not be worsened by the new operator in building "Y" (the proposed new building), the new
design will eliminate people using Old Santa Ana Canyon road when exiting the bank because the street
entrance will be blocked. Parking will be improved by taking down the bank canopy and over 20 spaces
will be provided closer to Don Jose's than before even after building "Y" is constructed, parking provided
exceeds the requirements of shared parking, if the Council considers no parking on Old Santa Ana
Canyon Road, it should be no parking after dark because of safety problems.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. He remains unconvinced that the quality of the design is up to the standards that the area
deserves. The nearby homeowners have been tolerating a situation in terms of parking on nearby City
streets that is not reasonable. He also has a concern about a sufficient number of parking spaces. It is
important to adhere to City codes and to have a reasonable expectation for quality design for high profile
centers which he does not think is the case here.
Council Member Kring. If he (Daly) is intending to send the proposal back to the Planning Commission
for a final look, she does not have a problem with that; Mayor Daly. It has been to the Commission
twice. The applicant has a certain responsibility to provide his plans up front. He is not comfortable
referring it back to the Commission. He is not prepared to support the changes to the center. He is
suggesting that the Council deny the request and if the applicant wants another opportunity in the future
to present a proposal, that is his prerogative.
Council Member Tait. If they send it back, they know what it is going to look like. They know enough to
make a decision tonight. The applicant deserves an answer tonight as well. He urged that the Council
move forward.
Council Member Feldhaus. He believes staff is now comfortable with the modifications. Mr. Kung has
spent a lot of effort to mitigate the problems. He would have preferred a solid recommendation from the
Planning Commission but he does believe a businessman has a right to develop his property with
mitigating measures. If staff had said no, that would have changed his mind. He supports the project.
Council Member Kring. Planning staff has supported the project in its final form. There is a better flow
of traffic, there will be cleanup, and in the final analysis it will bring about a positive change. Mr. Kung
should be given the right to proceed.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Council Member Tait. Code requires 347 spaces and the center has 286. Other centers have to comply
with code. They do give waivers but not to the extent of 60 spaces which he feels is dramatic. He
understands Mr. Lower's recommendation but does not agree with it and believes circulation will suffer.
It does not fit and he is going to vote against the proposal.
Council Member McCracken. She has major concerns about the parking situation in the center. She
frequents the center and was there this morning. It is a very difficult to find a parking space in this
center. The parking has been a concern ever since a second story was added to the existing center.
Parking is a real and ongoing problem.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. A point he should have brought forward earlier is that
the parking study observed Post Office patrons parking in the center and walking over to the Post Office
but did not include them as a demand for the center. That is a temporary situation which they have
started to mitigate by providing on-street parking on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road to the north of the Post
Office. When the new Post Office is built, conditions will get better because parking by postal patrons
would be decreased if not eliminated.
Mayor Daly. Mr. Lower stated that the parking study and the parking demand numbers reflect the actual
demand, Even if the demand for the Post Office shrinks, the demand for the variance does not change.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor
Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait, the City Council denied 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Council
Member Kring voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-25 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 4135.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
4135.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-25 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, McCracken, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-25 duly passed and adopted.
D2. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4152, AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Myrna Wiener, Wiener Family Trust, 9323 La Alba, Whittier, CA 90603
AGENT: Karen Finke, Anaheim Hills Festival, 8020 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA
92808
LOCATION: Property is 3.97 acres located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 1,320
feet west of the centerline of Roosevelt Road.
To construct identification sign for the Festival Regional Shopping Center.
15
votes).
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Granted CUP NO. 4152 with conditions, approved Negative Declaration (PC99-185) (7 yes
Informational item at the meeting of November 16, 1999, Item B1. Review of the Planning
Commission's decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member Tail
Public Hearing continued from the meeting of January 11,2000, Item D2.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: December 30, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: December 30, 1999
Posting of property: December 31, 1999
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
October 11, 1999 which described the proposal to construct a guide sign for the Festival Shopping
Center. The item was approved by the Commission on October 25, 1999 based on revised plans
submitted to the Commission at the hearing which reduced the maximum height of the proposed sign
from 53 feet to 45 feet excluding the sign base. She also referred to supplemental report dated February
8, 2000 from the Planning Department which gave an analysis of revised plans submitted by the
applicant for Conditional Use Permit No. 4152. She noted staff was originally supportive of the 45 foot
sign height based on previous information provided by the applicant. Staff has since met with the
applicant and has suggested removing the "legs" of the sign structure which would reduce the overall
height from a maximum of 45 feet to a maximum of 33 feet (excluding the base).
