2004/09/28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
September 28,2004
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Richard Chavez, Bob Hernandez, and
Shirley McCracken
ABSENT: Council Member Tom Tait
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk
Sheryll Schroeder
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on September
24, 2004 at the City Hall outside bulletin board.
Mayor Pringle called the regular meeting of September 28, 2004 to order at 3: 15 P.M. in the
Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, for the following
workshop:
FIVE-YEAR CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION WORKSHOP
0175
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated the City's major beautification
program provided 6.5 miles of landscaping improvements since the inception of the program
in FY 01/02. Remarking that program was successful and well received by the community,
Mr Johnson introduced Russ Maguire to provide an update.
Russell Maguire indicated the presentation would cover 2003/04 and 2004/05 for the corridor
beautification program, and address five years of related capital improvements that included
significant landscaping. As far as major elements completed, Mr. Maguire commented that
Lincoln Avenue West Median Island Modification and Beautification project, from the West
city limits to east of Euclid, was completed. Additionally, the landscaping, both parkway and
median, on Lincoln just west of the 1-5 to the on/off ramp was also completed in conjunction
with the Four City Major Street Beautification project along the 1-5 from Buena Park, through
Fullerton and Anaheim as well as the City of Orange.
Mayor Pringle questioned scheduling undergrounding of transmission lines for the Lincoln
area. Mr. Maguire indicated the area involved Southern California Edison (SCE) power lines
and until an issue was resolved with SCE, no undergrounding had been scheduled. The
Mayor asked if was fair to state that at any time major median work was done, that
undergrounding utilities would be part of the project. Mr. Maguire indicated his department
tried to coordinate projects compatible with SCE's undergrounding but did not necessarily
only schedule projects where undergrounding was occurring.
Mayor Pringle asked if the City set priorities for undergrounding when the Edison Franchise
was negotiated. Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager, indicated SCE was encouraged to
work with the City but were not obliged to coordinate with the undergrounding program. He
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 2
pointed out SCE did have to make an assessment of where lines could be removed which
were duplicative or where other circuits continued to handle their transmission to the City and
had agreed to try and remove lines that were coincidental to the City's underground program,
but did not necessarily guarantee it would happen. Mayor Pringle encouraged working with
SCE to get those priorities established.
Mr Maguire presented the two-year capital program for the corridor beautification projects.
The current element included State College Boulevard Median Island Improvement and
Beautification Program from the 91 Freeway to Ball Road. Coordinated with that program,
Mr. Maguire explained, were three capital projects: 1) the SR1 State College Interchange,
completed two years ago; 2) Lincoln State College Intersection, recently awarded by Council;
and 3) the Ball State College Intersection currently under right-of-way acquisition. Mr.
Maguire mentioned these projects were coordinated with the undergrounding program.
Mayor Pringle brought up a beautification issue related to orphaned parkways. He
mentioned parkways by the elementary school behind Brookhurst Jr. High School which
were dirt-filled and suggested a decision be made as how to address these types of areas
that appeared orphaned and neglected. Mr. Morgan indicated some of the conditions could
be addressed within the neighborhood improvement programs utilizing the City's tree
planting program, although typically there would be an irrigation problem associated with
those areas.
Mr. Maguire noted the master plan for the Lincoln Avenue Median Island Beautification
project from East Street to the 57 Freeway was basically completed and Council had
approved the landscape concept in March. There was also a coordinated project associated
with the plan, a widening project on Lincoln from Alondra to Sunkist, which created a median
island and a widening project at Sunkist and South, just east of Lincoln, in which the City
would be upgrading the landscape along the car wash area to the southbound off ramp.
With the two year plan, the major budgeted capital projects other than the beautification
projects, stated Mr. Maguire, covered five years. These included Katella Smart Street, Gene
Autry interchange at East and the 91 and Brookhurst at the 91, the Imperial Smart Street and
completion of the master plans upgrading for Lincoln West and Lincoln East. The master
plan for which projects had not yet been scheduled was Ball West, from Walnut to the west
city limits. Overall, Mr. Maguire reported the beautification program reflected six projects and
three master plans dealing with about $4.2 million and over three miles of corridors not
worked on before. The capital project. he announced, reflected 12 projects. $30 million of
overall projects and $2 million of landscaping that affected six miles. Potential corridors for
the future were Ball West and Magnolia Avenue and would be based on future budget
considerations.
Mayor Pringle asked if Orange County Transportation Authority (OCT A) was contacted on
continuing the City oversight of the Katella improvements beyond the corridor. Mr. Johnson
responded the County of Orange was taking the lead and doing the design work for Stanton
and Garden Grove. On the far west, the City of Los Alamitos had implemented their own
program with Cypress doing the same. Mr. Johnson indicated the City wanted to extend the
Anaheim corridor leaving the resort and taking it as far west as possible and the County
seemed agreeable and were willing to landscape if the City was willing to maintain it. The
Mayor asked if the County was thinking of doing the same plan to Beach Boulevard or to the
end of Stanton. Mr. Maguire stated so far those other cities did not have the willingness to
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 3
do the maintenance required for the landscaping. Mr. Johnson informed Council that aCTA
paid 100 percent of the landscaping and the only requirement was for cities to maintain it.
Mayor Pringle doubted whether other city council members were aware of those available
funds and stated it might be appropriate for other elected officials to relay that information.
