2002/02/26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait and
Shirley McCracken.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, Assistant City Clerk
Cynthia Daniel-Garcia.
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on February 22,
2002 at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards.
Mayor Daly called the regular meeting to order at 3:20 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the
Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard.
WORKSHOP: SR-90 Imperial Highway/BNSF Railroad Grade Separation
City Manager Morgan introduced Jim Beal, Deputy District Director of the District 12 CalTrans
Program. Mr. Beal introduced CalTrans team members and said that as the project progressed
through the environmental phase and after getting closer to the final alternative selection, they
would be working with the cities to set up a number of task teams to look at various elements
that effect the communities.
Pija Ansari, CalTrans Project Manager, described the project location and site description and
presented a project history, the need and purpose of the project and the proposed
improvements. He referred to the power point presentation, available in hard copy at the City
Clerk's Office. He noted that the current status of the draft environmental documentation had
been submitted to FHW A for approval and CalTrans had to wait for the environmental document
to be approved. He said that CalTrans was looking to have the project approval and
environmental document completed, depending on response from Federal High Way
Administration, by August 1, 2002. Project specification and estimate was scheduled for
completion by November 1, 2003. Right of way certification was scheduled for January 1, 2004;
start of construction was scheduled for October 1, 2004 and completion of the project was
scheduled for October 1, 2006.
Son Nguyen, CalTrans Project Engineer, said that the project was needed because Imperial
Highway at Orangethorpe Avenue and Esperanza Road and BNSF Rail Road crossing currently
operated at a substandard level of service and the current vehicular accident rate at the
intersection exceeded the statewide average. He said that daily traffic volume was 46,000
vehicles on Imperial Highway and 68 train crossings per day and in the year 2020, he said that
the forecasted daily traffic volume would be 80,000 vehicles and 128 train crossings per day.
He noted the proposed improvements to widen Imperial Highway and Orangethorpe
Avenue/Esperanza Road and the railroad, that there were four viable build alternatives and a no
build alternative. He said that the no build alternative would basically leave everything the same
and there would be no improvement to the intersection and the accident rates would
progressively get worse with increased vehicular and train traffic. Alternative 1 would be a
semi-cloverleaf interchange configuration where there was an on and off ramp loop from
Esperanza on the northeast quadrant and an on and off loop ramp from Orangethorpe in the
northwest corner. Alternative 1 would require taking 93 parcels. Alternative 2 used a two-way
, ,........
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 2
connector at the northwest quadrant and northbound on ramp to Imperial Highway from
Esperanza Avenue. The north bound on ramp on the northeast side from Esperanza going into
Imperial Highway and on the northwest corner there was a two-way connector where the north
bound Imperial Highway traffic could get onto Orangethorpe or Esperanza. Traffic from
Esperanza and Orangethorpe could get onto the south and northbound Imperial Highway.
Alternative 2 would require taking 85 parcels. Alternative 2A was the same as Alternative 2 with
the exception of moving the northbound on-ramp from Esperanza closer to the freeway and
would require taking 61 parcels. Alternative 3 would use a single two-way connector in the
northeast quadrant and would require taking 89 parcels.
Mr. Nguyen spoke about aesthetics and landscaping and said that an aesthetics committee
would be formed once a preferred alternative was selected after the public hearing process.
The landscaping would be designed at the project delivery phase, once the preferred alternative
was selected. He explained the landscaping treatments for all of the alternatives and said
CalTrans would have planting in the embankment areas, retaining walls adjacent to properties
that were developed and soundwalls to protect the residential neighborhoods from the freeway
noise.
Council Member Kring asked where the people would be chosen from to serve on the aesthetics
committee and the CalTrans Project Management team responded that the aesthetics
committee would consist of representatives of the City and some community members and any
type of committee could be formed.
Council Member Tait asked what the favored alternative was as far as traffic flow. Mr. Nguyen
said that Alternatives 2 and 2A would work best for traffic flow during construction and
Alternative 1 would move the most traffic because it would minimize the number of signalized
intersections on Imperial Highway. He said that this would be more like a freeway than an
expressway where there was more through traffic.
Council Member Feldhaus asked about the cost breakdown projections for each of the
alternatives. Mr. Nguyen said that Alternative 1 would be estimated at $48,447,000; Alternative
2 - $41,523,000; Alternative 2A - $40,047,000 and Alternative 3 - $46,753,000 and the costs
included construction and right-of-way acquisition costs.
Council Member Tait asked if CalTrans had considered placing Imperial Highway underneath
the railroad tracks. Mr. Nguyen said that they had and that alternative would cost almost $100
million because the railroad tracks would have to be raised for Imperial to go underneath and
there would have to be an elevated structure for quite a long length. He said that the railroad
had a maximum grade of one percent on their tracks and it limited what could be done. The
tracks would have to be raised thirty feet above the existing intersection and at one percent, it
could go out for a mile in each direction. Partially raising the railroad tracks part of the way and
lowering Imperial Highway part of the way was about $90 million in 1995.
Council Member McCracken asked where the project fits in with Placentia's proposal to lower
the tracks. Mr. Nguyen said that the environmental document was being prepared right now
and the notice of proposal had been released last month.
In response to Mayor Daly, Mr. Nguyen said that the roadway height of Imperial Highway would
be raised about 34 feet above the existing elevation when it crossed the tracks and this was
approximately the same for all of the alternatives. Regional monies were being used and
matched with federal dollars.
.......
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 3
Council Member Kring asked if CalTrans had control of the federal dollars or if they were waiting
for the appropriations and Mr. Nguyen responded that the money was there and they were
waiting for the alternative to be chosen. She asked if the City of Yorba Linda had chosen an
alternative. He responded that he was not aware of any and that public comments were being
collected.
Council Member Tait asked which body made the decision on which alternative and Mr. Nguyen
replied that it was a CalTrans project, not an Orange County Transit Authority project. He asked
about condemnation hearings and Mr. Nguyen said that CalTrans would be the authority that
condemned the property. Council Member Tait asked if the two-year time frame was typical for
this type of a project and Mr. Nguyen stated that all the details and staging had not yet been
developed. Council Member Tait said that during construction, the impacts would be
tremendous as far as the whole region. He asked if there was any way to shorten the
construction time and said that it would be worth more money to shorten the time. He noted
that there was a commercial area there and said that much of the business would come from
the other side of Esperanza Road.
Mayor Daly asked staff to compile the number of Anaheim parcels that would be needed for
each of the alternatives and break down the number in Anaheim versus Yorba Linda versus
unincorporated areas. He also asked for information on the aesthetics of the project, regardless
of which alternative would be selected. He said he felt that the City should be careful with
regard to the aesthetic aspect of the project and he asked for ideas from the staff on softening
the look.
In response to Mayor Daly, Mr. Nguyen said that Imperial Highway was considered a control
access highway and did not meet freeway standards due to the fact that there were signalized
intersections and there was an interruption of traffic flow. He said that it would be considered an
expressway and with an expressway, there was total access control on the state route. Mayor
Daly asked which length of Imperial Highway would be considered an expressway and Mr.
Nguyen said that certain portions of Imperial Highway had been relinquished to the cities.
Some of the cities along the corridor owned and operated the segment, he added.
Mayor Daly encouraged staff to keep Council informed of any developments regarding the
project and to inform Council of any ideas that staff may have.
ADDITIONSIDELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None.
Mayor Daly moved to recess to Closed Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken.
Motion carried unanimously. The Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:05 P.M.
1.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: Kord Group v. The Fieldstone Company, et aI., Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 76-32-58.
2.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Initiation of
litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code):
two potential cases
n "..,..
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 4
3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Section 54956.8 of the
Government Code)
Property: 1831 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California
Agency negotiators: Joel Fick, Elisa Stipkovich
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and Peacock LLC
Under negotiation: Price and terms
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of February 26,2002 to order at 5:19 P.M. and
welcomed those in attendance.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll
Schroeder, Principal Planner Linda Johnson, Executive Director of Community Development
Elisa Stipkovich, Public Works Civil Engineer Natalie Meeks, Traffic and Transportation
Manager John Lower, Executive Director of Planning and Community Development Joel Fick.
INVOCATION: Pastor Ed Bartel, Sunkist Baptist Church
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Kring
At 5:20 P.M., Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority meetings.
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting at 5:32 P.M.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
James Robert Reade, 100 West Midway Drive, Space 124, said he believed that African
Americans should serve in the highest chain of command at the Police Department.
Dianne Harvey, 12101 Dale Street, Unit 48, Stanton, spoke on behalf of the Anaheim Alano
Club located at 202 West Broadway and said that she asked to receive funding from the
Community Services Board to improve the building which was in the Historical Colony.
Community Services Board did not recommend the funding and the organization went through
Community Development Block Grant and was not recommended for funding. She asked
Council to consider a minimal amount of $35,000 prior to approving the fiscal year budget for
the Community Development Block Grant.
John Machiaverna, 1230 E. Haven Drive, spoke in favor of the Pointe Anaheim project on
Harbor Boulevard. He noted that the area was in need of revitalization and said it would
generate money for the City that could be used in neighborhoods.
Mayor Daly noted that Mr. Machiaverna's comment pertained to public hearing Item C1 0 and
any comments for the public hearings should be held until that time.
Joseph Mulroy, 1739 Candlestick Lane, Newport Beach, said he urged City residents to vote no
on Measure Wand offered ten reasons to vote no.
, TT'
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 5
Mike Nebben, President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, 201 East Center Street, spoke
about an article in USA Today where it featured distinguished used book stores. He said that
the Book Baron in Anaheim was on the top of the list and occupied over 20,000 square feet and
had over 500,000 books. He recognized Clean City, Inc., which made a significant contribution
to the City and revitalized the eighty-year old Kraemer Building. He added that the Chamber
occupied the ground floor and mezzanine and noted that it was a delightful addition to the
landscape of downtown.
Gloria Barber, 131 South Magnolia, spoke on behalf of the Anaheim Alano Club, a non profit
organization that had been around for about forty years. She asked Council to consider an
allocation of money to the Club for building improvements.
Tom Anderson, Newport Beach, spoke about Measure Wand asked that citizens vote no. He
said that it would cost $2.1 billion to build, let alone maintain it and said it would be a severe tax
increase of $180 million to $240 million a year for twenty years. The average tax bill to Orange
County homeowners would be an additional $300 year on property taxes.
Rex Ricks, 7541 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, spoke about Measure Wand said it was
an environmental fraud. He said that there could be a variety of uses and that it was not just for
a park. He spoke about airports in the surrounding areas and said that flights could be
increased.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions,
seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A24: 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. Council Member Tait abstained on Item A 16
and Item A 17 was continued to March 19, 2002. Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 2002R-
40 through 2002R-44 and Ordinance Nos. 5803 through 5806 for adoption. Motion carried
unanimously.
118 A1.
118 A2.
117 A3.
156
105
175 A4.
150 A5.
, <n
Reject certain claims filed against the City.
Reject a certain application for leave to present a late claim.
Receive and file the Investment Portfolio Report for January 2002; the Crime and
Analysis Report of January 2002; minutes of the Public Library Board meeting held
January 7,2002; and minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held January 3,2002.
Approve and authorize the Director of Public Works to execute Contract Change Order
No.1, in the amount of $32,500, in favor of Rock Structures Construction Company for
the Walnut Canyon Reservoir, Slope Protection Project (Phase IV).
Approve the Negative Declaration and award the contract to the lowest responsible
bidder Channel Island Paving, Inc., in the amount of $251 ,500, for the Anaheim West
Skate Park Improvements and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute
the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
'f ~-".