Mayor Daly referred to letter dated February 7, 2000 from Jeff Farano, Attorney representing the
applicant simply restating there is disagreement with staff's conclusions relating to the height of the sign;
Joel Fick, Planning Director. That is correct. The latest photo simulations submitted, at least in staff's
mind, demonstrate that a more monument type sign would both be visible from the freeway and less
visually impacting from Santa Ana Canyon Road. Hence, staff's recommendation that the smaller sign
would still work.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Applicant's Statement: Jeff Farano, Farano & Kieviet, 2300 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim representing
the applicant, Donahue Schriber, Inc. This sign is important to the operator and owner of the center. It is
one of the only regional centers in Anaheim. There has been no visibility and signage to the heavily
travelled 91 Freeway or any heavily travelled streets in the area. It is important to the success of a
quality center. It is also important to the Canyon Area residents and the Specific Plan. Great care has
been made in the design and redesign of the sign in attempts to make this center successful and be in
compliance with the Canyon Area Specific Plan and the Scenic Corridor. Several representatives of
Donahue Schriber are present to give an overview of why the sign is required including the impact
relative to attracting and maintaing residents in the center. After their presentations, he is going to give a
brief slide presentation.
Candace Rice, Senior Vice President of Leasing, Donahue Schrieber. They do the management,
marketing and leasing for the center and consider themselves to be a good neighbor, good citizens, and
partners with the community. She explained what they have done for the community monetarily as well
as in offering space for community activities. A "power center" or regional shopping center which has
over a five-mile draw needs signage and needs identification.
Jeff Farano. The Festival was built in 1991 and is defined by City code as a regional center and is
defined in the shopping center industry as a "power center." It was built without a sign on the 91 Freeway
primarily because it is not located on the 91. The site has been approved as a regional shopping center
since 1976. Originally people wanted a center more like a "South Coast Plaza" shopping center but at
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
the time it was built, the demographics did not fit. It is not Donahue Schreiber dictating that they need
the sign but the tenants.
Gwenn McKenzie, Donahue Schreiber. She has had the privilege the past several years of working
extensively with the City of Anaheim as the leasing agent for both the Anaheim Hills Festival and the
Anaheim Plaza and handles several centers in Southern California in addition to those two high-profile
projects. She competes with centers such as the Brea Union Plaza and Savi Ranch. Signage is a key
factor for her tenants. It also affects the sales per square foot. Centers with freeway signage tend to do
better and signs have been proven to be the best way of letting residents know about the center in the
area. They conducted a telephone survey to reach the people not shopping at the Festival and 30% of
those polled within a two-mile radius did not know the Anaheim Hills Festival was there. Efforts to attract
major national tenants have failed because of lack of signage, most recently Kraus Sofa Factory and the
Leather Factory, the latter having located at Savi Ranch because of the signage and exposure. To do
her job effectively, she needs the signage. It also helps to retain existing tenants.
