1995/08/22The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Special Session
August 22, 1995 - 2:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait,.Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Tom Wood
STADIUM/GENERAL MANAGER: Greg Smith
A complete copy of the agenda for the special meeting of the Anaheim City
Council was posted at 1:55 p.m. on August 18, 1995 at the Civic Center kiosk,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the special meeting of August 22, 1995 to order at 2:20 p.m.
for a workshop regarding the Anaheim Convention Center.
Mayor Daly. There is a follow-up item to this afternoon's workshop, Item A14.
on the Council Meeting Agenda which will be acted upon starting at 5:00 P.M.
The normal practice is not to take action immediately after but in this case,
the City Manager is recommending that the Council authorize the solicitation
of proposals for architectural firms to provide master planning and design
drawings to determine construction feasibility and costs of enhancing the
Anaheim Convention Center (A.C.C.).
City Manager Ruth. He is pleased at this time to introduce the consultants
from Coopers & Lybrand who were hired several months ago to do the feasibility
study on the potential expansion of the Convention Center. They have been
working with staff and doing their own independent analysis around the
country. He introduced Craig Scott and John Kotts from Coopers & Lybrand who
will make the presentation.
124, FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF THE ANAHEIM
CONVENTION CENTER.
Craig Scott, Coopers & Lybrand. Mr. Scott started the presentation noting
that the project commenced several months ago culminating in a document that
has been submitted to the Council which contains a detailed report. (See
report dated August 18, 1995 submitted by Coopers & Lybrand entitled -
Feasibility Analysis Related to the Potential Expansion of the Anaheim
Convention Center presented to the City of Anaheim - made a part of the
record). The overheads will highlight some of the information contained in
the report. His presentation will be an overview of the study, where they
have been, and the types of analysis performed. The primary objectives of the
market study were to evaluate the demand trends as they relate to the
convention trade show industry, a review of the effects of comparable and
competitive facilities on an expanded facility as well as the existing
facility, to analyze the potential market demand for the proposed expansion,
if any, to evaluate the exhibition, meeting and banquet space needs of the
facility today and into the future, to look at the financial operating impacts
of any changes to the facility, to evaluate the economic and financial impact
of the facility and finally to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of
various management options.
Mr. Scott's extensive presentation covered information contained in many of
the exhibits included in the report (see ESl-ESll in the Executive Summary
portion of the report) -- a review of historical operations from 1992-1994 -
convention/trade shows/public shows, event days, square foot utilization,
~,CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
attendance, event distribution by size, arena utilization - events and usage,
trade show 2000 event summary (i.e., the largest trade shows in the country),
consideration of Anaheim area as an event destination, reasons for events not
rotating to Anaheim, etc.
The current configuration of existing exhibit space is approximately 600,000
square feet, meeting space, 61,200, and no discernable ballroom. Based upon
the market demand, the expansion program that best seems to suit the market
now and into the future is an additional 100,000 square feet of exhibition
space, a rather large increase in meeting space since this is one of the
prime areas of deficiency not only in amount but also quality, and finally the
addition of a ballroom between 40,000 and 50,000 square feet. Consideration
should also be given to a fixed seating venue which is becoming an integral
part of a number of facilities around the country for opening and closing
ceremonies. Based upon the market demand, somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000
seats should be considered as an add-on component as the building is
architecturally planned for the future.
Mr. Scott then introduced Mr. John Kotts to present the balance of the
presentation.
Mr. John Kotts, Coopers & Lybrand. Having defined the appropriate building
program currently and 10 to 20 years into the future, his presentation will
cover operating revenues and expenditures (see Exhibit 5-2, Pg. 79 of the
report). The financial performance of the A.C.C. is better relative to the
large competitors in the market. If the facility is expanded, operating
rental income will increase slightly but operating food service revenue will
increase dramatically. Lacking in meeting space and ballroom space, those two
key components generate more food service than anything else. With an
expanded building, there will be an operating deficit of approximately 1.1
million, the concept being the willingness to sacrifice in order to realize
the ultimate economic benefit in food service revenue. Mr. Kotts presentation
then covered the economic and fiscal impact analysis of an expanded A.C.C.
based upon key assumptions described in the report.
At the conclusion of Mr. Kotts presentation, Mayor Daly reported that a letter
had been received from the Chamber of Commerce encouraging the City to move
forward with the expansion. Also, Mr. Charles Ahlers of the Visitor and
Convention Bureau is present and would like to make a presentation.
Mr. Charles Ahlers, President, Anaheim/Orange County Visitor and Convention
Bureau. He read a prepared statement (made a part of the record), the major
emphasis being that, "There is a real sense of urgency, almost desperation on
the part of the visitor industry to expand the Convention Center." He also
submitted a 14-page document containing graphs and statistics on convention
attendees (1966-1994), statistics on groups that won't return to Anaheim
unless additional exhibit/meeting space is constructed and their worth, those
groups requiring more meeting/exhibit space, a listing of their critical
needs, comparison of meeting, lobby and exhibit space with competitors and
other statistics relating to the need for expansion (also made a part of the
record).
At the conclusion of Mr. Ahlers presentation, Mayor Daly and Council Members
posed an extensive line of questions answered by the consultants regarding
information and assumptions contained in the Coopers & Lybrand report and
briefed in their presentation.
Mayor Daly. He feels what they need to do with all the excellent analysis
provided is to convert the information into a master plan that makes sense for
Anaheim. Issues such as conventioneers wanting more restaurants and places to
spend money in the neighborhood could also be dealt with in a master plan
(2)
C~TY OF AIqAHEIH~ C&L~FORN~A - COUNCIL HINUTES - AUGUST 22~ ~995
process as well as the more obvious such as the size of the A.C.C., ballroom
space and meeting space. He asked how extensive a buildout did the
consultants believe the master plan should attempt when they advise the
architect regarding just the convention center property itself.
Craig Scott. The first consideration of any master plan should deal strongly
with the reconfiguration of the existing building which needs to address its
meeting component and ballroom, circulation, lobby ways, function ways, etc.,
to truly explore how to integrate the existing facility in the most meaningful
manner and then build from there along with consideration of the types of
options that are available for the future.
City Manager Ruth. It has been approximately 120 days since staff consolidated
the two operations (Stadium and Convention Center). That change is not
reflected in the consultant's report. As a result of staff reductions made,
increased revenues have generated over a million dollars in that operation.
There are some projections in 1998-99 with the improvements in operation and
additional changes being considered, they expect the revenue picture will
improve even further. Staff will continue to work on those things that make
sense to either increase revenue or reduce operating expenses.
Mr. Steve Schacht, President, Board of Directors, Community Center Authority.
Of all the past betterment plans that have been adopted, the need is greater
now than it has ever been for Anaheim to keep pace and to go forward. The
Authority is in complete support of the proposed expansion and urges the
Council to go forward with the project and the master plan.
Mayor Daly acknowledged three other members of the Community Center Authority
who were present besides Mr. Schacht - Mr. Patterson, Hostetter and Riley and
thanked them for being present on this important issue.
Mr. Ned Snavely, General Manager, Marriott Hotel and Board Member of the
Anaheim Hotel-Motel Association. The Association also has gone on record with
great zeal in support of proceeding with haste on the expansion. In answer to
an earlier question, they as operators and in conjunction with the Visitor and
Convention Bureau need to sit down with the architect and help prioritize what
their customers are looking for to realize the most immediate return for the
investment. It is necessary to find a way to accelerate the architectural
renderings and the construction.
Mayor Daly. The City Manager is recommending moving forward this evening to
invite proposals from architects to craft the master plan to accommodate the
expansion recommended by Coopers & Lybrand. Mr. Snavely raised an important
point about timing. They will ask staff to apprise the Council how long the
RFP process will take and to share that with the business community and the
wider community as well.
