1995/08/08C~TY OF ANAHEim, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL ~NUTE8
AUGUST 8~ L995
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYORs Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS= Tait, Lopes, Zemel, Feldhaus
COUNCIL MEMBERS= None
CITY MANAGER= James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY= Jack White
CITY CLERK= Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER= John Poole
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT= Lisa Stipkovich
REDEVELOPMENT/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Richard Bruckner
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
FIRE CHIEF= Jeff Bowman
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2=50 p.m. on August 4, 1995 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3=15 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION=
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that
there are no additions to Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS=
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION=
Name of case= In re= County of Orange, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Central District Case No. SA 94-22272~ and In re= Orange
County Investment Pools, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District No.
SA 94-22273.
me
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION=
CITY OF ~NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
4e
Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
LIABILITY CLAIMS:
Claimant: Patsy .and Jimmie Thompson
Agency Claimed Against: City of Anaheim
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negot£ator= David Hill
Employee organization: IBEW Local 47
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator= David Hill
Employee organization= Anaheim Police Association
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO ~OVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION=
Name of case: Wayne A. Parkola v. A AAA Yellow Cab, Inc., et al.,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 72-71-63.
RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Tait
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:16 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5=35 p.m.).
INVOCATION:
Pastor Bryan Crow, The Garden Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE=
Council Member Tom Tait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119= DECLARATIONS OF RE(~gNITION= Declarations of Recognition were
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing, commending and
honoring the following people who were members of the City's
Gang/Drug Task Force: Reverend Bryan Crow, Cynthia Grennan, Thomas
Halvorsen, Glenn Hellyer, Mary Hibbard, Lila Jag. ars, Keith Olesen
and Chris Whorton. (Not present: Doug Gibson, Martha Herr.fa,
Father John Lenihan, Dr. Meliton Lopez and Richard Ornelas).
Police Chief, Randall Gaston. In 1991, there was a need to assemble
a cross-section of citizens from the City to identify gang and drug
related problems in the community and to put together an action plan
to address the issues. During the last four years, the members of
the task force met on a frequent basis and.then conducted community
forums in all regions of the City which resulted in a report
containing 10 major issues and an action plan to address those
issues. Tonight it is an honor to have eight of the conunittee
members present. They have literally given hundreds of hours to the
task along with a commitment to make Anaheim a better place.
Mayor Daly and Council Members personally congratulated and commended
the members of the task force for their tireless dedication in
CITY OF ~NAHEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8v 1995
formulating a plan to combat gangs and drugs in Anaheim. The task
force will now be transitioned and refocused under the Police
Department and Chief Gaston. Each of the task force members were
presented with plaques.
119~ PRESENTATION - HOST TEAM - AMERICAN FAST PITCH ASSOCIATIONs
Presentation of the Host Team of the American Fast Pitch Association
on the occasion of the International Friendship Tournament to be held
in Anaheim August 8 - 11, 1995.
Mr. Terry Fullmer explained that the American Fast Pitch Association
is a fast pitch softball program for girls. It is the only youth
program with major offices headquartered in Anaheim. The tournament
involves three foreign countries and twelve states and is in progress
at this time. He then introduced his wife Peggy and other principal8
in the association as well as guests from Japan who are participating
in the tournament.
Mayor Daly and Council Members welcomed the association, the
principals and the team members and expressed how pleased they are
that Anaheim is hosting this important tournament.
119~ PROCLAMATION~ The following Proclamation was issued by Mayor
Daly and authorized by the City Council:
Recognizing August, 1995 as JTPA Alumni Month in Anaheim
The Proclamation was accepted by Cynthia Grennan who explained that Anaheim is
the first City in terms of receiving funding for displaced defense workers.
She then introduced Mr. Charles Bruckler, Outstanding Alumni for this period.
CITY
TIME=
119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE
COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER
DECLARATION recognizing the Anaheim Police Department Helicopter
Detail for 25 years of service.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,872.466.26 for
the period ending August 4, 1995, in accordance with the 1995-96 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5=58 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6=06 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA=
There were no additions to agenda items.
C~TY OF ANAHEIH, C&LIFORN~A - COUNCIL HINUTES - AUGUST 8, L995
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTERESTs Michael Blanco, 424 N. Philadelphia Street, Anaheim.
He is present again to speak on vending issues. The City has started
ticketing the vendors for violation of the California State Vehicle Code
relating to the use of horns. The main trucks in the video which he presented
to the Council at the meeting of July 18, 1995 have gone from horns to bells
which is great. It took three years and a law suit to do this. (Also see Mr.
Blanco's letter of August 4, 1995 previously submitted). However, they can
still hear the trucks in the immediate area. Roger Wilmont on the 900 block
of Lemon who reported to him that they get 10 trucks a day, would also like
action taken on their street. Mr. Wilmont has also called Code Enforcement
over the years and does not get a response. Because he (Blanco) is going to
Court, he would like to receive a list of complaints from just his address
over the last three years and also a general report, City wide, of complaints
relating to noise from vendors. He would also like to know who is legally
able to vend in the City since he has noticed different trucks never seen
before even though there is a moratorium. He wants the laws enforced
throughout the City. Code Enforcement has said that studies are being done
and there may be problems in implementing the State code, that the code has
been challenged in court and Santa Ana had problems as far as it being
constitutional. He talked to the City Attorney in Santa Ana and was told they
did not have a problem and have never been to court on the issue. As an
aside, he also asked who he might talk to in the City relative to sidewalks,
cement, etc.
City Manager, James Ruth. Relative to the latter, the responsibility is that
of the Maintenance Department but Mr. Blanco can get the information through
his office through Deputy City Manager, Tom Wood.
Mayor Daly. He will ask the Code Enforcement Manager to comment on some of
the points brought up by Mr. Blanco -- the noise laws and the moratorium.
Mr. Pedro Vasquez, 415 S. Claudina, Anaheim. He has been in business in
Anaheim for 20 years. He does not believe Mr. Blanco is talking sense. Mr.