123
158
160
160
123
123
I .. .......
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 6
Council Member Feldhaus asked about the status of a skate park in Anaheim hills and he said
that he intended to find resources in the upcoming fiscal year budget for that skate park.
Mayor Daly noted that it was Council's goal to add at least one more skate park in Anaheim hills
and to look at other potential sites. He directed staff to report to Council on the status of the
downtown portable skateboard facility.
City Manager Morgan informed that the downtown facility was to be completed over the next six
to seven months. Mayor Daly asked for follow up on the details beyond that time frame and the
adopted budget.
Council Member Feldhaus said that children needed a place to skate and that Brookhurst was
very important and a place in Anaheim hills was important. He said he would like to see a
20,000 square foot skateboard park built somewhere in the City and people from the west and
east could practice for national competitions.
A6. Approve Program Supplement No. 083-M1 to the Administering Agency-State
Agreement for traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La
Verne Street for the Safe Route to School Project.
A7. RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-40 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10487, 10481, 10480,
10429A, 10431, and 10432).
A8. Accept the low bid in of VIP Motorcycles, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $35,000
(including tax), for Kawasaki motorcycle parts for the period of April 1, 2002 through
March 31, 2003 with the option to renew for two one-year periods and authorize the
Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in accordance with Bid #6252.
A9. Accept the bid of Pacific Supply Company, in an amount not to exceed $160,000, for
annual purchases of non-original equipment manufacturer auto and light truck parts and
authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise up to four one-year renewal options in
accordance with Bid #6242.
A 10. Accept the low bid and approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Lease Agreement with Williams Scotsman, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $30,000
(including tax), for the lease/rental of a modular building at the Ponderosa Park Family
Resource Center for a twenty-four month period in accordance with Bid #6235.
A11. RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-41 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of
a Standby Certificate Purchase Agreement, approving the substitution thereof for an
existing Standby Certificate Purchase Agreement, authorizing the distribution of a
Supplement to Official Statement in connection therewith and authorizing the execution
of necessary documents and certificates and related actions (1993 Refunding Projects).
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-42 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of
a Standby Certificate Purchase Agreement, approving the substitution thereof for an
existing Standby Certificate Purchase Agreement, authorizing the distribution of a
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 7
Supplement to Official Statement in connection therewith and authorizing the execution
of necessary documents and certificates and related actions (Police Facilities
Refinancing Project).
105
A12. Accept the resignation of Ward L. Wiseman, M.D. from the Public Utilities Board and
instruct the City Clerk to post the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy.
105
A 13. Ratify the re-appointment of Esther H. Wallace as Magnolia School District's
representative to the City's Park and Recreation Commission.
114
A14. RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-43 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM urging public support for Proposition 42 on the March 5 Primary
Ballot.
185
A 15. Determine by the evidence submitted that Walt Disney World Company has DISCUSSED
good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 96.
2000 - 2001 annual review period for the Disneyland Resort Project.
Council Member Feldhaus asked when the City anticipated the Clementine, south of Katella,
dedication to come before the Planning Commission and Council. Principal Planner, Linda
Johnson, said that with regard to the dedication for Clementine, in connection the Third Gate
processing, Disney had requested to delete the segment. By the end of this year, she said, they
would have either proceeded forward with the request and that would go to Planning
Commission and Councilor they would make an offer for dedication and a schedule would be
made to the City's satisfaction.
179 A 16. RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-44 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the Waiver of Notice of Lease by the County of Orange of
certain property located in the City of Anaheim (1725 South Douglass Road).
Council Member Tait abstained on Item A16.
179
A 17. Approve a continuance of approval for consideration of a Negative Declaration for the
Betsy Ross Parksite Development Project from February 26, 2002 to March 19, 2002.
Unanimously continued to March 19, 2002, as requested by staff
123 A 18. Approve a form agreement and authorize the Chief of Police to enter into agreements for
supplemental law enforcement services to preserve the peace at special events.
Council Member Feldhaus asked that a copy of each agreement be provided to each of the non
profit organizations that were currently in the planning stages for their upcoming events in the
calendar year so that they would know what the cost would be for police services.
123 A19. Approve fiscal year 2002/2003 funding recommendations for federal Community
Development Block Grant, HOME and Emergency Shelter Grant funding requests
totaling $6,834,000 and authorize the Executive Director of the Community Development
Department to prepare and execute all required fiscal year 2002/2003 federal
documents and contracts, including individual subrecipient agreements that are
consistent with the approved funding recommendations.
-~-~. --1'T
179
179
179
179
114
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 8
Mayor Daly asked if there would be an opportunity for adjustment in the coming weeks or
months if Council approved the list of projects recommended by advisory committees.
City Manager Morgan said that the projects Council would be approving would be for next fiscal
year and there may be an opportunity to adjust it during the budget deliberations for the next
fiscal year.
Executive Director of Community Development, Elisa Stipkovich, said that it would be able to be
modified and the action plan needed to be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2002. She said that
Community Development would submit whatever Council approved tonight unless it was
changed prior to May 15th.
Council Member Kring asked if there was tobacco money that the Alano Club could apply to and
that there was a lot of County money that this might fall under.
City Manager Morgan said that staff could look into what other alternatives there may be for that
particular organization.
A20. ORDINANCE NO. 5803 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code Relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2001-00059) (Introduced at the Council
meeting of February 12, 2002, Item A 13).
A21. ORDINANCE NO. 5804 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 99-00-05) (Introduced at the Council
meeting of February 12, 2002, Item A14).
A22. ORDINANCE NO. 5805 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code Relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 99-00-09) (Introduced at the Council
meeting of February 12, 2002, Item A 15).
A23. ORDINANCE NO. 5806 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Ordinance No. 5109 relating to the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific
Plan No. 90-1 (Amendment No.4) (Introduced at the Council meeting of February 12,
2002, Item C1).
A24. Approve minutes from the Council meeting held January 29, 2002 and February 12,
2002.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
106 A25. Consider additions and/or deletions to the budget for the fiscal year 2001/2002.
~....~ '"TTU
No action taken by Council.
,.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 9
Item B1 From ZoninQ Administrator MeetinQ of February 7.2002: (No action by City Council
required unless expressly indicated. Council may consider and act upon such matters at its
discretion. Items requiring a public hearing may be set for hearing at a later date upon the
request of any two Council members.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 28,2002:
179
B1.
VARIANCE NO. 2001-04478
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1:
OWNER: Steve Poole and Denise Poole, 7650 East Camino Tampico
Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 7650 East Camino Tampico. Property is 0.21 acre having a frontage of
169 feet on the south side of Camino Tampico, a maximum depth of 91 feet and located
210 feet west of the centerline of Paseo Laredo.
Waiver of maximum height of a fence within the required front yard setback to construct
a new 6-foot high wall for a single family residence in the RS-7200 (SC) (Residential
Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2001-04478 approved, in part (ZA2002-07).
Item B2 From PlanninQ Commission MeetinQ of February 11. 2002: (No action by City
Council required unless expressly indicated. Council may consider and act upon such matters
at its discretion. Items requiring a public hearing may be set for hearing at a later date upon the
request of any two Council members.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 5,2002:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:
134
B2.
DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN -
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00013: County of Orange, Public Facilities
and Resources Department, Attn: Ron Restivo, 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA
92702, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the
proposed lease of office space by the County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources
Department. Property is located at 1725 South Douglass Road.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
General Plan Conformity Plan No. 2002-00013 determined to be in conformance with
the Anaheim General Plan (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
Recorded decision information is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning
Department's Automated Telephone System at (714) 765-5139.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder said that Items C1 through C8 were scheduled public hearings to
consider acquisition of certain property interests by eminent domain. The property owner on
Item C8 had requested a one-week continuance and staff concurred with that request.
Mayor Daly noted that each of the hearings would be conducted separately and there would be
one staff presentation on items C1 through C7.
121 C1. A public hearing to consider condemnation of certain real property located at 1100 West
Lincoln Avenue.
-_'_"'''l'''--'_'''~ .ij-.......... "-_.-_.._"^","~"____- ,,!-",
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 10
Public Works Civil Engineer, Natalie Meeks, reported that the resolutions identified as C1
through C7 were for the acquisition of right of way necessary for the construction of the Lincoln
Avenue Phase II Street Widening Project. She said that the proposed project would widen
Lincoln Avenue east and west of West Street and improve the intersection operations. The
project had been environmentally cleared through a previously approved Negative Declaration,
she said, and conformed to the City's master plan for arterial streets and highways and the
transportation element of the City's general plan. The project would improve traffic circulation
on Lincoln Avenue, she informed, which was one of the City's major arterial highways and one
of the primary accesses from the 1-5 Freeway to the downtown area. The intersection currently
operated at the level of service "D" and traffic projections anticipated a significant increase in
traffic with buildout of the general plan, she noted. Based on the City's appraisals of the subject
properties, the right of way for the proposed project required the acquisition, in full, of two of the
subject properties; Items C1 and C5, she said. For the remainder of the properties, the portions
of the properties were found to be uneconomic remnants, she added.
Item C1 was the property at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street and had a
multi-story building with commercial use on the bottom and residential units above and there
was currently one business operating within that building, she said.
Item C5 was located at 1011 West Lincoln Avenue on the north side of Lincoln and housed two
businesses; a video rental and an auto dent repair, she said. All of the businesses and
residents impacted by the acquisitions would be eligible for relocation under the state relocation
guidelines as part of the benefits of this action, she added.
The other agenda items were for partial takes of those properties, she said. The City's
relocation consultant had been in contact with the businesses and residents that were affected
and Public Works would continue to negotiate with them and find suitable relocation sites for
both businesses and residents. She said that the project was scheduled for construction this
summer and due to funding requirements, the projects must be awarded for construction by
June 30, 2002, and she recommended that Council move forward with the acquisitions.
Mayor Daly asked about the potential eligibility for relocation by the residences and businesses
and if it included tenants. Civil Engineer Meeks said that tenants were eligible as long as they
had lived on the property for at least 90-days.
Council Member Kring asked when Public Works anticipated the widening would be completed.
Ms. Meeks said it was approximately a six to eight-month construction time frame and as part of
the award of contract, the contractor would have a specific number of days to complete the work
and Public Works would work with the contractor to specify the exact start date.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing for Item C1.
Jim Powell, 1100 West Lincoln Avenue, said he was the owner and operator of the business at
1104 West Lincoln Avenue, which was in the center of the building. He said that the traffic
levels in the area were no where near beyond the capacity of the street. He said he did not
disagree that there were complications on Lincoln Avenue just east of the intersection and there
was a blind curve there that caused complications. It did not involve the buildings on the south
side of the street and involved buildings beyond and east of the West Street intersection, he
said, and noted that the buildings protruded into the intersection and into the street by fifteen to
twenty feet. He said he believed that taking those buildings and making the curves gentle would
correct the problem and that the street did not necessarily need to be widened. Mr. Powell
, ..........'
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 11
contacted Public Works and was offered an environmental study that was generalized and he
said he believed that there was no study made of that exact intersection as far as the traffic was
concerned. He said that he did not see the need to expand to six lanes on Lincoln Avenue and
that there was a need to correct the way that Lincoln tied into Center Street. Mr. Powell said he
had a renter who used his portion of the building for kick boxing, a wig shop in the center of the
property, a barber shop on the end and on the upper level, he rented rooms to families. He
added that this would affect approximately 25 to 30 people and take access away from the
people who lived on Center Street. He asked Council to study whether it was necessary to
create six lanes on Lincoln Avenue.