Gary Johnson provided a preview on a potential beautification project on the 91 freeway. He
announced there were more freeway miles in Anaheim than any other city in the county and
a number of months ago, staff had met with Caltrans and identified the 91 freeway from
Interstate 5 to the 57 as needing beautification. Mr. Johnson pointed out that Caltrans at the
time was considering doing something to improve the dying landscape and consultant
assistance was offered in developing a scheme concept. About 2.5 weeks ago, Caltrans
provided the City with a landscape concept plan and agreed to refine and improve this
concept and seek State funding to upgrade the corridor landscaping in 2006 under a
program called the Transportation Enhancement Program. The concept included rock
blankets and ground cover with the theme being the Washingtonia Robust palm trees placed
in prominent locations at interchanges and midway between the interchanges. In addition,
Mr. Johnson pointed out, Caltrans was proposing some improvements to some of the
crossing streets that were minor streets needing attention and also some vine pockets and
planting to cover some of the walls along the 91 to mitigate the tunnel effect. City staff would
be working with Caltrans landscaping staff toward that effort. In addition, Mr. Johnson
indicated that Planning staff looked at opportunities along the entire 91 corridor where the
City could utilize borrowed landscaped, landscaping planted on private property adjacent to
the freeway, and identified over 50 parcels and three property owners willing to invest in their
own property and beautify the freeway corridor and they would continue with their efforts.
Mayor Pringle and Council Members thanked staff for the presentation.
At 3:50 p.m. Mayor Pringle moved to Closed Session for the following items:
AdditionslDeletions to Closed Session: None
Public Comments: None
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representative: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Nonrepresented Fire Department Management employees
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9)
Name of case: In re Application of Southern California Edison Company, California
Public Utilities Commission Docket No. A04-02-026.
3 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Drummond v. City of Anaheim, et aI., United States District Court
Case No. SACVOO-243AHS (ANx).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 4
4 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Initiation
of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9
Number of potential cases: one
Council returned to open session at 5:28 p.m.
INVOCATION:
FLAG SALUTE
Rev. David Koll, Anaheim Christian Reformed Church
Mayor Pro T em Chavez
PRESENTATION: Recognizing the 2004 Flag Day Essay Contest Winners.
Representatives from the Anaheim Union High School District, Anaheim City School
District and the Magnolia School District introduced the student essay winners.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROCLAMATIONS:
Proclaiming October 2004, as Lupus Awareness Month.
Proclaiming October 3-9, 2004, as Public Power Week. Acceptance of the
proclamation was continued to 10/5104 agenda.
Proclaiming October 3-9, 2004, as Fire Prevention Week. Chief Roger Smith
accepted the proclamation, emphasizing the "Test Your Smoke Alarms" theme and
announcing open house to be held at the Euclid Fire Station and the Weir Canyon Fire
Station on October 9,2004.
A 5:36 P.M., Mayor Pringle recessed the Anaheim City Council to call to order the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, reconvening the Council session at 5:38 P.M. to consider the
following joint public hearing matters:
3. A joint public hearing to consider an Amended and Restated Disposition and
2894.1 Development Agreement with CIM Urban Real Estate Fund, LP. (Parcels A, B
and C).
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-201 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving that certain Amended and Restated Disposition
and Development Agreement (Parcels A, B and C) with CIM Urban Real Estate Fund,
LP and making certain findings in connection therewith.
4. A joint public hearing to consider an Amended and Restated Disposition and
2894.1 Development Agreement with Crescent Plaza Condominiums (Parcel D).
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-202 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving that certain Amended and Restated Disposition
and Development Agreement (Parcel D) with Crescent Plaza Condominiums, LP, as
successor in interest to CIM Urban Real Estate Fund, LP, and making certain findings
in connection therewith.
Community Development Director, Elisa Stipkovich, announced the joint public hearing was
to consider an amendment to two agreements with CIM. She stated that on October 29,
2002, Council and the Agency approved agreements with CIM with certain amendments
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 5
approved in June, 2003, noting that staff had been working on a variety of changes since that
time. Ms. Stipkovich stated the amended agreements now for consideration reflected
changes in Parcels A and D; Parcel B was under construction and Parcel C was still under
negotiations. Ms. Stipkovich pointed out that Parcel A originally had a public library
proposed, but funding could not be provided. The amendment now reflected three mixed
use buildings, with Parcel A3 becoming mixed use with ground floor retail with 11,000 square
feet designated for a city cultural center. On Parcel D, Ms. Stipkovich indicated minor
changes added additional condominium units from 120 to 135 units.
She reported the original commitment by the Agency was for $32.8 million and that the
amended commitment now reflected $26 million. Agency funds, she explained, would pay
for various public improvements, including parking structures for 318 spaces, the city cultural
center, the hardscape and landscape on Parcel A and other site improvements as well as
certain improvements to Anaheim museums. Once the developer completed improvements,
title would then be conveyed back to the Agency. Ms. Stipkovich stated that based upon an
analysis performed by Keysor Marston, the real estate economist, the developer would pay
the Agency 25 percent of low net cash flow as well as 15 percent of the proceeds upon sale
for Parcels A and B which contained rental properties with retail,. On Parcel D, the
condominium project, the developer would pay the Agency $1,500,000 in cash upon closing
and also 25 percent of any amounts above the threshold. The total revenue expected to the
Agency for both the sale of land as well as tax increment over time would be approximately
$19 5 million. She also indicated the total cost of the project including the developer's cost
as well as the Agency's, was about $118 million in terms of improvements for the downtown
area. Additionally, Ms. Stipkovich stated, staff was requesting approval of the designs for
Parcels A3 and D as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing for testimony, and receiving none, closed the
hearing.