Pools is doing a great job because he (Vasquez) paid over $5,000 in fines for
one year. Mr. Blanco has a personal problem with someone but not with all of
the vendors. He does not think Mr. Blanco has any of his trucks on his street
with horns or violating any laws. The reason he is present is on the $5,000
in citations he has received from Code Enforcement in one year. He cannot
afford any more. Ninety percent of his sales are gone because he is now
prohibited from selling on Leatrice, Wakefield and Pearson since that area has
been designated no parking. He has nothing to do with gangs or crime. All he
is asking the Mayor and the Council is to allow him and the vendors to work.
He then explained his difficulties in trying to talk to a Sergeant in the
Police Department regarding his citations. He waited for three hours and then
no one would talk to him and on his other attempts to do so, he felt he was
treated with disrespect. He reiterated, all he is asking is that they allow
the vendors to work.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He explained that a natural occurrence
in the Summer is to see new vendors come into the City. Code Enforcement has
almost eliminated those vendors who come without permits. Relative to the
concerns expressed, when Code Enforcement enforces the vendor ordinance, some
say they are very heavy handed and others say they are not doing enough.
Regarding Mr. Blanco's case, he feels Code Enforcement went beyond the extra
effort. He has warned the vendor using the horns if he continues to do so, he
will be brought in for a hearing to see if there is cause to terminate his
permit.
4
CITY OF ~NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
Relative to the moratorium, it is in effect until the end of the year. They
hope to be bringing back to the Council in late September or early October a
new vendor code which will be more workable than the current code. There have
been some legal challenges to similar vendor ordinances in other cities which
they are monitoring to see what the courts will allow them to do. The Police
Department is offering Code Enforcement more assistance on the weekends which
he feels will keep the problem under control. They will give Mr. Blanco a
list of his complaints.
Council Member Lopez stated he received a call at City Hall that a vendor was
cited for parking and yet during the same time period, a UPS truck was not
cited.
John Pools. He believes Council Member Lopez is referring to the Leatrice-
Wakefield area which is now designated no parking. The vehicle code gives a
specific definition of what parking is. If the vehicle is engaged in loading
or unloading merchandise or passengers, they are not part of the definition of
the vehicle code so a UPS truck would not be in violation.
Steve White, 850 N. Clementine, Anaheim, Chairman, Committees of
Correspondence. There was a motion passed by Garden Grove on a resolution to
direct City representatives of OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority)
to present the issue of diversion of Measure M funds to the County to resolve
the bankruptcy before the voters. It is also being considered in eight or ten
other City Councils throughout the County this evening. He is asking the
Council to put this matter on an agenda for consideration. He thereupon
submitted a copy of the covering letter with the resolution that was adopted
by the City of Garden Grove (made a part of the record).
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of August 8,
1995. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR=
On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the following
items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
calendar~ Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 95R-145 through 95R-147, both
inclusive, for adoption and offered Ordinance No. 5510 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al.
118: Rejecting and/or denying certain claims filed against the City.
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Leora Marie Romano for property damage and
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about January 16, 1995.
CITY OF ~NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES,- AUGUST 8~ 1995
b. Claim submitted by Ail State Insurance, Leora Romano Insured for
property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about January 16, 1995.
c. Claim submitted by Amber Investment Company c/o Jonathon A.
Stein, Esq. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about January 4, 1995.
d. Claim submitted by Shirley Wolff for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 1, 1995
e. Claim submitted by April Thompson for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 18, 1995.
f. Claim submitted by Charles W. Pendleton for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January
4, 1995.
g. Claim submitted by Patsy and J~mmie Thompson c/o Richard M.
Hawkins, Esq. for bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 21, 1995.
h. Claim submitted by Jinunie and Patsy Thompson c/o Richard M.
Hawkins, Esq. for bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 21, 1995.
i. Claim submitted by Robert J. Sanchez and Janet C. Hall-Sanchez
for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City
on or about January 4, 1995.
j. Claim submitted by Ulices Blanco c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
k. Claim submitted by Diane Brown c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
1. Claim submitted by Burr Davidson c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
m. Claim submitted by Marlo Garcia c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
n. Claim submitted by Leo Gomez c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
o. Claim submitted by Alexander Guerrero for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January
4, 1994.
p. Claim submitted by Michael McKendry c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
CITY OF ~N~HEIM, C~LIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
q. Claim submitted by Alan Posadas c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
r. Claim submitted by Marissa Santos c/o L. Scott Karlin, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on
or about January 4, 1995.
A2.
A3.
A4.
AS.
A6.
A7.
AS.
Ag.
140= Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly
Statistical Report for the Fiscal Year 1994/1995, and for the month
of June 1995.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library
Board meeting held June 28, 1995.
108; ORDINANCE NO. 5510: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
NEW .CHAPTER 4.03 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
COMMERCIAL FILMING. (Introduced at the meeting of August 1, 1995,
Item A4.)
169= RESOLUTION NO. 95R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE $220,495 OF THE COMBINED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
FUNDS FOR REHABILITATION OF LA PALMA AVENUE BETWEEN GROVE STREET AND
KRAEMER BOULEVARD.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY.
160; Accepting the low bid of Heli-Dyne Division of National
Airmotive Corp, in the amount of $21,487.99 for one main rotor hub
assembly, in accordance with Bid $5423. (Anaheim Police Helicopter.)
160: Accepting the bid of Wesco Utility Sales, in the amount of
$148,471 for 194 single-phase conventional transformer, in accordance
with Bid $5417.
Accepting the bid of Howard Industries, c/o Young and Company, in the
amount of $621 for one 81ngle-phase conventional transformers, in
accordance with Bid $5417.
Accepting the bid of Kuhlman Electric Corporation, in the amount of
$2,782 for two single-phase conventional transformers, in accordance
with Bid $5417.
Accepting the bid of Central Maloney, cio Southcoast Utility Sales,
in the amount of $8,274 for six single-phase conventional
transformers, in accordance with Bid $5417.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to
Trend Offset Printing, for an additional amount of $6,000 bringing
the total purchase to an amount not to exceed $67,076.40 for printing
of the Anaheim Magazine, in accordance with Bid $5334.