Jeff Farano. He then narrated a slide presentation covering the following: sign location in relation to the
shopping center, Anaheim Festival facts (one of the two major malls in Anaheim - Anaheim Plaza -
Anaheim Festival), reasons sign submitted, expectations of the sign (visibility from the freeway, identify
major tenants), etc. The balance of the presentation showed the proposed sign (also presented in a
graphic display), as well as simulations showing the view of the proposed sign from the 91 Freeway and
from different areas on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
In concluding, Mr. Farano emphasized the sign is very important to the future success of the center. The
center has been a part of the Genera Plan since the 1970's and nowhere does it say "there shall not be a
sign" for the center. The proposed sign gives the center what it needs for the area as well as creating a
visually pleasing and non-intrusive sign. It is not a precedent-setting issue since the sign is for a regional
shopping center and there is not going to be another such center in the area. The center has no visibility
from the freeway and after eight years of operation, they have decided the success of the center requires
the type of sign proposed to attract quality tenants. He also clarified for Council Member Kring that at
night the letters will be back lit and Iow key. It is not a bright sign as opposed to the Savi Ranch sign.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from those who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
The following people spoke in opposition:
Carol Geronsin, 321 Old Bridge Road, Anaheim
Stefanie Perry, 430 S. Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim
Patrick Pepper, President, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition
Jean Williams, 8444 E. Amberwood, Anaheim
Sonja Grewal, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition (posed question re: sign illumination)
Concerns of those who spoke in opposition: The area is part of the scenic corridor and everybody knew it
when they built there, the residents do not want a big sign but want the scenic corridor to remain the
same, if an exception is made, someone else will ask to do the same, they do not want a precedent
being set, Anaheim Hills is a special place and should remain that way, adhere to scenic corridor
guidelines, the sign is not in keeping with the scenic corridor and the General Plan Element, it does not
fit as a regional center and the only place it is designated as such is the General Plan Element map, the
proposed sign is almost the size of a six-story building along side the freeway, staff appears to have
gone out of their way to be accommodating instead of upholding the goals and policies of the Canyon
Area General Plan, allowing a sign such as the one proposed could result in the Scenic Highway
designation being withdrawn from the 91 Freeway, the Festival is an upscale, nice, small shopping area
and should remain that way, it is not a regional shopping center.
Summation/Rebuttal by Applicant: Jeff Farano. Relative to the lighting of the sign, the entire sign is
stucco and cannot be lit. The only lighting of the sign itself is the back-glowing/back-lit sign. He then
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
spoke to each of the major points of concern. He specifically noted that the sign is not a directional sign
but an identity sign, that the center is a regional center as noted on the General Plan, it is part of the
scenic corridor, it was decided that a regional center was important to the area, it was planned and they
belong there. The center is not next to a freeway and that is why they need the signage. They have to
weigh the signage against what is going to happen to the center if they do not get the sign. It is the City's
responsibility to assist that it be a quality center and to serve the needs of the community. The sign is
going to be part of the Festival. The property is going to be included in the specific plan. It will be
considered an on-premise sign and not in violation of the Scenic Corridor. It is proper, responsible
planning to take care of the needs of the center. Prospective tenants have indicated without the
signage/revenue, they will not locate at the Festival.
Council Members then posed questions to Mr. Farano and to Gwen McKenzie revolving around the
vacany factor in the center, sales volume, the survey of the residents in the surrounding area, the
methodology used, etc., at the conclusion of which, Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Feldhaus. He questioned why the sign was not included in the original plans for the
center. He does not believe it is intended to attract local residents. He does not think most people
driving the 91 Freeway are looking for the Festival Shopping Center. He believes more marketing can be
done; the sign is not going to make a difference. There has been a long-standing policy of protecting the
Scenic Corridor and the reason he is not going to approve the sign.
Council Member Tait. He believes the sign is in response the Savi Ranch Development and their large
signage (across the freeway). It is in Anaheim's best interest that the Festival be successful, but the sign
being proposed, 58' from the base, is too big. It is intrusive from Santa Ana Canyon Road and he feels
that is what the residents are mostly concerned about. It was indicated they need to put all the tenants
names on the sign. He would support something much smaller and much more dignified advertising the
Anaheim Hills Festival, something that cannot be seen from Santa Ana Canyon Road but can be seen
from the freeway.
Mayor Daly. He would rather see the City work with the shopping center to market the center better and
compete with shopping centers in the community. He believes what Yorba Linda did with Savi Ranch is
a disgrace, it was wrong, and to try to respond to an obnoxious freeway sign would put Anaheim in the
same category. It is important to preserve the look and feel of Anaheim Hills. This sign does not
encourage that. There was an assumption made by the City leaders that the center would be larger and
produce more revenues. However, it is smaller than it was originally supposed to be. Decisions were
made to build more houses in Anaheim Hills predicated on a regional shopping center. That is why he is
reluctant now to approve the sign. He also feels that the 91 Freeway is in danger of becoming one of the
uglier freeway corridors in Southern California rather than attractive. He will not be supporting the sign.
They have to reaffirm to the Planning Commission and Planning staff what the goals and objectives for
Anaheim Hills have been. He wants to keep high standards in Anaheim Hills and then apply those
standards City wide.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member McCracken, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus , the City council denied 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 2000R-25 for adoption denying Conditional Use
Permit No. 4152. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
4135.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-26 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 No. 2000R-26 duly passed and adopted.