Council Member McCracken offered RESOLUTION NO. 2004-201 RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving certain Amended and Restated
Disposition and Development Agreement (Parcels A, B and C) with CIM Urban Real Estate
Fund, LP and RESOLUTION NO. 2004-202 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving certain Amended and Restated Disposition and
Development Agreement (Parcel D) with Crescent Plaza Condominiums, LP, as successor in
interest to CIM Urban Real Estate Fund, LP for approval, seconded by Council Member
Chavez. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Hernandez
and McCracken. Noes - O. Absence - 1: Council Member Tait. Motion Carried.
With the consent of Council, a Mayor's task force would be established with the goal of
working with the developer and staff to address what should be included in the historical
cultural center for the City.
ADDITIONSIDELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
William Fitzgerald, Homeowners Maintaining Their Environment, related concerns over
fireworks pollution. Council Member Chavez responded to Mr. Fitzgerald's comments
indicating that no evidence had been presented that fireworks presented a health problem for
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 6
the community and stating Mr. Fitzgerald's comments on a personal level were not
appropriate.
Sheri McCracken, resident, felt the Amended and Restated Development Agreement
resolutions relating to CIM should be redrafted for correctness.
James Robert Reade related Anaheim Police Department concerns.
Michael Baker, Executive Director of Boys and Girls Club of Anaheim, announced the Boys
and Girls Club along with two individuals from the Anaheim Police Department had been
selected to attend a conference in Pennsylvania to put together a task force to help solve
juvenile crime. He also announced the coming October 27'h annual Kids Luncheon hosted
by the White House Restaurant, whose total proceeds would benefit their outreach program.
Kevin Ober, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, invited Council and staff to attend the
Anaheim Council candidates town hall meeting on October 8th at 7:30 a.m. at the Heritage
Forum.
On behalf of Anaheim Citizens Coalition, Sonia Grewald, presented three items for Council
or staff to consider at some point in the future: 1) require concurrent review of building and
grading plans so that CEQA compliance was met and circumvention of the zoning code was
prevented; 2) restore the right to appeal Public Works hearing decisions to City Council to
allow recourse for developers or neighbors; and 3) discuss the possibility of changing the
measurement of structural height to include the amount of fill that alters the additional
elevation of the land. The City Manager indicated staff would respond and provide a report
to Council on the request.
Curtis Campbell, an independent taxi driver in the City, brought a concern to Council over the
use of town cars rather than taxis for airport transportation at the Hilton Hotel and also
provided information on an assembly bill to protect taxi drivers from unlicensed (for taxi
service) drivers.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Pringle removed Item A 12 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
Council Member Hernandez moved approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar, Items
A 1- A31, seconded by Council Member Chavez to waive reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions and to approve the following in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar.
Roll Call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Hernandez, and
McCracken. Noes - O. Absence - 1; Council Member Tait. Motion carried.
A1.
B105
Receive and file the Investment Portfolio Report for August 2004; the Monthly
Financial Analysis presented by the Finance Director for the month ended July 31,
2004; minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting held May 26, 2004;
and minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held August 5, 2004.
A2
0106
Approve $20,109,564 of expenditure appropriations from the prior fiscal year.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCil MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 7
A3
0180
Accept the low bid of Federal Pacific, clo McAvoy and Markham, in an amount not to
exceed $541,891 (plus tax), for padmount switches for the Public Utilities
Department, as required, for a period of one year with four one-year optional
renewals and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in
accordance with Bid #6509.
A4.
0180
Accept the low bid of G&W Electric, clo Banes Associates Electrical Equipment, in an
amount not to exceed $381,488 (plus tax), for sub-surface loadbreak distribution
switches for the Public Utilities Department, as required, for a period of one year with
four one-year optional renewals and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the
renewal options in accordance with Bid #6511.
A5.
0180
Waive the sealed bidding process of Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the
Purchasing Agent to exercise the first renewal option of the blanket purchase order
with Excel Door and Gate Company, in an amount not to exceed $30,000, for a
period of one year for the emergency service and repairs of roll-up and pedestrian
doors at the Anaheim Convention Center.
A6. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the
0180 Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Air-Kwik, Inc., in the amount of
$37,045 (including tax), for four mobile fire fighting and decontamination systems.
A7 Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the
0180 Purchasing Agent to renew the blanket purchase order with Coated Fabrics Company
and increase the annual not to exceed amount to $50,000, for convention taffeta for a
period of up to three years with annual price increases not to exceed Consumer Price
Index for Orange County.
A8. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the
3239 amount of $4,074,870, for Direct Buried Cable Replacement, Phase IV and approve
and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to
contract retentions.
A9. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, GMC Engineering, Inc., in the
3238 amount of $227,000, for the Maxwell Park parking lot improvements and approve and
authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to
contract retentions.
A 10. Award a design-build services contract to the best qualified and responsible bidder,
3240 Siemens-Turner-Beta, in the amount of $19,493,127 for the new Park Electrical
Substation and Roosevelt Park Project and in the event said bidder fails to comply
with the terms of the award, award the contract to the second best qualified and
responsible bidder; authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute all
documents related to the contract and approve and authorize the Finance Director to
execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
A 11 . Approve the first amendment to an agreement with Peterson-Chase General
2893.1 Engineering Construction Company, Inc. for partial payment on fabricated materials
for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Corridor Soundwall project.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 8
A 13. Approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Grant Deed with Baghado Khojikian
3242 and Lisa M. Khojikian, in the amount of $115,500, for the purchase of remnant
property located at 915 North Maple Street.