184: Reviewing the need for continuing the Sixth Proclamation of the
Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency
CITY OF ~N~HEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8v 1995
Services on January 3, 1995, concerning the Santiago Landslide and
Pegasus Landslide in the City of Anaheim~ and taking no action to
terminate the local emergency at this time.
AIO.
123: Approving an Agreement with the Authority for California Cities
Excess Liability (ACCEL) whereby each party waives any requirement to
file a claim in certain actions arising from the Santiago Landslide~
and ratifying the signing of said agreement by the City's legal
counsel.
All.
129: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF
REGARDING THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING
THEREOF WITH'THE COUNTY OF ORANGE.
Council Member Tait posed questions relative to the specifics involved in the
Weed Abatement Program which were answered by Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman.
A12.
123: Approving an Agreement with the National Association of Senior
Citizen Softball for the purpose of conducting a Senior Softball
World Series Qualifying Tournament sponsored by the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department.
Council Member Feldhaus. He is happy to see this item on the agenda. He has
been playing Senior Softball for 14 years and has talked to City staff about
getting a softball qualifier in the City. Senior Softball has become popular
world wide. There are different age qualifications starting at 50 up to 7S
years of age and even older.
A13.
123: Approving an Agreement with the County of Orange for upgrading
the water system in the area known as "Southwest Anaheim", and
authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute and
deliver said agreement in the form hereby approved, with such
additions and changes as approved by the Public Utilities General
Manager.
A14.
123: Approving an Agreement with Trans Union to provide an on-line
computerized service used by detectives to obtain investigative
information~ and authorizing the Chief of Police to administer and
execute said Agreement annually, including increases of up to 10
percent per year per search, provided that no other changes are made
to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
A15.
114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held
July 18, 1995, and July 25, 1995.
A16.
!23: To consider approving an Agreement with Ogden, Inc., for the
acquisition of the transfer station from the County of Orange.
City Manager Ruth. Staff is requesting that this item be continued two weeks
since there are still some issues to negotiate.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 95R-145 through 95R-147, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY OF ANAHEIMt CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8~ 1995
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 95R-145 through 95R-147, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5510, for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5510, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT:
A17 ·
105: TO consider the appointments and/or reappointment to the
Private Industry Council, in the Private Sector Category, for a term
of four years.
City Clerk, Lee Sohl. There is one potential reappointment, Mr. Paul
Bostwick, the current Chair of the Private Industry Council. Three seats need
to be filled for the term of four years in the Private Sector Category due to
the resignation of Jeri Seals, Mel Miller, and Anthony Adams.
Mayor Daly opened nominations.
Mayor Daly nominated Paul Bostwick for reappointment; Council Member Feldhaus
nominated Wally Rodriquez, Mayor Daly nominated Roy Odom; Council Member
Feldhaus nominated Marie Moreno.
MOTION. On motion by Council Member Lopez seconded by Mayor Daly, nominations
were closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly moved to appoint Paul Bostwick, Wally Rodriquez, Roy Odom and Marie
Moreno to the Private Industry Council for a four-year term ending 1999 by
acclamation. The nominees were thereupon appointed unanimously.
B1.
ITEMS BI - B~ FROM THE PLANNING CO~4ISSIONMEETINO OF JULY 24. 1995
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUOUST 15. 1995
THESE ITEMS ARE A PART OF CITY COUNCXL PUBLIC HEARING ZTEM DX ON THIS
AGENDA
179: REFINEMENTS TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 ~ FINDINGS OF FA~T:
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805 requests refinements to Specific Plan No. 94-1 and associated
findings of fact. LOCATION: Property is approximately 2,645 acres
generally abounded by the Orange (57) and Riverside (91) Freeways,
Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval to the City Council (3 yes votes, 2 absent, and
i abstained).
CITY OF ANAHEIH; CALIFOI~IA - COUNCIL HINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
See Item D1 on today's agenda,
B2.
179: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 317 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 94-1:
'OWNERs Initiated by City of ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, C/O ATTN~ Michael Welch, Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: The proposed 2,645 acre Northeast Area Specific Plan
project area is generally bounded by the Orange (57) and the
Riverside (91) freeways, Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway and
includes the Canyon Industrial Area and properties within and
surrounding the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area Alpha.
To add development standards for freeway-oriented signs within the
specific plan area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended to the City Council the inclusion of the proposed sign
standards (PC95-84) (3 yes votes, i abstained, 2 absent, and 1
vacancy).
Certification pending on EIR NO. 317.
See Item DI on today's agenda.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
*************************
Chairman Daly reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting for a Joint
Meeting/Public Hearing with the City Council (6:38 p.m.).
D1.
155~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 317r GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
334 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 "NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN' ¢includinq
Zoninq and Development Standards)~
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, c/o Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency Attent£onz M£chael Welch, 201 South &nahe£m
Boulevard ~1003, Anahe£m, CA 92805
LOCATION~ The proposed Specific Plan and ~eneral Plan project area
consists of 2,645 acres generally bounded by the Riverside (ER-gl)
Freeway, the Orange (SR-57) Freeway, Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial
Highway. The project area includes the Canyon Industrial Area and
properties within and surrounding the boundaries of Redevelopment
Project Area Alpha. The 26 acres located at the southwest corner of
Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue, located within the boundaries of
Specific Plan No. 88-3 (PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific Plan) are not
included within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan but are
included within the boundaries of the proposed General Plan
Amendment.
10
C~TY OF JLNtBLHE~ CAL~FORN~ - COUNCIL HtNUTES - AUGUST 8~ ~995
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY=
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - June 15, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 15, 1995
Posting of property - June 16, 1995
PROPOSAL=
(A) To consider Environmental Impact Report No. 317 as prepared by
the Lead Agency (Redevelopment Agency), adoption of the Statement of
Findings of Fact (which includes the Rejection of Alternatives),
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and adoption of
a reporting or monitoring plan.