Before closing, Mayor Daly stated, as planning decisions are made to the east, the type of retail
development that might be proposed for the Irvine property needs to be taken into account as to how it
might affect the Festival.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council Meeting was recessed for 10 minutes. (9:50)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order (10:05 P.M.).
D4. 179/170: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-09 VARIANCE NO. 4380
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15961 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: California Department of Transportation, District 12, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100,
Irvine, CA 92612-0661
AGENT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Attn: Rick Julian, 22974 El Toro Road, Lake Forest,
CA 92630
LOCATION: 4000 East Riverdale Avenue. Property is 10.0 acres located on the south side of
^ddington Street, 310 feet east of the centerline of Fauna Avenue.
Reclassification No. 99-00-09 - To reclassify subject property from RS-A-43,000(SC)
(Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) (Residential,
Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone or less intense zone.
Variance No. 4380 - Waiver of (a) required setbacks for lots adjacent to a freeway, and (b)
minimum building site width to construct 43 single-family residences.
Tentative Tract Map No. 15961 - To establish a 48-1ot (43 residential lots and 5 lettered lots),
RS-5000(SC) single-family residential subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 99-00-09 GRANTED (PC99-208) (5 yes votes, Commissioners Boydstun
and Bristol absent).
Variance No. 4380 APPROVED (PC99-209).
APPROVED Tentative Tract Map No. 15961.
APPROVED Negative Declaration
Informational item at the meeting of December 14, 1999, Item B10.
Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member
Tait.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: January 27, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 27, 2000
Posting of property: January 28, 2000
Mayor Daly. This piece of property has an extensive background and the Council has considered
development on this property several times in the past. The proposal tonight is the most current. He
asked to hear from staff.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
November 22, 1999 describing the proposal. Staff recommended denial because they felt it could be
built without the requested waivers.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Mayor Daly asked for confirmation that the lots, in staff's estimation, should be deeper and there are
concerns with the proximity of the houses to the freeway; Ms. Santalahti confrimed that was correct.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He wanted to draw the Council's attention to the fact that the design has
almost a two-tiered cul-de-sacing on private streets. There is a flag lot issue that makes for an unusual
configuration that staff feels would pose concerns for future owners. It is an unusual design.
Mayor Daly. They have a lot of correspondence from Caltrans which says over and over again in
response to questions by citizens, Caltrans has no need for this property in the foreseeable future. They
mention that the property was offered to the City. He wants to understand that better since over the
years he has asked about the status of the property and believes that the Council directed staff to
explore options with Caltrans. Caltrans is saying they offered the property to the City. If that is true, he
would like to know how that offer was considered and answered.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. As the Mayor stated, it is the normal process that
Caltrans contacts other agencies first in disposing of their property, but he is not familiar with that offer.
The City was looking for landscaping and Caltrans was looking for the City to pay for that as well.
City Manager Ruth. They had a meeting with Caltrans and expressed a strong interest that the City was
concerned about the property. They were given assurance (by Caltrans) that before they ever did
anything, they would get back to the City. His recollection is they never got back to the City and the next
thing the City heard was that Caltrans had sold the property.
Mayor Daly. He is uncomfortable with Caltrans deciding to sell land (in the City) without including
Anaheim in the loop. He has insisted many times that they deserve to have full information about the
property. Caltrans is putting things in writing now on the eve of a decision whether to allow houses on a
piece of land they would like to sell. He is disturbed that City government has not been given the choice.
If Caltrans policy is to offer these properties to the City, he would like to know how they did that - was it
in writing, was it verbal. If Caltrans made a written offer of the property to the City, what happened to
that.
Joel Fick. Staff can attempt to research the files. He can only reiterate the comments by Mr. Lower and
the City Manager that typically they (Caltrans) offer property for recreational or housing purposes to other
agencies. His knowledge is the discussion the City Manager's office has had in recent times; Mayor
Daly. He would like to get an answer to his question at some point.
City Manager Ruth. When they met with Caltrans, they made it clear the City was very concerned about
the property. Mr. McManus was Executive Director at that time and a change was made. Possibly that is
what might have happened.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant.
Applicant's Statement: Mr. Rick Julian, Advanced Real Estate Services. He has some copies of the site
plan he would like to have distributed along with a packet. (He was also working from a plan posted on
the Chamber wall.)