Council Member Kring asked Mr. Powell how many businesses were in the building and he
explained that the building went all the way through to Center Street and that there were
addresses on Center Street and there were four apartments upstairs.
Michael Sandimas, 122 South Olive, said that he believed he owned the land from Seal Beach
to Anaheim Hills and Brea Canyon and he agreed with Mr. Powell.
Greg Martin, 1105 West Center Street, said that during the 1-5 and 91 Freeway interchange
construction, traffic was transferred off of the 1-5 Freeway going south onto Lincoln Avenue for
one entire year and there were no traffic problems. He added that there were turn lanes but no
traffic signal and he had seen many wrecks because of it. He said that he was never involved in
the planning and that in the past, the City had made offers on the building. He asked for
communication and said that he had not received any responses.
Mayor Daly referred Mr. Martin to Natalie Meeks.
Anna Martin, 1105 Center Street, said that she had lived there as a tenant since 1997 and there
were other families there. She said that during the course of their stay there, her children had
been relocated three times to schools and she was concerned about relocation since her
children were doing well in school.
Mayor Daly said that he hoped that the relocation staff that was working with the four tenants of
the building would supply the families with addresses of nearby apartments. He noted that
there were quite a few apartment buildings in the immediate neighborhood and he hoped that
the relocation could be accomplished so that the children did not have to change schools.
Civil Engineer Meeks said that Public Works tried to work with the tenants and determine where
they would like to move and look into comparable housing in that area.
David Cosgrove, Rutan and Tucker, added that the relocation process involved an interview
with every party that would be relocated to determine special needs, including child care, and
the like. He said that there would be an opportunity, if there had not been already, for
potentially relocated persons to layout what the needs were and part of the process was
identification of alternative housing. There were things covered like moving expenses and rent
differentials that were within the realm to the benefits to be offered to those that were eligible.
Council Member Tait asked about the timing and Ms. Meeks said that Public Works intended to
file with the court for a 90-day possession order and it would take approximately two to three
weeks to make that filing and then 90-days after receiving the order.
. --".
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 12
David Cosgrove, Rutan and Tucker, said that the law did not permit any displacement from a
public project without at least 90-days notice to any displaced person and the City would be
making at least the 90-day notice.
Civil Engineer Meeks indicated that the funding required the City to move forward with the
project and there may be flexibility in relocating the families within 90-days and she said she
believed that there was available housing out there. She said she would try to make the
transition for the tenants as smooth as possible.
Council Member Kring asked about the rent differential and David Cosgrove, Rutan and Tucker,
responded that it was a complicated formula and fell within the province of the relocation
specialist. He said he would have the relocation specialist prepare that information for Council.
Council Member Kring noted that Mr. Powell had said that there was not enough traffic to
support the widening of Lincoln Avenue. Ms. Meeks responded that the level of service at the
intersection was Level "D" and there was a significant growth shown in traffic counts. In
1996/1997, traffic counts were 24,000 and at build out, with the additional development that was
being done in the downtown area, there would be 46,000 that was a significant increase which
would cause the intersection to fail. She said that even with the six lanes, the level of service
would be "C" and she believed that this was a minimal improvement and did line up and join the
existing six lanes that were built on Lincoln Avenue as part of the CalTrans improvements. It
would also smooth out the curve and provide better operation and safety features at that
intersection.
Council Member Kring voiced concerns that the City would go from a "D" rating to a "C" rating
and then there would be build out and then the City would have to go through this again in a few
years. Civil Engineer Meeks said that "C" rating was acceptable and improvements were made
when there was a "D", "F" or below rating.
Jennifer Powell, of 1100 West Lincoln Avenue, and operator of the business at 1104 West
Lincoln Avenue, asked if Council had given the building a historical evaluation. She had
searched for the history of the building and found that it went back to the early 1920's and she
said that Council would upset a tradition and she had wanted to continue on in her business.
She said that she was a thriving business and did not wish to relocate.
Art Castillo, 1431 West Chateau, said that the area looked historical and he was in favor of
saving the small business and asked for a win-win situation on the issue.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly asked Mrs. Powell how long she had owned and operated the wig store and she
responded that in 1989 she had taken possession of the business which had been open since
1951. She stated that legally, her husband, was the owner.
Jim Powell said that his father and uncle and their wives had opened the business up in 1951 at
1107 West Center Street, which was the back door to 1104 Center Street.
Mayor Daly asked how many square feet the wig shop was and Mr. Powell estimated it was
approximately 1,200 square feet and there was storage to one side of it.
'n
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 13
David Cosgrove, Rutan and Tucker, said that the total amount of the retail space in the building
was 4,237 square feet and the residential space upstairs, the four one-bedroom units totaled
2,850 square feet according to the appraisal. Mayor Daly noted that the average size of the
apartments was roughly 700 square feet.
Council Member Kring asked if the building could be moved since it may have some historic
significance. Civil Engineer Meeks said that she had spoken to Community Development about
it and they indicated that the building was not of historical nature to warrant moving it. She said
that it may not be very practical for the residents because of the length of time to move the
building and get it up to livable condition and the residents would be relocated more than one
time which she believed would be more disruptive. She assured Council that equal or better
housing conditions would be provided, rent differentials and all of the moving expenses would
be provided and being relocated once was the best alternative.
Mayor Daly noted that the City had made an offer to the property owner of $723,000 for property
that was a little over one-tenth of an acre, 4,992 square feet.
Council Member Tait asked if this was the least intrusive way to fix the intersection with the
widening and Ms. Meeks responded that it was the most appropriate design as determined by
the engineer according to the alignment plans that were done and alternatives that were looked
at. She said that she did not believe that signalization would solve the traffic increase problem
and the additional lanes would be needed for that. She said that signalization was part of the
plan and she wanted to eliminate the five-point intersection design that was currently existing
there and to provide a more standard intersection.
Council Member McCracken noted that this segment of Lincoln Avenue was one of the few
segments that was not three lanes and she asked if there were plans to widen Lincoln Avenue
all the way to Harbor Boulevard.
Traffic and Transportation Manager, John Lower, said that would be consistent with the City's
general plan and from a traffic view point, the City would like to have a vibrant down town and it
should be easy for people to get down town. He said that the width of the 1-5 Freeway had just
doubled and the Lincoln Avenue interchange had been improved and the City was responding
to the critical volumes by improving the number of lanes for east and west bound traffic between
down town and the freeway.
Mayor Daly asked how long ago the environmental analysis and alignment studies had been
performed and Civil Engineer Meeks stated that the Negative Declaration had been done in
March 1999.
In response to Council Member Kring, Ms. Meeks said that this project included only the
intersection and she said that the general plan called for the six lanes to be continued.
Mayor Daly noted that he had heard from people in the area who asked when the improvements
would take place and he noted that the City needed to streamline and modernize the traffic flow
since the work had been done on the Lincoln/I-5 interchange. He said that it was unfortunate
that the proposal involved relocation of four tenants and storefront businesses and he noted that
relocation benefits were available and the City would work with all of the affected parties.
Council Member Tait said he was convinced that there was a need and necessity for the project
and recognized the emotional ties that the tenants and businesses had. He asked that staff do
TT
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 14
everything that they could to make the relocation as easy as possible for the tenants and
businesses.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-45 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-45 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1100 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00006).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 4, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus and Tait.
Noes - 1, Council Member Kring. Motion carried.
121 C2. A public hearing to consider the condemnation of certain real property located at 1008
West Lincoln Avenue.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-46 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-46 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1008 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00019).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
121
C3.
A public hearing to consider the condemnation of certain real property located at 1000
West Lincoln Avenue.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-47 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-47 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1000 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00020).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
121 C4. A public hearing to consider the condemnation of certain real property located at 1007
West Lincoln Avenue.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
-. '1T
1
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 15
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-48 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-48 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1007 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00021).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
121
C5.
A public hearing to consider the condemnation of certain real properties located at 1009
and 1011 West Lincoln Avenue.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-49 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-49 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1009 and 1011 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of
conducting roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00022).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
C6.
A public hearing to consider condemnation of certain real property located at 1001 West
Lincoln Avenue.
121
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-50 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-50 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1001 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00023).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
121
C7.
A public hearing to consider condemnation of certain real property located at 1101 West
Lincoln Avenue.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-51 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-51 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
-.... ~ ......-T
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 16
portions of property located at 1101 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00024).
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
Mayor Daly asked that staff provide information on what types of remnant parcels would remain
after the road work was done, the landscape plan and any other features of the design. He
expressed an interest in the video store property east of the car wash and he asked if there
would be any remnant properties remaining after the project.
Civil Engineer Meeks said that the exhibit posted was the alignment plan and not too much of
the video store was to be taken. It was not economical to remodel that building so it ended up
being a full take since nothing could really be built on it, she informed. She said that there
would be a remnant there and she did not have the final plans with the landscaping and would
bring them back to Council when available.
121 C8. A public hearing to consider the condemnation of certain real property located at 1025
West Lincoln Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1025 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00025).
A letter had been submitted by a spokesperson for the Carlin Family Trust on Item C8 and they
had indicated their support for a one-week continuance as requested. Staff concurred with the
request.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to continue Item C8 to March 19,
2002, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
C9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3802
179 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Elva M. West, 5201 East Crescent Drive
Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: George Staehling, 18200 Avenida Bosque
Murietta, CA 92562
LOCATION: 1500 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately O.79-acre with a
frontage of 165 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 1,480 feet west of the
centerline of Cliffrose Street (Eastside Jewelry and Loan).
Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on January 5, 1999 to expire January
5, 2002) to retain a pawn shop within an existing commercial center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3802 for five years to expire on
January 5, 2007 (PC2002-6) (4 yes votes, Commissioners Eastman, Koos and
Vanderbilt voted no).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
, ..n
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 17
(Informational item at the Council meeting of January 29,2002, Item B7. Review of the
Planning Commission's decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member
McCracken).
Mayor Daly stated that he had some inquiries on the item from people in the community and he
said that those people had not been able to get questions answered due to schedule limitations.
He asked if Council would continue the item for one week and he asked the property owner if he
was amenable to a seven-day continuance on the public hearing.
Elva M. West, 5201 East Crescent Drive, owner, asked that the hearing be held.
City Attorney White stated that Council had the discretion to continue the item for a reasonable
period of time. He said that Council had the option to continue the item and take all the
testimony at a subsequent meeting; open the hearing and take testimony and then continue it to
the next meeting after having received some of the testimony; or complete the item and take an
action.
Mayor Daly said that the permit was in place and the continuance would not affect the operation
and he asked the Council Members what their preference would be. He said he would like the
opportunity to obtain answers to questions of the citizens.
Council Member Kring noted that there were people present for the hearing to speak in support
of the project and she asked that if it were to be continued, that testimony be taken tonight to
have those individuals on the record. She said she preferred to complete the public hearing
item.
Council Member Feldhaus agreed with Council Member Kring and Council Member Tait to hold
the public hearing if Council Members were ready to take an action.
