2002/03/05
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 5, 2002
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: Council Members: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring and Shirley McCracken. Mayor
Tom Daly entered the Chamber shortly after the workshop started.
ABSENT: Council Member Tom Tait.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, Assistant City Clerk
Cynthia Daniel-Garcia, Public Utilities General Manager Marcie Edwards, Public Utilities
Integrated Resources Manager Steve Sciortino.
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on March 1, 2002
at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards.
Mayor Pro Tem Frank Feldhaus called the regular meeting to order at 4:09 P.M. in the Council
Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard.
WORKSHOP: Magnolia Power Project
City Manager David Morgan introduced Public Utilities General Manager, Marcie Edwards, who
presented the Magnolia Power Project workshop. She explained that the Magnolia Power
Project was a 250-megawatt, gas-fired, combined cycle unit, which was a way of differentiating
a type of electric generating facility from a simple cycle, which was similar to a jet engine, and a
combined cycle inferred that there was a greater degree of process involved and a greater
degree of efficiency. She said it was a Southern California Public Power Authority project and
had municipal joint ownership and the participants were Anaheim, Burbank, Cerritos, Colton,
Glendale Pasadena and San Marcos. The City's share was 75 to 92 megawatts and she
explained that the City was structured as a 75-megawatt participant in the project and there
were participants involved in it that were caught up in a legislative debate on whether those
cities could aggregate their load and become partial municipalities or if they could not. She
asked to get advance permission to select up to 92 megawatts if any megawatts associated with
the situation were to become available at a later date in the process. She noted that the on-line
date was approximately June 2004 and there was typically slippage associated with having to
do with licensing such as equipment delivery and contract delays. She said that the City would
want to commit to the project due to the economics and in 2004, Utilities had two long-term
contracts that would terminate and they equated to approximately 58 megawatts or $24.5
million. She said that the two contracts would terminate at a approximately the same time as
the Magnolia Power project came on and Utilities could get 75 megawatts for $24.5 million and
she noted that it would be an economic advantage for the City and it had been worked into the
financial strategic plan and the plan did not require a rate increase.
In response to Mayor Daly, Manager Edwards reported that the two contracts that expired in
2004 were with Deseret and Bonneville Power Authority for a total of 58 megawatts and
approximately $24.5 million and that would be replaced by an entitlement share of Magnolia
which was 75 megawatts at $24.5 million. She added that Utilities would receive roughly
another 15 to 20 megawatts out of the Magnolia project for the same amount of money and
would displace the cost associated with some additional megawatts and the net savings was
probably greater than a break even. Manager Edwards said that as part of the economic
.- . " ",....
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 2
advantage, no one was able to meet the characteristics that the City would want for a long-term
sale, other than an entitlement. She said that many of the marketers that owned generation and
had credit ratings were all at a level to where the wholesale Risk Management policy precluded
the City doing business with a vast majority the creditors. There was a tremendous amount of
risk in being contract dependent at this point than there was in expanding the City's portfolio in
an entitlement or an owned-share basis. The City's load continued to grow and did not commit
the City up to 100 percent of the requirements and that was intentional. It was intended to
largely supplant the contracted megawatts that were falling away or terminating in that same
time frame.
Council Member McCracken noted that with Deseret and Bonneville, the City had brought in
power over a long distance and she asked if there would be any additional savings on power
coming from Burbank rather than from Utah. Manager Edwards responded that there were
transmission costs associated with the transaction that needed to be paid to get it out of the
control area that Burbank was housed in which was Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power and then move it through a portion of the Independent Service Operator grid to Anaheim.
She added that the risk involving longer term transmission agreements had escalated daily and
the City had experienced greater reliability by being able to purchase the energy closer to the
City's load base. So much of what the City had was located in other states; such as New
Mexico, Utah and Nevada and this project would eliminate all of that transmission risk between
the out of state sources, she said, and it shrank the City's exposure dramatically. It was difficult
to say what it would or would not do as far as the price of energy since it was under legislative
regulation and it would be less because the mileage was less, she added.
In response to Council Member Feldhaus, Manager Edwards said that there was an overlap
period but there could be slippage issues and she added that either way, Utilities would manage
that through wholesale trading. She explained that small short term blocks of power were
purchased and the overlap was managed.