A 14. Approve an agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network, in the amount of
3193 $262,905, to carry out an annual work program on behalf of the City (Anaheim
Convention Center Electric Tram Battery Upgrade Program; Anaheim Rail Feeder
Station Vanpool Service; and the annual Transit Pass Demonstration Program).
A 15. Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Environmental Impact for the East Street-
N350 Raymond Avenue/SR-91 Interchange Improvement Project.
A16. Approve Grant Deeds conveying to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency certain real
P 124 property interests (six parcels located along Mariposa Place near the Euclid StreetJl-5
intersection; ACQ 2002-00052 through ACQ 2002-00057)
A 17. Accept an award of funds from the County of Orange for a Workforce Investment Act
D155 National Emergency Grant program and increase revenues and expenditures by
$56,000 in Fund 220.
A 18. Approve the License Agreement with Western Youth Services for continued use of
3194 the Manzanita Park Family Resource Center as administrative offices and program
space as part of the County of Orange Social Services grant program.
A 19. Approve an agreement to receive $42,526 from Western Youth Services to provide
3195 services that promote safe and stable families and reduce child abuse and increase
revenue and expenditure appropriations, in the amount of $42,526.
A20. Approve an amendment to an agreement with WLC Architects requesting
2891.1 compensation, in the amount of $43,890, for additional professional design services
related to the Elva L. Haskett Public Branch Library and Maxwell Park expansion
project.
A21. Approve an agreement with Children's Bureau of Southern California to provide
3196 $34,470 in continuation funding for the "Kids in Action" youth development and sports
program at Jonas Salk Elementary School.
A22. Approve Amendment NO.1 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-3-0260 with Orange
2876.1 County Transportation Authority to extend the term of the agreement to March 31,
2005 for installation of walkway lighting within the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-
way.
A23. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a
3207 Memorandum of Understanding with the Orange County Water District (OCWD)
3197 regarding compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act to annex
approximately 2,355 acres in the eastern portion of the City into OCWD and an
agreement with the Irvine Community Development Company that specifies cost
sharing and indemnification responsibilities related to the proposed 2,355 acre
annexation into OCWD.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 9
A24< Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a license
3239 agreement with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to provide temporary use of
real property by the Public Utilities Department for public events and activities at 205
South Anaheim<
A25< Approve the Amendment to Agreement with Wellness Solutions, Inc. to authorize the
2892. E Chief of Police to exercise the City's option to renew the agreement for four additional
terms.
A26. Approve an agreement with Inmate Communications Corporation to provide
3199 telephone services for the Police Department's Temporary Detention Facility from
October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2006.
A27.
P124
A28.
0175
A29.
C280
A30.
M142
A31
0114
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-203 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10775, 10776, 10777,
10778 and 10779).
ORDINANCE NO. 5942 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEI M amending the Title and various provisions of Chapter 12.12 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code relating to obstructions in the public right-of-way (Introduced
at the Council meeting of September 14, 2004, Item A 19).
ORDINANCE NO. 5943 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00115) (Introduced at the Council
meeting of September 14, 2004, Item A20).
ORDINANCE NO. 5944 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to errors,
omissions, and clarification of certain text (Introduced at the Council meeting of
September 14, 2004, Item A21).
Approve minutes of the Council meeting of September 14, 2004.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
A 12. Approve a sewer agreement with the City of Orange relating to provision of service by
3241 the City of Orange to Anaheim Hills Elementary School.
Dave Morgan, City Manager, reported Item A 12 was a proposal for a sewer agreement
between the cities of Anaheim and Orange relating to the provision of services by the City of
Orange to Anaheim Hills Elementary School as a result of a recent transactions related to the
sportsfield project in that area. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, noted the Anaheim
Hills Elementary School had been served by Anaheim sewer for a number of years but were
lower than the sewer line in the streets so they had to use a pump system to get their sewer
flow out into the Anaheim sewers. The City of Orange had extended sewers near the
boundary between the two cities and was now able to redirect their sewer flow gravity wise
and provide service to the school saving money and hassle by elimination of the pump
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 10
system. Council Member Hernandez moved to approve Item A 12, seconded by Council
Member McCracken. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez,
Hernandez and McCracken. Noes - O. Absence - 1: Council Member Tait. Motion Carried.
A32. Consider adopting a policy relating to the refund of appeal fees in zoning entitlement
C200 decisions.
MOTION:
Consider a waiver and refund of the $350 appeal fees related to zoning entitlement
decisions (Conditional Use Permit Case No. 2004-04854-Expedition House).
MOTION:
Mayor Pringle stated at the prior Council meeting, Council Member Hernandez brought an
issue of interest and concern in refunding appeal fees related to the Expedition House
appeal and that the matter was continued to also consider whether drafting a broader policy
was appropriate.
City Attorney Jack White, stated that at Council's direction his office had worked with both
the City Clerk and the Planning Director to prepare three options for Council consideration, in
terms of policy direction. Those options were: 1) To refund appeal fees when an item had
been appealed by the applicant or a member of the public and thereafter, two members of
the Council within the appeal period, set the matter for hearing; 2) To refund appeal fees
only in the instance where an appeal was filed by a member of the public from the approval
of an entitlement and thereafter as a result of that appeal by a member of the public, Council
reversed the approval and denied the entitlement and refunded the appeal fee to the person
who paid it; and 3) A more general policy to refund the appeal fee in any instance when a
decision of a lower tribunal (Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator or hearing officer)
was later reversed by the Council regardless of whether the appellant was a developer or
member of the public and regardless of whether the reversal resulted in the approval or the
denial.