Mayor Daly thanked the gentlemen from Coopers & Lybrand for their clear and
well organized presentation. They look forward to working with them in the
future.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council Consent the special meeting of August 22, 1995
was a~4ourned ~3:30~.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
(3)
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 22, 1995
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
BUDGET MANAGER: Jeff Stone
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SRVCS/GOLF: Chris Jarvi
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Selma Mann
UTILITIES ASST. GENERAL MANAGER - ELECTRIC SERVICES: Brian Brady
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 1:15 p.m. on August 18, 1995 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
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.
2e
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST ZZv 1995
Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
Se
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
(a) Name of case: Southern California Edison Co., Docket ER95-139-
000.
(b) Name of case: Southern California Edison Co., Docket ER81-177-
000.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: AMEA Clerical Unit
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: IBEW update
RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Tait
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:32 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.
(5:30 p.m.).
INVOCATION:
Pastor Bryan Crow, Garden Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Pro Tem Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - DISTINGUISHED PERFORMANCE - YOUTH BOXERS OF THE ANAHEIM
BOXING CLUB: Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services
introduced to the Council four youth boxers who will be presented with
Certificates of Recognition for dedicating their time and energy after school
and on week ends learning boxing skills along with the discipline that will
help them to live successfully throughout their lives. He then introduced
each of the youngsters and briefed their boxing accomplishments:
Edgar Saldivar (16), Caesar Esparza (16), Fernando Garcia (13),
Dennis Gonzalez (11)
Mayor Daly presented each with a Flying "A" Certificate recognizing the young
men for their outstanding achievements as members of the Anaheim Boxing Club.
They were commended personally by the Mayor and Council members.
Council Member Lopez. He is proud of the City's Boxing Club where he started
boxing as a young man. It was an important part of his life as it is for the
youngsters who have gone through the program. It keeps the City's youth out of
trouble, no drugs, and is a very positive force in their lives. He then
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
introduced volunteers who generously give of their time and effort to the
boxing club -- Melanie, who runs the club, Mr. J.J. McDaniels involved for the
last 20 years, Mr. Gonzalez and also Moses who works out of the George
Washington Community Center and participates in the club program.
119: DECLARATIONS OF RECOGNITION AND COMMENDATION~ Declarations of
Recognition and Commendation were unanimously adopted by the City Council
honoring four citizens for the invaluable assistance each gave to the Anaheim
Police Department and also the Fire Department.
Police Chief Randall Gaston introduced the three citizens who were present and
briefed the actions they had taken: Faustinus Luna who, along with Robert
Skau (unable to be present) provided assistance in the pursuit and ultimate
capture of two suspects following the attempted use of a stolen check at
Albertson's on April 4, 1995; Gabriel Pallares who assisted in the
apprehension of a reckless driving suspect until Police Officers arrived on
the scene, and Barbara McGraw who successfully administered CPR and restored
breathing to a neighbor's young son before Paramedics and Police arrived.
Mayor Daly and Council Members personally commended each of the "heros." The
Mayor stated that words cannot convey how very appreciative the citizens and
the City are that these ordinary citizens stepped forward, sometimes at their
own risk, in time of need.
119= RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED
AT ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION recognizing September 22, 1995, as American Business
Women's Day.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,992,948.19 for
the period ending August 18, 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. (5:50 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6:11 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
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 22,
1995. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY OF AN~'IEI~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL ~INUTES - AUGUST 22~ ~995
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR:
On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the following items
were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 95R-152, for adoption and offered
Ordinance No. 5513 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al.
118: The following claims were filed against the City and action
taken as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Pavel A. Flortensia Pop for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 1,
1995
A2.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission
meeting held June 19, 1995.
Council Member Feldhaus. He referred to the June 19, 1995 minutes of the Golf
Advisory Commission (Item C., Old Business) relative to the fact that
complimentary golf carts are not provided Commission Members at the Dad Miller
Course but are provided at the Anaheim Hills Course. In his opinion, he does
not see why a policy cannot be set to assist with carts at both courses. He
is asking if Council wishes to approve that policy.
City Manager Ruth. He is not familiar with the recommendation and will review
the matter with staff and report back to the Council.
117: Receiving and filing a Summary of Investment Transactions for
July, 1995.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board
meeting held July 13, 1995.
A3.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE SEWER DEFICIENCY STUDY PERTAINING TO
THE REMAINING CENTRAL CITY AREA 1 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
A4.
A5.
158: Approving and authorizing the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer to execute the Right-of-Way Certifications for seven Surface
Transportation Program Hazard Elimination Safety Program Projects at
the following locations: Harbor Boulevard and Romneya Drive; Lincoln
Avenue and Dale Street; Lincoln Avenue and Knott Avenue; Euclid
Street and Lincoln Avenue; Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue;
Brookhurst Street and Broadway; and Euclid Street and Romneya Drive.
160: Accepting the bid of Electrical Equipment c/o Ingalls Power
Products, in the amount of $45,645 for five PMH-9 manual operated,
padmount, sectionalizing switches with holders, in accordance with
Bid 5318.
A6.
160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing
Agent to issue a purchase order to Schweitzer Engineering
Laboratories, c/o Matzinger-Keegan, in the amount of $28,666 for 22
relays and 11 cable connections for Lewis Substation.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22~ 1995
A7.
171: ORDINANCE NO. 5513 (URGENCY): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON FULL CASH VALUE OF ALL
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96, DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF, AND DECLARING
THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT AS AN EMERGENCY
MEASURE.
Jeff Stone, Budget Manager, explained for Council Member Feldhaus that the
rate for 1995-96 per $100,000 of assessed value was $4.06 and for F.Y. 1994-
95, it was $3.81. It has gone up about 25 cents, the primary reason being
assessed values have been reduced in Anaheim; therefore, the dollar amount per
$100,000 had to increase to make up for the reduction of the assessed value.
Before a vote was taken on the consent calendar, City Clerk Lee Sohl read
Ordinance No. 5513 in full.
A8.
123: Waiving Council Policy 216, and approving an Owner
Participation Agreement between the Agency, the City of Anaheim and
Taormina Industries, Inc., in connection with a business expansion
project for the Taormina Industries facility at 1131 North Blue Gum
Avenue.
A9.
123: Approving an Agreement with Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, in the
amount of $30,000 in order to facilitate the provision of emergency
shelter services to homeless families with dependent children through
direct client-related services.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services explained
for Council Member Lopez how the money is allocated and spent relative to the
subject agreement.
Al0.
184: Reviewing the need for continuing the Sixth Proclamation of the
Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency
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.
All ·
108: ORDINANCE NO. 5514 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .050 OF SECTION 18.89.030 OF CHAPTER
18.89 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEX-
ORIENTED BUSINESSES.
Al2.
156: Accepting a grant award, in the amount of $675,000 from the
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services for the Accelerated Hiring, Education and Deployment Program
(COPS AHEAD), for the hiring of nine police officers; and authorizing
the Chief of Police to execute and submit all documents relating
thereto.
Council Member Lopez. The City has hired nine additional Police Officers
through this grant. Even though the County filed for bankruptcy and cities
generally have had to tighten their belts, Anaheim was able to hire
additional officers. He complimented staff for working to get the money.
Al3.
123: Approving an Agreement with Ogden Facility Management Corp. of
Anaheim relating to the acquisition by the City of property located
at 1621 Douglass Road ("Transfer Station") from the County of Orange.
(Continued from the meeting of 8/8/95, Item Al6.)
5
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
City Manager Ruth. On this agreement, Section 3 has been deleted. The staff
report was revised to reflect that change.