(B) To approve General Plan Amendment No. 334 to amend the Land Use,
Parks Recreation and Community Services, and Environmental Resources
and Management (Conservation/Open Space) Elements of the General Plan
to establish consistency between the General Plan and the Development
Areas identified in the proposed Specific Plan~ and to amend the
General Plan designation for the acreage within the boundaries of
SP88-3 (not a part of the subject Specific Plan), as follows:
1. Land Use Element
(a) To add text to the General Plan Land Use Element recognizing
that the Anaheim Northeast Area Specific Plan is an implementing zone
for the Canyon Industrial Area~ and that the Specific Plan
establishes building intensity for each of the development areas
(i.e., Industrial, Industrial Recycling, Expanded Industrial, La
Palma Core, Transit Core and Commercial Areas). A map identifying
these locations (figures) is available for review at the Anaheim
Planning Department.
(b) To amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map for 18 areas as
follows:
Figure I - Approximately 113.5 acres from the General Industrial to
Business Office/Service/Industrial designation. Subject area is
generally located south of Miraloma Avenue, west of Tustin Avenue,
north of the SR-91 Freeway and east of Miller Street.
Fiaure 2 - Approximately 39.3 acres from the General Open Space and
General Industrial to the General Commercial designation. Subject
area is generally located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the
Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and north of the
Santa Ana River Channel. (Note: At Planning Commission's direction,
Figure 2 has been revised to depict General Industrial as the
proposed designation. As such, the acreage proposed for
redesignation has been reduced to approximately 30 acres.)
Fiqure 3 - Approximately 11.9 acres from the General Open Space to
the Conservation/Water Use designation. Subject area is generally
located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the SR-91 Freeway/Tustin
Avenue interchange, north of the Santa Ana River Channel and east of
the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way.
Fiaure 4 - Approximately 2.8 acres from the General Open Space to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located
south and east of the SR-91 Freeway/Tustin Avenue interchange.
Fiqure 5 - Approximately 11.3 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located on
11
C~TY OF ~NAHE~, C~L~FO~N[A - COUNCIL ~NUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
the east side of Tustin Avenue between La Palma Avenue and the SR-91
Freeway.
Fioure 6 - Approximately 8.0 acres from the Conservation/Water Use and
General Industrial to the General Commercial and General Industrial
designations. Subject area is generally located at the Tustin
Avenue/Miraloma Avenue intersection, and north and west of said
intersection.
Fiqure 7 - Approximately 2.1 acres from the Conservation/Water Use to
the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located
between Orangethorpe Avenue and the Atwood Channel, and west of the
City limits.
Fiaure 8 - Approximately 7.9 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located
immediately north (on both sides of Miller Street) of the Miraloma
Avenue/Miller Street intersection.
FiquFe 9 - Approximately 46.8 acres from the General Industrial to the
Conservation/Water Use designation. Subject area is generally located
south of La Jolla Street, west of the Carbon Creek Channel, north of
Miraloma Avenue and east of Kraemer Boulevard.
Fiqure 10 - Approximately 10.7 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at
all four legs of the Kraemer Boulevard/Miraloma Avenue intersection.
Fiaure 11 - Approximately 10.7 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at
the northeast, southeast and southwest corners of the Red Gum
Street/Miraloma Avenue intersection.
Fiqure 12 - Approximately 5.0 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at
the northeast and southeast corners of the Blue Gum Street/Miraloma
Avenue intersection.
Fiqure 13 - Approximately 52.9 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located
south of La Palma Avenue, west of Shepard Street, north of the SR-91
Freeway and east of White Star Avenue. (Note: Figure 13 has been
revised to include the parcels located at the southeast corner of La
Palma Avenue and Shepard Street as part of the proposed General
Commercial designation. As such, the acreage proposed for
redesignation has been increased to approximately 56.8 acres.)
Fiqure 14 - Approximately 9.1 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at
all four legs of the Blue Gum Street/La Palma Avenue intersection.
(Note: Figure 14 has been deleted from the proposal.)
Fiqure 15 - Approximately 13.7 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at
all four legs of the La Palma Avenue/Richfield Road intersection.
(Note: Figure 15 has been revised to delete the northwest corner of
the intersection from consideration.)
Fiqure 16 - Approximately 23.8 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at
all four legs of the La Palma Avenue/Lakeview Avenue intersection.
Fiqure 17 - Approximately 58.1 acres from the General Industrial to the
Conservation/Water Use designation. Subject area is generally located
south of La Palma Avenue, west of Fee Ana Street, north of the Santa
Ana River Channel and approximately 570 feet east of the centerline of
La Palma Avenue and Van Buren Street.
Fiqure 18 - Approximately 15.7 acres from the General Industrial to the
General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located on
the south side of La Palma Avenue, approximately 468 feet west of the
12
CITY OF ~--NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8v 1995
centerline of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, and north of the
Santa Ana River Channel.
2. Parkst Recreation & Community Services Element
To delete the Community Park site designation from the Park Facilities
Plan (Figure 5.1) of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Element. Said site is located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the
Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and north of the
Santa Aha River.
3. ~nvironmental Resource and Manaaement Element
a. Open Space - To delete an approximately 38.7-acre open space area
depicted on the Environmental Resources and Management Open
Space/Conservation Element Exhibit, generally located south of the SR-
91 Freeway, southeast and southwest of the SR-91 Freeway/Tustin Avenue
interchange, and north of the Santa Aha River. (The proposed deletion
is necessary for internal consistency between subject element and the
proposed changes to the Land Use Element as identified above).
b. Conservation - To make modifications to Water Use areas as depicted
on the Environmental Resources and Management Open Space/Conservation
Element Exhibit as follows:
(1) An approximately 11.9-acre addition to the Water Use area adjacent
to the Santa Aha River and generally located south of the SR-91
Freeway, west of the SR-91 Freeway/Tustin Avenue interchange, north of
the Santa Ana River Channel and east of the Atchison Topeka and Santa
Fe Railroad right-of-way.
