1994/05/03City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 2:50 p.m. on April 29, 1994 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: city Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session
noting first that there are no additions to Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: 2000 S. State College Boulevard
Negotiating parties: Anaheim Stadium Associates and City of Anaheim
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: 1501 and 1551 South Douglass Road, Anaheim
Negotiating Parties: Herbert P. Douglass and Eleanor C. Douglass,
Trustees; and Herbert P. Douglass and Theodore R. Douglass, Trustees
Under Negotiation: Terms of Lease
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: David Hill
Employee Organization: Anaheim Firefighters' Association
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: David Hill
Employee Organization: Non-Represented employees
5. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: David Hill
Employee Organization: IHEW Local No. 47
LIABILITY CLAIMS
Claimant: Kathleen Weaver
Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim
LIABILITY CLAIMS
Claimant: Jeffrey Gray
Agency claimed against:
City of Anaheim
222
City Hall, Anaheim, Cali[ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9 (a) - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of Case: City of Anaheim v. Ertzan Associates, Inc., et al.
San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCV 246402.
9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.9(a} - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of Case: toe v. City of Anaheim, Arbitration Proceedings
No. 72-890-0045-93
10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9:
one potential case.
11. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of Case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
RECESS: Council Member Simpson moved to recess into Closed Session. Council
Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:14 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:12 p.m.).
INVOCATION: Pastor Jim Gaston, Church of Christ, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - INTRODUCTION OF THE 1994 CINCO DE MAYO QUEEN AND HER
COURT: Mr. Joel Guerrina, Chairman, Cinco de Mayo Festival introduced and
presented the 1994 Cinco de Mayo Queen Elida Vasquez and her Court Juanita
Cornejo, Lucero Pinedo, Maria Rodriguez and Corina Castillo. He also
introduced the Queen of Cruz Azul and the Queen of san Miguel who were present
as well as members of the Cinco de Mayo Festival Committee and dignitaries
from Mexico who were present in the Chamber audience.
Mayor Daly and Council Members congratulated Mrs. Vasquez and commended
Mr. Guerrina and the Festival Committee for the work they had done on this
year's festival which was a great success. The Cinco de Mayo Fiesta in
Anaheim is a tradition and the Committee deserves credit for running such a
quality operation that ran smoothly, was very safe and positive. The Mayor
also thanked Mr. Guerrina for bringing the distinguish visitors to the Council
meeting.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Daly and
authorized by the City Council:
Recognizing May 1 - 7, 1994, as Hire a Veteran Week in Anaheim
Armando Berumen and Peggy Crawford accepted the proclamation.
223
City Ballt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing Jannette Earnest, The Boys
and Girls Club of Anaheim's Youth of the Year. Mike Sofia introduced Jannette
to the Mayor and Council Members.
Mayor Daly and the Council congratulated Jannette on her having earn such a
prestigious award.
119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS DATE
TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME:
Recognizing May 4 - 14, 1994, as Nursing Home Week in Anaheim
Recognizing May, 1994, as Better Bearing and Speech Month in Anaheim
Recognizing May 11, 1994, as the Day of the Teacher in Anaheim
Recognizing May, 1994 as Older Americans Month in Anaheim
Recognizing Small Business Week in Anaheim
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,230,139.29 for the
period ending April 29, 1994, in accordance with the 1993-94 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:22 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:25 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mr. Thomas Neale, 859 Bellevue Drive, Anaheim. He discussed the issue of
graffiti and the associated costs of cleanup. Graffiti is the willful
destruction of the property of others which carries with it the threat of
violence, contempt for, and an affront to authority. It is very costly. He
feels the time has come to renew their resolve and rid the City of the
problem. Mr. Neale then proposed an ordinance that would make it unlawful to
make, sell, purchase, possess, use or otherwise dispense aerosol paint in
spray cans. If by decisive action they can control the problem at the local
level, he believes other jurisdictions would follow suit. He asked that the
problem be addressed.
Council Members and the City Attorney explained that the City's current
ordinance contains stringent controls on the sale of aerosol spray cans which
are required to be kept behind lock and key. Other provisions of the
ordinance were enumerated for Mr. Neale. Anaheim has a very comprehensive and
innovative ordinance that most other cities do not have.
Council Member Pickler. He suggested through the League of Cities that they
initiate a resolution and try to get the other Orange County cities to adopt a
similar ordinance.
Mayor Daly recommended that Mr. Neale be provided with a copy of the City's
ordinance relating to graffiti.