Executive Director of Planning and Community Development, Joel Fick, presented a staff report
and said that this was a request to reinstate a conditional use permit in order to retain a pawn
shop. The property was developed with a six-unit, 10,000 square foot commercial center and
was zoned Commercial-Limited, he said. The conditional use permit was approved by the
Planning Commission in 1995 for a three-year period of time, he informed. In 1999, the permit
was reinstated by Council for an additional two years and expired last month. On January 14,
2002, the Planning Commission reinstated the permit for a period of five years to expire on
January 5,2007, he said. Staff recommended that the Commission require the trees and shrub
screen be planted in the existing landscape setback next to Lincoln Avenue, he said, and
Commission also recommended that the existing non-conforming pole signs be renovated and
enhanced to more closely match the present sign code. He explained that staff felt that these
conditions were necessary to compliment the recent beautification efforts on Lincoln Avenue,
including the undergrounding of power lines. Commission granted the reinstatement with a new
condition requiring installation of additional landscaping without the Commission requiring the
non-conforming signs to be enhanced. He said that a majority of the Commission who voted for
the reinstatement felt that there was not a sufficient nexus to require that the signs be upgraded
based upon the time associated with the extension.
Mayor Daly noted that the vote of the Planning Commission included asking the property owner
to install additional landscaping along the frontage, along the sidewalk on the front of the
property and Director Fick stated yes. Mayor Daly asked about the signage issue and Director
Fick commented that there was consultation with staff from the Attorney's Office and there was
->< . <<41fT
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 18
concern about a nexus tie. He said that staff had attempted to bring the signage more closely
into compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, if not completely in compliance with Code,
recognizing that there were some concerns about the ability to impose the signage change from
a legal standpoint, related to nexus issues, he added.
Mayor Daly asked if the property owner was in agreement with the landscaping condition and
Director Fick stated that the applicant was not entirely appreciative of the condition bringing the
landscaping into compliance and it was a condition that the Planning Commission imposed. He
added that staff was more focused on the issues of conformance on the site with the current
codes and beautification of the Lincoln Avenue frontage.
Council Member Kring said that the police had problems with trees being planted in front and
she said that they felt that there should not be trees in front of establishments such as these
because driving by, they had no visibility into the business. She said in asking for some type of
trees, that this should be deferred to the police and do low landscaping so the police could see
into the property and not do anything that would cover up the windows.
Mayor Daly asked if there was a comment from the Police Department and Director Fick
suggested that the site be treated similar to other sites and he added that the Commission had
felt the same way. He said that with regard to the trees, Planning works with all applicants with
the Community Services Department in selecting trees that both work for visibility for the site,
signage with the site and proper maintenance. He said he believed that the shrub screen was
about a three-foot screen and there were not visibility issues associated with that. He said that
Planning would make the same offer on a staff basis to work with the applicant on any tree
selection.
In response to Mayor Daly, Director Fick stated that on the fifteen-foot unused sign, Code would
permit a 25-foot high, 20-foot wide, 82 square foot freestanding sign on the site. He said that
the existing sign was approximately 25-feet high, 24-feet wide with a sign area of 232 square
feet.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
Elva West, 5201 East Crescent Drive, said that when the property was built, the sign had been
approved and met the City Code and he said that it seemed that the rules were changing and
he expressed his disappointment. He said that he had discussed with the Planning Commission
that he had no plans and would not change the sign and there were parts of the sign that were
not used at the moment. He said that there were two buildings on the property and one was the
building that the pawn shop was in and there was a tailor shop and photography shop. The
other building, he said, was College Hospital outpatient psychiatric help and they used the
whole building, approximately 5,000 square feet, and the hospital had chosen not to use the
sign that went with that property. Mr. West had a short term lease which would be up in two to
four years. There were three different units in the building and the two back units were not
visible from the street and if he changed the sign, and College Hospital left, he would have a
problem leasing the property in the back and that was why the sign was that way. The sign in
front of the other building had been leased with the building as part of the lease and he said he
believed that he would have a legal problem with the photography and tailor shops if he
changed the sign. With regard to the landscaping, he said that he had recently landscaped the
property with low shrubs as was his desire and taste. Mr. West said that there had been
discussion at the Planning Commission about the property, which was a four-foot strip of land
between the parking lot and the sidewalk. He said he had been told originally, when he had
, Tr
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 19
built the property, that it had belonged to the City. He had placed a very small block wall fence
on the east side of the property from the building out to the sidewalk and he received a bill for
several hundred dollars from the City and was told that he was encroaching on City property.
He said that he raised tropical palms and he had agreed that if it was necessary, that he could
place some of his tropical palms in that parkway. He explained that the palms were fast-
growing, neat and would not disturb the sidewalk. He said he would be opposed to placing
large trees that would obscure the view of the building.
Mayor Daly asked about the block wall and Mr. West said that the block wall fence was only two
feet high and was used to separate his property from the rest home. At the Planning
Commission meeting, Mr. West had been informed that the property belonged to him and that
there would be a time in the near future that they would be taking seven more feet of the
property for utilities or something.
Michael Dean Sands, 122 South Olive, spoke about the property and College Hospital. He said
that taxpayers would save money and Mr. West could lease the land if College Hospital moved
to Santa Ana.
George Staehling, 18200 Avenida Bosque, Murrietta, submitted a letter for the record and spoke
about a planter area in the front of the property. He said the fence that Mr. West put up did not
divide the pawn shop and College Hospital and the convalescent hospital was on the east and
the common driveway was for College Hospital and the pawn shop. Mr. West had been denied
the use of the strip of property for thirty years and it could have been used, maybe even for
parking since there was not much room to back up and turn around. He said that the police
department said that they did not want anything to block the view of the pawn shop such as no
hedge in front and no big trees. He stated that he had appeared before the Planning
Commission three years ago and they had wanted it left the way it was. Mr. Staehling did not
want anything that would block off and screen the front of the building from public view. He
explained the process to start a pawn shop and said that when the City had granted them a
conditional use permit he thought they were allowed to go into business. Three years later, he
said, the conditional use permit expired and then the issue of the signs was brought up. He said
that the sign was grandfathered in when he went into business and he was told that there was
not a problem.
In response to Mayor Daly, Mr. Staehling said he did not live anywhere near a pawn shop even
through he used to. Mr. Staehling said that he would like to get rid of the time limitation and that
he could not make future plans.
In response to Council Member Feldhaus, Mr. Staehling said that the lease with Mr. West had
expired and he was waiting to see what happened with the public hearing.
In response to Mayor Daly, Mr. Staehling said the Hoc It To Doc Pawn Shop near Brookhurst
and Ball had added on to the building without pulling permits and he was booted out and was
over at Srookhurst and Broadway.
Council Member Kring said that Planning Commission had given the pawn shop five years and
she asked Mr. Staehling if he could live with five years. Mr. Staehling responded that he could
not hire permanent employees and he said that the pawn shop was a lifetime business and he
could not just pick up and move. He said he could not do that since he would have to come up
with another $100,000 cash as a requirement of the Department of Justice. Council Member
, ......."!T"
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 20
Kring said that this Councilor any Council would probably not grant him an unlimited time
frame.
Scott Munson, 215 Moore Street, Lake Elsinore, said that there were a lot of families in the City
that could not afford to rent an instrument for their student child but they could come to the pawn
shop and buy a brand new one for less than they could rent one. He said if someone ran out of
food, it took them a while to get food stamps but they could take only five minutes at the pawn
shop to get cash and he listed the opportunities that the pawn shop offered. He said that the
pawn shop had a clean image and he asked that Council look beyond the sign that was a little
bit big and see all the people that had been helped. In response to Mayor Daly, Mr. Munson
stated that he lived near a pawn shop.
Jim Bonsteel, 1203 North Grove Street, said he was in favor of a five-year extension for the
pawn shop. He said that four to six years ago, a master plan was accepted by the Council for
the citizens of Anaheim to lower the signs for beautification. Mr. Bonsteel had never lived near
a pawn shop and had seen both good and bad about them. He said Mr. Staehling's place was
a clean establishment and the sign was not that bad. He asked for Council's support of the five-
year extension.
Michelle Lieberman, 319 North Harbor Boulevard, said that the sign on the property was too
large for the site in question and the surrounding neighborhood. She said the veterinary
hospital, hardware store, dental center and glass doctor businesses were neighbors of the
property at 1500 East Lincoln Avenue and had signs that conformed to the City's standards and
were smaller in nature. She said the signs were all easy to see and read from Lincoln Avenue
and she said that she believed that the businesses were not suffering because of the size of the
signage and a smaller sign for the pawn shop would not affect its customer base. The City had
worked long and hard at cleaning up Lincoln Avenue, she added, and this was an opportunity to
get this property site in conformance with the City's existing Codes. If conditional use permits
were renewed without requiring the applicants to conform to the current Codes, Council would
not be taking the opportunity to make a positive change except on completely new projects.
She said that a conditional use permit was conditional and Mr. West should be allowed the
permit but only on the condition that the size of the sign was reduced and would conform to the
City's current standards and she asked Council to take the opportunity.
Mayor Daly said that he had heard from the residents of the Colony Historic Neighborhood and
some persons that were living right outside the downtown area. He told the citizens that there
was a time limitation and that there would be an opportunity in the future to comment as
citizens.
Mr. West said he would like to be granted the permit and would like to have the building be
filled. He said that the Code now allowed retail sales and if he lost the pawn shop, he would
retain the sign and rent it to someone that would be suitable for the location. He noted that
across the street Children's Hospital of Orange County had a huge sign that was much larger
than his sign and there was a motel down the street who had a sign that was not nearly as
attractive as the pawn shop's. He said he wanted to keep the building attractive and he liked
the idea of beautifying the area.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Council Member Feldhaus said that the last time the item was before Council, he did not believe
that the pawn shop sign was an identification sign for people driving by; he said it was a
~'..-,..,,,,-. --j ......;...-............--','.'...... """---.' ..._..~..~._,.~."._.._._..
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 21
destination. He said he believed that the police department did not want tall shrubs or trees and
they wanted a maximum three-foot height in order to have visibility of the area. He asked the
Council to consider supporting the action taken by the Planning Commission and at least grant
Mr. West another three years on the property with the sign. Mr. West indicated that he had
transplanted or planted some small shrubs and landscape with small low shrubs. He said he
could not imagine loosing the pawn shop as a tenant because of a sign. The legal non
conforming sign was there and had been there for thirty years, he said, and was legal when Mr.
West put it in. He recommended support of the Planning Commission activity to grant the
extension.
Mayor Daly clarified that Planning staff had recommended a three-year extension and Planning
Commission had approved five years.
Council Member McCracken asked if there would be nexus if the pawn shop was given five
years. City Attorney White said that he did not believe that you could create a nexus for a
condition by simply extending out the period of time that the use was allowed to remain. He
said that with regard to enclosing conditions, the City had to establish that the use was of such a
nature that it reasonably required the condition to be imposed due to that particular use of the
property and not necessarily the length of time of the use. He said that the City had to establish
that the burden imposed by the condition was proportional to the benefits being obtained by the
applicant and that was the basis of the recommendation previously given to the Planning
Commission relating to the signage. He added that this was a legal, non conforming sign and
there were limitations under state law in dealing with signs and how those were to be dealt with
in regard to changes of use.
Council Member McCracken said that she hoped that the vision of the pawn shop would be to
create that outside image. She said that Council was looking at a whole different image on
Lincoln Avenue and she said that maybe if the Children's Hospital of Orange County and hotel
signs came down, Mr. West would commit to changing the image of his business.
Council Member Feldhaus noted that he asked for a time limit on the permit because it was an
area in transition and Mr. West would see the transition before long.