(2) Recognizing the approximately 184-acre Warner Basin as a Water Use
area in addition to its Sand and Gravel designation. Subject basin is
generally located east of Tustin Avenue, south of La Palma Avenue, west
of Fee Ana Street and north of the Santa Aha River Channel.
(C) To consider and adopt a Specific Plan identifying 6 Development
Areas for the Northeast Area which currently encompasses 2,645 acres
including the Canyon Industrial Area as well as properties within and
surrounding the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Area Alpha.
The Specific Plan anticipates a total buildout area of 29.3 million
square feet by the year 2010, of which 21.8 million square feet is
existing. Approximately 3.3 million square feet of this existing 21.8
million square feet is anticipated to be reconstructed. Approximately
7.5 million square feet is anticipated as new development.
(D) To adopt Zoning and Development Standards to set forth standards,
procedures and guidelines for the development of industrial uses,
corporate headquarters, research and development, support services,
offices and commercial retail areas to serve the demand for a wide
variety of goods and services within the Specific Plan area as provided
for in Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The proposed
Specific Plan zoning designation, SP94-1, will replace the current
zoning designations of ML (Limited Industrial), RS-A-43,000
(Residential/Agricultural) and CL (Commercial Limited) in the Canyon
Industrial Area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
13
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
Recommended that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 334
(PC95-58) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained).
Recommended that the City Council adopt Specific Plan 94-1 (including
Zoning and Development Standards, Design Plan and Guidelines, a Public
Facilities Plan for the Northeast Area Specific Plan, the reconunended
conditions and Errata dated May 5, 1995, and the Revisions to the
errata dated May 17, 1995) (PC95-59).
Approved and reconunended that the City Council acting as a Responsible
Agency consider EIR No. 317 as prepared by the Lead Agency
(Redevelopment Agency) and approve and adopt the Statement of Findings
of Fact (which includes the Rejection of Alternatives), adopt the
Statement of Overriding Considerations and pursuant to Section 21081.6
of the Public Resource Code, adopt Specific Plan No. 94-1 "Northeast
Area Specific Plan" as the reporting or monitoring plan for the
Project, finding that the Northeast Area Specific Plan incorporates
measures to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment
and will itself act as effective mitigation for potential environmental
impacts identified in the final EIR.
This Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 27, 1995 to this date
(see minutes that date where input was received).
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. This is a project
that is extremely important to the Redevelopment Agency and the City and one
which Redevelopment staff has worked on for several years with consultants, the
Planning Commission, Planning staff, the Redevelopment Commission and property
owners. Tonight is the culmination of many years of work not only on the part
of staff, but also the property owners in the area. It is very significant in
terms of the Redevelopment Agency and the potential revenue that can be generated
if the Specific Plan is allowed to go forward and traffic mitigation is allowed
to occur. It represents potential growth to the City of up to seven million
square feet. It is of enormous benefit in terms of property tax revenue to the
Agency. She asked Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager
assisted by Mike Welch, Senior Project Manager to give an overview of the
Specific Plan as it is currently being recommended.
Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager. He gave the
historic background of the project from its inception to the presentation before
the Council/Agency tonight. The goals of the plan were to sort out uses in the
area. The new plan accommodates approximately seven million square feet of new
growth. Approximately 40,000 people go to work in the area each day. It is one
of the largest if not the largest business center in Orange County. Working from
the posted plans of the area, he then described what the different color coded
areas .represented in terms of zoning and the uses allowed in those areas. One
area where staff is recommending a minor change (Figure 8 - General Plan Land Use
Element Map) is at the intersection of Miraloma Avenue and Miller Street where
there are a couple of homes, one existing retail use and industrial uses. The
property owners/residents wish to retain the industrial land use designation.
After discussing the matter with the owners, staff feels there would be no
problem retaining the industrial use since there is plenty of area for retail
development in the plan. They also reran the traffic model to see if the minor
change could be accommodated and it was determined that it could. It is
approximately seven acres currently industrial which staff is now recommending
remain industrial.
Before taking public input, questions were posed by Mayor Daly and Council
Members which were answered by staff relating to churches in the industrial area,
14
C~TY OF ANAHEim, CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL ~NUTE8 - &U~UST 8~ ~995
where towing services and accompanying storage yards can locate, what are the
plans to market the area, a specific identity for the area, uniform signage and
look for the area, possible creation of hardships for businesses presently
located in the area, and the consequences should a business wich to expand more
than the 20% designated in the plan.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Under the Zoning Code, churches are
allowed in the industrial zone for three years with three renewals or a total of
nine years~ Lisa Stipkovich. If they purchase the property, the church can stay
indefinitely if the property is three acres or more in size as Mr. Hastings
pointed out. Staff could always work with Planning staff and review the
ordinance. They had not looked at that issue in terms of impact in preparing the
subject document.
Richard Bruckner. He pointed out the specific areas in the plan where tow yards
are permitted, all by conditional use with the length of time set as a condition
of the use.
Lisa Stipkovch. Relative to marketing the area, it is one of the major
objectives in the plan. Part of the program in the next five years and the No.
I goal is to make it the fastest growing in Orange County in terms of industrial
and commercial growth. In addition to signage restrictions and programs, staff
will be working on an identity for the area and will be coming back as a
Redevelopment Agency with something that is more specific. The program which she
introduced in this year's budget presentation will be brought forward in the
Economic Development Plan. It will be a business incentive zone called the
Anaheim Canyon Business Center. She then gave additional details on the
marketing plans for the area.
Mrs. Stipkovich also explained that the plan would not create hardships or zone
anyone out of business. Any existing non-conforming use would be entitled to
continue operating until there was a change.
Richard Bruckner. Relative to businesses that might want to expand, under the
plan, they could expand up to 20%.
After Council discussion on the issue of expansion and a further explanation by
staff, Mrs. Stipkovich stated she believes that the 20% expansion limitation
could be increased, but that anyone could come in and ask for a CUP beyond 20%.
It is not that they could not expand beyond the 20%, but just that they could not
do so by right. The plan actually allows people to do a lot more than they
previously could because the goal is to encourage development.