224
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments on City Council
Agenda items.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to waive reading in full of all
ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of May 3,
1994. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the following items were approved
in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 94R-71 through 94R-74, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Steven Do for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about December 1, 1993.
b. Claim submitted by Jeffrey Scott Gray, c/o James C. Buckley, esq., for
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
November 5, 1993.
c. Claim submitted by Robin Rapp, c/o Andrew W. Macrae II, esq., for
indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
October 25, 1993.
d. Claim submitted by Kathleen Weaver, c/o David L. Adler, esq., for
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
October 12, 1993.
e. Claim submitted by Barbara Welt, c/o Centerstone, for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 3,
1994.
Application for leave to present late claim denied:
a. Application submitted by Susan Girard, c/o Joshua Z. Stein, for bodily
injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July
31, 1993.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission
meetings held December 9, 1993, January 27, 1994, and February 24, 1994.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
February 17, 1994.
A3. 169: Rejecting all bids received for the East Street Street Improvements
project Lincoln Avenue to Broadway.
Mayor Daly. The staff report states that improvements can still be
accomplished within the time remaining for the K & B Redevelopment project.
He wanted to make sure that is the case - that they do not lose too much time
in rejecting the bids.
225
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
City Manager Ruth. He assured the Mayor that the improvements would occur in
a timely fashion.
A4. 123: Approving an Agreement with the University of California at Davis
to receive funding, in the amount of $100,000 for the Downtown Anaheim
Telecenter to be located in the Kraemer Building.
Council Member Feldhaus abstained on this item.
106: Amending the FY 93/94 budget by increasing revenues and expenditures in
Program 3246, Commuter Services, by $100,000.
A5. 123: Approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
District Agreement Nos. 12-155 and 12-155E with the State of California for
right-of-way acquisition on the I-5 widening project.
City Manager Ruth stated that staff is requesting withdrawal of the second
agreement, No. 12-155E to be rescheduled at a later date but clarified staff
is requesting approval of District Agreement No. 12-155.
A6. 123: Approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
District Agreement Nos. 12-156 and 12-156E with the State of California for
right-of-way acquisition on the I-5 widening project.
City Manager Ruth stated that staff is requesting withdrawal of the second
agreement, No. 12-156E to be rescheduled at a later date but clarified staff
is requesting approval of District Agreement No. 12-156.
A7. 160: Accepting the low bid of Emerald Landscape Services, in an amount
not to exceed $28,600 for furnishing and planting 400 each, 15-gallon trees
with root barriers, in accordance with Bid ~5245.
A8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Standard Aero, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $34,550 for the overhaul of a mini-turbine for Police Helicopter
N1607A, in accordance with Bid ~5249.
A9. 160: Accepting the low bid of Pacific Arepco, in the amount of $40,365
for two VHS dual transport voice logging recorders and associated hardware,
all in accordance with Bid #5236.
AiO. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to Virco Manufacturing Corporation, in the amount of
$33,352 for 800 portable folding chairs.
All. 114: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO
THE BOARD OF THE AUTHORITY. (Orange County Regional Airport Authority).
City Clerk Sohl announced that the action requires the Council indicate who
the official representative will be as well as the alternate.
Council Member Pickler was thereupon designated the representative as
recommended in staff report dated May 3, 1994 from the City Manager; Council
Member Simpson was designated as the alternate having indicated that he would
be willing to serve in that capacity.
226
City Hallr Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5500 P.M.
Al2. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE FILING OF A PROPOSAL WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING FOR FUNDING A GANG PREVENTION
PROGRAM.
Al3. 123: Approving an Agreement with County of Orange, Juvenile Court Work
Program at a cost of $375 per day for weed abatement services.
Al4. 123: Approving and executing an Agreement with the Anaheim Union High
School District for the period of June 1, 1994 through September 30, 1994, to
facilitate Summer Sports Camps.
Al5. 153: Approving a 1.98% equity adjustment for City Clerk, Leonora Sohl,
effective March 25, 1994.
