Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2007/08/07
ANAHEIM CITI( COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2007 The regular meeting of August 7, 2007 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:00 P.M. for lack of a quorum. Mayor Pringle called the adjourned meeting to order at 4:05 P.M. A copy of the agenda for the Anaheim City Council meeting was posted on August 3, 2007 on the kiosk outside City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle and Council Members: Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez, Lucille Kring and Harry Sidhu. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Linda Nguyen ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White announced that a determination had been made on the need to take immediate action and the need for action came to the attention of the City after the agenda was posted, and requested the following closed session item be added: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ©of Section 54956.9) Number of potential cases: one Council Member Galloway moved to add the closed session item, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4: Mayor Pringle and Council Members: Galloway, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Absent: Council Member Hernandez. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None At 4:08 P.M., Mayor Pringle recessed to closed session to consider the following items: CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Approximately 50.29 acres generally northerly of Angel Stadium of Anaheim in the Platinum Triangle Stadium District, 2000 Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, California Agency negotiator: Dave Morgan, Joel Fick Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and Archstone-Smith Operating Trust Under negotiation: price and terms 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Title: Walt Disney World Co. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 070001210 and 070001293. 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated negotiator: Dave Morgan, Kristine Ridge, Bob Logue August 7, 2007 -Page 2 Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association 4. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: City Clerk With possible action on salary adjustments to be taken in open session under Agenda Item 25. 5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ©of Section 54956.9) Number of potential cases: one At 5:32 P.M., Council returned from closed session and the meeting was reconvened and. INVOCATION: Council Member Kring FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Galloway PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing Keith Griess and Willie Zoller on receiving the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation Presidential Volunteer Service Award Keith Griess and Willie Zoller, two volunteers who had contributed over thousands of hours to the Angels of Love ministry were recognized and introduced by Richard Cryder, founder of the ministry. Mr. Cryder explained that Angels of Love volunteers had made and distributed stained glass angels to children and adults with fife threatening illnesses and to families of fallen firefighters and police officers donating over 10,000 angels since 2001. Presentation of the American Public Power Association Scattergood Award to the City of Anaheim Marcie Edwards, General Manager, explained this award was one of the top accolades a public power agency could receive and was given for achievement or sustained performance in a variety of areas. She reported this was the first time the award had been back in California since 1999, and that Anaheim Public Utilities had received the award in that year as well. She explained the award was given for the work done on the Park Substation which was located under a neighborhood park and for the Tiger Woods Learning Center, one of the most energy efficient educational facilities in the nation, for which the Utility had integrated transparent solar panels into the lobby wall of the facility. ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date)• Recognizing Karen Baltazar on her graduation from the Academy of Business Leadership Proclaiming August 16, 2007 as Family Child Care Provider Day Proclamation welcoming Enrique Iglesias to the City of Anaheim ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None August 7, 2007 -Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS (all items except public hearinas): Valda Henderson, resident, spoke in support of reinstatement of residential parking permits and addressed her comments to the voting requirements in the policy establishing a permit parking district. She remarked the first vote would establish a permit parking district and required a 30 percent minimum response from the neighborhood and that those ballots not returned were counted as "no" votes. In addition to that ballot, a street segment by street segment ballot would be taken to determine whether that segment would be granted permit parking and required a supermajority of 67 percent. Ms. Henderson requested Council reconsider those ballot requirements and modify them to be a simple majority of 50 percent plus one of those affirmative ballots returned to the City. Charlene Arrejano, resident, also supported reinstatement of permit parking on neighborhood streets while opposing the owner/resident voting requirements in the policy which mandated a 30 percent minimum response and a 67 percent majority response, and requested Council reconsider this policy requirement. Todd Ament, speaking on behalf of SOAR coalition, remarked that SOAR had carefully looked at the issue of residential in the resort district and did their part in trying to resolve differences by finding a compromise satisfactory to all parties and negating the need