Council Member Tait seconded the motion to reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision of
the five-year time limitation. He said he would offer a greater time
Mayor Daly said he felt that the recommendation of the Planning staff, as opposed to the split
vote of the Planning Commission, was the more appropriate action. He said that the Planning
staff had recommended a three-year extension of the conditional use permit and a smaller,
more appropriate sign for the location in keeping with the other improvements on Lincoln
Avenue that had been completed or planned. Mayor Daly noted concerns he had heard from
the residents regarding the size of the sign and noted that Mr. West was not willing to
modernize his pawn shop. Mayor Daly noted that he would be opposing the motion.
Council Member Feldhaus moved, seconded by Council Member Kring, to approve the CEQA
Finding of Negative Declaration. Ayes - 4, Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes -1, Mayor Daly. Motion carried.
Council Member Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 2002R-52 for adoption.
TT
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 22
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REINSTATING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3802 FOR
A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, TO EXPIRE JANUARY 14, 2007, AND AMENDING
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATING THERETO AS SET FORTH IN
RESOLUTIONS NO. 99R-3 AND PC95-143.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 4, Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and Kring. Noes - 1,
Mayor Daly. Motion carried.
C10. ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE ANAHEIM INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED
126 NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00393
AMENDMENT NO.5 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1
(INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLAN. DESIGN PLAN. AND
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE
PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE NO. 4078
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-1:
OWNERS: Price Enterprises, Inc., c/o Excel Legacy Corporation
Attention: William J. Stone, 16955 Via Del Campo, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92127
Zaby Motor Lodge, Attention: Angelo Zaby and Thomas Zaby
444 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
Francis A. Ursini, Joanne T. Christian, 1804 Hummingbird Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Pyrovest Corporation, Attention: Jeff Kok, President
1101 East Garvey Avenue, Suite 208, Monterey Park, CA 91755
City of Anaheim, Attention: Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, 201
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Anaheim Center for Entertainment, LLC
Attention: Robert H. Shelton, 11 Keats Court, Coto de Caza, CA 92679
LOCATION: 400 West Disnev Way. 1737 South Clementine Street. 1755 South
Clementine Street. 1700 South Harbor Boulevard. 301 West Katella Avenue. and
401 - 409 West Katella Avenue. The irregularly-shaped project area, which is located
in the Anaheim Resort™, consists of approximately 29.1 acres located between Harbor
Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. It has
approximate frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way between Harbor
Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street
between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station NO.3 at 1713-1717
South Clementine Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between
Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and
585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet
south of the centerline of Disney Way.
Request for approval of an amendment to the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and
Entertainment Complex to permit the following: 634,700 gross square feet of
retail/dining/entertainment uses, which includes a 94,000 square foot aquarium; up to
four hotels comprising a maximum of 1,662 hotel rooms/suites (of which up to 200 units
may be vacation ownership resort units) with approximately 322,071 gross square feet of
---" , ."n
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 23
related accessory uses of which up to 178,120 gross square feet on top of the parking
structure may be used for a hotel conference center (the hotel rooms/suites and
accessory uses would encompass a maximum of 1,370,711 gross square feet); and a
1,949,800 gross square foot parking structure with up to 4,800 striped parking spaces
(the minimum number of striped parking spaces would be 3,752) and 15 bus spaces with
a 10,200 square foot bus terminal/facility for airport transport and to/from sightseeing
venues. The development of Pointe Anaheim, as proposed to be modified, would take
place in up to five phases.
Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration/Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004: Request for approval of the Addendum to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, which addresses the
proposed modifications to the Pointe Anaheim project, including development in up to
five phases.
General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00393: Request to amend the Land Use Element
to reflect the description of the Pointe Anaheim project as it is proposed to be modified.
Amendment No.5 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No.
92-1: Request to amend the Pointe Anaheim Overlay to describe the Pointe Anaheim
project as it is proposed to be modified, as an integrated, mixed use development. The
Specific Plan Amendment includes text and exhibit changes throughout the document to
reflect the proposed modifications to the Pointe Anaheim project including, but not
limited to, the following:
. Amendment to the Land Use Plan to modify the project description including development in
up to five phases.
. Amendment to the Design Plan to modify the conceptual plans depicting the layout of the
Pointe Anaheim project, to add a Phasing Diagram, to modify the requirements for interior
setback landscaping adjoining The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 zoning and for
landscaping along the perimeter of parking facilities, and to permit a median break on
Disney Way for vehicle access to and from Pointe Anaheim.
. Amendment to the Zoning and Development Standards to add vacation ownership resort
units, aquariums. on-site and off-site directional signs, and murals as conditionally permitted
uses.
Amendment No.3 to The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program:
Request to modify the landscape concept plans for Disney Way (former Freedman Way)
to permit a signalized median break on Disney Way between Harbor Boulevard and
Clementine Street to provide vehicle ingress and egress to the Pointe Anaheim project.
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078: Request to amend Conditional Use
Permit No. 4078 to modify the land uses and maximum square footages of the Pointe
Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and Entertainment Complex including development in up to five
phases, to modify the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, and to amend the
conditions of approval to reflect the project modifications.
First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 between the City of
Anaheim and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC: Request for consideration of the First
Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 vesting certain project
entitlements and addressing implementation of the Pointe Anaheim project, as proposed
to be modified, including development in up to five phases.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration/Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 approved (PC2001-159) (7 yes
votes).
Recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00393 (PC2001-160).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 24
Recommended adoption of Amendment No.5 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
No. 92-1 (PC2001-161).
Recommended adoption of Amendment NO.3 to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm
Landscape Program (PC2001-162).
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 approved (PC2001-163).
Waiver of Code Requirement approved.
Determined that the development proposed meets the criteria for entering into the First
Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 (PC2001-164).
(Continued from the Council meeting of December 11, 2001, Item C5; January 8, 2002,
Item C6; and February 12, 2002, Item C2).
Executive Director of Community Development and Planning, Joel Fick, noted that Council had
received substantial documentation of the public hearing and related aspects would be covered
by Community Development. He said that following extensive review, the Point Anaheim
project was originally approved in June 1999 for a single phase, 29-acre project. Since that
time, he said the project had been modified and the development and entitlements had been
updated accordingly. Pointe Anaheim project was a high quality, fully integrated, mixed-use
project, he said, that would have a festive, theme orientation with plaza and pedestrian
amenities. He said that modification to the original project included project phasing, amending
the next allocation of uses and adding a signalized break. The changes included an increase in
the number of hotel rooms by 612 and an associated increase in square footage. It included a
slight decrease of 15,300 square feet in the retail/dining/entertainment and other uses and was
still very substantial at a total of 634,000 plus square feet, he said. The bus terminal facility
decreased a small amount by 11,000 square feet and the parking structure square footage was
increased by 349,800 square feet and would provide 4,800 self-park spaces at full build out, he
informed. Any references in various project entitlements to the number of parking spaces at full
build out, should always be 4,800 and the parking waiver had been modified accordingly, he
noted. Other modifications included a provision that up to 200 hotel rooms could be developed
as vacation ownership resort units and he pointed out that the transient occupancy tax would be
applicable to the units as well. There was an aquarium that was incorporated and the original
live theater complex with 4,600 seats had been deleted. On November 19,2001, Planning
Commission conducted a detailed public hearing and unanimously approved the development-
related entitlements. Planning Commission determined that the Addendum to the Pointe
Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Plan 004, was adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for
the project actions, he said. The applicant had demonstrated eligibility to enter into the First
Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-01, which met the criteria set forth in
the City's procedure resolution. He noted that a Disposition and Development and a Lease
Agreement were before the Council and as a result to those discussions, certain modifications
were made to the Addendum relating to the program public use of excess capacity in the
parking structure during non-peak hours for Convention Center overflow parking. There were
some revisions to the Addendum and there were no land use project modifications associated
with the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement component. On February 11, 2002,
he said the Planning Commission approved the revisions to determine that the revised
addendum was consistent with the recommendations, findings and conditions of approval
adopted by the Commission on November 19, 2001. He said that the unanimous land use
recommendations were not changed for approval on that date, in connection with the
development related entitlements.
Executive Director of Community Development, Elisa Stipkovich, said that if the Disposition and
Development Agreement were to be approved by Council, it would allow the City to convey the
~_n' ....."...n .... _ ..._.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 25
City owned land to the developer; acquire certain interest in the public parking facilities and
provide public parking for the general public as well as for the Convention Center. She said that
the developer would also provide 2,000 square feet to the Police Department for a police
substation as well as provide public art for the project. The Disposition and Development
Agreement indicated that the City would convey the City site, she said, which was 1.35 acres at
the intersection of Disney Way and Clementine for the price of $2,355,000. The developer
would also convey to the City an easement, which was held by them on the fire station side, for
an amount of $200,000 which would be a deduction from the City's land. The Disposition and
Development allowed for an attachment for the City to acquire public parking, she noted, and
that would include all of the public parking that the developer was building, which was up to
4,800 spaces. After the developer built the parking they would then lease the parking to the City
and the City would enter into a parking operating agreement, which was attached to the
Disposition and Development Agreement, she added, and the developer would operate and
manage the parking facility. Part of the public benefits provided, in addition to the parking,
would be fifteen bus spaces and a 10,000 square foot bus terminal, and one hour of free
parking for every visit to the site for the public, in addition to any validation or normal free
parking that would be offered through a validation system to the tenants. She said the City
would have the right to use up to 75 percent of all available parking, per the parking analysis,
except for times which were considered to be black out periods such as Friday and Saturday
evenings. The developer was allowed to specify 25-days within the year that would be black out
days. Sunday through Friday, the City had the right to use 75 percent of the available parking
spaces for Convention Center overflow, she said. All of the revenue derived from the
Convention Center parking would be shared with the Convention Center up to 75 percent of the
gross and 50 percent of the gross, if the City, at their option, still continued with the one hour of
free parking. A decision would have to be made on an annual basis as to whether the City
preferred to have the one-hour free parking for the public and share 50 percent of the cost or
the revenue from the Convention Center parking or no one-hour parking and 75 percent of the
revenue from the parking. The 2,000 square foot police substation, that the developer would
provide at no cost to the City, had been valued at $37.4 million net present value over thirty
years. In addition to that, she said that the developer, as part of the Disposition and
Development Agreement, had to build to a certain level of quality and cost and Community
Development based an analysis of the subsidy for the project on the actual cost and differential
in revenue. She said that there was an Exhibit D to the Disposition and Development
Agreement that had a requirement on what the cost would be and Community Development
would also have to prove specifications of the project so that it could be shown that the same
quality was received that was analyzed originally by Community Development in the economics.
The City had an obligation to provide a rental payment on an annual basis to the developer for
the free parking and the various public parking, she said. The payments to the developer for the
parking would be an amount equal to 50 percent of the sales tax for up to thirty years and 50
percent of the transient occupancy tax for the first hotel for ten years, she said, and up to a cap
of $30 million net present value. There were no upfront costs to the City in the economic deal
and there were contingent payments on an annual basis based on actual revenue received by
the City and there was no risk in terms of annual payments. In addition to the public benefits
valued at $37.4 million, the City would receive a net transient occupancy tax property tax and
sales tax of approximately $114 million net present value over thirty years, she added.
Director Fick concluded that staff believed that this was a high quality project and would be a
great asset to the Anaheim Resort and there were a series of recommendations that
recommended approval of the project.
~". ~ >~n> ~ . "" d>.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 26
In response to Mayor Daly, John Erskine, Nossaman, Gunther, Knox and Elliott, LLP, 18101
Von Karman Avenue, #1800, Irvine, CA 92612, spoke about phasing and how the entitlements
worked. He said that the initial phase of the project was required to be started within three
years and each subsequent phase, within four years after opening the proceeding phase. He
said that it was required that no phase should take longer than two years to build and
construction of all development had to be commenced within ten years, from start date of the
entitlement.