A16. 101: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Parr Con.,
in the amount of $3,627,000 for the Anaheim Stadium Earthquake Damage Repair
project; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of
the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving
any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
Al7. 137: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM PURSUANT TO SECTION 53334 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA TO CONSIDER ALTERING THE TYPES OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCED BY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-1 (SYCAMORE CANYON) IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA. (Setting the date and time for a public hearing -
June 7, 1994 at 6:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM PURSUANT TO SECTION 53334 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO CONSIDER ALTERING THE TYPES OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCED BY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1989-3 (THE SUMMIT) IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA. (Setting the date and time for a public hearing - June 7, 1994 at
6:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 94R-71 throuqh 94R-74, both inclusive, for
adoption~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 94R-71 through 94R-74, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Cl. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Feldhaus. He would like to agendize for a future Council
meeting some discussion on the recent changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act. He
feels they need to have some clarification or an education process through the
City Attorney. The matter could possibly be discussed in Closed Session.
It was determined after further Council discussion that a workshop session be
held in two weeks, the topic being a discussion of the Brown Act.
227
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
C2. 123: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
Report by City Attorney.
City Attorney White reported that in Closed Session, the Council approved an
extension of the Tolling Agreement with Anaheim Stadium Associates relating to
the ground lease of Anaheim Stadium extending that Tolling Agreement from
May 2, 1994 through July 12, 1994. Vote by Council Members - all Ayes.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes which will
take them to public hearing time at 6:00 p.m. (5:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:06 p.m.)
SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The City Attorney announced that it is appropriate at this time for all those
intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be
sworn in at this time.
Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise
their right hand. The oath was then given.
D1. 155/170: PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13266, ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 281:
OWNER: The Baldwin Company, Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale Avenue,
Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is approximately 6.4 acres located on the
south side of Serrano Avenue and approximately 1100 feet west of the
centerline of Marblehead Drive (Tract No. 13266, The Summit of Anaheim
Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2). The petitioner requested a revision to the
previously approved site plan for Tract Map No. 13266 within The Summit of
Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) in order to construct 10 single-
family residential structures ranging from 3,395 to 3,911 square feet
(previously ranging from 4,141 to 5,657 square feet).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved revision to previously approved site plan for Tract Map No.
13266.
EIR NO. 281 previously approved.
HEARING SET ON: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed in
letter dated March 25, 1994 from Mari Penny and Mary Ellen Dwyer and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - April 21, 1994
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 21, 1994
Posting of property - April 22, 1994
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He first briefed the proposal/request
contained in the staff report. He noted that after six public hearings before
the Planning Commission with intense public testimony, the Commission on a
four to three vote determined that the developer had refined his plans to the
point that the proposed homes would be complimentary to the existing homes and
would be in compliance with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan.
Although the proposed homes would be 5 to 20% smaller, the height and lot
228
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
sizes did not change. The developer did add architectural features which he
may wish to discuss tonight.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and asked to hear from the applicant and
those in support of the proposal.
Ron Freeman, Senior Vice President, Baldwin Company. The revised site plan
has received staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval. There
were a variety of Planning Commission public hearings. (See minutes of public
hearings before the Planning Commission of October 4, November 15 and
December 1, 1993 and January 24, February 23 and March 21, 1994 where
extensive input, testimony and evidence was presented). He felt the Planning
staff summary was quite clear and concise. Baldwin is in a regretful position
that they had to redesign a product type. They would have loved to continue
to build what was up there but it has become not a possible product type for
them to continue. They look forward to attempting to move forward with the
new product type which will be in the best interest of the community and the
neighborhood. He is asking that the Council reaffirm the decision of the
Planning Commission based on staff recommendation. Through a number of
hearings, they have evolved the plans to a state where the Commission could
agree that they are compatible and consistent with these specific plans.
He reiterated he is requesting reaffirmation of the Planning Commission's
decision.
There were no further speakers in support.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN OPPOSITION:
The following people spoke in opposition. Their testimony emphasized the
differences between the existing homes and the homes to be built should the
revisions proposed to the previously approved site plan for Tract Map
No. 13266 be approved. Their extensive testimony is summarized as follows:
(Also see summary of testimony given at the Planning Commission meetings of
October 4, November 15 and December 1, 1993 and January 24, February 23 and
March 21, 1994 wherein the following people spoke at one or more of those
meetings.)