A14.
124: Authorizing Staff to solicit proposals from qualified
architectural firms to provide master planning and design drawings
(consistent with the Convention Center market retention enhancement
profile prepared by Coopers and Lybrand) to determine construction
feasibility and potential capital costs of such an enhancement
program.
Jeff Kirsch. He was unable to attend this afternoon's workshop on the
feasibility study done by Coopers & Lybrand relating to this item. The Mayor
mentioned that Item Al4 would be implementing the recommendations. He feels
it does not give an opportunity for input from the public who will be involved
in any debt financing or environmental impacts.
Mayor Daly. What he should have said was that the proposed action is the next
step in the process. This item does not approve the expansion but is the
first step in the process of hiring an architect who will do the master plan.
City Manager Ruth stated all this is authorizing tonight is for staff to
solicit proposals for an architect. The proposals will come back in
approximately 60 days for consideration and review of the recommendation by
the Council at that time.
Mayor Daly further explained there was an extensive public workshop this
afternoon on the potential expansion and improvement of the Anaheim Convention
Center. The Anaheim Convention Center is the sixth busiest and holds a pre-
eminent position in the United States; however, it must continue to improve
and expand to keep its position in the market place. There is danger of
losing some of its business to the competition in the western United States.
This item simply invites proposals from qualified architects to begin a master
plan process before any decisions can be made on which improvements will
occur. A variety of recommendations were presented this afternoon especially
with regard to expansion of meeting space and adding ballroom space. Funds
have been set aside in the Anaheim Resort Improvement Plan for Convention
Center improvement. This eventually could involve substantial capital dollars.
The City has an enormous investment in the Convention Center. He then thanked
the Chamber of Commerce and Visitor and Convention Bureau for their letters of
endorsement. They look forward to the completion of the RFP process.
A15.
107: ORDINANCE NO. 5515 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .060 OF, AND ADDING SUBSECTION .065 TO,
SECTION 15.02.090 OF CHAPTER 15.02 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ROOF COVERINC~ (UNIFORM BUILDING CODE,
1991 EDITION, SECTIONS 3201 AND 3203).
Setting a public hearing date and time to consider the above
Ordinance relating to roof coverings (suggested public hearing date:
September 19, 1995, at 6:00 p.m.).
A16.
129: ORDINANCE NO. 5516 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 16.08.155 TO CHAPTER 16.08 OF TITLE 16 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND APPENDIX II-A OF THE UNIFORM FIRE
CODE, 1991 EDITION.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
setting a public hearing date and time to consider the above
Ordinance relating to the amendment of Appendix II-A of the Uniform
Fire Code, 1991 Edition (suggested public hearing date:
September 19, 1995, at 6:00 p.m.).
Al7.
123: Approving an Agreement and Covenant with Tarsadia, Inc.,
relating to payment of transient occupancy taxes for timeshare
projects in the Hotel Circle Specific Plan (SP93-1).
108: ORDINANCE NO. 5512 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES.
City Attorney White. On this item, there are actually nine separate
agreements and all are identical. The Council has received copies of the
agreement. Since it went out on Friday, minor technical revisions have been
made that do not affect the substance. Where it says Tarsadia, there are
actually five different parties or entities involved concerning nine different
parcels which are all a part of the Hotel Circle project.
Al8.
123: Approving Comerica Bank as the lender for Hardin Oldsmobile,
Inc., and approving the Operating Covenant and Restrictive Covenant
Affecting Interests To Real Property, and authorizing the Executive
Director to execute the necessary documents.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-152 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-152 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5513, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5513, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Al9.
105: BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Accepting the letter of resignation from the Budget Advisory
Commission submitted by Ben Bay (term expires June 30, 1996), and
directing the City Clerk to post an unscheduled vacancy.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to accept the resignation of Mr. Ben Bay from the
Budget Advisory Commission with regret and directing the City Clerk to post an
unscheduled vacancy. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
City Clerk Sohl clarified for the Mayor that action on the vacant position
will be on the Council Agenda of September 12, 1995.
A20.
105: INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE~
To accept the withdrawal of two appointees to the Investment Advisory
Committee due to residency requirement and business reasons.
Appointments to the newly established Investment Advisory Commission,
in accordance with Ordinance No. 5502.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to accept the withdrawal of two appointees
to the Investment Advisory Committee (Pawlowski and Coad) due to residency
requirements and business reasons. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the two appointments to the
Investment Advisory Committee be continued to the meeting of September 12,
1995. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 81 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995:
DECISION DATE: AUGUST 10t 1995 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
SEPTEMBER It 1995
81.
179: ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 95-03:
OWNER: SHERRY MOSES, 1838 South Norma Lane, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 1838 South Norma Lane. Subject property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .06
acre with an approximate frontage of 61 feet on the east side of
Norma Lane and a maximum depth of 177 feet and located approximately
145 feet south of the centerline of Stella Avenue.
Petitioner requests approval of an Administrative Use Permit under
authority of Code Sections 18.04.140 and 18.10.030 to permit a large
family day care facility with a maximum of twelve children.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Use Permit No. 95-03 APPROVED (ZA Decision No. 95-18).
ITEMS 82 - 88 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 7~ 1995
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 29, 199~
82.
179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-95-10, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22~ 1995
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3772 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CHRYSLER REALTY CORP., 1450 W. Long Lake Road, Ste. 280,
Troy, MI 48098
AGENT: R.A. BEEHLER, 14252 Culver Drive, Ste. A-349, Irvine, CA
92714
LOCATION: 1120 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately
3.8 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Anaheim
Boulevard.
To reclassify subject property from the ML, CH, CG and PLD-M (Limited
Industrial) (Commercial Heavy) (Commercial General) and (Landscape
District, Manufacturing) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone.
To permit a tour bus terminal including the storage and maintenance
of buses and administrative offices with waiver of required parking
lot landscaping.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 94-95-10 GRANTED (PC95-91) (7 yes votes).
CUP NO. 3772 GRANTED (PC95-92).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member Tait declared a conflict since his engineering firm is working
on the property. He will, therefore, not be participating in any discussion
or possible action on this item.
Mayor Daly. Since this is such a prominent and important corner (Anaheim
Boulevard/Ball Road), he would like some clarification as to the proposal
especially relative to landscaping.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The waiver has to do with the
employee parking area which is actually hidden from view; therefore, the
Planning Commission felt it was appropriate to approve the waiver. In
exchange, the applicant agreed to plant 24" box trees along the frontages
whereas normally they are required only to have 15 gallon trees. They will be
completely "rehabbing" all of the landscaping on the property. Ail of the
buildings will be completely demolished/removed from the property. The mature
landscaping which is adjacent to an alley way to the west will be retained.
The rest of the landscaping will be rehabbed and added to. There will be a
two-story office building on the corner, a maintenance building, a building
for the ticketing of passengers as well as restroom facilities and a small
commercial vending facility. There will be no evidence from the street of any
type of maintenance. Passengers will be picked up at local hotels and
facilities, brought to the location and transferred to buses specified for
certain excursions. It is basically a transfer facility. He also confirmed
that the Redevelopment staff has been instrumental in assisting with this
project.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. This is in a
Redevelopment area but is not covered by an agreement negotiated in terms of a
DDA or an OPA. Staff talked to the owner about the land use and some of the
issues. He did respond in terms of screening, landscaping and where the uses
would be located. They also discussed the corner (Anaheim Blvd./Ball Road)
being reserved for commercial and not used totally for the tour bus use. She
does not know if that was finalized in the latest plans.