Mayor Daly. As he understands, under the plan up to a certain expansionpoint,
many businesses will now be pre-entitled to proceed whereas in the past, they
would have to apply for permits to do so. The point in setting the limit is to
consider the carrying capacity of the 2,600 acres. However, if after tonight's
discussion the Council/Agency wants to set a higher percentage, perhaps 25 or
30%, they could consider doing so.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak on the EIR, General Plan
Amendment or Specific Plan.
Robert Lynn, Chairman, Community Redevelopment Commission. The Commission has
been involved with this project/plan for several years and are fully in support.
It eliminates a great deal of "red tape" when people are trying to develop their
property. He reiterated, the Commission is strongly in support of the program.
15
CITY OF ~NAHEIMt CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
Vince Taormina, Anaheim Disposal Company/Taormina Industries, 1131N. Blue Gum,
Anaheim. He is in support of the EIR and the Specific Plan. He commended City
staff in the tremendous work they had done over the past few years on the plan.
It has been a long and extensive process and they are very happy with it.
William Allen, 1332 N. Miller Street, Anaheim. The area he is in constitutes
eight or nine pieces of property, three of which are undeveloped and used as
single family. The area traffic wise could not support commercial use and some
of the property owners would be greatly affected if they had to develop their
properties as commercial later on. They would like their properties left in the
industrial designation. They met with staff on August 3 and staff is receptive
to the recommendation.
Lisa Stipkovich. This is the property mentioned earlier and the minor change
recommended in the Specific Plan -- that the property at Mira Loma/Miller be left
as industrial.
Jeff Farano, Attorney, Farano & Kieviet, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim.
He is representing his client, Mr. J's located at 1074 N. Tustin Avenue, Anaheim,
what used to be Bessie Wall's Restaurant. Mr. J's is currently being represented
by other legal counsel, Mr. Roger Diamond, engaged in litigation with the City
at this time. That is not the purpose of his representation tonight. He is
present to discuss the General Plan Amendment (GPA) as it affects restaurants and
cocktail lounges associated with restaurants. The Specific Plan being proposed
needs adjustment in order to allow the restaurant as it exists today to allow
entertainment and a cover charge for entertainment with dining. Mr. Farano then
gave the long history of the property and recent occurrences since it has become
Mr. J's. Later in the meeting, he clarified his request is not that a public
dance hall be allowed as a Permitted right in this area, but that a public dance
hall be allowed to be operated as an accessory use or together with a restaurant
as permitted by a CUP. They want to be able to have dancing which has a cover
charge for the entertainment. Staff said this area does not allow that and the
new zoning will not allow it either.
Philip Anthony, 2157 Pacific Avenue, Costa Mesa. He is representing three
businesses on the south side of Frontera Street between the hotel (Sterling
Suites) and the railroad tracks -- Adams Steel, Self-Serve Used Auto Parts, and
DBW & Associates. They also own the land in that area. He has previously
submitted two letters to the Council (Re: Adams and DBW). He complimented staff
on the work they have done. Their property was originally recommended in the
early versions for commercial. Subsequently, the Planning Commission recommended
an industrial designation and to add a freeway oriented commercial overlay if and
when it becomes possible to do and they agree with all of that. They would also
like to repeat their request which is in the letters to add the so-called iA
recycling overlay. Ail three businesses are strlctly recycling businesses. They
also work closely with the Taormina Industries. He is asking the Council to
support the Planning Commission recommendation and add to it the lA recycling
overlay on Frontera which would present a realistic situation for that property
and encourage the best kind of development in the future. Recycling is good at
that location because it works.
George Adams, Adams Steel Salvage, 3200 E. Frontera, Anaheim. The property is
on a landfill and has very limited use. Parts of the property have been for sale
for years with no takers. They have conducted recycling on the property since
1976 and because of the limited land use, it will be going on for another 20
years. It was mentioned that their CUP's would be grandfathered in but they are
not in existence at the present time. They are in "limbo" because of a Court
Order not yet signed by the judge. In light of everything that has happened and
16
CITY OF ANAHEIM, C~LIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
the long history of recycling on the property, the recycling overlay is an
appropriate zoning for the property.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing and asked staff to respond to the
recommendations/concerns raised.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Relative to Mr. Farano's concern/request in
representing Mr. J's, staff's understanding is that a public dance hall be a
permitted primary use and be incorporated in the Specific Plan. Staff
recommendation is to not incorporate that into the proposed uses.
Lisa Stipkovich. Relative to the recycling overlay zone, staff does not feel
that it would be appropriate at this time for the properties mentioned (Adams -
Self-Serve Used Auto Parts - DBW) one of the reasons being, staff does not have
a specific as to what kind of long-term recycling would be going on. With
Taormina Industries, they sat down with them to determine their plans for the
property. Staff then had to go back and redo all the traffic counts based upon
their proposal to expand. They had a very specific proposal to deal with.
Putting the Frontera properties into a recycling overlay could allow a variety
of recycling uses with no way of controlling them and the types of impacts they
would have. She does not believe the EIR would hold up as currently prepared
because no consideration was given to what those new impacts on a long-termbasis
would be in terms of changing that to an ongoing recycling use. The Planning
Commission, Planning staff and Redevelopment staff are not trying to prevent that
use from occurring but agree there is a lot of uncertainty because of the land
fill, not knowing what is in the landfill, and not knowing the potential impact
if such uses are allowed by right and ongoing. As Mr. Adams explained, his CUP
is currently in limbo because of the previous determination or threat by the City
to terminate the CUP. She understands that the situation has been worked out but
the judge has not signed the order. As soon as he does, the CUP would be allowed
to continue as long as he meets the stipulated judgment.
Joel Fick, answering the Mayor, explained it is his understanding the existing
parameters of the CUP would be allowed to remain and any expanded rights that
might be requested could also be sought within the parameters of the CUP within
the new Specific Plan.