Murray Zoota, 1055 Taylor Court. Mr. Zoota submitted binders to the
Council which were made a part of the record. (The binder/booklet
contained plans of Summit Pointe Homes and seven tabs - Tab 1, staff
report to the Planning Commission dated February 23, 1994; Tab 2,
Planning commission.action at their meeting of March 21, 1994 and
colored photos of homes in the Baldwin Development; Tab 3, plans/photos
of Summit Pointe Homes showing various amenities - plans/photos of
Summit Springs Homes for comparison purposes; Tab 4, project description
from the Summit Specific Plan and plans of Summit Springs Homes 1 & iA;
Tab 5, plans, Summit Pointe Homes (elevations), list of custom
appointments, street scape, size differences, architectural objectives,
design objectives, design guidelines, statement relating to CC & R's,
conceptual street scene, Summit Pointe II and additional photographs;
Tab 6, photographs and building characteristics and material standards;
Tab 7, promotional material - Summit Pointe.) He gave an overview of
the concerns they have as homeowners. He noted that one of the concerns
he has relates to architectural integrity. He described the Summit
229
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5~00 P.M.
Pointe development - magnificent estate homes and home sites and custom
homes. The Baldwin Company and it's agents represented to the
homeowners that they would have such homes that met custom guidelines so
that architectural integrity of the community would be maintained. Now
they are proposing homes that absolutely compromise that architectural
integrity. In concluding, he read a passage from the sales brochure
announcing Summit Pointe. They are not getting what was represented.
He asked that the Council keep the architectural integrity in their
community.
Jon Goldstein, 1096 S. Taylor Court. Baldwin planned to construct the
ultimate housing project at Summit Pointe- the flagship of their fleet.
This is not a situation where they are requesting a building plan - they
have a plan but do not want to build to that plan. They want Baldwin to
build, but to the plans originally approved by the City, the ones that
were sold and marketed to the present homeowners. Because of difficult
economic times, Baldwin does not want to build those houses anymore
since it is not economically in their best interest. It is a downsized,
down scale project that will not be consistent with the existing homes.
The issue is whether the houses are compatible and architecturally
consistent. Mr. Goldstein then briefed some of the testimony that took
place at the previous Planning Commission meetings. In concluding, he
emphasized the bottom line is - the project is not compatible and the
proposed houses are not compatible. The residents would like Baldwin to
at least be limited to Plan 1 and 2, if they do not build Plan 3 and 4;
however, Baldwin wants to build a different product that is not
compatible. There is no valid purpose to the amended plan. They cannot
change the rules for their own purpose.
Mary Ellen Dwyer, 1059 S. Taylor Court. (She first submitted plans of
Summit Pointe Homes which she asked to be incorporated in the
information previously submitted under Section 4.) The proposed homes
are lovely executive homes but they will disrupt the architectural
integrity and compatibility of the Summit Pointe Community. She then
briefed some of the differences in the Summit Pointe plans. She
referred to Tab 2 of the booklet pointing to the photographs (2D-2P).
She took the Council on a "tour" showing the differences/comparisons
with the existing Summit Points Homes to those being proposed for their
community specifically the roof lines. They purchased their homes in a
planned community with CC & R's and specific plan guidelines creating a
harmonious and compatible neighborhood. The proposed product is not
compatible and that is the major concern.
Mari Penny, 8125 Oxley Court. There are many differences between their
homes and those proposed. They consider ten of the differences to be
major - the front linear width of the homes, the architectural design,
the main entrances are entirely different, the fascia and barge board,
window style material, architectural details, roof lines, front
elevations, side and rear elevations and garages. In her presentation,
she referred to the exhibits which showed the comparison/differences
related to each of the points. The proposed homes are not compatible
with the homes in Summit Pointe but similar to the homes in Summit
Springs. They are inconsistent architecturally and materially and they
are asking the Council to reject the plans.
Martin Griffith, architect (and holder of a California Real Estate
License). He was asked to provide an opinion of the proposed revision
230
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
by Baldwin. In his detailed presentation, he compared the existing
Summit Pointe Homes with those proposed and also with the nearby Summit
Springs Homes. In his conclusion, he stated there is no compatibility
in the existing Summit Pointe Homes and the homes proposed but two
different products entirely. They are taking a lesser value home and
putting it into an established neighborhood. When this is done, the
value of the lesser value home will escalate being associated with the
higher priced homes resulting in a benefit to the builder. He does not
find that the proposal is enhancing the value for the current home
owners at all. Baldwin is trying to put high end tract homes into an
estate community. There is no compatibility and only one benefit - to
the builder.