Council member Lopez. That intersection carries a great deal of traffic and
is one of the very busiest in Anaheim.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST ZZ, 1995
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. It is a congested
intersection and Public Works is proceeding with a widening project to add
additional turn lanes. The driveway access locations for this project have
been coordinated with that. The driveways are off of Anaheim Blvd. and Ball
Road. The current driveway just north of Ball on Anaheim Blvd. will be
closed. This location is the old car dealership. Me then explained the
circulation plan for the site as requested by the Mayor.
Mayor Daly. The only exit from the property for buses will be to turn right
on to Ball Road. It seems very close to the intersection for what appears
will be a very busy bus passenger terminal and transfer point. He also asked
to see a site plan.
Joel Fick. He added there are a number of conditions attached to the permit
approved by the Planning Commission that addressed hours of operation and
specifically prescribed that all driveway locations and on-site circulation
had to be reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager as
well. The site plan is not available right at this moment but one can be
provided.
Mayor Daly. He asked that this matter be deferred until later in the meeting
so that he can view the site plan and subsequently make a decision on whether
or not to set the matter.
Later in the meeting (9:20 P.M.) Joel Fick explained that the plans were
reviewed not only by staff, but also the Redevelopment and Planning
Commission. There were some tradeoffs in terms of the enhanced landscaping of
the street frontage that would otherwise not have been achieved. He also
clarified that to his recollection, a time limitation was not discussed.
Mayor Daly. He feels this is an important enough corner that they need to be
doubly sure that policy objectives are dealt with. He thereupon requested a
review of the Planning Commission's decision.
Council Member Zemel. Although he does not share the Mayor's concern, he will
concur and support the Mayor's request.
A Public Hearing on this project will, therefore, be set for a later date.
B3.
179~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 284, CATEGORIC~T.?.y EXEMPT~ _~T.qSS 21~
OWNER: GOCK WOEY JUNG, 433 S. Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804;
EL PARAISO RESTAURANT, Attn: Eva Fragosa, 420 S. Brookhurst St.,
Anaheim, CA 92804
INITIATED BY: City-Initiated (Code Enforcement Division) 200 S.
Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 420 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately
0.50 acres located on the east side of Brookhurst Street and
approximately 619 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. (El
Paraiso Restaurant).City-initiated request to consider revoking or
modifying Conditional Use Permit No. 284 (to establish a restaurant
and cocktail lounge) pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.03.091 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 284 Terminated (PC95-93) (5 yes votes, I no vote, and 1
abstained).
10
CITY OF ]%NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22~ 1995
B4. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3417 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: A.G. CASSIS, 413 Sharon Road, Arcadia, CA 91007
AGENT: ADVANCED PROFESSIONAL IMAGING MEDICAL GROUP, Attn: Dr. Sim
C.Hoffman, 585 South Knott Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 545-595 South Knott Street. Property is approximately
0.68 acre located at the northwest corner of Knott Street and Orange
Avenue.
Petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to
the time limitation of a previously approved mobile medical unit
within an existing shopping center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval for CUP NO. 3417 (to
expire 6/3/96) (PC95-94) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B5.
179: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 89-01, CATEGORIC~?.?.Y EXEMPTt CLASS
21:
OWNER: CCSFERS Stadium Business (3), Inc., 505 Montgomery Street,
San Francisco, CA 94111
AGENT: AMB, C/O Martin Coyne, 505 Montgomery Street, San Francisco,
CA 94111; WORDES, WISHIA, GOREN & CONNER, Attn: Richard S. Wordes,
31 Journey Street, Ste. #200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
LOCATION: The property is approximately 17.49 acres located at the
southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard and
further described as Stadium Business Park South.
Petitioner requests cancellation of Stadium Business Park South
Development Agreement No. 89-01.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended to the City Council the cancellation of Development
Agreement No. 89-01, subject to the completion of the requirements
previously imposed in order to establish said Development Agreement
(7 yes votes.)
This Item was set for a Public Hearing on September 19, 1995 due to the
Development Agreement.
B6.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3545 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LTD., 1990 Westwood Blvd., 3rd Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 90025
AGENT: JOHN SCHROEDER, 1440 $. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately
14.7 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos
Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard.
Petitioner requests amendment or deletion of a time limitation for a
previously approved batting cage and auto stereo/alarm installation
facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval for CUP NO. 3545 to
expire 9/21/98) (PC95-95) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B7.
179:
OWNER:
92667
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3245 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
NORWALK INVESTMENTS, 1020 N. Batavia St., Ste. B, Orange, CA
11
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
AGENTS: CARLOS BARRAGAN, 532 South. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805;'
Glen Gwatney C/O Anacal Engineering, 1900 East La Palma, Ste. 202,
Anaheim, CA
LOCATION: 526 and 532 South Rose Street (Charlie's Exotic Works).
The property is approximately 0.52 acres located on the east side of
Rose Street and approximately 390 feet south of the centerline of
Santa Ana Street.
Petitioner requests modification or deletion of conditions of
approval pertaining to the limitation of time and monthly Code
Enforcement inspection fees related to a previously-approved
automotive body and paint facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval for CUP NO. 3245 (to
expire 7/11/96) (PC95-96) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM=
B8.
1792 VARIANCE NO. 1639 AND 2784 - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL~
CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION=
REQUESTED BY: Phil Schwartze, 31682 E1 Camino Real, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: Property is located at 100-102 West La Palma Avenue and
920 North Zeyn Street.
Petitioner requests substantial conformance determination to permit
an embroidery facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously approved
use.
Mayor Daly asked why a variance action was taking place on this item.
Greg Hastings. The variance was originally for a certain type of use -- a
mattress manufacturing facility. At some point in time, there were retail
sales as well. The request currently is still for commercial use but a
different type. There is still an element of manufacturing but also retail.
It would include removal of the roof sign, cleaning up the landscaping on Zeyn
and removal of a block wall on Zeyn that had deteriorated.
B9.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5511: Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 90-91-04 located at the southerly terminus of
Londerry Lane from the RS-A-43,000(SC) zone to the RS-HS-10,000(SC)
zone. (Introduced at the meeting of August 15, 1995, Item BB.)
Joel Fick clarified that this is a 5-lot (4 residential, one common) single-
family residential subdivision in the RS-HS-10,000 (SC) zone.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5511 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 55112 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-04
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF LONDERRY LANE FROM THE RS-A-
43,000(SC) ZONE TO THE RS-HS-10,000(SC) ZONE.
12
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNI& - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5511, for adoption:
AYES: HAYOR/COUNCIL HEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5511, duly passed and adopted.
ITEN BI0 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEETING OF AUGUST 21t 1995
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 31t 1995
B10.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15223 AND FINAL SITE PLAN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTNO. 338
AMENDMENT TO SYCAMORE CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-1)
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: BANK of AMERICA PROPERTIES, INC., 333 South Hope Street,
21st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071
AGENT: HORST SCHOR, 746 North Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Development Area 5 within The Sycamore Canyon Specific
Plan (SP88-1). Property is approximately 4.2 acres located on the
northeast corner of Weir Canyon Road and Canyon vista Drive.
The petitioner requests approval of the General Plan Amendment No.
338 (to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate
subject property from General Commercial land uses to Hillside Medium
Density Residential land uses). Amendment to The Sycamore Canyon
Specific Plan (SP88-1) (to amend Exhibit No. 12 to redesignate
Development Area 5 from commercial land uses to single-family
residential land uses and to amend the Development Area 5 Zoning and
Development Standards to permit detached single-family dwelling
units). Tentative Tract Map No. 15223 (to establish a 4.2 acre, 25-
lot single-family detached subdivision including 24 residential lots
and one lettered lot).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tentative Tract Map No. 15223 and Final Site Plan APPROVED (7 yes
votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
NOTE: GPA NO. 338 and Amendment to Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
(SP88-1) have a 22-day appeal period and will appear on the City
Council agenda of September 12, 1995.