Manager Edwards spoke about fuel diversity and said that in any supply portfolio, it was very
critical not to have the power supply from just one facility and also that those facilities be
supplied using different mediums for generation. If one medium became negatively impacted,
the entire portfolio was not affected, she said, and it should be balanced. She said that the City
was currently heavy in coal and approximately 67 percent of the supply was from coal plants
and the addition of a gas plant would reduce the coal dependency. Adding gas to the City's
portfolio was an advantage, she noted, whereas to others, it added to a substantial gas portfolio.
Some of the operational characteristics of why the plant had an appeal was availability, she
informed. A normal steam plant had a forced outage rate of between four to six percent and
that was how frequently they were forced off the line, she said, and a newer plant was available
to the greater extent of the time and was two to three percent in terms of forced outage rates.
One of the main emissions from combustion of gas, when com busted gas was used to create
heat to create electricity, was nitrous oxides. The amount of nitrous oxides that was put out by
the plant was one-tenth of what existing, standardized power plants put out and she noted that
environmentally it was not a burden and went a long way in improving air quality in the over-all
south coast basin. She spoke about dispatching and said that electric consumption varied as
people woke up and turned on lights and get to business and it peaked during the day and
knocked off during the night. Utilities followed the customer demand curve, she said, by a
combination of manipulating the current portfolio resources and buying and selling blocks of
power around that load curve. The City did not currently have resources that were dispatchable
and now the power purchases could be moved up and down by calling the plant and this was a
-"" . ,.---
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 3
significant advantage. She spoke about ancillary services and un-bundled electric delivery and
said that even though many were still bundled, some were being broken down in price
separately and the plant was equipped with the ability to provide the City with automatic
generation control as well as having spinning reserves and those were two components that
would not have to be purchased as much from the Independent Service Operator.
Manager Edwards said that the Magnolia Power project would be an excellent investment for
the City and its cost was less than older steam units. She showed the costs of San Onofre,
which was a coal burner, Intermountain Power Plant, San Juan, which was a coal burner,
Deseret, Combustion turbine, Magnolia was the proposed facility, Hoover was a hydroplant and
Bonneville Power and she said that this was an opportunity to compare where Magnolia fit in.
Manager Edwards said that the planning agreement had been approved earlier this year and a
power sales agreement between Southern California Public Power Authority and Anaheim was
before Council on March 5, 2002. She noted that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
wanted to charge the City $2.5 million as part of their standard tariff to get the energy out of Los
Angeles service territory and that had been blended into Utility's analysis. She added that
Utilities was working diligently to craft alternative arrangements to bring that energy in to the
City. She explained costs to the Council and showed what the City's share would be. She said
that the principal and interest was part of the City's contracted costs and did not show up as
debt service and was approximately $5.5 million.
Mayor Daly asked about the bond fund of $69 million and Manager Edwards said that it was a
combination of the debt service reserve fund, the capitalized interest fund, the operating reserve
fund, bond insurance and the cost of issuance. She noted that the City would receive a lot of
the funds back at financing. She explained that the debt service reserve fund was for the
protection of the bondholders and was sized at one year's debt service and was returned to the
issuer with interest over time and principal at the end of the bond transaction if it was not used.
The capitalized interest fund provided for all interest during construction, such the participants
did not need to pay the debt service while the project was being constructed and the bond
funding of interest assured current rate payers that they were not paying for a project that was
not producing energy, she said. The operating reserve fund allowed participants to refund the
reserve from bond proceeds, rather than out of cash, and protected the bond-holders from any
temporary cash flow, she said, and was returned to the participants with interest at the end of
the bond transaction.
Mayor Daly asked about the annual energy costs of $53 million and Manager Edwards said that
$24.5 million under the City's share would obtain the City 75 megawatts out of the project and
92 megawatts would approximate $32 million. She said it was gas and operating, maintenance,
labor, site fees and chemicals and it was all operations. Mayor Daly asked how much
fluctuation there would be in that number and Manager Edwards said that the key variable in the
range of costs that might be paid had to do with fuel. Mayor Daly asked about the $53 million
and Manager Edwards said it was based on $3.80 per MMBTU in the analysis for gas which
was at the high end of gas. She noted that the first reading of the ordinance was on the agenda
of March 5, 2002 and adoption was scheduled for March 19, 2002. She added that licensing
was expected in March or April, 2002.