Dr. Robert Minow, 1071 S. Taylor Court. He is going to try to show the
Council carefully and clearly how the plans are different. During
Dr. Minow's extensive presentation, he pointed out the differences
referencing many of the photographs submitted in the booklet for
comparison purposes. In concluding, he stated the homes are not
harmonious or compatible. They detract from the beauty and
attractiveness of the development and do not comply with the specific
plan and the CC & R's. If they downsize, they still must maintain the
integrity of Summit Pointe. They are distinctive and want to remain
that way. If the revised plans are approved, it will be precedent
setting and they will be an anomaly within the tract. They would
consider this a breach of contract.
Diane Shanken, 1062 Sunstream Lane. Sunstream Lane is the street that
will be most affected by the revision. Working from some of the
photographs submitted (mainly 6A-6E) she showed what effect such a
change would have. She wants her street to look architecturally the
same as the other homes in Summit Pointe. To allow Baldwin to build the
proposed homes is grossly unfair. It is only fair and right that they
live up to the standards and specifications that were established by
Baldwin.
Selma Scott, 8135 Oxley Court. He is going to retire and with that in
mind looked at Summit Pointe. These are very special houses. He will
be living on a fixed income. Building homes to the revised plans in his
community will, in effect, be taking money aware from him. It is
grossly unfair. He does not have the flexibility to be able to do
something else. Baldwin is proposing something completely different
than he ever expected.
Kim Le, 8120 E. Oxley Court. More than a year ago, their family
relocated from New Orleans to Summit Pointe. They were prom£~ed it
would be a distinguished community of more than 200 beautiful homes in
the next four to five years. They were told their home had to fit the
standards of the four models of Summit Pointe or better. It is her hope
that the Council can preserve the beauty, uniformity and reputation of
Summit Pointe of Anaheim Hills.
Dr. Mark Grossman, 1080 Taylor Court, Anaheim. Baldwin could have
presented their plans to the homeowners association to get input but
they did not do so. The new houses will have the same lot size but a
much smaller house. Also, they are building a house they are going to
sell in the $300,000 range compared to the existing homes in the
$700,000 range. It is not possible to be a compatible house.
Landscaping will be onerous for the new owners since the lot size will
231
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5500 P.M.
remain the same. They want Baldwin to build homes, but compatible
homes. They would be glad to have them build their models I and 2 or a
modified 4. Baldwin can change the interior amenities instead of the
exterior. To ignore their objections is to ignore the facts. He
referred to Exhibit 7C & D and asked that the Council not let this
happen to them.
SUMMATION BY
APPLICANTS
Ron Freeman. Ail the concerns were raised at the numerous hearings
before the Planning Commission. The one undeniable fact is that the
only impartial judge as to specific plan consistency and plan
compatibility is the planning staff and Planning Commission. They are
empowered with the recommendation and decision. That decision was made
and they (Baldwin) believe it to be correct. He is asking the Council
to look favorably on their request.
Council Member Hunter then posed a line of questions to Mr. Freeman as to why
he cannot sell the lots for people to build custom homes according to the
guidelines, why he could not at least build the models I & 2 or market the ten
lots for those models which would be acceptable to the residents.
Mr. Freeman. Custom lot guidelines were created in response to an inability
to sell the existing houses they are building in tract production. In
response to a decided lack of market for the houses, they attempted to go to a
custom lot sale program where the buyer would build his own house. They could
barely sell four or five and ended up selling, with the exception of one
house, all of the existing Summit Pointe products. There was not a market for
the custom lots as well. They made amendments to the guidelines but there was
no market for that type of product. The existing homes are tremendously
expensive to build. They are trying to get to the market with something that
will be acceptable. He cannot say for sure if those homes (Plan 1 & 2) would
sell. They believe the greater benefit to the community is to continue with
this compatible product type in and of itself. Baldwin has not attempted to
market models 1 & 2 on the ten lots.
After further questioning, Council Member Hunter stated he does not know if he
has a satisfactory answer as to why Baldwin still cannot market and build
models i & 2 on those lots.
Mr. Freeman. To have a two unit model complex would not be prudent from a
merchandising standpoint. They are providing a wider range of product, a
wider range of square footage and they would not be in a position to just
build two product types and market them only. That is not appealing to as
broad a market that would be prudent. He also clarified all the remaining
tracts would shortly follow with an application for the revised product type
if deemed approved.
Council Member Hunter. The public hearing tonight involves 10 lots but
Mr. Freeman is saying if approved they are coming back for a change in the
remainder of the models.
Mr. Freeman stated they are looking forward to attempting to move forward with
the new product type on 170 lots. It generates a lot of revenue for the City,
will help the Summit project in general, and they believe that the product is
compatible.