for a referendum vote. He stated since settlement discussions had concluded and he understood the Disney Corporation would not re-engage in compromise conversations, he urged Council to make a decision by August 21St as to whether to reverse their earlier action or to place this matter before the voters. He added the senior managing director of CB Richard Ellis would make an oral presentation related to a report on demand for hotels and retails uses in the resort area. Tom Jarowski, CB Richard Ellis, remarked he had been retained by SOAR to look at the economic benefits of the Anaheim Resort Area and its long-term economic health. At previous public meetings, he stated, references were made to an EPS study which allegedly indicated there was no demand for hotel rooms in Anaheim for another 20-50 years. Mr. Jarowski had reviewed both the draft study and the final study EPS submitted to the City in 2005 and found EPS actually stated the City could be expected to absorb as many as 16,000 new hotel rooms in the next 20 years if everything went well. If development occurred slowly, the report stated it would take up to 50 years. He added there had also been reference to the amount of tax revenue the SunCal site could theoretically provide if it was built out as hotel development and upon reviewing the EPS report, he found an assumption rate of an average room rate of less than $70/night based on the 2004 room rates in hotels around Katella and Haster intersection was used. Mr. Jarowski explained if you assumed the room rates would be equivalent to what new hotel development would generate in the market, that estimate of annual revenue to the City would be $12 million, not $4.6 million as was stated. Lynn Spencer, remarked she had been an active member and volunteer in the community for more than 30 years, and urged Council to rescind their decision related to residential uses in the resort. Cynthia Ward, resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning, but concurred in the need to find an answer for workforce housing outside of the resort area. Jimmy Kennedy, retired Anaheim Police Chief, addressed the need to retain and encourage future revenue growth for Anaheim to maintain its leadership role in public safety and urged Council to repeal their April vote on rezoning. August 7, 2007 -Page 4 Patrick Pepper, resident, remarked that had a compromise solution been proposed, it would have to wait a year before being submitted unless it was significantly different from the original proposal and asked Council to come to some decision on August 21st Linda Moore, resident, requested Council to return the resort area to its intended use and to focus on low income housing in other areas of the City. Eric Anderson, resident, pointed out former Council members and the voters collectively in 1994 established a coherent plan for future development in the resort area including its future financial growth and he felt it was irresponsible to make changes to that plan and recommended the issue be placed on the ballot for voters to decide. CONSENT: Mayor Pringle removed item No. 13 from the consent calendar for further discussion and Council Member Hernandez removed Item No. 19. Council Member Sidhu moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the balance of the consent calendar in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each council member and as listed on the balance of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. 1. Reject the claims filed against the City. C118 2. Accept the low bid of Cohu, Inc., in the amount of $213,258.80 for traffic monitoring D18o cameras for cone-year period with four one-year options to renew and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in accordance with Bid #6918. 3. Accept the low bid of Pacific Carpets, in an amount not to exceed $170,156 (including tax) D18o for the installation of custom carpet at the Convention Center in accordance with Bid #6966. 4. Approve the acquisition agreement with Dennis D. Littel and Carolyn E. Littel, in the 4744 acquisition payment amount of $545,000, for the purchase of real property located at 2181 West Judith Lane for the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project (R/VV ACQ2005-00239). 5. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0, authorize the Purchasing D180 Agent to increase the not-to-exceed amount of the current agreement with Tennant Safes and Service Company, in the total amount of $35,000 for floor cleaning equipment repair services for the Convention Center and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise up to three, one-year optional contract renewals. 6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Thomco Construction Inc., in the 4745 amount of $990,000 for renovation of the Central Library Exterior. 7. Adopt aseven-year Capital-Improvement Program to complete the requirements for the D175 City's eligibility to receive Measure M funds. 8. Approve the Development Plan and Schedule for Anaheim's Sanitary Sewer Management D175 Plan. 9. Approve a Letter between the City and Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. informing 3866.0.1 Ticketmaster L.L.C. of the exclusive use of Ticketmaster for ticket distribution for designated events at the Anaheim Convention Center Arena. August 7, 2007 -Page 5 10. Approve the First Amendment to the Facility Booking Agreement with AEG Facilities, Inc. 3866.1 authorizing the sharing of ticket commission revenues earned as the result of Anaheim Convention Center events utilizing Ticketmaster for their ticket sales. 11. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute amendments to the 1530.1 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) License Agreements OC-41 and OC-45 1543.2 between the OCTA and the City to allow for the installation of two 12kV, Fiber Optic and System Automation Wireline crossing on Santa Ana Street, and two 12kV, System Automation and low voltage Wireline crossing on South Street. 12. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Master 474s- Consulting Agreement and Maintenance Agreements with The Structure Group, LLC, in the amount of $711,335 for the implementation and integration in the first year and annual fees of $55,000, to provide Anaheim with an electronic based settlement software system that manages data under current and future California Independent System Operator guidelines. 14. ORDINANCE NO. 6069 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF c2so ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2007-00192). 15. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-135 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P12a CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real property interests granted therein {Deed Nos. 1 1 054-1 1 063). 16. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-136 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a portion of Catalpa Avenue and Maple Street pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA2007-00156). 17. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a portion South Street pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA2007- 00158). 18. ORDINANCE NO. 6066 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF M142 ANAHEIM adding new Section 1.04.396 to, and repealing Subsection .060 of Section 1.04.450 of, Chapter 1.04 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to removal of Board and Commission members due to excessive absences from meetings (Introduced at the Council meeting of July 31, 2007, Item #22). END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 13. Approve a City Council Policy for consideration of Permit Parking Districts. M142 ORDINANCE NO. 6068 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL amending various subsections of 14.32.450 of Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to permit parking. John Lower, Traffic Engineer, reported that there were two recommended actions for Council's consideration; to approve a policy for creating new permit parking districts and to introduce an August 7, 2007 -Page 6 ordinance to allow creation of the new permit eligible districts. He stated it had been four years since Council repealed the old permit parking policy and staff had been directed to work with neighborhoods to find solutions to the problem of too many vehicles parking in too few spaces rather than simply pushing spillover into another neighborhood. He emphasized staff had given their best recommendations on what level of participation would indicate there was a real problem with parking in a neighborhood and what level of approval would indicate the fairest consensus. He recommended a minimum of 30 percent response and a 2/3 majority in favor of street segments becoming permit parking streets In parallel to this effort, he pointed out, a consultant had been working on a traffic calming program and their recommendations for that process was the same. The 30 percent response rate, he emphasized was also the minimum response rate in the range of cities that had permit parking programs, which ranged from a low of 30 percent to a high of 80 percent. Mayor Pringle asked how many permit parking neighborhoods were currently in existence; Mr. Lower responded there were 15 and they would be grandfathered into this new program and at the end of two years, would have to follow the steps outlined in the new permit parking program to continue. Mayor Pringle remarked he would encourage having a workshop at some point in the future to discuss those 15 permit parking cases. The Mayor thanked members of the audience for offering their viewpoint on the policy, however, he indicated he would support the national standard of 30 percent as being acceptable especially because permit parking would take away the right to free parking and there should be at least 2/3 of those neighbors desirous of participating in this program. He added the City was trying to provide this method as a tool to address overburdened parking in certain neighborhoods and he would also be willing to bring this back for reconsideration if the program was not working satisfactory. Council Member Kring recommended that it be a requirement that a ballot must be returned and to make it known that any ballot not returned would be a negative vote, and in this way a definite yes or no from the community would render the deciding votes. Council Member Hernandez stated he would like to see some kind of modification on the way the approval process was implemented and that he had some discomfort knowing anon-response vote was a no vote. Council Member Sidhu asked how many single family homes and apartments were in the particular neighborhood being discussed. Mr. Lower indicated 1,100 surveys were sent to 298 single family homes and 802 multi-family homes and consistent with the recommendations from the traffic calming consultant; the 30 percent minimum response rate came from the single family homes. He added that was because historically, there was a low voter turnout from multi-family homes. Any survey that was returned from a multi family home counted as a yes or no vote but they were not counted as part of that 30 percent minimum response rate. This neighborhood, he stated, conducted the survey, and should Council approve the policy and introduce the ordinance, would be the first neighborhood permit parking district for Council to consider in the near future. He pointed out the neighborhood had achieved a total response rate of 17 percent but when calculated on the basis of excluding multi-family votes, a 63 percent response rate was achieved. Further discussion between Council and Mr. Lower on multi-family