As background, Mr. White indicated that in the last two years, under Option 1 scenario, there
had been two instances where members of the Council had actually set hearings. Under
Option 2, there had only been one instance, the most recent Expedition House matter, where
an item that was approved by the Planning Commission was appealed and resulted in a
denial by the Council. Under Option 3, he reported, there had been nine cases where lower
actions had been reversed by the City Council within the last two years. Mr. White also
Indicated there was a separate item on the agenda carried over from last meeting relating
specifically to refunding fees for the Expedition House appeal.
Mayor Pringle offered his insight, stating he felt it was unfair to single out one group of
people and refund fees and that he had originally discussed a broader policy to ensure all
were treated the same. However, he did not want financial or monetary incentives to be part
of some decisions by encouraging individuals to lobby their council members so they would
not have to pay the appeal fees and was, therefore, not convinced that establishing a
broader policy was appropriate.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 11
Council Member McCracken did not agree with any of the options offered, and suggested
that the Council have a certain deadline in which they could appeal an action and then allow
a later deadline for others who would know they would have to step forward and appeal since
council members had not done so. Mr. White stated the deadline was now 22 days, which
was a function of practicality in providing enough time in which to submit reports and that the
appeal deadline date could be extended to 25 days to which Mayor Pringle and Council
Member McCracken concurred.
Council Member Hernandez stated at the last meeting criteria by which he thought it was
appropriate to refund fees was discussed based on five points that Mr. White outlined and
asked Council to consider that they be the basis to establish a policy. Those criteria were: 1)
if the appeal was initiated and fee deposited by one or more property owners; 2) if the appeal
involved a decision which affected a substantial number of persons or properties; 3) if a
significant number of such property owners attended the meeting hearing in support of the
appeal; 4) based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing, if Council sustained the
appeal and reversed the prior decision of the lower tribunal; and 5) if the appeal resulted in a
decision which served to further the public interest and general welfare of the community.
Council Member Hernandez offered a motion to adopt a resolution to justify the return of the
Expedition House appeal fee, no second was offered and the motion failed.
Mayor Pringle felt the most compelling issue was that Council Member McCracken stated
she had intended to move forward with the appeal but the neighbors had already filed and
paid their fees. He felt equity did not relate to the numbers of individuals showing up for
hearings and recommended considering a separate deadline for Council in which to act upon
an appeal. Council Member Chavez felt the existing appeal process worked, and to single
out one case to refund fees would not be equitable to all.
After some discussion, Mayor Pringle moved to table and continue the matter to the next
Council meeting on October 5,2004, where the City Attorney could produce a suggested
change based on Council Member McCracken's suggestion. Seconded by Council Member
Hernandez. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez,
McCracken and Tait. Noes - O. Absence - 1. Motion Carried.
A33 Consider appointing a member to serve on the Housing and Community
B105 Development Commission, representing the South Neighborhood Council, term to
expire June 30, 2006.
With the consensus of Council Item A33 was continued to October 5, 2004.
A34 Consider appointing a member to serve on the Park and Recreation Commission to
B105 complete the unexpired term of Laurie Beighton, term to expire June 30,2006.
With the consensus of Council Item A33 was continued to October 5, 2004.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
B1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
C250 VARIANCE NO. 2004-04609
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 12
OWNER: Tri Tang, 7730 E. Autry Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808
AGENT: Andy Do, 12761 Western Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92841
LOCATION: 391 South Peralta Hills Drive: Property is 2.85 acres located at the
southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Peralta Hills Drive, having
frontages of 440 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 273 feet on
the east side of Peralta Hills Drive.
Waiver of (a) orientation of dwellings adjacent to arterial highways and (b) maximum
structural height to construct a new 2-story single-family residence with a roof deck in
the RS-HS-43,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay)
Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2004-04609 approved, in part, approving waiver (a) and denying waiver
(b) (ZA2004-22).
Negative Declaration approved.
(Zoning Administrator decision appealed by Gary Tang)
(Continued from the Council meeting of September 14, 2004, Item B2).
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported the applicant submitted a variance request
to construct a 37 foot high home that would contain 15,700 square feet on a 2.5 acre site
located on the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Peralta Hills Drive. The proposal,
which included two waivers, was considered by the Zoning Administrator at a public hearing.
The waivers included dwelling unit orientation which the Zoning Administrator approved and
maximum structural height, which the Zoning Administrator denied. Ms. Vander Dussen
indicated the applicant had appealed that denial.
She explained the first waiver involved the orientation of the structure. The code required the
structure to rear upon Santa Ana Canyon Road and the applicant requested the residence
face Santa Ana Canyon Road with access from Peralta Hills Drive. The Zoning
Administrator had approved this waiver due to the unusual size and orientation of the lot in
relation to the neighborhood and because the home would maintain a distance of 188 feet
from Santa Ana Canyon Road. The second waiver, noted Ms. Vander Dussen, pertained to
the maximum structural height. The Code permitted a maximum height of 25 feet for this
residence, and also allowed uninhabitable architectural embellishments such as cupolas,
domes, spires and turrets to extend another 5 feet for a total height of 30 feet. She explained
the applicant proposed a residence measuring up to 37 feet high and the only parts of the
house extending beyond the maximum limit were four domes that measure 33, 34, 34.5 and
37 feet high. If the domes were removed and reduced to height of 30 feet, the height of the
house would comply with the zoning code. Ms. Vander Dussen stated the Zoning
Administrator denied the height waiver because City records indicated that all homes in this
area complied with the maximum height standard when they were built. The proposed
dwelling which had a floor area of approximately 15,000 square feet and a width of
approximately 275 feet was located 30 to 75 feet from the east and south property lines. Ms.