In response to Council Member Kring, Director Stipkovich said that the maximum the City would
be obligated to pay in rental payments would be $30 million over that period of time.
Council Member Tait said 50 percent of sales and transient occupancy tax was rent for the
parking structure and Director Stipkovich said that was correct. He asked if the value of the
parking structure would be $37.4 million and Director Stipkovich said the cost of the parking
structure for 4,800 spaces was greater that the $37 million and she said she had referred to the
value of the one-hour free parking, Convention Center parking, police substation and public art
had a value of $37.4 million. The parking structure itself, she said, had a much higher value and
the public benefits were analyzed in addition to having the 4,800 space parking structure for the
public to use the independent items were $37.4 million. Council Member Tait asked if the net
number over thirty years would be $114 million and Director Stipkovich said that it would be
cash to the City and it was above and beyond the public benefit she had mentioned.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
In response to Mayor Daly, John Erskine, Nossaman, Gunther, Knox and Elliott, LLP, 18101
Von Karman Avenue, #1800, Irvine, CA 92612, representative of Excel Pointe Anaheim LLC
and Price Legacy Corporation, said that City staff had already presented the essential details of
the entitlement amendments described in the applicant's resolutions as proposed project
actions. The fact that the addendum was revised by the Planning Commission on February 11,
2002, to the Pointe Anaheim Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 004 were adequate to serve for the environmental documentation for the
proposed project actions. He said the details about the proposed Disposition and Development
Agreement and the eleven exhibits listed as A through L with exhibit F intentionally omitted and
the Amended and Restated Development Agreement was before Council for adoption by
resolution. He noted that there was an additional parking exhibit that would be entitled
"Minimum Number of Spaces Available at Peak Demand for Convention Center Parking" and
would be included with the record. He said a letter from his firm dated February 21, 2002 would
be included in the Administrative Record with the materials presented by staff for Council
review. He noted that this provided their client's comments on four letters sent to the City by the
Palmieri Tyler firm on November 19, 2001, February 1,2002, February 11,2002 and a second
letter on February 11, 2002 on behalf of Pyrovest. He said that his firm indicated on February
21, 2002, on behalf of Excel, Pyrovest initially in its November 19, 2001 letter, raised numerous
California Environmental Quality Act related and procedural concerns regarding the Pointe
Anaheim entitlement actions and subsequently, narrowed its focus to a fair share analysis of the
development rights and financial benefits under the Pointe Anaheim overlay. A specific portion
of the February 21, 2002, letter dealt with the adequacy of the Addendum and a specific statute,
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and case law, that addressed the referenced
issues raised by the Palmieri Tyler firm in their November 19, 2001 letter to the Planning
Commission. He added that they had reviewed a letter dated February 26, 2002 and said that it
was a compilation of issues raised in the four prior letters and he noted that a few of the points
would be addressed.
'iT
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 27
David Rose, 420 McKinley Street, #111, Corona, said that he had created the idea of building a
city walk project and was told after speaking to many people who said the project would never
happen and that the land was too expensive and the project too big. He realized after speaking
to Robert Shelton that there was an opportunity for a project and now the ground breaking
would take place in the next 30 to 45 days and the existing structures would be demolished.
Robert Shelton, Anaheim Center for Entertainment, LLC, 11 Keats Court, Coto de Caza, CA
92679, said that David Rose had a fundamentally good concept and he pointed out a location
that needed that concept and he had picked out a project in a City that had a reputation and
experience in dealing with large, complex projects. Excel was in excess of $45 million of private
risk money for the project and after six years, there had not been any profit for the company and
he asked Council to consider what had been accomplished. He said that land that had the
characteristic that would merit it being under a Redevelopment Agency and having the tools of
Redevelopment and it was assembled without a single Redevelopment Agency tool. He said
that with Council's support, they were only a few months away from the groundbreaking event
and the hearing tonight was the culmination of his commitment to the project. He said that his
role had been the coordinator of the pre-development activities and he would be turning the
project over to Bill Stone of Price Legacy who would put in foundations, build buildings, bring in
tenants and open for business. He added that he needed to work on the matter of enforcement
of legal and inequitable rights to a piece of property that was at the corner of Harbor Boulevard
and Disney Way.
William Stone, Vice President of Price Enterprises, Inc., c/o Excel Legacy Corporation, 16955
Via Del Campo, Suite 240, San Diego, CA 92127, said that his company did very high quality
projects. He referred to a power point slide presentation and also offered information on other
projects that Excel had completed. He said that their main business was open-air retail centers
and their company's total assets were $1.1 billion and total revenues of $106 million. He noted
that the project had changed names from Pointe Anaheim to Anaheim Garden Walk and had a
new logo. He said that the best architects in the world, WATG, were brought in and were top
hotel and resort architects and Callison who had designed every Nordstrom's. He said there
was a budget in excess of $10 million for landscaping, water features and those types of things,
not including hardscaping in the project. He said that this would be a two-level project and
people could get there by escalators, elevators and Spanish steps for a very gradual climb up to
the aquarium. He said that there would be something to see along the walks and awnings,
trellises were throughout the project and there was a tremendous amount landscaping and rich
materials would be used. This would be a special place for people to go to dinner when they
have a special occasion and would feel comfortable strolling through there on a Saturday night,
he said. He said that a lot of natural materials would be used and he offered Council the color
board to view. In the center court, the design was set up so that a big water feature was there
and there were a lot of areas outside the restaurants where people could sit outside and eat.
On Saturday afternoons, he said, there was an area where there could be weddings and other
public events. In the evenings, there was an area for concerts. He said that this was a great
place for the conventioneer to come and get away from the convention or have a private
meeting. He introduced the representatives of WATG and Callison to provide more architectural
details on the project.
Mayor Daly asked if the aquarium was included in the retail space calculation and Mr. Stone
stated that there was a retail space calculation and then there was an addition of the aquarium
which was about 90,000 square feet. Excluding the aquarium, the maximum retail space was
520,000 square feet and it would be approximately 600,000 square feet including the aquarium.
. .....
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 28
John Erskine noted that the Community Development report said 540,000 square feet and it did
not include the aquarium and it would have said 630,000 if the 90,000 had been added for the
aquarium. He added that the report should have said 1,662 hotel rooms not 1,622.
Greg Coghill, Wimberly, Allison, Tong and Gu Architects (WATG), presented his design scheme
to bring a world class urban resort development to the City. He presented a vision of the project
in its full build out and discussed key points of the overall master plan and Callison would
discuss the pedestrian street. The second phase, he said, would show how the project would
start with the initial phase and be added to over time, allowing for parking, ingress, egress and
different construction staging, he said. The third and last phase would show three alternatives,
he said. The architects said that they intended to fulfill the intent of the Specific Plan by bringing
an urban resort environment to the Anaheim Resort district. Mr. Coghill said that they had
hoped that all of the uses came together to be a successful resort environment within an urban
context. He presented a power point presentation and said that behind Clementine Street, a
pedestrian street had been formed that was at the core of the design scheme. He showed
parking and elevations and noted that the conference center would be shared by all four hotel
projects and they were looking at developing time share units. He explained how pedestrians
would enter and go up a ramp where they would be at pedestrian level, several feet above road
level. He said that the vehicular access would drop several feet to come to the parking zone
below and there would be three sides of access: Katella, Harbor and Disney Way. A fourth
entrance that occurred off of Clementine would be devoted to service vehicles, busses that
would go to respective loading zones and in the center was the transportation center for bus
drop off. He said that orienting the street level to a mid floor height, allowed the architects to go
down four feet and not have to go a whole floor and it avoided extra expense for excavation.
Bill Engle, Callison Architecture, spoke of Callison's large retail environments and mixed use
projects and he added that both WATG and Callison were working together as a team to design
the retail and the end result was a very high quality project with an optimum utilization and a
fully integrated master plan. He said that the goal of the retail environment was to attract local
community members as well as visitors to Anaheim. It would offer a mixture of international,
national and local tenants, he said, and would incorporate venues, activities and amenities that
appealed to families and to create a pleasant and romantic destination of dining, retail and
outdoor experiences. He said that there was a natural environment that was emphasized with
colors and textures, landscaping and water elements. The pedestrian street was in harmony
with the total project and served as a thread of continuity in making all of the various uses and
activities together, he said. He explained the important design features and the way it gradually
transitioned from the street to the main retail activity, culminating in the central plaza. He
showed renderings of the second level of restaurants and the entrance to the aquarium. He
said that the retail environment was interconnected to the four hotels and parking and was in
various locations for customer convenience. He shared multiple construction area scenarios
that were proposed and they varied in their size and specific uses. Area A 1 was a smaller
amount of retail, a themed hotel and structured parking, he informed, and Area A2 was
additional retail with the added aquarium and additional parking. Area B, he said, added a
second hotel, and Area C added conference centers above the parking structure and a third
themed hotel and some additional retail. Area D had the fourth hotel and additional parking and
retail.
Mayor Daly said that he thought the aquarium was in the first phase and he asked what was
considered the first phase. Mr. Engle said that there were revised alternative phasing scenarios
based on the given constraints that were prevalent and he proceeded to present them. He said
_._~ -~, - W -
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 29
that some of the phasing depended on market conditions and he presented the scenarios that
would likely be pursued. He said Phase I, Alternative II, based on where leasing activity was at,
was their preference for building as much as they could in the first phase. For the entitlement
documents, there was a minimum amount that had to be built, he noted, and the probability of
that happening was slim or none because there had been fairly good leasing interest on the
project. Phase I, Alternative I, showed surface parking and was not a practical thing to do.
Phase I, Alternative II, was 230,000 to 240,000 square feet with a parking structure that was
about 1,150 square feet and the total parking was over 2,000 cars and this was what would
probably happen. He said areas could be combined to do phases and it may be built in up to
five phases, although it may be built in two or three phases.
Mayor Daly asked if Phase I would consist of part of Area A 1 and B and Director Stipkovich said
that Excel had the right to do any of the A, B, C or D and they would probably start at Area A or
D but most likely Area A. She said A2 was the proposal that was analyzed because it was the
most likely alternative that the developer would pursue, which was approximately 230,000
square feet. Mayor Daly asked if the A 1, B1, and combined C1, C2, and combined D1, D2
deviate in any particular phase from the totality of the given area and Director Stipkovich said
no. She said they had to build each phase per those alternatives.
Mr. Engle shared the corresponding elevations to the Phase I scenarios and the configuration
with the hotel and elevations without the hotel. He emphasized that the initial phase stood on its
own as a completed project until the next phase was built or commenced. He presented a color
board to Council and said that they represented variety of color, materials and accents that
would be used for the project. He said that there was color paving, stone accents for the
pedestrian streets, color textured plaster walls adorned with trellises, canopies and other sorts
of items to create the environment that had been illustrated in the renderings.
Greg Coghill said that he believed, in summary, that the Anaheim Garden Walk, a new
integrated urban resort, would be a key piece of the Anaheim Resort environment and it
complemented the world class Disney attraction and convention facilities. It would have
numerous, nationally recognized restaurants and shops and would draw the local community,
he noted. There would be easy access to the site and direct access from the interstate
corridors with separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Mayor Daly asked if the City did not use the 2,000 square feet for the police substation as listed
in the Disposition and Development Agreement would the City still have control of the space.