D1.
155: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 317r GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 334r
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 "NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN" (includino
Zoninq and Development Standards)~
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, c/o Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency Attention: Michael Welch, 201 South Anaheim
Boulevard #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: The proposed Specific Plan and General Plan project area
consists of 2,645 acres generally bounded by the Riverside (SR-91)
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
13
CITY OF ANAHEIm, C&LIFORN~& - COUNCIL ~NUTES - &U~UST 22~ L995
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.
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:
Fiqure 1 - 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.
Fiqure 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 Aha 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-91Freeway/Tustin
14
CITY OF ANAHEIMt CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22t 1995
Avenue interchange, north of the Santa Aha 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-91Freeway/Tustin Avenue interchange.
Fiqure 5 - Approximately 11.3 acres from the General Industrial to
the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally
located on the east side of Tustin Avenue between La Palma Avenue and
the SR-91 Freeway.
Fiqure 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.
Fiqure 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.
Fiqure 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.
Fiqure 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
15
CITY OF ANAHEIH~ C&L~FORNI& - COUNCIL HINUTES - AUGUST 22~ L995
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 Aha Street, north of
the Santa Aha 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 centerline of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, and
north of the Santa Aha River Channel.
2. Parks, 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 Ana River.
3. Environmental Resource and Manaqement 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 ll.9-acre addition to the Water Use area
adjacent to the Santa Ana 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 Ana 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.
16
CITY OF ANAHEIH~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL H~NUTES - AUGUST 22~ L995
(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:
Recommended that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No.
334 (PC95-58) (6 yes votes, I 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
recommended conditions and Errata dated May 5, 1995, and the
Revisions to the errata dated May 17, 1995) (PC95-59).
Approved and recommended 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.
Continued from the meetings of June 27, 1995, Item D3, and August 8,
1995, Item D1.
This public hearing was continued from the meetings of June 27, 1995 and
August 8, 1995 to this date (see minutes of those dates where input was
received).
Council Member Zemel requested that the Public Hearing be reopened.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from the City Attorney on what staff has done on this
matter during the interim.
City Attorney, Jack White. His staff has worked in cooperation with legal
counsel for Adams International and George Adams to devise language that would
avoid any legal issues but simply make it a policy decision for the Council.
He has submitted a memorandum dated August 22, 1995 which contains two
different versions of proposed amendments to the Specific Plan Ordinance.
Version One would make the Adams uses currently existing on the property
permitted uses at such time as terms of the Stipulated Judgment are satisfied
which should occur in 1998. The use would be allowed to continue currently as
it is as a temporary permitted use and in 1998 if all conditions of the
Stipulated Judgment have been satisfied, it would automatically become a
permitted use that could be continued on the property without a CUP.
Version Two is presented because there has been subsequent discussion or
inquiry from the use located immediately to the west, DBW owned by David B.
Williams a non-ferrous recycling operation. DBW has asked to be treated in a
17
C~TY OF ANAHE~H~ CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL ~NUTES - AUGUST 22~ ~995
similar manner as a permitted, by-right use rather than a conditional use.
This use has never had a conditional use even though a CUP has been required
by code. If Council wishes to allow that as a permitted use as well, Version
Two would allow that.
The issues are= (1) should the Adams uses be permitted uses as opposed to
conditional uses, (2) should DBW be permitted or a CUP required (3) should
Adams have a time limit or not. It is the feeling of the Community
Development/Redevelopment Department and Planning that a five-year limit would
be advisable as a permitted use and that is language contained in Version One
and Two. If the third is not to have a time limit, it is easy to remove.
From a legal standpoint, the language presented accomplishes what Council
asked staff to do.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. The
supplemental staff report was worked out in Planning and Community Development
in conjunction with the City Attorney. There were three issues raised: the
recycling overlay for those uses s/o the 91 Freeway, expansion of non-
conforming uses and also Mr. J's requesting a dance hall designation. Staff
met with Phil Anthony and tried to clarify why the overlay zone was not
appropriate. She feels they are all in agreement it would not allow the use
that is currently there and they have come up with the two alternatives as
outlined by the City Attorney. Relative to non-conforming uses, these will be
allowed to expand and be permitted by right so there is no specific percentage
limitations on those businesses if they wish to expand. Relative to Mr. J's
request, staff is recommending that there be no change in the Specific Plan to
allow a dance hall only use. The City Attorney also forwarded additional
information received today from Catellus Company, the owner of the large
parcel directly to the west expressing concerns about a cocktail lounge/exotic
dance use on that property.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Regarding expansion of non-conforming uses, he
feels it is a positive addition/amendment since it will now greatly benefit
property owners and areas that are going to be redesignated commercial. The
amendment provides a dual benefit in allowing commercial use that would be in
conformance with the General Plan and in also allowing owners to expand their
buildings as industrial.
City Attorney White. His staff has worked with both Mr. Anthony and Mr.
Morrow relative to agreement language. One item left out with regard to DBW,
their request would not only be to permit the current use in operation, but
they wish to be able to expand on to the parcel to the east which they do not
now own but are currently in escrow.
Mayor Daly. A point he made at the last meeting, there was nothing in the
Specific Plan process itself that would prevent the two properties - Adams
Steel and DBW - from applying for Conditional Use Permits to continue their
operation. The Specific Plan process is not designed to give businesses a
guarantee that they can operate forever but is simply a master zoning process.
Designating the property industrial is actually an improvement over Adams
current situation. There is nothing in the specific plan process that would
prevent him from continuing to operate under a Stipulated Judgment and apply
for a CUP in the future.
Joel Fick. The Specific Plan process itself is an amendment to the City's
zoning code. It establishes what uses are permitted as a matter of right and
what are conditional. The CUP process allows the City to evaluate what plans
18
C~TY OF ANAHEI~ CAL~FOI~IA - COUNCIL ~NUTES - AUGUST 22~ ~995
are being proposed, even for such uses as churches and schools. The current
land use is discretionary and most communities would require a CUP.
Mayor Daly. He is told by staff effective in 1998 the new standards for the
overall Specific Plan for the entire 2,600 acres will be in place. He also
asked if there was a mechanism so that Mr. Adams in 1998 will comply with
those new standards and if he does not, will the taxpayers have to spend money
to try to enforce that.
City Attorney White. Part of the documentation the Council has been given by
his office did include the establishment of specific development standards if
the Council approves the actions as permitted as opposed to conditionally
permitted. If an operator fails to comply in 1998 or thereafter with
development standards, it would be a zoning violation which would subject the
owner-operator to civil and criminal liability.
Lisa Stipkovich. After 1998 with the new development standards in the
Specific Plan, an owner-operator would have to conform; Mayor Daly. The City
is in a position of enforcing the development standards at that point without
having any court jurisdiction involved.
City Attorney White. They would have to go through exactly the same process
as with any other code violation.
Lisa Stipkovich. Relative to the 5-year limit which came from staff, this use
has a history and potential for hazardous problems to occur unlike any other
use in Orange County. Staff was also trying to respond to discussions at the
previous meeting with reference to getting assurances about the future of Mr.
Adams business. An additional five years would give a total of eight years.
Joel Fick. Assuming compliance with all the Stipulated Judgment conditions
and all site development standards contained within the Specific Plan, the
conclusion staff came to is if the item was before them today, that is the
recommendation they would be making. For the very reasons discussed in terms
of the appropriateness for review of conditional uses, having plans to review
and potentially establishing conditions, since the site is adjacent to the
Riverside Freeway, highly visible and adjacent to the Santa Ana River, staff
felt that expansion on to other sites not presently in use, should go through
the normal process and be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council.