Vander Dussen stated it would have a significant impact on adjacent residences which had a
view across the property. Additionally, there were no special circumstances found applicable
to the property such as topography, location or surroundings which might lessen the visual
impact of the dwelling height on neighboring homes. Staff recommended Council uphold the
Zoning Administrator's decision by approving the waiver allowing the residence to face Santa
Ana Canyon Road and denying the height waiver thus requiring the applicant to comply with
the height requirements.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 13
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
John Erskine, an attorney representing the property owners, indicated the applicants were
proposing an elegant and well-built 15,000 square foot home on a large lot and would occupy
the home upon completion. Mr. Erskine pointed out the lot was large enough to contain
three single family homes between 5,000 to 7,000 feet, however, the applicants were
proposing one home on a scale commensurate with the neighborhood.
He stated the central issue before Council was did the lower site elevation and unique
topography of 391 South Peralta, coupled with the improved design appearance of the
proposed residence with the height waiver for the four domes above the 30 foot height limit,
justify granting a height variance. As the Zoning Administrator approved the residence
orientation waiver based on a finding of special circumstances as to the unique size of the
subject property, he believed a corollary finding of special circumstances could be made to
Justify the height waiver due to the unique elevation of 349.5 feet and the varied topography
of the site.
Responding to Mayor Pringle's question, the grading permit approved in December 2003,
approved a maximum grade elevation of 349.5 feet. Mayor Pringle asked if that was
presently the elevation at the proposed site or was there a requirement to raise the pad a
little higher to get to that elevation. Mr. Erskine believed the elevation was at 338 feet at the
midpoint on the lot rising to 356 feet at the back. The property directly behind was 420
Peralta at 370 feet and 390 Peralta was at a 365 foot elevation.
Trinh Grant, property owner, explained she purchased the property four years ago and
planned on staying many more years. She felt the development would improve the area,
contribute to the community and raise property values. The purpose of the dome was to
aesthetically improve the look of the home and requested Council support the height waiver.
Arthur Kazarian, 390 Peralta Hills, was supportive of the project stating it would be an
enhancement to Peralta Hills.
Kevin Crampton, 110 Leona Way, supported the waiver, citing the difficulty in designing a
large home to conform to the 25 foot height limit and stating the increased height would
benefit the Peralta Hills community.
Craig Walling, 4500 Sierra Vista, supported the waiver, feeling the project would be an
enhancement to the community and would favorably impact the resale value of his home.
Greg Acosta, 131 South Beliza Lane, opposed to the height variation, citing privacy issues
and precedent setting policies for other homes in the area.
Roy Yang, spoke at length on behalf of the south side neighbor and pointed out numerous
technical discrepancies in the plans and staff reports related to height elevations, retaining
wall, baseline of lot elevation and others. Mayor Pringle stated Mr. Yang provided a
thoughtful presentation arguing very technical issues to the Council who were considering a
policy decision on the architectural design only. He further stated that Council put their trust
In the City staff, the Public Works Department handling the grading, the Building staff to
ensure that the Uniform Building Code was not violated and the Planning staff for critical
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 14
issues that affect properties. For the Council, the one issue was the waiver of the height limit
on the property, its configuration and its impact on others. The Mayor suggested other
avenues for Mr. Yang to pursue if he felt these technical issues were incorrect or overlooked.
L. Shindu, 151 South Olivia Lane, spoke in opposition to the waiver citing privacy issues as
her home was directly behind the proposed home whose base elevation was 15 feet higher
than her property line.
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, indicated there was about 40 feet of grade
differential across the subject property from the south property line down to Santa Ana
Canyon Road. The pad elevation, she explained, was established at an elevation that was
about median elevation for the southern half of the lot being developed and was based on a
reasonable elevation for the area being developed. She pointed out the subject property was
an oversized lot, set back far from Santa Ana Canyon Road and staff did not believe it was
fair to do the average elevation for the whole 40 foot differential but based it on the area that
was being developed. Ms. Meeks stated the Shindu property was within a five foot elevation
of the subject property. She stated staff had gone to the edges of the property to base their
elevations because they were not sure what was illegal fill on the property.
Peter Chung, indicated he represented the property to the south of the subject site and
adjacent to 420 Peralta Hills. Mr. Chung was opposed to the project objecting to the
negative declaration stating the development would downgrade the existing visual character
and change the scenic vista of the scenic corridor overlay zone. He objected to the light and
glare and mentioned the many letters sent in opposition to the project. He stated that over
11 feet of illegal fill had been placed on that property since year 2000, and would like that to
be under consideration for denial of the negative declaration.
Susanna Chung, resided at Peralta Hills Drive, south of the property under discussion, and
objected to both waivers. She stated the large size of the home was to be placed on a small
portion of the almost 3 acre lot, and that she would lose her line of sight from north-facing
windows and the excessive height would block the view from both the first and second floors.
An unidentified resident of 445 South Peralta Hills Drive requested Council deny the waiver
for height elevation.
A. Cho, 420 South Peralta Hills, opposed the height waiver as he did not want his view
blocked nor his privacy intruded upon.