Director Stipkovich said that it was worked into the agreement that if the City did not use it for
one year, the Developer was free to release it for three years and then the City could come back
and use it again after that. She said it would be leasable space for retail and it would have to be
acceptable to the Police Chief. Mayor Daly asked if the City used that 2,000 square feet, must it
be used for police purposes and Director Stipkovich said it would need to be used for police
purposes. She said that the City would have to give the developer three-year's notice to have
the 2,000 square feet back and the City could use it or not use it, but it would be a three-year
turn around time to get it back.
Council Member Kring asked if the police substation would be placed on the McDonald's
property and City Manager Morgan said that it could possibly do that and would take further
analysis. He said if the City were to place a police presence there, then the station at
McDonald's would not continue and he said he believed that there was some flexibility there.
~--". , H""fT
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 30
Andy Ronquillo, 201 East Center Street, Vice President for Communications and Public Affairs,
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, reaffirmed the Chamber's support of the Anaheim Garden
Walk, which would affect future economic growth of the City. He noted that the Chamber had
outlined their support for the proposed project in a presentation on April 1999, as well as
previously supporting the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan. He said that the Chamber had also supported and encouraged the renovation of the
Convention Center and the imposition of the additional transient occupancy tax that was
necessary to carry out these improvements and the sign replacement program. He urged that
Anaheim Garden Walk should be encouraged to provide a development of highest level of
quality and should be required to adhere to requirements that would protect the residents and
businesses. He said that the developer should be required to fully mitigate for the traffic impact
and it was important that traffic be able to move in and around the Resort area freely and with
minimum congestion and it appeared that the present plan account for the need. Adequate
parking for guests should be required in order that other businesses in the area did not suffer as
a result of inadequate planning. It appeared that this issued had not only been addressed, but
would provide overflow parking for other resort area needs, he said. The developer should
comply with general intent of the specific plan signage requirements and maintain the garden
district feel, he said, and it appeared that they would adopt the same standards. He said that
the developer should be required to guarantee a minimum number of hotel rooms would be built
as part of the project and would be open within a reasonable time frame to ensure continued
revenue from the transient occupancy tax. It appeared that the developer had considered and
accounted for that requirement, he noted. Based on the planning that had occurred since 1999
project proposal, and the alliances that had been created with other resort area concerns, the
Chamber supported the application of the Anaheim Garden Walk proposal and encouraged the
speedy completion of the project.
Joel Kew, partner of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, 2603 Main Street
East Tower - Suite 1300, Irvine, CA 92614-6228 said he represented Pyrovest Corporation,
owner of about one-third of the property. He spoke about a question asked by Mayor Daly
regarding the significance of the areas and whether or not one was built if they were required to
build to one entire area. He said that it seemed to him that the answer was that once an area
was begun, it had to be completed. There was a property line that bisected the property and
Area D traveled that property. He said that he had been told that nothing could be built on Area
D without the consent of Robert Shelton and he said that Palmieri would like to do that without
Robert Shelton's consent. He said that Palmieri wanted to build just a part of Area D and he
said that the advice had come from special bond counsel who may be the source of the
confusion. He said it was his understanding from Anaheim Garden Walk's point of view that
Area D included the Disney Way Drive and while it sat on their property, he said it was within
Area D. He said it was his understanding that the proposal was to build that part of Area D in
the initial phase that included Disney Way. He noted that it was said that the initial phase stood
on its own as a complete project and he said that might be true if he knew what the initial phase
was and if it had ever been described and had ever withstood environmental review, which he
said it had not. He said that the papers in front of Council today had seven alternatives for what
the initial phase might be and an additional three more were added today. He said if Council
could tell him what the initial phase was, Palmieri would consider what its environmental
impacts were once they were told. He said that it was forty-five days from groundbreaking and
that they were between one of ten initial phases and that kind of specificity did not allow for
individual stand alone review and none had occurred. He spoke about the power point
presentation made by Price Enterprises and he then focused on the Disposition and
Development Agreement. He urged Council to understand the basis for the Disposition and
Development Agreement and said it was based on an estimated project cost of $485 million.
,..--...."...' .
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 31
The estimated project cost used to calculate what subsidy in City dollars should be given to
them, including the cost of developing his client's property. Those were costs that they would
never spend, he said, and they did not own it now and they did not own it three years ago and
they would not own it three years from now. He said that if they do not own the Pyrovest
property, they could not spend that part of the cost that should go to Pyrovest. He noted that
the cost number was necessarily raised too high by about $100,000 in overstated costs. He
said from there, it went to an economic feasibility gap that said Price Enterprises would come up
$49 million short. Mr. Kew said to leave off the $100 million that would not be spent on Pyrovest
property and recalculate the feasibility gap, which included Pyrovest property as well. Mr. Kew
said that Price Enterprises was never going build the Pyrovest property and the numbers should
be backed out. He added that the request was based on numbers that would never be cost
items to them and on the revenue side, the $114.3 million in revenue included transient
occupancy taxes from the Pyrovest property. He said that the numbers presented had not been
realistic and the $30 million that he said Council had committed to spend was spent in
proportion to the development density of each phase. He noted that what would be received for
Phase A would be in the surplus parking calculation and that would be 32 spaces. He asked
Council if they would do the transaction for a $4 million contribution knowing the benefit to the
City would be only 32 parking spaces which would be $125,000 per parking space. He added
that for 12 percent of the cost, the City should receive a preferred return and be ahead of Excel.
He said that Phase A was $4 million and through A, Band C and one hotel it was a total of $19
million. He said that two-thirds of the City's money would be committed at that point and in
exchange, the City received the parking at the bottom for the Convention Center of 334 spaces
and he asked when the City would receive their benefit. He said that the benefit was on Phase
o which was his client's property. Mr. Kew said that Excel was not going to build on his client's
property and 1,077 spaces altogether, A, B, C and D, meant that his client was required to build
743 or two-thirds of the excess parking. He said that the City could expect two-thirds of the
benefit when his client built Phase D. The revenue received was not 75 percent of the available
spaces; he said the rent was 75 percent of the rent produced by the excess spaces. He said for
$4 million in Phase A, the City would receive 75 percent of the rent generated by 32 spaces.
The excess parking that his client's property was burdened with was for the Convention Center
and he asked why his client should solve the Convention Center problem when there was not a
relationship. He said that the City had quantified that benefit and its need for that problem to be
solved and the City was giving money to the Garden Walk to do it and leaving the bulk of the
obligation with his client. He added that the cost numbers and revenue numbers were fine and
the payment was up front and the recovery was back loaded on the back end and he said that
there would not be a back end. He said not to spend $19 million or $4 million on Phase A
hoping to be caught up later. He said that once the $19 million had been spent and the benefit
was to come from Phase D and the City could let the money go, saying that the City would
never be caught up or the City could make participation in the payback effort a condition of the
development of his client's property. He asked if that meant he was giving money to the
developer that his client was going to pay back. He noted that at the Planning Commission, one
of the Commission members said that they were back for a phasing change and when the
project was before them three years ago, he did not believe that it could be done in a single-
phase anyway. Mr. Kew asked to focus the effort on reality and if the City did not think the
developer could do it, then why approve it. In 1999, he was told that they were going to start a
fully-integrated, single phase build out and that it would be done by 2001. He said that this
project was a failure because the financing agreement was a sham and was based on Anderson
numbers that ENRON would not use. He said that the finance committee was in charge of
developing the numbers three years ago and it took them until two days before the hearing to do
that work. He asked if Council would do this deal for a single hotel because Phase A, without
the hotel, was about 60,000 square feet of retail and an aquarium. $4 million would be placed in
,"-~ " "n' d
T --
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 32
the project with the hope of getting it back from his client and he said that it was not true. He
added that there was one element of the general plan that had never been addressed and that
was the Addendum. Mr. Kew said it had to go back to the Planning Department to address
pedestrian traffic anyway and that Council should send it back to address the un-mitigated
negative impacts of a phased project. He repeated that Council should use that time to
understand the financing agreement. He said it had to go back because it went from a single
phase and the entire project had been sold to Council as promenade shopping. He said that
people would not leave the safety, comfort and security of Disneyland, cross and walk entirely
through the Pointe Anaheim well-planned, single phased integrated project and into the third
theme park. He said that they would never own his property. Mr. Kew spoke about comments
made at the Planning Commission meeting. He said if the promenade was taken out, it would
be a different project because the project was designed around it. He said there was a ten-foot
set back requirement on each side of the property line and a twenty-foot gap between the
properties. In the context of full build out, he asked how a shopper would get across to the third
theme park, the parcel was cut right down the middle and it effected everything and that was the
one it had to go back for the impact of pedestrian access because utilities, drainage and
easements changed. Mr. Kew said that a shopper walking through Phase A and would go to
the end of it and arrive at a dead end instead of a walkway and would be looking for Disney and
no attempt had been made to address that adverse impact. He said he believed that the only
effort that they had made was to pass the zoning over that covered two properties and only one
of the owners would develop on it. He said that would be an unlawful legislative answer to a
planning problem and they needed the Disney Way access to push it over there. He said to
read the Disposition and Development Agreement before giving away $30 million based upon
numbers that would never incur and earn.
Council Member Kring said that Mr. Kew had mentioned that the owner, Pyrovest, was going to
develop the property and Mr. Kew said that his client was evaluating what his rights were and
he said they had received conflicting information. Council Member Kring suggested that Mr.
Kew work with people to make this a project to be proud of and Mr. Kew said that it was
because of the history.
John Erskine spoke on behalf of the applicant and said that it had taken time to respond to the
Palmieri firm and mentioned that he would like to ask for assistance from Community
Development. He said that Area D straddled the property line and the Disney driveway and
they had not been able to be implemented. On numerous occasions the exhibits were present
in the Addendum and in the presentation materials that the driveway did not straddle the
property line in the Disney driveway and was not connected with Area D. Area 0 was an area
land use phase and the infrastructure, such as the driveway that was entirely on Excel property,
could be implemented with the initial phase and that was very common in a land use entitlement
process. Conditions could be added by the Council during the discussion, after the close of the
public hearing, he said. The Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration had been
available since October 29,2001, was revised, in an abundance of caution, to respond to a staff
initiated program as part of the Disposition and Development Agreement, the Convention
Center overflow parking. He said that the revision, taken back to the Planning Commission on
February 11, 2002, was approved and had been forwarded to Council. He noted that the
Addendum was adequate environmental documentation for the project actions. He said that the
retail entertainment center included a $45 million aquarium and there were high quality hotel
rooms included at a construction cost of $150,000 per room. He said that Mr. Kew was
confused about how the excess parking spaces would be made available, depending on the
alternative that was provided and an exhibit had been prepared and he asked that it be entered
into the record.
-'-""'W
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 33
Joan Kelly, Bonterra Consulting, environmental consultant for the project, said that she believed
that Council was given a table earlier that was prepared in response to confusion related to how
excess parking was calculated based on various development phases. The initial phase,
Alternative II, suggested by Bill Stone, was the alternative most likely to move forward, she said.
The total square feet of the development was 787,065 which included the parking structure.
Peak parking demand was 1,039 spaces, provided 5 percent surplus per requirement of the City
brought it to 1,091 and parking space supply was 1,633 spaces. She said that 75 percent of the
excess would be made available and at peak hour there was 406 spaces. That was the
minimum number of spaces that would be available for overflow parking which would go up from
there and this was the weekend, peak-hour, maximum and the minimum number available for
the Convention Center. She clarified that the table in the back of the document was more
comprehensive and she said that no matter which alternative was built there, there was never
less than a minimum of 180 spaces in the initial phase and going up to a minimum of over 700.