housing revealed that the majority of the apartment stock was built under prior parking requirements when families only had one vehicle and there was only one family per apartment. Of the 15 existing parking districts, Council Member Sidhu asked what the policy requirements were at the time the old permit program was in effect. Mr. Lower indicated a single street with a petition signed by 75 percent of the property owners could request permit parking. Council Member Sidhu remarked that the standard for the approval process in the new policy and ordinance was lower than the standards used in the August 7, 2007 -Page 7 formation of the 15 existing district and with the ability to come back at any time in the future to revisit this policy, he would support staff's recommendation. Council Member Kring moved to approve the policy and introduce the ordinance with a modification to use a 30 percent response rate for the first ballot process and for the street segment voting process to utilize a majority of 50 percent plus one, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Mayor Pringle remarked that he would support staff's recommendation reflective of a national standard and would not support lowering the voting percentages. Council Member Sidhu was also not supportive of lowering the standards and moved for a substitute motion to approve the project as proposed by staff and to introduce the Ordinance relating to permit parking, seconded by Mayor Pringle. Roll call vote to substitute Council Member Sidhu's motion for Council Member Kring's: Ayes - 3: Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway and Sidhu. Noes - 2: Council Members Hernandez and Kring. Motion Carried. Roll Call vote on the motion to approve the parking permit policy and to introduce Ordinance No. 6068 amending various subsections of 14.32.450 of Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to permit parking: Ayes - 3: Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway and Sidhu. Noes - 2: Council Member Hernandez and Kring. Motion Carried. Mayor Pringle asked Mr. Lower to update Council in a few months as to how many streets were approved and emphasized that he was open to see how this process was applied and was willing to consider an alternative if needed in addition to having a workshop related to the 15 existing districts. 19. ORDINANCE NO. 6067 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF M142 ANAHEIM adding Chapter 4.20 to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code prohibiting the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries (Introduced at the Council meeting of July 31, 2007, Item #23). Council Member Hernandez remarked that abuse had been found in medical marijuana dispensaries sited in the City which was why this legislation was being adopted and moved to adopt Ordinance No. 6067 prohibiting the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried 20. Review the need for continuing the local emergency heretofore proclaimed by the Director D175 of Emergency Services as ratified by previous action of the City Council concerning land movement and property damage in the vicinity of 357, 365 and 373 Ramsgate Drive and the Hidden Grove Lane/Fox Glen Drive area in the City of Anaheim, and, by motion, determine that the need for continuing the local emergency exists. City Attorney Jack White reported the landslide litigation had now been set for trial in February of 2008, with a Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled for November. Council Member Kring moved to approve Item No. 20, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. August 7, 2007 -Page 8 21. Nominate and appoint a voting delegate and up to two voting alternates to the League of D114 California Cities, Annual Business Meeting. September 5 - 8, 2007, to be held in Sacramento. Council Member Sidhu nominated Mayor Pringle as the voting delegate and Council Members Galloway and Kring as first and second alternates, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. Appointment: Mayor Pringle Alternate (1): Council Member Galloway Alternate (2): Council Member Kring PUBLIC HEARINGS: 22. This is a continued public hearing to consider Sanitary Sewer Impact fees for new and D106 expanded Developments within the Central City Area (continued from the Council meeting of July 17, 2007, Item #51 }. ORDINANCE NO. 6070 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL approving the amendment to Title 10, Chapter 10.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, adopting Sanitary Sewer Impact and Improvement Fees for new and expanded developments within the Central Anaheim area. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-138 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the amount of the Sanitary Sewer Impact and Improvement fees for the Central Anaheim Area. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, announced the Public Works department and the City as a whole had been working on sewer deficiency issues for a number of years and performed a citywide sewer study to determine deficiencies and build-out needs for future development of the General Plan. Several years ago, she stated, the City adopted fees for the west and east areas of the city and with the completion of the Sewer Master Plan, the appropriate fees for build-out of the central area were determined. The city was addressing the current deficiencies through increased sewer fees and the sale of bonds and was actively working on sewer improvements throughout the City for not only current deficiencies but also to provide capacity for build-out of the General Plan and this item, she stated was part of that project. She added that four different areas were being established with different fee rates based on sewer needs in those areas and were consistent and fairly close with the fees that had been adopted for the west area of the city. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and receiving no testimony closed the hearing. Council Member Kring moved to introduce Ordinance No. 6070 approving the amendment to Title 10 of the Anaheim Municipal Code adopting Sanitary Sewer Impact and Improvements Fees for new and expanded developments with the Central Anaheim area and to approve Resolution No. 2007-138 of the City of Anaheim establishing the amount of the Sanitary Sewer Impact and Improvement Fees, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. August 7, 2007 -Page 9 23. This is a public hearing to consider a request for approval of a special permit for the ARA16~ relocation of one historical residential structure. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a special permit to move a residential structure from 1231 West Center Street to Redevelopment Agency-owned land located at 1219 West Center Street in the City of Anaheim. Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, announced this item was to consider relocation of an historical structure moving from 1231 West Center Street to Agency-owned land located at 1219 West Center Street. She added a hearing was necessary to apprise the neighborhood of the permanent location of the home. Mayor Pringle opened the pubic hearing and receiving no testimony closed the hearing. Council Member Hernandez moved to approve Resolution No. 2007-139 of the City of Anaheim approving a special permit to move a residential structure from 1231 West Center Street to Redevelopment Agency-owned land located at 1219 West Center Street in the City of Anaheim, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. 24. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION c25o VARIANCE NO.2007-04728 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-144 OWNER: Juan Castaneda Franco, 1774 Canterbury Circle, Anaheim, CA 92802-2806 AGENT: Bob Suleimani, 9582 Hamilton Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 1774 South Canterbury Circle: Property is approximatefy 0.37-acre, having a frontage of 137 feet on the east side of the cul-de-sac on Canterbury Circle and is located 67 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Variance No. 2007-04728 -Request to construct asingle-family residence with waivers of (a) minimum lot size, (b) minimum lot width, {c) minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway, (d) minimum front yard setback, and (e) minimum dimension of tandem parking spaces. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-144 -Request to establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached residential subdivision. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Negative Declaration approved (Vote: 6-0; Commissioner Velasquez absent). Variance No. 2007-04728 denied (Vote: 4-1-1; Commissioner Flores voted no, Commissioner Karaki abstained and Commissioner Velasquez absent) (PC2007-67). Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-144 denied: (Vote: 4-1-1; Commissioner Flores voted no, Commissioner Karaki abstained and Commissioner Velasquez absent). (Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 2007). MOTION: CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. MOTION: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-144. RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE NO. 2007-04728. Julie Seay, Building/Planning Department, reported that on June 25th, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request to subdivide his property into two parcels in order to retain a partially August 7, 2007 -Page 10 constructed residence and that the applicant had now appealed the Commission's decision to City Council. In 1997, Ms. Seay reported the City had acquired the properties in the neighborhood abutting Katella Avenue as part of the Katella Avenue Smart Street project and the Anaheim Resort improvement project and portions of the property remained as surplus once the project was completed. She stated the remnant parcels did not meet zoning code standards because they were significantly smaller than the minimum requirements for properties within this zoning and could not accommodate new single family homes and because of that were sold to adjacent property owners. In all there were nine remnant parcels that did not meet the building standards for development and the City offered them to adjacent property owners to be combined with their properties. She explained, of those nine remnant parcels, eight were sold for $10,000 each to its adjacent property owner and one of the parcels was sold through a bidding process. Those surplus parcels, she stated, were then combined with each contiguous property through a lot line adjustment process in 2001. Ms. Seay explained the current owner of the subject property purchased the site last year and the deed showed that he purchased one lot. In February of 2007, building permits were issued in error for the construction of a proposed single family residence on this property and Ms. Seay remarked that construction had since stopped until proper approvals were obtained. She emphasized the approved site plan submitted to the City by the property owner showed the site as two parcels and in addition, property dimensions were inaccurate and during the construction of the home, the structure was not built in conformance with the approved plans. She added because the City's mapping data did not reflect the lot line adjustment that was recorded in 2001, staff could not detect that the property line depicting the two parcels shown on the plan was in error. Ms. Seay explained the applicant was now requesting to recreate a second parcel to allow the second home on the site. The Code required a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and 4,535 square feet was being proposed for