Manager Edwards said that Utilities looked for a modeling strategy and contracted with the
Rand Group to outline all of the alternatives for the City. She said that the City would be loosing
money or value over time without Magnolia Power Project. Over a twenty-year time frame, she
said that Magnolia Power Project was a better strategy for managing negative risks, she said.
~~." 4 "'-rf" -- .. ~-~-."_.-
l'
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 4
The City could still go negative if prices and growth went high and if that managed most of the
risk, the application of some long and short term contracts around that should mitigate the
balance. She said that if Utilities managed to do the shorter term purchases around the longer
term investment in the portfolio, the risk had been managed down to a point that she was
comfortable with. She explained some of the main strategies and one was business as usual
and the City would obtain Magnolia Power project and do long and short term contracts. There
could be an accelerated sell-off of the City's generation assets to become more market
dependent, she said, or the City could become more self-sufficient and not only buy into
Magnolia, but a number of other energy efficiency and distributed generation options to cover all
of the long-term need. The City could also do business as usual with no Magnolia Power
Project, she said. Manager Edwards recommended moving forward with Magnolia Power
project and shorter term contracts could be added.
In response to Mayor Daly, Manager Edwards said that distributed generation was an
occurrence in the industry and whether the generation could take off or fall flat depended on the
City. She said that distributed generation could really boom and she had seen movement in the
regulatory environment to facilitate it. Mayor Daly asked about efficiencies and Ms. Edwards
said that with efficiency technologies, there were two thoughts and one was to build more
generation and the other was to teach people how use energy more efficiently and use
conservation, energy efficiency techniques. Mayor Daly asked if the Rand analysis had looked
at the future regulatory issued impacting the City's existing power contracts with San Onofre,
San Juan, etc., and Manager Edwards said it was more of a growth focus. She said that some
of the risks associated with the other components of the City's portfolio were specific to what
they were and she explained that managing nuclear risks meant to Utilities the application of
completely uneconomic type mitigation strategies over and above what anyone could
reasonably afford. She said that the San Onofre had to be physically operating and the
transmission system surrounding it could not support itself without a plant being there.
Council Member Kring asked if there were any other projects that the contracts were expiring
that the City could be partners with other companies close by and Manager Edwards said that
there were some other projects on the horizon. She said that there was talk of a third
intermountain unit, expanded capacity at the coal plant in San Juan and both of those had a lot
of the negatives that she had seen associated with it. She said that the City's neighbors had
looked into putting in greater amounts of peaking capacity and that was inefficient and very
expensive and would be used for emergencies only and she would not want to partner in that.
Council Member Kring asked how many megawatts the City needed on a given day and
Integrated Resources Manager, Steven Sciortino, said that typically during the winter the City
ran 360 to 400 megawatts and in the summertime, 525 to 550 megawatts were run, depending
on how hot the weather was. Manager Edwards said that the weather had a dramatic effect on
load consumption and that made the job of projecting a challenge.
Council Member McCracken asked when Utilities would know about the cities of Cerritos and
San Marcos who had looked through legislative authority to participate as to whether they would
or would not be included. Manager Sciortino responded that Utilities would know over the next
one to two months.
In response to Council Member Feldhaus, the cost commitment would be $24.5 million and if
Utilities increased from 75 to 92 megawatts, economically the City's commitment would be $32
million, said the Public Utilities Manager. The City's ownership was 30.99 percent and would
,",,","_<L',C -.- -.1. .-......--. '"'!IT"- - . -..-,. ......,~,--....,,_...-.-;._-_ '__'_'~'_'~..." ","
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 5
move the City to a 40 percent shareholder, she said. It was a 250 megawatt plant and the City
was a 30 percent owner, Burbank was a 30 percent owner and the balance of the shares were
split up against the smaller municipalities.
Mayor Daly asked about the cities of Cerritos and San Marcos. Manager Edward said that she
had seen proposals that if San Marcos went ahead with the project, San Diego Gas and Electric
may allow them their share of Magnolia. She said that she was ambivalent and that the variety
of swings in terms of demand and that she would be happy with 75 megawatts and yet 92
megawatts in that price range was well within what would be remarketable.
Mayor Daly asked why this was called the Southern California Public Power Authority study
project and Ron Davis, General Manager of Burbank Utility, said that it would be owned by
SCAPA and would be leased out to the cities just like with the Intermountain Power Project.