At this point, Mayor Daly asked for purposes of clarification, if Mr. Julian bid on an option for the property
or was it an outright sale; Mr. Julian answered, it was a public auction and the property is offered as an
option. He confirmed that is the present status.
Continuing with his presentation Mr. Julian explained, while designing the development and working with
the neighbors, they identified major problems and challenges of the local area, one being the existing
traffic on Riverdale which has very few traffic control devices. Another issue was the schools, there
currently being no major revenue sources to fund improvement to the local schools. Further, the freeway
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
noise is very significant. He then showed the existing sound walls and where they end noting that the
entire rest of the property (which he pointed to on the site plan) is unprotected from sound. One of their
goals was to work with the neighborhood and the City to mitigate existing problems. They are including
those mitigations in their overall goal setting. They would like to reduce the freeway noise not only for
their development but the neighborhood, improve the neighborhood with high quality development which
will increase values, instill pride in the community and stimulate further improvements in the existing
neighborhood. They are offering spacious model homes on very large lots at an affordable price. They
would like to improve the existing (traffic) problem on Riverdale and improve the conditions of the
schools and feel they can accomplish those goals. He then further described the proposal, the
improvements that they will make, their communication with the residents and the amenities offered in
their proposal. He also noted that most of the lots abutting the freeway have 150' depths so they are in
conformance. The average square footage of the lots is 7,620 square feet in a neighborhood of 5,000
square foot lots. They are going to complete the sound wall, replace the existing wall that is decaying
and at the entry, will be taking out two existing homes on Addington Circle creating a 100' width to work
with for the entry. After additional comments describing the amenities of the project, Mr. Julian stated
they are prepared to answer questions.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from those in favor of the project.
The following people spoke in favor, most being adjacent property owners to the proposed project:
Pete DePaola, 4343 Addington Dr., Anaheim
Marie Cruzzetti, 4139 Addington Circle, Anaheim
Hazel Standards, 4140 Addington Drive, Anaheim
Jim Van Dalsem, 4218 Addington Drive, Anaheim
Kristi Toohey, 4137 Addington Circle, Anaheim
John Sunderson, 4359 E. Holtwood, Anaheim
Ruth Motley, 203 Evlyn Dr., Anaheim (owner of property on Addington)
Kim Broadman (not an adjacent property owner but a 15-year resident of the neighborhood)
John Woodard, 4130 E. Addington, Anaheim (adjacent property owner)
Dave Brown, 4234 Addington, Anaheim (adjacent property owner)
Alicia Torrence, 4333 E. Elkstone Ave., Anaheim
Reasons/comments in support of the proposal were: Other developments proposed were unacceptable,
this development meets the requests/concerns of the residents, the proposal is a single-family residential
development with lower density, mitigations have been provided relative to traffic and school issues as
requested, it would be an upgrade for the community, if it is inevitable that the property is going to be
developed, 43 houses are better than condominiums or apartments, the houses to be built will increase
overall property values, will eliminate freeway noise, small animals and insects and people sleeping in
the field, and unsafe and unsightly land, will provide additional tax revenue, provide a buffer from the 91
Freeway and a new back fence, overall growth in a community is good, currently the property is unsightly
and unsecured, will eliminate uncontrolled access to residents adjacent to the property, the development
is an attractive one, the developer has done a lot to accommodate the residents, it would make the
community a lot better, the scenic corridor is not the same today, it is a project that will beautify the
neighborhood and should not be denied, in the last five years the neighborhood has been improving on
its own but this development will accelerate that process, originally, the group, URGE, tried to discourage
the development of the property when the proposal was 160 condominiums but said they would agree
with a proposal of 45 homes, if Anaheim was to purchase the propery and develop it as a park, that
would be better, otherwise this is an acceptable plan, the developer has worked with the Orange Unified
School District (OUSD) in assuring that their schools get some of the funds from the development.