the new parcel. In addition the lot was narrower than Code required and the parcel also deviated from the minimum lot required for depth adjacent to Katella Avenue. In addition, she stated the proposed development was out of character with the neighborhood and there were no other properties in the vicinity that deviated from zoning standards. Lastly, she pointed out plans issued for building permits showed a 20 foot front yard setback; however the house was actually built with a setback of 18 feet while surrounding properties had front yard setbacks ranging from 27 to 35 feet. The 17.5 foot long driveway already constructed could also potentially result in an overhang into the public right of way which was also not permitted by Code. Ms. Seay ended her presentation remarking the City regretted that records did not make it apparent that this site consisted of a single parcel, not the two parcels as shown by the applicant when his building drawings were submitted for review. She indicated staff had been working with Public Works staff to ensure that the City's GIS records were up to date and reflected all recorded subdivisions and lot line adjustments to ensure this situation did not happen again. While sympathetic to the situation, Ms. Seay remarked staff felt the proposed subdivision was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and there was no legal basis to allow development of such a substandard parcel. Additionally, given the number of remnant parcels along Katella, she pointed out it was possible the City would receive additional requests to create substandard lots and allow additional homes to be developed in the future when clearly that was not the intent for these remnant parcels and recommended Council deny the appeal. August 7, 2007 -Page 11 Council Member Sidhu asked how this mistake could have occurred; Ms. Seay responded that plans had been submitted for the construction of a single family home on a lot that actually did not exist. There were errors on the plans showing property lines that were not there and staff was not able to detect that the lot line did not exist because the City's GIS records were not up to date. She explained the lot line adjustment had been recorded in 2001 and was reflected on the title report of the property when the applicant purchased it. Council Member Sidhu felt there were errors on both sides, however, he believed it was the responsibility of the property owner to determine the location of property lines and that documents submitted to the City were correct. He added the City relied on the good faith of the information submitted to them. Mayor Pringle opened the hearing for comment. Rudy Franco, property owner, stated he brought blueprints to the City twice, changes to the plans were requested and he made them and the plans were resubmitted. He added the City had the plans for four months before they approved the construction of the home, which was not bigger than the structure approved in the drawings. As far as the driveway error, he explained that could be corrected and his family was working on it. He indicated the City had approved the plans, the home was constructed and the family hoped to live in it. Lorrie Mendoza, neighbor, remarked that she originally had no interest in the surplus lot but felt forced to buy to ensure no home could be built on the property per a letter received from the City which reviewed the options for sale and development of the surplus properties. She asked if two- story homes could be built on these properties and whether the parcel on Heather Lane which was sold to the Redevelopment Agency was buildable. Rita Mann, neighbor on Norfolk Lane, provided a history of development of her property which was one quarter of an acre as were the other properties in that development. She spoke of attending meetings formed by neighbors during the widening of Katella and discussions held on the surplus lots which were left when the widening project was completed. She reported engineering staff had indicated homes were going to be built on those surplus properties and that the lots would cost $55,000. Upon further research, it was found the lots were not buildable and the City agreed to sell the lots for $10,000 offering them first to the adjacent homeowners. She commented that the lots were purchased to prevent other homes from being constructed and the owner who sold the property to Mr. Franco was involved in those meetings and understood that restriction. Mary Arteaga, neighbor, visited the County Recorder's Office and confirmed lot line adjustments made for the surplus lots in 2001 were recorded at the County. She pointed out the surplus lots were purchased because it was felt there was a threat that the City would build homes there. She added she was directly impacted by Mr. Franco's structure as the two-story home loomed over her residence resulting in loss of privacy, views and property values due to the nearness of the home, and pointing out she would welcome a smaller house if it was one story. Council Member Sidhu asked if Ms. Arteago was aware of the two story home when it was first under construction and she replied the day she saw the second story framing constructed was the day she went to the Building Department to ask about this property. She talked to several people in the Building and Planning Department who were now aware of the background on these remnant parcels and stated that staff in the Planning Department determined that a mistake had been made in issuing the building permit. Martin Rillo, neighbor, stated he was not opposed to the Franco residence. August 7, 2007 -Page 12 Mr. Franco remarked that he had letters signed from neighbors stating they were not opposed to his home and submitted those letters to the City. Susan Baum, resident, was opposed to the structure stating it