Speaking for the Board of Directors for the Anaheim Citizens Coalition, Sonia Grewald, was
opposed to the waiver as the architectural embellishments exceeded more than 10 percent
of the roof area and exceeded the 30 percent maximum total project area allowed by Code.
She pointed out there was no hardship to the land, the terrain did not vary from other
neighborhood homes that were built to code and no other owner in that immediate vicinity
enjoyed a height waiver. She believed the maximum structural height restrictions in the
canyon area had minimized building intrusion and its purpose was to preserve the rural, un-
congested feeling.
John Erksine, applicant's attorney provided rebuttal on comments. He felt there would be no
granting of special privilege by allowing the waiver as the property was topographically
unique as staff had determined by approving the building orientation waiver. He stated
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 15
without the domes, the home would resemble a hotel and that landscaping with trees would
mitigate the neighbor's views.
Council Member Chavez asked what the distance was from the home that was directly south
of the Chun property to the largest dome and Mr. Erskine replied it was approximately 240
feet from the Chun property. Council Member Chavez pointed out that was about a football
field away from the Chun's home.
Mayor Pringle felt there were legitimate concerns related to the scenic corridor, the number
of architectural embellishments comprising a large percentage of the roof and the height of
the building itself. The Mayor suggested starting the development at a lower height than the
349.5 foot elevation, thereby reducing the impact to the neighbors.
Ms. Meeks indicated that lowering the pad elevation would move the pad closer to the Santa
Ana Canyon Road. The owners would either have to raise the retaining wall in the back
which could not exceed 10 feet or to extend their slope to the back of their property pushing
the pad toward Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Erskine asked if the direction from Council
was to spend more time with staff to lower the starting elevation, the applicants would do that
but were also anxious to get going on their construction.
Andy Do, the architect, stated the building elevation was not straight and the home was
constructed in three segments. He stated the left wing was lower than zoning code
requirements and the dome on the right wing could be adjusted. He believed the volume of
the home, the middle section, should retain the architectural embellishment.
Trinh Grant complained that letters had been circulated by her neighbors stating a church, a
halfway house or multiple dwellings would be constructed on their property. She asked that
comments be restricted to the issue and that she was applying for a height variance trying to
demonstrate that it would have little impact on the surrounding neighbors.
Mayor Pringle stated he was going to ask Council, who could approve or deny the variance
at this time, to look for a potential way to alleviate some of the concerns expressed. The
applicant indicated they would be willing to work cooperatively with everyone. Council
Member McCracken indicated she was not comfortable approving the variance at this point
and felt the architect was talented enough to come up with a design that would be acceptable
to all. Council Member Chavez indicated he would support the waiver at this time, indicating
staff had worked very hard to ensure that homes were built to code but that he would support
coming to some resolution of the issues. Council Member Hernandez would also support
continuance of the matter to come to some compromise. Mayor Pringle also indicated he
would support this project as it stands now but to continue the item would maximize the
benefit for all. With Council's concurrence, the public hearing was continued to the meeting
of October 19, 2004.
B2. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
C220 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04857
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Owner: John Lee, 3026 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804
Agent: Chung Myung, 3380 Flair Drive, Suite 222, EI Monte, CA 91731
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 16
Location: 3026 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.41-acre, landlocked
parcel located on the south side of Ball Road located 418 feet west of the centerline
of Beach Boulevard.
Request to permit a church within an existing residence with a separate accessory
pastor's quarters with waivers of: (a) minimum setback for institutional uses abutting a
residential zone boundary, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNNING COMMISSION:
Waiver of Code Requirement approved, in part, approving waiver (a) and denying
waiver (b) (6 yes votes, Commission Buffa voted no).
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04857 granted for one year, to expire on August 23,
2005.
Negative Declaration approved (7 yes votes).
(Appealed by Grace Kim, adjoining property owner).
Sheri Vander Dussen indicated the Disciple Church had submitted an application for a
conditional use permit to convert existing residences to a church and pastor's quarters in the
general commercial zone. The request, she explained, included a waiver of minimum
setback adjacent to the residentially zoned condominiums to the west. The code required a
15 foot fully landscaped buffer area adjacent to the west property line and the applicant was
proposing a six foot setback for the proposed parking lot and the existing residence for the
pastor. The church, stated Ms. Vander Dussen, would be located on an existing land-locked
parcel south of Ball Road. The property was adjacent to commercial uses to the north and
east, condominiums to the west and an auto-dismantling facility to the south. The only
access to the applicant's property, Ms. Vander Dussen pointed out, was through the property
to the north that fronts on Ball Road. The owner of that parcel had appealed the Planning
Commission's approval of the conditional use permit to the Council.
Ms. Vander Dussen reported the 2,700 square foot church would be located in a single-
family residence and the pastor's residence would be located at the northwest corner of the
property. The adjacent property fronting onto Ball Road contained a dental office and a real
estate school and provided the church property with its only access. At the Planning
Commission, the appellant shared a number of concerns with the project specifically that
church members would park cars on their property, citing problems with ingress and egress
of cars to the site using the shared access drive, and expressing concern with the Fire
Department's ability to access the site and building code safety issues pertaining to
conversion of a single family residence to a church use. Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the
Fire Department and the Building Division were satisfied their requirements could be met,
however, Planning staff believed the appellant's concerns regarding parking were significant
and particularly, overflow church parking would most likely occur on the appellant's property.
After considering the testimony, the Planning Commission by a vote of 6-1, approved the
proposed church for a one-year time period. The Commission also approved the waiver for
minimum setback adjacent to the condominiums to the west based upon the irregular shape
and narrow width of the property. The Commission included a condition of approval that
required the applicant to submit plans to staff to enhance the landscape buffer adjacent to
the west property line and to provide a lighting plan to minimize lighting glare.