With regard to the letter submitted this date by Pyrovest counsel, she pointed out that there was
a statement that the document needed to evaluate both the existing zoning and Point Anaheim
overlay and she said that the project began a long time ago and started with EIR No. 311.
There was a comment also made in the letter that EIR No. 311 addressed only the development
of Westcott, she said. She asked to make clear that the document addressed Westcott and the
non-Disney owned property that was included in that Specific Plan and she said that as a result,
that was the base document for the project. There was a mitigated negative declaration
prepared, based on California Environmental Quality Act guidelines that required an
environmental document to be prepared when a project changed. There was an additional
density on that project over and above what was anticipated in EIR No. 311 and mitigated
negative declaration was prepared and approved. The Addendum was prepared and
addressed project modifications which did not result in any additional or more significant
impacts and the Addendum was deemed to be the appropriate CEQA vehicle, she noted. The
Pyrovest counsel letter stated repeatedly that EIR No. 311 stated that if a project changed, then
additional environmental documentation was needed and she said that she agreed that this was
the additional environmental documentation. She noted that the Addendum was a recognized
California Environmental Quality Act vehicle for the appropriate project. She spoke about the
Disney driveway and pointed to Exhibit 7 in the Addendum and said that the driveways on
Katella, Clementine and Disney Way were being provided at project initiation. It had been
anticipated that those items were not brought on by phase, she said. The landscaping on the
north side of the parking lot was very heavily landscaped and there was a walkway to take
people out to Disney Way and access was provided throughout all the stages of development.
Not only had the applicant provided, the City had insisted, that there were landscaped walkways
throughout the entire project development.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Council Member McCracken asked for clarification on the financial agreement. Director
Stipkovich noted that one of the comments made that was very concerning to Council and staff
was that somehow, the City was providing a subsidy on a phased basis that the City would not
receive either public benefit or net revenues to the City that would be equal or greater than.
She pointed out that Community Development submitted to Council, under a separate memo
dated February 21,2002, a memo with various information regarding the project and a table that
showed cost benefit analysis of the project by phase. She said when Community Development
reviewed Areas A, Band C without D, which she thought was one of the possibilities that had to
be considered, they found that the project was better for the City because D and E were one of
the more expensive pieces from a subsidy standpoint. She said if A and B were looked at
'n
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 34
separately, then it was proposed to have a $4 million subsidy in A without a hotel and a net
revenue to the City of $10 million without the hotel and there was a direct benefit above and
beyond what the subsidy would be. She reminded Council that a subsidy would not be provided
until the City had received money and by the nature of the agreement, it was an amount equal
to fifty percent of sales tax. If the City did not receive the sales tax, then the developer did not
get the money. The City could never be giving away greater funds than they were receiving; it
was mathematically impossible, she added.
City Manager Morgan said that there was no money that would go out that was not generated
from the project.
Director Stipkovich said that Community Development had looked at the public benefits per
phase. The Anaheim Garden Walk project would be at its peak on Friday evenings and
Saturdays and those were the two evenings not taken into consideration because they were
black out dates. She said that Community Development had looked at Sunday through Friday
daytime and evenings, except for Friday. It mattered at how the available parking was looked at
and when it would be available to the Convention Center, she said. There had been many
discussions with the Convention Center, Sports and Entertainment Executive Director about the
times when the Convention Center needed overflow parking, which was typically during the
week when local shows were present. She said that there was a phase analysis and in every
phase, the City was always receiving more both in general public benefits and net revenue than
anything that was put out. She said A, Band C total aggregate, net City revenue was $82
million and the total subsidy was $18.5 million. She said that full build out would be $30 million
maximum subsidy and $114 million net City revenue.
In response to Council Member Tait, she said that there were other additional benefits of the
Convention Center free parking for the pubic and the substation. She said the money would not
be spent if it was not collected and the risk was the developer's risk.
Mayor Daly asked about the $114 million and Director Stipkovich said it was net present value
and net of the subsidy. He asked what the 30-year, overall revenue to the City would be.
City Manager Morgan said $440 million was the net revenue of the total buildout and the $440
had a net present value of $114. Mayor Daly asked about the $30 million and City Manager
Morgan said it had a gross value of approximately $61 million and the total revenues were closer
to $500 million. If the $61 million for the $30 million net present value contribution was reduced
it would net down to $114. Mayor Daly said that the subsidy, over a period of thirty years, not to
exceed $61 million, was based on revenues totaling of at least $440 million and City Manager
Morgan said $500 million. Mayor Daly said the subsidy, over a period of 30 years, was
predicated on a return to the City of $440 million and City Manager Morgan said that was
correct. City Manager Morgan said that the public benefits that equaled approximately $37
million on top of that for the parking and the police station.
Council Member McCracken noted that Mr Kew said that his client was suffering because of the
project and she asked for a clarification of the situation. She noted that she was under the
impression that his client could build on that land and come up with a proposal that fit within the
Resort plan.
City Attorney White said that the Council was considering a modification of what had previously
been approved, which were additional entitlements for possible development of the property,
including not only the property that was owned by the developer for the Garden Walk, but the
_...~-_.-..,.." ".,..............-
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 35
Pyrovest property as well. He said that either of those properties could be developed
independently, jointly through a cooperative effort, under the current zoning for the properties,
jointly as part of the Garden Walk project or they could be developed under some totally
different project. The owner of the Pyrovest property could come in and develop under the
underlying zoning and propose a different project. He said to give the impression that the
property could not be developed at all, except as part of the Anaheim Garden Walk project, was
entirely erroneous, he added. There was zoning on the property that allowed him to develop it
or the owner could come forward with an totally different development plan and submit that. He
said it was clear that to develop the project to full build out would require two things; a meeting
of the minds of the two property owners or it would require a final court judgement that
facilitated the property being built as a single project. He said there were two separate
properties and the City may end up with one property being developed in Areas A, Band C
according to the Garden Walk project, and the other property, the Pyrovest property, being
developed in a different manner. He said to get the impression that the City was not allowing
development of the Pyrovest property, or somehow forcing that property to be developed as part
of the Anaheim Garden Walk project, was wrong.
Council Member Tait asked if any action taken by Council would take away any existing
entitlement to Pyrovest properties and City Attorney White said that was correct. He said the
Council was giving more and not taking anything away. What was there and had existed still
existed, he informed.
Mayor Daly asked if there was anything in this entitlement that prevented Pyrovest from seeking
other entitlements. Absolutely not, City Attorney White responded.
Mayor Daly asked for clarification on the sales tax portion and if state law changed, what would
happen. Director Stipkovich said that it was a specific issue addressed and the arrangement
was that if the sales tax law was changed in a way that materially decreased the amount of
sales tax the City received, the two parties would negotiate alternative arrangements that would
effectuate the intent of the parties under the agreement. With the decrease in sales tax, she
said, since that was the measurement against which the lease payments were made, that would
decrease the lease payments as well. There was no automatic fix for that if it happened, she
added. In response to Mayor Daly, the lease payments would be decreased as well and that
would be the net effect if the sales tax law was changed in that manner. Director Stipkovich
said that the City was not obligated to pay unless they received the money. There was an
obligation to meet and confer, she added.
Mayor Daly said that under the current state sales tax formula, the City received one percent
and if that one percent were to shrink due to legislative acts in the future, the City's obligation
would be adjusted.
City Manager Morgan said it would be adjusted and the risk was with the developer. He said it
had been indicated that the City would meet and confer out of good faith.
Director Stipkovich said that there had been a lot of different proposals about trading off sales
tax for some other tax or safe harbor agreements where the State would give the City
subventions. She said if that was the case and the City was still receiving the revenue, although
it was no longer technically called sales tax, the City would negotiate in good faith. The concern
was that the State legislature could alter the uses of the revenue and the City did not want to be
put in a bind.
, .."Tf
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 36
Mayor Daly noted that the back fill may not be dollar for dollar.
Council Member Tait said that rent for the parking structure was one-half cent of the sales tax
off the property and he asked if the amount of the parking structure that was rented would stay
the same as the sales tax fluctuated up or down. Director Stipkovich said that the City was
renting the entire parking structure and the amount did not adjust. She said that the entire
structure was leased to the City and the City hired them to operate it and then based on the
operating agreement, which had all the terms and conditions, the developer had to give the City
all the same rights. Whether the revenue the City received was there or not, the terms still
applied.
Council Member Tait asked if sales tax was not what it was projected to be, the City would still
receive the same rental, the same area of the parking structure and same agreement and just
pay less. Director Stipkovich said that was correct and that the payments adjusted accordingly
to that amount equal to the various percentages. She said the City still had the benefit of the
public use; the Convention Center and free parking.
In response to Council Member Tait, Director Stipkovich said that the City would not be negative
on the project. She said there was no money up front and they took all the rest and whatever
the sales tax brought in, the amount equivalent to 50 percent of that was what the City would be
paying in rent and there was the transient occupancy tax piece as well.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-53 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-53 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the addendum to the mitigated Negative Declaration and
modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, for the Pointe Anaheim Project, and
determining their adequacy to serve as the required environmental documentation for
the proposed project actions.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
Mayor Daly introduced Ordinances Nos. 5807 and 5808 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5807 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 and Chapter 18.78 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code and amending Ordinance Nos. 5377 and 5378, as
previously amended, accordingly (Amendment No.5).
ORDINANCE NO. 5808 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM (i) approving amended and restated development agreement No. 99-01 by
and between the City of Anaheim and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC, (ii) making certain
finding related thereto, and (iii) authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement for and
on behalf of the City.
Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 2002R-54, 2002R-55, 2002R-56, 2002R-57 and 2002R-58
for adoption.
-'- "' ""n"
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 37
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-54 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00393 (Land Use
Element).
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-55 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 and
amending Resolution Nos. 93R-146 and 93R-147, as previously amended, accordingly
(Amendment No.5).
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-56 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Amendment NO.3 to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm
Landscape Program (Pointe Anaheim).
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-57 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 with wavier code
requirements (minimum number of parking spaces).
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-58 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM (i) finding and determining the sale of certain City property, without
conducting public bidding, is in the best interests of the City (ii) approving and
authorizing the execution of that certain Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the City and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC, dated as of January 1, 2002, and (iii)
making certain other findings in connection therewith.
Roll call vote on Resolutions Nos. 2002R-54, 2002R-55, 2002R-56, 2002R-57 and 2002R-58:
Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and Kring. Noes - O.
Motion carried.
D. Report on Closed Session Actions:
City Attorney White reported that Council authorized the filing of a civil action against Cajima
Engineering relating to construction damages to City utility facilities.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
E. Council Communications:
Council Member McCracken noted that citizens in Anaheim hills may see sound walls at the 91
and 55 Freeways due to some positive steps taken by Orange County Transit Authority on
Monday.
Council Member Kring reminded everyone that next Tuesday, March 5, 2002, was Election day
and she urged everyone to vote. She also spoke about Measure Wand said that parklands
were needed.
Council Member Feldhaus congratulated Gloria Aquio, new Miss Anaheim. He congratulated
Bethel Baptist Church, located at Broadway and Lemon, on its 100th anniversary.
d"" IT
1
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PAGE 38
Mayor Daly noted that next Tuesday, March 5, 2002, a workshop would be scheduled from 4:00
P.M. to 4:30 P.M. and Closed Session would begin thereafter.
Adjournment:
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Daly adjourned the
meeting at 10:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
~~
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
. ~ h...-T