Irv Pickler, former Council Member. He does some work for the applicant. He was a Council Member in
'88 or '89 when a project was proposed on the property for about 146 condominiums. He voted to deny
the project at that time because of the high density. He is in support of the current proposal.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
The following people spoke in opposition:
Ernest Rahm, 321 Red Rock, Anaheim
Janine Tolly, 4120 Addington Dr., Anaheim (President, URGE/Riverdale)
Linda Forbes, 4812 E. Addington (up against the fence)
Joe Phelan, 4319 Elkstone, Anaheim
Doris Johnson, 201 Barryknoll St., Anaheim
Reasons/comments in opposition as follows: Development of this property for residential is still a bad
idea, Caltrans said they have no use for the property and that's because they have a 35-year "non-
compete" clause with the Fast Trac lane group, in 1989, there were 12 acres of property but by 1996 it
was only nine acres, the development will not increase property values in the area, there will be a major
traffic impact, it is not a good idea to jam houses against the freeway and to give a waiver for less
distance, this may be the last chance to do something to enhance this Scenic Highway, this project will
add to the corridor problems that presently exist, Caltrans will have to use the land for freeway
expansion, it is poor timing to build houses on the property when the situation has not been "hashed out",
i.e., the contract Caltrans has with the toll road owners, the residents have enough problems with noise
without 43 homes being added, the property should remain as a buffer zone, it should be landscaped and
the fence repaired, the main issue is there will be a greater traffic impact.
Janine Tolly, President, URGE/Riverdale, also reported that she had just returned from Sacramento as
the only taxpayer allowed to testify before the Joint Commission for the Assembly and Senate
Transportation Committee. She was invited to be there by State Senator Betty Carnetti. She received a
letter from Assemblyman Lou Correa and State Senator Joe Dunn who want time to investigate the time
factor regarding CPTC (California Private Transportation Company) and Caltrans in order to know more
about the land, exactly when the property was put up for bid to the highest bidder, knowing when they
were not going to use the excess land and the timing of the non-competition clause. They want another
two weeks for the investigation. She further reported on that issue before giving input specific to the
subject proposal, i.e., concerns relative to traffic, traffic signalization (she had asked for the traffic signal
on Riverdale on behalf of the neighborhood), the lack of sufficient contribution to the Orange Unified
School District (OUSD) for school building and maintenance, etc. She also reiterated for Council
Member Tait that the Joint Transportation Committee (Correa and Dunn) asked for two weeks to look
into the correlation between them knowing about the non-competition clause and the contract that
Caltrans had with the toll road owners in relation to putting the land up for bid.
Summation/Rebuttal by Applicant: Rick Julian. He did not previously explain the agreement they
negotiated with the OUSD; however, in the packet submitted (see, Important Information Regarding the
New Renaissance Development in Your Neighborhood), there was a letter from the District dated
February 7, 2000 (made a part of the record) outlining the provisions of the agreement (developer to
make a lump sum payment of developer fees in the amount of $360,211 - 43 units X $8,377 per unit).
All the funds are going to pay for school facilities needed to accommodate the students generated by the
Project. Relative to Caltrans, there are four letters now (from Caltrans) saying that the property is not
needed by them. In the packet submitted, there are about 14 letters from various other individuals in
favor along with data on the benefits being provided. The development will create a sound wall and
sound barrier; trees will not do that. They are also paying about $185,000 in park fees, solving traffic
problems, and a net 41 homes are being added to the community. On November 22, 1999, the Planning
Commission heard testimony from many people who were in favor and a few who were opposed. The
Commission subsequently gave the project unanimous approval. He spent two years walking the streets
and talking to the residents. They have brought forward less dense than what the residents originally
said they would like. He is asking the Council to recognize the fact that the neighborhood suports the
project and to allow the development to take place for the benefits they are providing. He asked that
they be reasonable and fair and approve the project.
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Council Member McCracken asked John Lower if he had received any communication, verbally or
written, from either Senator Dunn or Assemblyman Correa; John Lower. There has been no direct
communication from any State representative, only from Janine Tolly.
Mayor Daly. They need to understand the real situation on this property from Caltrans. He does not
understand if Caltrans no longer wanted this 10-acre parcel why they hadn't offered it to Anaheim. If
Anaheim was in the loop, the City would be talking to State Legislators about alternatives for the
property. There are hundreds of other options and possibilities for a piece of property. This proposal is
the best yet from the development side but they don't have all the facts about what the ultimate
disposition of the property can be. He would like to give staff the chance to answer the question(s) he
posed earlier - was Anaheim ever given a chance to suggest other alternatives to Caltrans and,
secondly, they need more facts in terms of what vision Caltrans has for the property. He would like to
suggest that they withhold a decision until they get to the bottom of the situation with Caltrans.