Lisa Stipkovich. She explained the difference between the situation on Frontera
and the Taormina property. They negotiated an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA)
with Anaheim Disposal with a significant dollar amount to be invested by them.
What staff can do with the Frontera property is to assess the environmental
impact and determine what the long-term issue would be. She clarified for the
Mayor that they are looking for certainty relative to the intentions of the
property owner(s).
City Attorney White then clarified the situation regarding the Adams Steel
property. The City Council several years ago held a hearing and revoked the CUP
for the recycling center. A law suit was filed by Adams and the corporation
challenging that decision. A Stipulation for Judgment was ultimately negotiated
between Adams and the City that was actually signed, approved by the City
Council, approved by Adams International Metals and others and submitted to a
Superior Court Judge for execution. It is still awaiting his signature. The
Judge has again made some suggested modifications to the proposed order. His
office is working on the matter and hopes to have the document in place in the
very near future. His recollection of the judgment is that it actually revokes
the CUP but it allows the use to continue in operation for a period of time as
a lawful use in that it would be allowed to operate until all of the material,
the "fluff" pile on the property, is removed in accordance with the schedule set
17
CITY OF ]LNAHEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8v 1995
forth in the stipulation. The order further provides in the event the operation
did not meet the schedule, the City could immediately apply for a permanent
injunction to stop the use from operating. If the operator meets all of the
terms of the stipulation and removes the pile within the time given, he can apply
for additional permits to continue with any lawful use on the property at that
time including the same use that is there now.
If the code is changed to authorize the use as a legal right, he feels they may
well be voiding all of the work the City has done up to now in getting the
property cleaned up. It is not to say that at some point in the future, the
property could not be rezoned or looked at after it is cleaned up. A good deal
of time, money and effort has been spent on both sides getting to the point they
are at today. He is concerned, if a change is made, it may be undoing
everything that has been accomplished thus far.
Lisa Stipkovich. Answering Council Member Zemel, explained placing an overlay
on the property would give the right for any kind of recycling. Anybody could
come in and buy property for any kind of recycling uses that could be a heavy
traffic generator. The EIR has not considered such animpact which is different
from the Taormina property where they had something to go by in terms of long-
range use. She confirmed it is a matter of assessing the impacts of what could
occur. There could be a variety of uses with higher traffic generators than what
is there now. She also clarified for Council Member Feldhaus that she did, in
fact, discuss the matter with Phil Anthony on several occasions. She would also
be more than happy to work out an owner ParticipationAgreement with Mr. Adams,
DBW or anyone else.
Donald Morrow, 695 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, Attorney representing Mr. Adams
and Adams International Metals - Adams Steel. He negotiated the Stipulation for
Entry of Judgment with Mr. White and his staff. The one edit he would have to
what Mr. White said, they are not really in a state of limbo. There is a
Stipulation for Judgment which is a formal contract binding on the parties. It
has been signed by Adams and Adams International Metals Corporation, approved by
the City Council, signed by the Mayor and attested to. It is a heavily
negotiated agreement which has many provisions that protect the City. It covers
the operation of Mr. Adams' business, how long it can operate, what happens when
the "fluff" pile is removed, or not removed, etc. It is totally up to the City
Council to determine assuming he complies with all the obligations whether they
continue to do business. Regardless of what is done with the zoning, his clients
are bound by the terms of the document. He is confident there will be a judgment
entered shortly that will also make it a binding Court Order. Even if the court
did not sign it, the City would still have a binding contract and there is no
expiration date of the contract. It has a schedule for the remediation of all
the 'fluff" and the property with a "drop dead" date of August, 1998 but there
is no termination date of the contract.
Council Members Feldhaus and Zemelposed a line of questions revolving around the
imposition of the recycling overlay zone and why it could not be implemented at
this time which would give some security to the businesses presently located on
the property~ Council Member Lopez also commented that he saw no reason not to
give them the overlay.
During discussion and questioning, Joel Fick, Planning Director explained for the
Mayor that it would be highly unusual to grant an open-ended entitlement for an
outdoor use of this nature without very specific plans and requirements. He
cannot think of an instance where if a property owner was before the City Council
requesting an entitlement without plans for a permanent land use for an outdoor
18
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
recycling center that staff would be in a position to recommend favorably. There
is also nothing to prevent them from submitting such a plan.
City Attorney White reiterated his legal concerns over what would occur if the
use would no longer be a conditional use where the City Council can withhold
approval. The Council revoked the CUP that entitled the use to operate because
of past violations two or three years ago. In a Stipulated Judgment, the parties
agreed to allow this operator, even though he no longer has a valid CUP, to
continue to operate for the purpose of generating revenue to remove the "fluff"
pile because of public interest and health and he is doing that. If for whatever
reason the "fluff" pile is not removed and the time table not complied with, the
City's remedy is to enforce the contract and have a court enjoin that particular
operation. Right now, the code would require a CUP for a new operator. If it
becomes a permitted use, there is nothing that would prohibit, the day after the
City revokes the operation through the court process, another operator from
coming in under entitlement as a permitted, by-right use and start operating.
The "fluff" stays and the City then loses the legal ability to have the remainder
removed because now the recycling center is a permitted use by right. That is
the legal issue.
Council Member Feldhaus suggested continuing the matter long enough to give staff
an opportunity to come up with some language that would give the owners some
security to feel once they have complied, they know they can continue to operate
their business.
During the course of the discussion, John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager
reported that as of June 30, 1995, the business had removed about 150 tons of
"fluff" above what the court order would require at this stage so they are ahead
of schedule. They started out with approximately 50,000 tons.
Mayor Daly surmised, after a line of questions posed to Mrs. Stipkovich, that
there is nothing in the proposal that affects the subject property to any great
degree. It allows the steel shredding business to continue and the property
owner, if he wishes to expand, is free to request that of the City in the future.
He suggested that they separate out or continue the request for the recycling
zone overlay and ask staff for a report back on the status of the CUP for Adams
Steel.