Answering Council Member Tait, Mrs. Stipkovich clarified that Version One is
the alternative recommended by staff. The language has been changed as
recently as 12 noon today and staff did not have a chance to make any formal
recommendation on the new language; City Attorney White and Mrs. Stipkovich
clarified that Version One does not include DBW but would allow the use with a
CUP.
Mayor Daly reopened the Public Hearing.
Miriam Kaywood, Anaheim resident and former Council Member. She was elected
Council Member in 1974 and approximately two years later, Mr. Adams started
his current use. Subsequently, he has been in violation of almost every health
code with intervention by State and Federal agencies with regard to what is
and isn't toxic. He has no permit for the billboard presently on the property
and for a great many things that were done there. At one point the toxic
"fluff" on the property was 50,000 tons. A fire occurred in the pile and the
nearby hotel had to be evacuated. The hotel was told it was not a great place
19
CITY OF ~NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22v 1995
to build their facility. Code enforcement staff had to remain on duty on the
property. She is concerned they are talking about giving special privileges
and taking away conditions for people who have deliberately broken the law for
almost 20 years. The use is a necessary one but not at that location or even
in Anaheim. The proposal is giving them "carte blanche" with no conditions.
It will tie the hands of future Councils. The Water District has also been
concerned about water contamination from the fluff pile. Since Council Member
Zemel is the City's representative on the Water District, it is important to
know whether he is voicing what the City wants -- his own views or any views
at all.
Philip Anthony representing the property owners - Adams family and DBW. Mrs.
Kaywood voted for the use when she was on the Council. What they are
proposing tonight is not something uncontrolled or unconditioned. Staff and
the City Attorney have insisted, all of the controls and conditions in the old
use permits, the Judgment and the new development standards will apply not
only to Adams, but also to DBW. They have agreed to that and it is included
in the package before the Council. Both uses - Adams and DBW - were fully
permitted uses in the City at one time. Historically, the DBW property was
included in the old permits that covered the entire property. DBW was shocked
to learn that when the Adams permits were revoked, they lost theirs too. They
are proposing the very same uses on the very same pieces of property with the
addition of eight acres to the east. It is not giving "carte blanche" with no
controls. The City has every control and the business has agreed to every
single condition. There is a whole section called Conditions of Operations
that will still apply even after the Stipulation and Judgment are finished
both to Adams and DBW. When the Adams permits disappeared and took DBW with
them, they started negotiating with Planning and Code Enforcement. Instead of
applying in their present facility, they have been trying to buy another site
next door and most recently they have actually gone into a solid escrow to buy
the eight acres immediately to the east. Their plan is to take the same
operation and move a few hundred feet to the east into a more decent building
with more parking and no new uses but a better layout. Lack of use permits or
any kind of normal situation and a time limit is a hardship on these
businesses. The City is expecting Adams to stay alive while spending money to
get rid of the pile which is now 1/3 gone. He questioned why an arbitrary
limit should be set. They do agree with the language that the City Attorney
came up with on Version Two and would support that but with the one change on
the second page .060 to eliminate the last sentence and that is the five-year
time limit. They support everything else.
Mayor Daly. He reiterated his contention that the Specific Plan process
representing two years of careful planning designed to modernize and update
the City's zoning, is an inappropriate device to single out one property and
extend a CUP or to obtain a CUP when one does not exist. It is wrong. He
needs to remind the public and the audience that the City has spent $500,000
of public money in the last few years to convince Mr. Adams to comply with the
law. He is now complying. He has agreed via the court system to clean up the
site by 1998. There was no commitment made by the City to anything beyond
that. They are using the Specific Plan process to get more than that. He is
now saying he wants the right to operate forever.
George Adams. He refuted statements made by Mrs. Kaywood. The State declared
their waste hazardous waste but they never filed a criminal charge. Only the
City has filed criminal charges of all the agencies involved. He then relayed
some of the things that had occurred especially since 1990 when the business
was trying to come out of a bankruptcy and the actions the City had taken
including meetings with staff. He feels there was no democratic process in
20
CITY OF ANAHE~ CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL H~NUTES - &U~UST 22~ L995
his dealings with the City. He does not have the money to hire attorneys. At
the same time, he is trying to clean up the pile and the City is trying to
close him down. The Health Department is telling him if he shuts down, they
will put him in jail for abandoning the hazardous waste. As he sees it, once
the site is cleaned up, he will have to shut the business down because he
cannot reapply. What the City has done is wrong and that is why they are
asking the City to give them back their permits to put them back where they
were in the beginning. The City is continuing to be unfair at the staff
level.
David B. Williams, DBW, 3250 Frontera, Anaheim. He started his business at
the present location in 1985. As far as he knows and what he has been told by
his legal counsel, his business was covered under the CUP that was there right
up to revocation in 1992. They have had a business license there every single
year for 11 years and have purchased the property they are located on. Now
they are caught up in the animosity toward Adams and have to defend themselves
to stay in business. They are looking forward to investing 4 or 5 million in
new facilities and all he hears is anti-recycling. With only a limited time
to exist, it is difficult to get financing from a bank. He does not
understand why their use expired to begin with. Their operation uses no heavy
equipment, there are no hazardous problems and there have been no violations
of any sort. Their sole purpose is to expand, employ more people, pay taxes
and not do anything different. They are not looking forward to going through
the CUP process to try to establish what they have been doing for 11 years.
Answering the Mayor, City Attorney White explained that currently there is no
CUP for this use. Under the Specific Plan, if it were to be adopted the way it
is recommended by City staff, this use would be a conditional use just as it
is today with no change. It would not change the legal status and he would
have the same rights as if the Specific Plan had never been conceived. He
reiterated, there is no CUP today and DBW would be required to get a CUP.
Version One would continue to require that and Version Two, which Williams is
requesting, would make this a permitted use with no CUP required.
Answering Council Member Zemel, Mr. Williams confirmed he owns the property he
is on now in fee title under David B. Williams and the other parcels are DBW
Ventures. All three are owned by him.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney. The Adams operations had a CUP. At the
time the CUP's for the Adams family operations were brought forth for
revocation, Mr. Williams appeared at those hearings and indicated he was a
separate use from the property, distancing himself from the Adams operation.
It was made clear to Mr. Adams following and during the proceedings, a CUP
would be required for the type of operation DBW was engaged in. After
completion of revocation proceedings, and prior to court hearings, there were
negotiations and discussion with Paul Watkins, Counsel for Mr. Williams with
regard to this issue. Mr. Watkins and Williams were aware that a CUP would be
required and the DBW operation was not considered under the Adams family
operation.
City Attorney White. The real issue with regard to Mr. Williams is whether
DBW should be a conditional use or a permitted use. By making the business a
permitted use would allow expansion on the eight acres to the east of his
current site.
Council Member Zemel then posed a line of questions to Mrs. Stipkovich
relative to the zoning originally proposed for the subject property and the
21
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
concern that it be used for the highest and best use; Mrs. Stipkovich stated
her job is to see that that occurs.
Council Member Zemel stated he would like to see a policy that the property
owner be included when the City decides what the highest and best use of their
property is; Mrs. Stipkovich. There was a Public Hearing process and staff
notified many of the owners in the area and had several meetings with them.
She is also available at any time to meet with any owner to get their input.
It is not a policy of hers and she does not want to give the impression they
are out making decisions without getting input and without having a Public
Hearing.
Council Member Zemel. He feels this is pure and simply about property rights
and that should be the focus.
Council Member Feldhaus. If he thought the businesses would have been left
alone and grandfathered in, and when the court order expired they would be
allowed to continue their operation, they would not be arguing the point now.