did not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood of single family homes. Don Presta, Canterbury resident, stated he was not opposed to the Franco residence. Barry Gilbert, 9th street neighbor, believed the lot in question was smaller than the .37 acres identified in the City's staff report. He believed the acreage was .27 acres and explained why he thought that figure was incorrect. He pointed out that in 2000, there was a letter from the Planning Department stating the City did not want those properties developed. He felt the owner of this property should assume responsibility for his actions in submitting erroneous plans and for not engaging a surveyor before the project was built and for not proving that he bought two pieces of property. Steven Heiner, Heather Lane, reported he was the only member of the Katella Nine who did not purchase the adjoining surplus property remarking that it was his understanding that a City department now owned the site. He pointed out it was overgrown with weeds and needed maintenance. Jackie Crest, Canterbury resident, pointed out the Franco residence was not the only two-story residence in the neighborhood and that two others had been constructed. Bob Suleimani, stated Mr. Franco had asked him to design the house and he went to the Planning Department on three separate occasions to find out what the building requirements were, submitted plans, made changes and corrections to those plans and resubmitted them. Ultimately, he indicated a building permit was issued, the house was built and the neighbor behind complained to the City and construction ceased. He added he was working from the City's information and there was nothing in the Code which prevented the owners from adding a two story so long as it complied with Code, which it did. He added there was no design review board, no surrey required for the lot and the mistake on the lot size was only discovered as a result of the Franco's survey after the construction had begun. Council Member Sidhu asked what Mr. Suleimani's responsibility was as an architect; he responded that he was the designer of the house and it was his responsibility to design a house to Code and that was what he did. Council Member Sidhu asked whose responsibility it was to ensure the lot line was correct and Mr. Suleimani responded it was the City's job to determine lot lines. When asked about the title insurance report which indicated there was one parcel not two, Mr. Suleimani replied he did not read it and the Franco's did not understand the legal wording in the document. He stressed that he had checked with the Planning Department and was told the lot size and that was what he based his drawings on. Council Member Sidhu stated he believed it was the property owner's responsibility to ensure the information that was submitted to the City was correct and it was not up to the City to perform surreys or verify each submittal. With no other comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing. Mr. Franco stated he had built the house for his family to live in and he hoped Council would make the right choice. He apologized for upsetting the neighbors and stated the driveway error was an honest mistake which could be corrected. August 7, 2007 -Page 13 Council Member Kring asked how many families would be living in the house and Mr. Franco replied he was planning to move his own family into the home. Mayor Pringle stated he felt the City of Anaheim made a number of errors and also believed there were many errors made on the applicant's side and the story may not have been presented completely honestly. He added it was not likely that a solution could be found that would satisfy both sides. He also pointed out to staff that he would have liked to have included in the staff report the history, the legal descriptions, some of the notices given to the homeowners and if the City explicitly stated no additional homes were to be built on the surplus parcels. He asked if the City mailed notices at the time of sale and were the surplus lots combined into one; Mr. White replied the City was specifically concerned about second homes being built on many of the surplus lots and took action to combine those lots into one through a lot line adjustment. The Mayor asked if Council overturned the Planning Commission decision to allow this lot to be subdivided and the Franco house to remain, would this be considered precedent setting. The City Attorney responded that all development was considered on a case-by-case basis but also remarked if Council were to approve this structure, it would be a clear example other property owners in the neighborhood could point to and say they were now being deprived of this privilege you would be granting to this property and that argument would have merit because a variance would be granted to allow this to happen. He added errors were made from time to time and the fact that the City made mistakes and money was spent in reliance upon City information was not relevant to making a zoning decision, otherwise zoning would be dependent on errors that could be made from time to time. Council Member Galloway believed that at the very least the City had some liability and the builder should not be responsible for all the costs involved in making the changes that were needed. Council Member Hernandez wanted to make sure something was done so this type of error could not occur again and Ms. Meeks explained what actions were being taken. He also confirmed with Ms. Meeks that all property owners were aware that their remnant parcels were now considered extra land to their properties, lot line adjustments had been done and recorded at the County office which showed the lots were now one parcel. Council Member Hernandez questioned the credentials of the architect and the fact that no survey was done