Ms. Vander Dussen stated staff continued to recommend denial of this request as the site
was only 4/10 of an acre; it had a narrow, irregular shape and was too small to accommodate
the intensification of the site for all of the uses the church proposed; the confusion and
narrow vehicular circulation could lead the church members to park on surrounding
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 17
properties including the appellants which would be the most convenient; no provision had
been made for overflow parking in the event on-site parking was inadequate; and finally, she
pointed out, six feet of landscaping did not provide adequate visual, noise and light buffering
for the adjacent residences to the west.
Myung Chung, architect, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chung stated the property
owner concurred with all the conditions of approval and were confident those provisions
could be met. Mr. Chung indicated the church's membership intended to remain small.
Mayor Pringle asked what the parking requirement was for the site and Ms. Vander Dussen
responded the ordinance required 19 spaces and 20 stalls were being provided. The Mayor
asked how the interior of the building would be used and the architect stated it would be
divided in such a way as to allow services, fellowship and bible study. The main room for
services was 480 square feet and both Building Division and the Fire Department were not
concerned with occupancy of 40 people.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
John Lee, part-owner of the property, indicated he had bought this parcel of land for this
specific purpose and his desire was to make a positive impact on the community. He spoke
to the size of his congregation, indicating that the intent was to remain a small disciple
church and he would ensure that all conditions and rules imposed would be followed.
Kaley Kim, attorney representing the appellants, objected to the conditional use permit
stating it would be very difficult to control and limit the numbers of people who worshiped in
the church and that the parking was the main issue for the appellant. She pointed out there
was limited parking on their site and if the church grew, it would adversely impact their
businesses. She also pointed out the easement had been granted for residential use, not for
institutional or commercial use. Ms. Kim indicated the third concern was the Wednesday
night services as the real estate college was in session at that time and she was concerned
about parking impacts.
Tom Yee, agent for the commercial property east of subject site, spoke to the growth of the
church's members and their lack of parking and adverse impacts to the adjacent businesses
if their parking was used.
Andy Quat of Any Quat & Associates, stated he represented churches in building projects,
and believed the membership would grow and to convert a residential home into a church on
less than }2 acre of property was unfair to the owner to the north as well as to the shopping
center to the east.
John Lee offered rebuttal stating the church was willing to stay within the guidelines given
and would move on if their membership increased.
Mayor Pringle remarked that Anaheim was relatively generous as to where churches were
allowed. Greg Hastings of the Planning Department indicated they were allowed everywhere
except the resort area, by conditional use permit. The Mayor commented that churches
normally wish to become successful and maximize the numbers of people that participate
and that this piece of property would limit the church's growth and could potentially
negatively impact the neighbors. Mr. Lee stated it was his desire to have a disciple church to
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 18
bring people into a smaller, tighter knit group and he had picked this home because there
was a sense of family. The Mayor pointed out a list of conditions for which the conditional
use permit could be revoked should those conditions not be met, noting that the neighbors
would have a powerful say in how the church operated after one year's time. Ms. Vander
Dussen pointed the specific restrictions which limited impact to the neighbors.
Council Member McCracken was also concerned as to whether the easement could support
church use and how members could be limited. She expressed concern than Council would
be misleading the applicant into putting all this money and energy into a building that would
limit the church's growth with the potential that the conditional use permit could be revoked in
one year if compliance with the conditions were not met.
Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing as no other testimony offered.
The Mayor stated his inclination would be to support the conditional use permit but felt the
applicant should consider the concerns brought up by Council Member McCracken. Council
Member Chavez remarked that typically churches wish to grow, however the applicant
seemed satisfied to remain small and he felt that faith was Mr. Lee's driving force and he
would support the project.
Council Member Hernandez did not feel the location was appropriate for the operation and
would not support the project as being the best use for this property.
Mayor Pringle inquired of staff as to the outcome of a tie vote, should one occur. Mr. White
stated the matter would automatically get continued to the next regular meeting for Council
Member Tait's input. Council Member Hernandez moved to deny Conditional Use Permit
No. 2004-04857, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 2;
Council Members: Hernandez and McCracken. Noes - 2; Mayor Pringle and Council
Member Chavez. Absence - 1; Council Member Tait. Tie Vote.
Mayor Pringle reopened the public hearing and continued the item to October 5, 2004.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION:
Jack White reported that Council took one action in closed session related to adjudicatory
proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission in the matter of the application of
Southern California Edison Company CPUC Docket No. A04-02026 and approved the
election of the City under Section 16 of the 2nd amended San Onofre Operating Agreement to
not participate in the steam generator replacement project and authorize the public utilities
general manager to notify the operating agent of such election and to execute the necessary
documents. Vote- 4 - Ayes (Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Hernandez and
McCracken) Absent - 1; Council Member Tait
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member Hernandez reported the passing of retired city employees Thomas Dillon,
Sr of the Community Services Division, Robert Prendergast of the Public Utilities and
Marilyn Witting ham of the Police Department.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 28, 2004
Page 19
Council Member McCracken reported on the League of California cities meeting recently
held in Long Beach and thanked Mayor Pringle for the opportunity to attend.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pringle adjourned
the meeting at 9:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
'. ,,-I
""'. _0_. I
/ .( '-_..J' // /~. -'f' I "
Sheryll Schroeder, MMC
City Clerk