Manager Edwards said that the term study indicated that it moved from the analysis to the
commitment phase.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None. City Attorney White stated that there
was no need to discuss the one Closed Session item since there was no new information on it
and that Council could recess to 5:00 P.M..
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None.
Mayor Daly moved to recess, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried.
Council Member Tait absent. The Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:49 P.M.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: Kord Group v. The Fieldstone Company, et aI.,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 76-32-58.
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly reconvened the regular Council meeting of March 5, 2002 at 5:46 P.M. and
welcomed those in attendance.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait and
Shirley McCracken.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll
Schroeder, Meeks
INVOCATION: Pastor David KolI, Anaheim Christian Reformed Church
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Tait
Recognitions to be presented at a later date were a proclamation recognizing March 2002 as
Colon Cancer Awareness Month and a proclamation recognizing April 29 - May 3, 2002 as
Specialty Coffee Week
At 5:49 P.M., Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency meeting.
.. "'PT .
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 6
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting at 5:52 P.M.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: City Attorney White requested a two-week
continuance on Consent Calendar Item A2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
James Robert Reade, 100 West Midway Drive, Space #124, said that he was opposed to a
public hearing regarding Lincoln Avenue at the February 26, 2002 Council meeting.
Duane Roberts, 2276 Colchester, said he was present to speak regarding Item A2. Noting that
the item had been continued for two weeks at the request of the City Attorney, he stated that he
preferred to wait for the continuance.
Ed Perez, 11343 Clarkman Street, Santa Fe Springs, said he was a representative of "Moving
On Entertainment" and were the new tenants of the Freedman Forum. Freedman Forum was
purchased by Hobby Lobby Corporation and was based out of Oklahoma, he said. It was
diversified with over $1 billion in sales and he announced to the community that a progress plan
had been started towards the arts, stage plays, musicals, ballets, orchestra, coral concerts and
conventions conferences. He added that there would be good family entertainment and fun and
events would start in April.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the restaurant would be opened and Mr. Perez said that a
nice restaurant would be placed in that facility and that section would be subleased.
Dwight Copeland, 9702 Vancouver Drive, said he was a representative of the homeowners in
that section of the community. He said that it was a County plot and the boundaries were
Gilbert, Brookhurst and Ball. He asked that the City Attorney and Code Enforcement officers
check into the strip center where the Orange County Recovery Center was located on the
corner of Colchester and Colony. He said that the landlord had continued to not maintain the
property and people double and triple-parked and were now parking in the fire lane or alley
between the senior center and strip center. He also spoke about an apartment complex at 2239
Colchester and said that the apartments were degrading and had become a blight and there
were town homes on Vancouver Drive and the curb had been painted red adjacent to the town
homes. Eight parking spots had been taken away on three different blocks, he added.
Mayor Daly assured Mr. Copeland that all of the items mentioned would be investigated by the
City Manager and staff.
Michelle Shimmomae, 1616 S. Euclid, Space #124, spoke about rent control. She said her
wage went up less than two percent and space rent went up every year and went up nine
percent this year. She said if she stayed, her rent space would go up $200 to $300 per month
in the next five years and she asked if there was anything that could be done.
Mayor Daly said that in 1991 there was an effort to bring rent control to the mobile home park in
the City and the citizens of Anaheim voted not to do that at that time.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions,
seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
.... , 'n
1
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 7
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A11: On motion by Mayor
Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Item A2 was unanimously continued to
March 19, 2002. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-59 for adoption. Motion carried
unanimously.
105 A 1.
160
000
106
112
153
123
123
_... ., - ".n
Receive and file minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held November 29,
2001.
A2. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for the City
and various agencies.
City Attorney White requested a two-week continuance of Item A2 to March 19, 2002.
A3.
Waive Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order to B.I.G. Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $30,829.20 (including applicable taxes
and shipping), for three portable ticket booths for the Anaheim Convention Center.
A4.
Approve a request from the Anaheim City Golf Championship Tournament Committee to
waive the tournament surcharge of $10 per golfer per day for the 2002 tournament.
A5.
Approve an increase of $35,000 in expenditure appropriations for the for the Mother
Colony and Library Donations Fund to purchase library books and rental materials.
A6.