for the property before permits were requested. Council Member Kring asked if there was any way to adjust some of the dimensions of the house to satisfy Code. Ms. Seay responded the Planning Commission did discuss this with the applicant and Mr. Franco indicated concern that the floor plan, with the removal of the second story, would result in a one bedroom home which was not big enough for his family. Regarding the waivers, if the applicant were to modify their garage, two of the waivers could be eliminated, however, she pointed out three of the waivers pertaining to the minimum lot size could not be resolved. Council Member Kring asked if there was some way to screen the house to eliminate privacy concerns with the neighbors and Ms. Meeks replied landscaping could be required in the rear yard to screen the house. Mayor Pringle asked if the lots acquired during the widening of Katella were purchased through agreement or taken through eminent domain. Ms. Meeks replied they were acquired by purchase agreements. Mayor Pringle asked how the Heather surplus lot, now owned by the City, had the right to build a house when the eight other surplus lots had restrictions placed on them. Ms. Meeks explained it was originally the position of the City that the lots could have houses built on them but it was a combination of the adjacent property owners and the City asking OCTA to allow the City to sell the parcels at a-lower rate than the $45,000 appraised value of the lots as long as residents committed they would not build second homes. He asked if there was a written contract with August 7, 2007 -Page 14 OCTA to sell at less than fair market rate based upon the assumption that no homes would be built on the remnant parcels and Ms. Meeks responded OCTA acted as the funding agency and the City acquired the properties and sold the remnant properties, returning those funds to OCTA as part of that project cost. Mayor Pringle stated when this issue was resolved, a discussion should be held as to what to do with the City owned site at 1779 Heather. Council Member Sidhu commented that after hearing the testimony of the applicants, the architect and the neighbors, he believed the owners had the responsibility of submitting plans and hiring a licensed architect, and civil and structural engineers to do a complete survey and to submit accurate information to the City. He stated the City's responsibility related to the information submitted by the property owner and if inaccurate information was submitted, mistakes would be made. He sympathized with the owners but felt any variances approved would be inappropriate for the neighborhood and moved to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny Mr. Franco's appeal, seconded by Mayor Pringle. Council Member Galloway felt it would be a tragedy to have the structure removed and stressed that she wanted to work out some way for the owner to keep the structure. She believed the City should have known this property was unique and inspectors should have known the site was part of the Katella widening project and did not understand how the project could have progressed to this point. She believed the City had a responsibility to work with the owner/builder to see what could be done since he built the home based on the City's building permit approval. Mayor Pringle concurred with Council Member Galloway but was concerned that a precedent would be set that every one of the property owners of remnant parcels had the right to come to the City for development of their properties and he was not interested in doing a grave disservice to the neighborhood. He believed there was an error made on the City's part but also believed the property owner had a significant degree of responsibility when he knew the property he purchased was a single lot and that the design of the home was not done by a licensed architect. He added the component of building a two story home was one of the problems with this development and he was not sure if the house could be reduced in size but he would be open to hearing those options and to continuing the discussion to see if staff could determine if modifications could be made that would allow development on this site without creating a precedent for neighboring properties and asked Council Member Sidhu if he would consider withdrawing his motion to continue this matter. Council Member Sidhu indicated he would withdraw his motion and Council Member Kring indicated she was supportive of a continuation. Mayor Pringle moved to continue this matter to September 11, 2007 for Council action only {public comments closed), seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION: 25. Possible action on Council appointee's salary. D113 Mayor Pringle reported the Council unanimously supported a merit increase of 2.25 percent for the City Clerk after performing her six month review. August 7, 2007 -Page 15 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Council Member Galloway requested the City Attorney provide Council with a summary of the initiative that was submitted by the Coalition and a briefing on the initiative process. Council Member Kring spoke on the hotels in the City of Garden Grove to clarify earlier public comments by the SOAR Coalition. Council Member Sidhu appreciated employees taking part in Employee Appreciation Day and thanked Angel's Baseball for taking immediate action on the food service health issue. Mayor Pringle commented on the Sister City's Association and reported on the 30th anniversary between Mito and the City of Anaheim. He asked Council Members Sidhu and Galloway to work with the association to insure the delegation from Japan receive a warm greeting from the City of Anaheim Adjournment: At 8:55 P.M., the August 7, 2007 Council meeting was adjourned Respe ully submitted, /~~~_ Linda Nguyen, City erk