At the outset, the zoning was changed to commercial which was later rectified
and put back in industrial. It is an unusual situation where the business
does not have a CUP to operate and is under a court order with no future
beyond 2 1/2 years. He asked if at this point they should concurrently give
the additional 5-years or wait until the court order expires to see if he
conforms and then consider a CUP.
City Attorney White. That is the essence of Version One. It allows five
additional years. It is not called a CUP but a permitted use but all the
requirements that would be in the prior CUP and are in the court judgment are
development standards that are requirements of that permitted use for those
five years. At the end of the five years, there is nothing that would
prohibit applying for an extension by way of a CUP at that time to get more
time.
Council Member Lopez. Mr. Adams has spent millions investing in the business
and DBW is going to commit millions. He cannot see any reason why they cannot
give them what they want. The City has everything possible in place to keep
them under control.
Lisa Stipkovich. Staff has tried to come up with a compromise that works.
The big issue is the time frame and that is the only thing Mr. Anthony has a
concern with. Staff's recommendation is acceptable to the owner except for
the time limit beyond 1998. Staff is recommending 5 years. It is strictly a
Council policy.
Terry Adams, 9301 Hidden Valley, Villa Park. Regarding DBW, their
understanding of the use permit is it runs with the land. For 9 years it was
under a CUP. From their point of view, it was always a permitted use and
operated under a CUP which was subsequently taken away from his land.
Relative to the Mayor's contention that the Specific Plan is not the proper
forum, his understanding is the City has used the Specific Plan to grant a
wide variety of permitted uses in these areas as well as a recycling overlay
given to Taormina Industries.
Lisa Stipkovich. The major distinction, with Taormina, very specific
information has been provided about what they are going to be doing and what
their commitment is. She confirmed they do have a legal CUP and are also
designated as a waste management site.
22
C~TY OF ANAHEim, CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL ~NUTES - &U~UST 22~ ~995
Sam Johar, Mr. J's. They have started 'a business venture in Anaheim by buying
Bessie Wall's Restaurant. They are located in Area 5 of the Specific Plan
which allows the CL zone except for a few items. They currently have a CUP
application for a public dance hall in conjunction with their restaurant which
is pending. He feels it defies logic to exclude public dances from this area.
They are requesting that the Council give them a chance just as with the Fox
Fire Restaurant on Imperial where public dancing is permitted in conjunction
with a restaurant. His business is currently authorized to do dinner dancing.
They respectfully request the Council to treat their commercial area with the
same kindness as other commercial areas by allowing a public dance hall under
Area 5. They took a chance when they invested 1.5 million dollars.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 West Palais, Anaheim. He is requesting that after public
input is closed and subsequent to Council deliberation, that they delay a vote
for one week. His reason is that he has heard very little discussion about
all other elements of the plan; Council Member Zemel explained that the
elements of the overall plan were discussed at the Public Hearing on August 8,
1995 (see minutes that date) and tonight they have focused on specific issues
brought forth.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Lisa Stipkovich. Regarding Mr. J's, all commercial areas are being treated
the same and no dance halls are being permitted.
After a brief explanation by the City Attorney on how to proceed procedurally,
Council Member Zemel offered the following motion: To amend the Specific Plan
per the City Attorney's and Staff's recommendation on Version Two with
exceptions as follows -- include parcels 26, 27, 29 and 4, Adams and DBW
properties. He does not feel they can move on the 8 other acres because the
property owner is not present. He is offering his motion absent those 8 acres
which is to the east and with the removal of .060 . ."and continuation until
May 31 to 2003." Therefore, there would be no time constraint on the property.
Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White clarified for the Mayor that the
amendment would authorize the Adams and DBW uses both as permitted uses
without any time limitations but only as to the property upon which those uses
are currently provided. It would not include the 8 acres that DBW is in
escrow on and on which they seek to expand. Future zoning action would be
required to include that property by a CUP or otherwise.
Mayor Daly. He noted that action is not supported or recommended by City
staff; Council Member Zemel. It is recommended by City staff with the
exception of the 5-year stipulation and the 8 acres.
City Attorney White. City staff recommendation is not to include any of the
DBW site as a permitted use but only the Adams property.
Mayor Daly. Council Member Zemel's motion then allows Adams Steel to continue
forever; City Attorney White. It would make it a permanent permitted use in
1998 after all the terms of the existing Court Judgment are complied with and
on that date in 1998 a vested right would be acquired and become a permanent
use and like any other such use, changes in zoning, amortization periods and
all the other legal uses would apply.
Council Member Lopez withdrew his second to the motion. He would rather
modify the motion placing a 15-year term on the use.
23
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
City Attorney White. This would be Version One which is only entitling the
Adams property as permitted or Version Two that includes Adams and DBW;
Council Member Lopez. He would like both to have 15 years.
City Attorney White. Other than the time, it sounds like Council Member Lopez
is reoffering Council Member Zemel's motion changing the 5 to 15 but only
applying it to the property currently being used and excluding the 8 acres.
Mr. White clarified for the Mayor that the new motion made by Council Member
Lopez is to approve Version Two submitted under cover of his memorandum of
8/22/95 with two exceptions (1) changing the current 5-year time limit to a
15-year time limit and (2) excluding as a permitted use, the eight acres east
of the current DBW site.
Council Member Zemel. He will second the motion, however with regret since he
does not favor a time limit. He also explained the reason for not including
the eight acres in his original motion. He does not know who owns the
property, only that Mr. Williams wants to buy it but that issue is not in
front of the Council. Version Two is needed in order to include DBW or
Parcels 4, 29, 27 and 26. Parcels 14 and 28 are the eight acres to be
excluded.
Council Member Feldhaus. He feels DBW is a separate issue and that the
business should be allowed to operate predicated upon whether or not DBW is
successful in getting the eight acres or not. He should have a CUP.
Lisa Stipkovich confirmed for Council Member Zemel that Version Two would
allow DBW to do business in his exact location as well as Adams Steel. If he
wants to complete the move, he would have to get a CUP.
Council Member Tait. He has trouble supporting the motion. DBW should come
in for a CUP. He does not want to put him out of business but DBW should
apply for their own separate CUP. As far as time limits, to him staff's
recommendation - Version One - has a lot of wisdom. It recognizes both the
environmental concerns and balances that against the business realities, the
business rights and property rights of the applicant. It is a unique
situation and seems like an accountable and fair solution. Five years gives
the City some flexibility. He would support Version One but Version Two goes
too far.
City Attorney White. He clarified the motion for the Mayor: To amend the
Specific Plan as currently presented to allow a change in the Specific Plan
Ordinance which would permit what are commonly known as the Adams uses as
permitted uses and the DBW use that currently exists as a permitted use for a
period of 15 additional years.
Lisa Stipkovich. She explained for the Mayor that it is her understanding
after the Stipulated Judgment is completed and the Adams property is in
compliance in 1998 and the owner comes in for his now permitted use he would
have to comply at that point with the new requirements of the development
standards on the Specific Plan. It clearly indicates it is subject to the
development standards.
A VOTE WAS THEN TAKEN ON THE MOTION OFFERED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, SECONDED
BY COUNCIL MEMBER ZEMEL CLARIFIED AS FOLLOWS: To amend the Specific Plan
Ordinance by approving Version Two submitted under cover of memorandum dated
August 22, 1995 from the City Attorney with two exceptions: (1) changing the
current 5-year time limit to a 15-year time limit on the Adams uses and the
24
C~TY OF ~N~DIE~H~ C~L~FORNI~ - COUNCIL N~NUTES - ~U~UST 22, L995
DBW use currently existing and (2) excluding as a permitted use, the eight
acres east of the current DBW site. AYES~ Council Members Lopez, Zemel and
Feldhaus. NOES~ Council Member Tait and Mayor Daly. MOTION CARRIED.