Council Member Kring. As Mr. Julian said, twelve people spoke in favor (including Irv Pickler) and only
one did not live on Addington which is adjacent to the subject property; out of the five people who spoke
against, only two live on Addington. A couple of people said the property should be used for landscaping
and maintenance. She questioned who was going to pay for that. The question of what is going to
happen to the 91 Freeway is probably going to take years and this project will end up in "limbo". Caltrans
has stated that they have no intention of doing anything with the property. She would like a decision to
be made tonight.
Council Member McCracken. The latest letter from Caltrans (to Kevin Bass of the City Planning
Department) is dated February 8, 2000 which answers all of the questions and reiterates their decision
that they have no intention of developing the property.
Mayor Daly. The question he raised is, did Caltrans ever offer the property to Anaheim and, if so, under
what terms. His recollection is, when the Council denied the last proposal, they instructed staff to talk
about the future plans for the site including all the issues that have come up tonight, a sound wall,
landscaping, that it be a buffer - why did they consider it surplus and what happened to the City's ability
to communicate with other governmental agencies. If Anaheim said no, he wants to see evidence in
writing that confirms what Anaheim's communication was.
After additional Council discussion revolving around the Caltrans issue, City Attorney White interjected
and stated he wanted to make sure they are focusing on the application before them which is a zoning
approval. The issue of Caltrans and whether they offered the property to the City and followed the
correct procedure is something that can be pursued independently but the Council's decision tonight is
whether or not the proposal is an appropriate development for the property.
Mayor Daly. The land is currently owned by the State government; City Attorney White. It is owned
subject to an option exercisable by Mr. Julian to purchase it. He wants to make sure they are not doing
something tonight that is interfering with a binding contract the State has with a private property owner.
He confirmed the City would be interfering and the decision should not be related to Caltrans and
whether it needs the property as an expressway or not; otherwise, there will be difficulties in mixing up
zoning decisions with other types of decisions. If they think there is information the Council does not
have that is relevant to their decision, they can continue the matter to get the information.
MOTION. Mayor Daly. He suggested a two-week continuance; he thereupon moved that the matter be
continued two weeks to get to the bottom of the matter with Caltrans. Council Member Tait seconded the
motion.
Council Member Kring. The letter from Ms. Tolly is only talking about the 91 Expressway and does not
address the surplus property.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Mr. Julian asked if it was possible to vote on their plan with some type of contingency without tying him
up further since they have been waiting almost three years.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney his advice relative to Mr. Julian's suggestion that the Council
action could be contingent on further research; City Attorney White. He does not see a way to do that. It
is mixing one issue with another. If they need the information, the better way to do it would be to
continue the matter until they get it. There needs to be a decision tonight with finality or continue it until
they get whatever information from Caltrans that they need and then act.
Council Member Tait. He would like to know why Caltrans would sell property surrounding a major
freeway and at an interchange. He is wondering if it was because of the non-competition clause they
have entered into so that by law they cannot build anything around it for 35 years. If it is true, he does not
think they should build residential homes on the property but, if not, it is not a bad project and he could
probably vote for it.
Council Member Kring. She asked when did the non-competition clause come into being and when did
Mr. Julian get an option on the property; Rick Julian. Their option was in June, 1997.
Janine Tolly approached the podium and stated (relative to the non-competition aspect) that D & D
Development was the first to place a bid on the property approximately 10 years ago and that is when
they signed this (clause); Mayor Daly. He stated they cannot have proceedings where people just grab
microphones. The Public Hearing is over and everyone needs to be treated equally.
After additional debate and questioning, Council Member Kring asked if in three weeks (the continuance
subsequently proposed since the Council does not meet in two weeks) there is no resolution to the
questions, what would happen then; Mayor Daly. He guarantees he will have more facts by that time
about (1) why Caltrans surplused the land, (2) did they offer it to Anaheim and under what terms and, (3)
did the "non-compete" clause have anything to do with the decision to surplus the land. He feels they
have to have those answers before they can vote to allow development on a piece of land.
Council Member Kring. The timing of when the non-compete clause became effective is crucial; Mayor
Daly. He asked when did Caltrans make its deal with the private company for the expressways.