232
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly. There have been a number of concerns raised about architectural
treatments - garages facing the street and a whole series of other questions
and concerns. During the process of six public hearings and staff review they
have concluded the integrity of the overall specific plan as sound. He asked
staff to comment on their review and why they are recommending the approval of
the requested change.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Planning Commission did a site visit and
upon their review and after six public hearings, approved the request on a
split vote. Staff originally recommended denial of the original proposal.
During the hearing process, some revisions were made to the plans that
incorporated architectural features. Staff looked at the issues of whether
the plans were architecturally compatible which is a subjective judgement.
They referred back to the guidelines which are included in the staff report on
pages 63 and 64. The reverse could also be asked. On the current proposal,
if those were the existing homes and the existing homes were actually being
proposed now, would they find compatibility there. The answer is yes. One of
the difficulties is that there are expectations many of the homeowners have
based upon promises or discussions they indicated took place with the
developer that were aside from a plan review. Based upon that, they
recommended approval.
Council Member Hunter. To him the issue is not economics but the fact that
Baldwin is trying to change the product. It is not whether the existing homes
are going to be devalued. Summit Pointe was declared the 1991 National
Project of the Year. The advertisement stated, "From the inception, the goal
of the Baldwin Company was to create the most architecturally distinctive and
value oriented community in the country". Those who bought and believed this
was what they were going to get and now three or four years later, Baldwin is
"switching horses in mid-stream". He believes they should not approve the
revised plans and that Baldwin ought to at least build models 1 & 2. They
ought to deny the project because it is putting Summit Springs homes in Summit
Pointe. They should have the developer make a better effort to work with the
homeowners. There needs to be more of an effort made to make Summit Pointe
what Baldwin promised literally to the whole world. Now is not the time to
downsize the product that was anticipated.. He is going to move that the
revised plan be disapproved.
Mayor Daly. His own belief based upon a thorough review and recommendation by
the Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission is that the revision
makes sense given the realities of today's economy.
Council Member Pickler. He agrees. It is obvious when it takes three years
to sell 40 homes it is a reflection of the difficult economic times. He does
not necessarily agree that the value of the existing homes will go down. He
also feels the proposed homes are compatible and will fit into the
environment. To build 217 homes with just two styles (Models 1 & 2) is not
practical and will not work. The proposed revision and project ought to go
forward. If they go back to building Models 1 & 2, the homes will not be
built. He is in favor of approval of the staff recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING - EIR NO. 281:
On motion by Council Member Daly, seconded by Council Member Pickler, the City
Council finds that on June 30, 1987, it has previously Certified EIR No. 281
making certain findings in connection therewith and finding that there are no
additional impacts in connection with the subject action. MOTION CARRIED.
233
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 199~ - 5~00 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved that the revised Site Plan for Tract Map
No. 13266 be approved subject to Conditions Nos. 1-3 as previously approved by
the Planning Commission upon a finding that the revised Site Plan is
consistent with Specific Plan No. 88-2 and the Zoning and Development
Standards for the Summit as adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 4977 for the
reasons set forth in Paragraphs 8-23 of the March 21, 1994 Staff Report and
subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Council Member Daly seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Hunter again expressed his concerns on
behalf of the existing residents. He also pointed out that four of the
present Council Members voted for the original Summit Pointe project and the
design guidelines when it was brought before the Council for final approval.
The Council should not get to the point where the economy dictates their
reneging on their commitment to the community. It will be setting a precedent
for future such requests. If they approve the revisions, they will break the
promise they made in their original approval and he feels that is not right.
Council Member Feldhaus. He disagrees with Council Member Hunter in the fact
that it is not a financial consideration. Almost everybody who testified
stated that value was involved and that the one to gain economically was the
developer.
Council Member Simpson. There are a couple of issues involved and one of
those has to do with the owner's right to determine the use of his land. The
owner's of the existing homes have certain expectations, but the owner of the
remainder of the property has a right to property use as well provided that he
stays within general and specific plan guidelines. Other things to consider
on behalf of the homeowners are - will they be better off with vacant lots.
Is there a reasonable expectation that within some not too distant time the
market will turn and support the new product. His decision will be made on
land use and on what he believes will be the best for the area. The product
proposed is within the specific guidelines and he agrees with staff. He will
be supporting their recommendation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to approve the revised site
plan, roll call vote all ayes with Council Member Hunter voting no.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consensus, the meeting was adjourned.
(7:55 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
234