Lisa Stipkovich. She clarified the two additional recommended changes in the
specific Plan - (1) non-conforming uses changed to allow businesses to expand
as permitted within the development standards adopted with no constraints on
their ability to grow and (2) that the Mira Loma Avenue/Miller Street area not
be designated General Commercial but left in the General Industrial
designation as requested by the property owners and agreed to by staff.
Mayor Daly. He wants to support all the Specific Plan actions because he
believes rezoning and master planning the 2,600 acres is very important to the
future of the City. It will create more jobs and allow an additional 7
million square feet of development. However, he regrets the action on the
Adams property because he feels it is a step backwards and not consistent with
what the community wants and the overall direction of the Specific Plan. That
particular action was a mistake but he wants to support the overall Specific
Plan even though it has been amended.
Chairman Daly offered Resolution ARA95-12 for adoption approving Specific Plan
94-1 as amended and recommending its approval by the Anaheim City Council.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA95-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1, AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDING
ITS APPROVAL BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. ARA95R-12 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBER~:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
Chairman Daly declared Resolution No. ARA95R-12 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 95R-153 through 95R-156, both inclusive for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM (A) APPROVING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 317,
(B) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND (C) ADOPTING THE NORTHEAST AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AS A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE; PARKS, RECREATION
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES; AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT
(CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE) ELEMENTS THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATED AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 334.
25
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 AS
AMENDED (INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A DESIGN PLAN
AND GUIDELINES, AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN) (SP94-1).
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-156: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE
NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP94-1).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 95R-153 through 95R-156, both inclusive,
for adoption~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 95R-153 through 95R-156, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5517 and 5518 for first reading
ORDINANCE NO. 5517 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
THERETO CHAPTER 18.110 RELATING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP94-1).
ORDINANCE NO. 5518 (INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1).
Adjournment Anaheim Redevelopment Agency: By general consent, the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency meeting was adjourned (9:18)
D2.
175: CREATION OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 17
Santa Ana/Citron):
To consider approval of the creation of Underground District No. 17
(Santa Aha/Citron) in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
17.24 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
Underground Utilities.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 10, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 10, 1995
Posting of property - August 11, 1995
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report dated August 22, 1995 from the Public Utilities General
Manager.
26
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22t 1995
Mr. Brian Brady, Assistant General Manager-Electric Services, briefed the
recommendation on the creation of Underground District No. 17 and showed
slides of the area covered by the district.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He expressed his concern as with
all other undergrounding projects, that the changes do not offer any
improvements in electric service or maintenance. They are cosmetic
improvements. He would rather see the funds spent on telecommunications
rather than undergrounding.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Daly closed the
Public Hearing.
Brian Brady. The telecommunications project is funded under separate
budgetary approval by the Council and it is fully funded. The subject funds
collected from rates are specifically restricted by Council action to
undergrounding.
Council Member Feldhaus referred to a letter received from PacBell and asked
the status.
Brian Brady. The letter received last Thursday is confusing and a message
left with the person who sent it. PacBell has already gone on record in
Underground Subcommittee meetings as being committed to funding the complete
project. In the letter they are saying they would like to fund their portion
except for 12 poles out of nearly two miles. It is not a reasonable request
to honor since they have already committed in a public meeting that they would
be funding this project.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution 95R-157 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-157: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 17 (SANTA ANA/CITRON).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-157 for adoption~
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-157 duly passed and adopted.
D3.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3421 AND NEGATIVF
DECLARATION:
OWNER: ANDREW Y. LUI, 500 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: EVERARDO GODOY, 26851 Bridgewood Drive, Laguna Hills, CA
92653
LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately
1.2 acres located at the northeast corner of Alameda Avenue and
Brookhurst Street.
27
C~TY OF ANAHE~H~ CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL H~NUTES - AUGUST 22~ L995
Petitioner requests readvertisement of Conditional Use Permit No.
3421 to amend a condition of approval pertaining to the limitation of
time for a previously-approved public dance hall.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3421 APPROVED request to amend a condition of approval
pertaining to the limitation of time for a previously-approved public
dance hall to expire June 17, 1996, (PC95-72) (6 yes votes,
i absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
HEARING SET ON: Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by
Council Members Zemel and Feldhaus at the meeting of July 18, 1995, Item B2.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 19, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 10, 1995
Posting of property - August 11, 1995
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1995.
Council Member Zemel. He set the matter for a hearing because it is located
on Brookhurst, serves alcohol, and he did not know much about it.
Subsequently, he has investigated the matter and from the information
gathered, would not have set the hearing.
Council Member Feldhaus. He seconded the request for a Public Hearing out of
courtesy and does not have any concerns.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Bill Talley, 500 N. State College Blvd., Orange representing the
applicant, Mr. Godoy. They would like the Council to consider an extension.
The Planning Commission's action on a 6-0 vote was to extend the CUP for one
year. The building at 500 N. Brookhurst has had the same use for
approximately 17-18 years. It was built as a restaurant with a dancing
activity. The present owner and licensee took over in November of 1992 and
they are not aware of any concerns. Everything City staff requested, i.e.,
exterior lighting, speed bumps, etc., has been done. Since there are no
issues, it' would indicate the Council could approve a substantially longer
time limitation. He is looking for an extension of at least 5 years and
perhaps 10. The use or the operator is not going to change and a number of
new conditions have recently been imposed by the Planning Commission.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Answering Council Member Lopez, she
explained staff originally recommended a one-year extension. Original
approval was for three years. Because of some problems, the requested
extension was approved for one year. Some of the problems had to do with
noise. The Police Department also had some concerns in the recent past. If
the Police do not now have concerns, three years would be reasonable.
Council Member Lopez. He asked if there was any criminal activity which would
prevent the Council from granting a 3-year extension; a representative from
the Police Department answered there was nothing at this time.
28
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
Miss Santalahti clarified that all the Planning Commission conditions that
were added were recommendations of the Police Department. She reiterated,
staff would not have a problem with a change from one year to three years.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
City Attorney White. Conditions 11 through 28 are the new conditions that
were added to the permit.
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member Lopez, seconded by Mayor, 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.
Council Member Lopez offered Resolution No. 95R-158 for adoption amending
conditions of approval of CUP No. 3421 specifically Condition No. 6 changing
the limitation of time from one year to three years and subject to all City
Planning Commission conditions including additional conditions 11 - 28
recently imposed. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-158: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3421.SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY CPC (11-28) AND AMENDING CONDITION NO. 6
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-158 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-158 duly passed and adopted.
Cl.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Mayor Daly asked the status of the visual mitigation of the valve assembly
installation at the corner of LaPalma Avenue and Harbor Blvd. relative to his
inquiry at the last meeting.
City Manager Ruth first explained why the valve assembly was placed at that
location and noted that the Utilities Department is planning to install a
monument sign and landscaping. The height of the sign will cover the assembly
so that it cannot be seen.
29
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1995
C2. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney, Jack White reported the following two agreements were approved
by the Council in closed Session. The vote was Ail AYES on both.
1) Settlement Agreement between Southern California Edison Company and Cities
of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton and Riverside relating to Wholesale
Interruptible Service and FERC Docker No. ER81-177.
2) Settlement Agreement between Southern California Edison Company and
certain transmission service customers relating to scheduling and dispatching
charges.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of August 22,
1995 was adjourned (9:40 P.M.). The next scheduled Council Meeting is
Tuesday, September 12, 1995.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
30