John Lower answered, July, 1993; Mr. Julian stated that about five years ago, the property was offered in
public auction again and no one bid. He questioned why this was coming up at this time and not before
with staff. He also clarified for the Mayor that the purchase price for the property is $1.7 million. They
have paid significant option moneys, approximately $80,000.
City Attorney White then confirmed that the six-month period (under the Streamlining Act) expires April
7. If the matter is continued to March 7th it is actually four weeks.
MOTION. Mayor Daly modified his motion that there be a one-week continuance of the subject Public
Hearing. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Council Members Kring and McCracken voted no.
MOTION CARRIED.
Cl. 91 FREEWAY ISSUES: Discussion of 91 Freeway issues relating to opportunities for additional
improvements by the State/Caltrans, specifically landscaping and sound walls (requested by Council
Member Tait at the meeting of February 1,2000, Item C3 - see minutes that date).
Council Member Tait. He asked that this item be placed on the agenda. It is regarding the 91 toll road
and issues surrounding it. It has come to light there is a non-competition agreement - or the private toll
company has a contract with the State that they will not build additional lanes on the 91. For that reason
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
and for the reason that the toll road is built on State right-of-way, the policy for the toll road built right in
the middle of another freeway to be successful depends on the failure of the freeway portion. That is
generally bad policy. State right-of-way right in the middle of the freeway almost assures congestion on
the free portion. Furthermore, the toll road makes congestion worse for Anaheim commuters. At peak
congestion periods, there is a situation called "que jumping". People on the toll road jump in front of the
commuters from Anaheim. There is no place for Anaheim residents because there are no exits off the
toll road.
MOTION. For all the foregoing reasons, Council Member Tait moved that Anaheim urge/request that the
State purchase the toll road back, open it up for free lanes, and purchase back the provision in the
contract that keeps the State from adding more lanes to the freeway. Council Member Kring seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Kring stated she wanted to see that done possibly without
floating bonds.
Mayor Daly. He feels comfortable with the direction of the request but questioned, if the price is
exorbitant, did he (Tait) want to condition the motion or ask staff to bring back a report. There is a bill
that has been introduced and they can just support that bill.
Council Member Tait. He suggested perhaps amending his motion to say that the State pursue
purchasing so they will know that the City's preference is that those be returned to "free" lanes; Mayor
Daly felt that was more general. He also asked if he wanted staff to report back on the legislation that
has been introduced.
Council Member Tait. A report would be helpful. He would like staff to draft an official resolution for
Council signature; City Manager Ruth asked for clarification that it is to be a resolution recommending
that the State acquire the property.
Council Member Tait confirmed that was correct; Mayor Daly. As part of the motion, they should also get
legislative updates on the one bill that was introduced and other proposals as well.
Kristine Thalman, Government Relations Manager. Brad Pachenko from Riverside has introduced a bill
which is not in print as yet. Staff was hoping to have a copy tonight. It will be introduced before
February 25, 2000. What it says is that it would allow Caltrans to buy out the CPTC, the private toll
company, and it would be operated by an authority comprised of representatives of the Riverside
Transportation Commission, OCTA, and the cities along that corridor. She confirmed that Anaheim
would also have a "seat at the table." She should have something before the 25th of February.
Mayor Daly. He asked (Tait) if he wanted to defer the decision to support the bill; Council Member Tait.
He would like to read it first but for now would like to see Anaheim's position formalized as far as
requesting the State to purchase the lanes.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as modified ("that the State pursue purchasing...").
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member McCracken: She asked staff to consider making adjustments to the air conditioning
in the Council Chamber to preclude the use of heaters which create background noise making it difficult
for Council Members to hear each other.
Council Member Feldhaus: A year ago when they returned from Washington, D. C. on the Internet
Sales Tax issue, a Task Force was formed relative to the issue. They have now completed their
recommendation and he would like to agendize the matter for the next meeting. They are facing a
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
deadline since there is going to be a meeting in Washington on March 7th; Mayor Daly. They will leave it
up to the City Manager on where the item will be placed on the agenda, whether the A. or C. portion.
The Council will have a staff report by Friday.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of February 8, 2000 was adjourned
at 12:07 P.M., February 9, 2000.
SHERYLL SCHROEDER
CITY CLERK
26