Lisa Stipkovich. From their standpoint, the Council could approve the plan as
is tonight. Staff could go back and look at the area, find out more about what
the possible land uses would be and then determine through the EIR consultant
whether they would have to modify the EIR, do an amendment, and subsequently make
an amendment to the Specific Plan.
City Attorney White. He recommends not separating the two actions. If the
Council is inclined to approve the overlay, staff would like to at least have an
opportunity to review the information in the EIR to determine if there has been
an adequate analysis of the impacts that would be created. It was not
specifically analyzed as part of the EIR.
John McClendon, Special Counsel on the EIR. The EIR analysis could probably be
done fairly quickly with their traffic consultants. The issue is they are
presently very tight on many of the intersections presently within acceptable
levels of service. At each step of the way, they have documented with their
environmental consultants that the level of service at those critical
intersections would not change to be a significant adverse impact. The analysis
they get back from their traffic consultant could come back promptly; however,
it could identify significant new impacts in connection with granting the overlay
19
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - &UGUST 8, 1995
in which case under CEQA they would have to recirculate the EIR which would
create another 45-day review period. It there was some other method other than
the overlay, perhaps that would be an easier way to accommodate the issue.
Otherwise, they could be looking at another two months.
Council Member Zemel. Mr. Anthony made a point that the EIR was originally done
with the concept that the property would be zoned commercial.
Richard Bruckner. The peak-hour trips forindustrial were much greater at the
intersections than commercial. Looking at the trips coming from the Taormina
facility, it is very traffic intensive and that is the concern. He is suggesting
in two weeks they could come back with some alternatives and an idea of the
impacts of the overlay.
MOTION. Council Member Feldhaus moved to continue the Public Hearing for two
weeks. Council member Zemel seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated he would like staff to elaborate for
the Council over the next two weeks as to what an overlay zone means, what the
implications are, the status of the existing negotiation process on the CUP and
the historic background as well -- a deeper, and more comprehensive background
on what has occurred on this property.
A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
D2.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3751 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION~
OWNER: REDA A. WASEF, 2324 Corydon, Norco, CA 91760
AGENT: FAYEZ SEDRAK, 1100 North Euclid St., Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 1100 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.51
acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid
Street.
To permit an accessory convenience market (with prepared food and off-
premise sale and consumption of beer and wine) and an automated car
wash with waiver of (A) required trees adjacent to street frontages
(APPROVED), (B) required setback adjacent to an arterial highway
(DENIED), and (C) landscape requirements adjacent to interior property
lines (APPROVED, IN PART).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3751 GRANTED, IN PART, denying sale of beer and wine (PC95-55)
(7 yes votes).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, Waiver (A) APPROVED;
Waiver (B) DENIED, and Waiver (C) APPROVED, IN PART,
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision was
submitted by the owner, Reda Wasef and Public Hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - June 29, 1995 and July 6, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 19, 1995
Posting of property - June 23, 1995
The Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of July 18, 1995 to this date
since the applicant was not present at that time.
20
CITY OF ~--N~HEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8v 1995
Council Member Tait. He is abstaining from any discussion or decision on this
matter since he has a conflict. (Council Member Tait left the Council Chamber -
8=54 P.M.).
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She gave a summary of the project and
what is being requested under the CUP. She noted that the posted exhibits
included an aerial photograph of the property and even though it was taken in
1986, accurately reflects the corner as it is today.
Mayor Daly. It appears that the issue is the denial of the beer and wine. He
then opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant or the
applicant's agent.
Reda Wasef, Reda's Mobil, 1100 N. Euclid, Anaheim. He first submitted a 20-page
document containing signatures of customers and neighbors under the heading that
they support the Mobil Station for a car wash and a mini mart with beer and wine
because it will be convenient for the community and it will serve a need and
necessity (made a part of the record). What is there now is a three-bay garage.
The first bay will be converted to an automatic car wash and the other two bays
and the office will be an approximate 2,000 square foot mini mart. The reason
the beer and wine was denied was because of the report from the Police Department
(see report dated April 7, 1995 from Lt. Jim Flammini) that the crime rate is 49%
above the average crime rate and that 13 ABC off-sale licenses have been issued
for this district. He contacted five or six different Lieutenants or Sergeants
at the Police Department and they did not help him at all. He has been to the
Police Department six times trying to get the information on the exact crime rate
and even went to the Library to do so. He believes the Police did not provide
him with the information because 75% of the crime is burglary and robbery and has
nothing to do with beer and wine. At the same time, he applied for the Chevron
Station at Ball Road and State College which the Police said is 70% above the
crime rate or twice the crime rate in the subject area and they approved the
license. The other issue is the closure of the driveway at Euclid.
Annika Santalahti. The Commission concurred with staff relative to the closure.
Condition No. I requires closure of the most southerly driveway on Euclid. There
are two driveways on LaPalma and one left on Euclid.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. It is a typical condition to
close the driveway closest to the major intersection~ Joel Fick. In addition to
the traffic enhancements the closure provides, it enables the enhancement of
landscaping as well. He also clarified for Council Member Feldhaus that relative
to the ratio of beer and wine sales to retail sales, the code permits up to 35%.
Council member Feldhaus. Perhaps the Planning Commission should take another
look at that. He thought when he was on the Planning Commission it was 10%.
Reda Wasef. The closing of the driveway will make it difficult for the gasoline
delivery truck to get in and out. Most of his customers are coming from Euclid
and not LaPalma. It w£11 drive away his customers.
John Lower. They took the truck turn radii and layout which showed that gas
truck deliveries could occur by entering on LaPalma and exiting on Euclid. There
have been a number of accidents at the intersection -- 15 over the recent one-
year period. Three of the drivers were under the influence and seven of the 15
could be attributed to the driveway which they are requesting be closed.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Daly closed the Public
Hearing.
21
CITY OF ~NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together
with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding
on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 95R-148 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3751
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-148, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-148, duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber (9:06 p.m.).
C1. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
There are no Council Comments.
C2. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report
ADJOURNMENT:
1995 wa~adjourned. (9:08 P.M.)
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
By general Council consent, the City Council meeting of August 8,
22