Authorize the City Attorney to execute a conflicts waiver and waive any actual or
potential conflict of interest to permit the law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery to
represent Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. and its affiliates in negotiating and drafting
financial agreements.
A7.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002R-59 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim
Firefighters Association, Local No. 2899, and the City of Anaheim regarding Article 44
(staffing) of the Memorandum of Understanding.
A8.
Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Letter of
Consent from Southern California Edison Company to allow Public Utilities to construct,
operate and maintain disinfection improvements at Well No. 40.
A9.
ORDINANCE NO. 5809 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving the entering into of the Magnolia Power Project Power Sales
Agreement.
Authorize the Public Utilities General Manger to execute the Power Sales Agreement
with Southern California Public Power Authority and to take such actions as are
necessary to administer and implement the Magnolia Power Project.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 8
123
A 10. Approve the Training Agreement with the California Highway Patrol to provide
commercial enforcement training to Anaheim Police Officers.
106
A11. Amend the Police Department's fiscal year 2001/2002 budget by increasing revenues
and expenditure in the 105 Fund by $850,000.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
106
A 12. Consider additions and/or deletions to the budget for the fiscal year 2001/2002.
No action taken by Council.
Items B1 throuah B3 From Plannina Commission Meetina of February 11. 2002: (No action
by City Council required unless expressly indicated. Council may consider and act upon such
matters at its discretion. Items requiring a public hearing may be set for hearing at a later date
upon the request of any two Council members.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 5, 2002:
179 B1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1322
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04497)
OWNER: Sidney E. Bickel Trust, 5585 Via Dicha, #B
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
AGENT: The PRS Group, Attn: Phillip Schwartze
31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 633 South East Street. Property is approximately 1.9-acres with a
frontage of 240 feet on the west side of East Street located 182 feet north of the
centerline of South Street (Quartz Dealer Direct).
Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on February 1, 2000 to expire October
1, 2001) to retain an automobile wholesale and retail auction facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1322 to expire on March 1, 2003
(PC2002-23) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent)
Negative Declaration previously approved.
82. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4098
179 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04498)
OWNER: Mission C. Praise, 1565 West Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
AGENT: Praise Mission Church, Attn: Paul Hwang
1726 South Angel Court, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 1565 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 0.71-acre with a
frontage of 101 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue located 286 feet west of the
centerline of Bayless Street (Praise Mission Church).
Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on February 17, 1999 to expire on
February 17, 2002) to retain a church in a converted single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
--- . ---n
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 9
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4098 and deleted time limitation
(PC2002-24) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:
179 B3. VARIANCE NO. 127 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION:
(TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04483)
Larry Henry, 329 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 requests termination
of Variance No. 127. Property is located at 329 North Manchester Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 127 terminated (PC2002-21) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt
absent).
Items B4 through B5 From ZoninQ Administrator Meeting of February 21. 2002: (No action
by City Council required unless expressly indicated. Council may consider and act upon such
matters at its discretion. Items requiring a public hearing may be set for hearing at a later date
upon the request of any two Council members.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 15,2002:
179
B4.
179
85.
.,en
VARIANCE NO. 2001-04466
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1:
OWNERS: Susan Manuel, 201 Ocean Avenue, #601-B
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Athanasios & Sofia Tatsis, 5051 E. Orangethorpe Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
Christopher Drakos, 1741 N. Kellogg Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: Gerald Mintz, EATACOS, 19081 Spicewood Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
LOCATION: 5031 East Orangethorpe. Unit B-1. Property is 3.88-acre located at the
northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit an increase in seating for an
existing restaurant (including accessory outdoor seating) within a commercial retail
center in the CL (SC) (Commercial Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2001-04466 approved (ZA2002-08).
VARIANCE NO. 2002-04479
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1:
OWNER: Rahat Khan and Grace C.N. Khan
AGENT: Rahat Y. Khan, 1938 N. Batavia Street, Suite K
Orange, CA 92865
LOCATION: 697 South Scout Trail. Property is 0.58-acre having a frontage of
approximately 102 feet on the southwest side of Scout Trail, a maximum depth of
approximately 392 feet and is located approximately 345 feet southwest of the centerline
of Trapper Trail.
Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct an addition to an existing single-family
residence in the RS-HS-10,000 (Residential, Single-Family-Hillside) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2002-04479 approved (ZA2002-09).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 9
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4098 and deleted time limitation
(PC2002-24) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:
179 B3. VARIANCE NO. 127 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION:
(TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04483)
Larry Henry, 329 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 requests termination
of Variance No. 127. Property is located at 329 North Manchester Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 127 terminated (PC2002-21) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt
absent).
Items B4 throuah B5 From Zonina Administrator Meetina of February 21. 2002: (No action
by City Council required unless expressly indicated. Council may consider and act upon such
matters at its discretion. Items requiring a public hearing may be set for hearing at a later date
upon the request of any two Council members.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 15,2002:
179 B4.
B5.
179
..TT
VARIANCE NO. 2001-04466
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1:
OWNERS: Susan Manuel, 201 Ocean Avenue, #601-B
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Athanasios & Sofia Tatsis, 5051 E. Orangethorpe Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
Christopher Drakos, 1741 N. Kellogg Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: Gerald Mintz, EATACOS, 19081 Spicewood Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
LOCATION: 5031 East Oranaethoroe. Unit B-1. Property is 3.88-acre located at the
northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit an increase in seating for an
existing restaurant (including accessory outdoor seating) within a commercial retail
center in the CL (SC) (Commercial Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2001-04466 approved (ZA2002-08).
VARIANCE NO. 2002-04479
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1:
OWNER: Rahat Khan and Grace C.N. Khan
AGENT: Rahat Y. Khan, 1938 N. Batavia Street, Suite K
Orange, CA 92865
LOCATION: 697 South Scout Trail. Property is 0.58-acre having a frontage of
approximately 102 feet on the southwest side of Scout Trail, a maximum depth of
approximately 392 feet and is located approximately 345 feet southwest of the centerline
of Trapper Trail.
Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct an addition to an existing single-family
residence in the RS-HS-10,000 (Residential, Single-Family-Hillside) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2002-04479 approved (ZA2002-09).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 10
Recorded decision information is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning
Department's Automated Telephone System at (714) 765-5139.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
121
C1.
A public hearing to consider the condemnation of certain real property located at 1025
West Lincoln Avenue.
Public Works Civil Engineer Natalie Meeks presented a staff report and stated that the
resolution was for the acquisition of right of way necessary for the construction of the Lincoln
Avenue Phase II Street Widening Project. The proposed project would widen Lincoln Avenue,
she said, east and west of West Street and improve the intersection operations and the project
had been environmentally cleared through a previously approved negative declaration and
conformed to the City's master plan for arterial highways and the transportation element of the
City's general plan. She said that the project would include traffic circulation on Lincoln Avenue
which was one of the City's major arterials and one of the primary accesses from the 1-5
Freeway to the down town area. The area currently operated at a level of service "D" and traffic
projections anticipated a significant increase in the traffic with the build out of the general plan,
she noted. Construction of the project required acquired acquisition of a portion of the property
located at 1 025 West Lincoln Avenue. She said that a self service car wash was currently
operating on the property and the City's appraiser had determined could continue to operate on
the site in the after condition. An offer to acquire the necessary portion of the property had been
made to the property owner and there had been negotiations. Public Works would continue to
work with the property owner to reach a settlement for the acquisition, she said, and the project
was scheduled for construction this summer. Due to funding requirements, she said, the project
must move forward for construction by June 30, 2002.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing. He said that testimony from the owner of record or a
designated representative would be limited to five issues: whether the public interest and
necessity required the project; whether the project was planned and located in a manner that
would be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; whether the
property sought to be acquired was necessary for the project; whether the offer required by
Government Code Section 7267.2 had been made to the owner or owners of record and
whether the City had met all of the pre-requisites to the exercise of eminent domain in
connection with the property.
Bruce Carlin, 952 Tingling Lane, San Diego, said that the parcel was a shallow, commercial
corner lot of approximately 20,000 square feet that was leased to the operator of a coin
operated car wash. He said that the City had planned to widen the street and had proposed the
partial taking involving a strip of frontage approximately sixteen feet deep running length of the
property. He urged the Council to continue the matter for two to four weeks and to not adopt the
resolution of necessity. He said that the City's Redevelopment Agency had offered to purchase
the entire parcel at a price that he found to be acceptable. He said that the City's escrow agent
had delivered to the owner, proposed escrow instructions and his attorney was working with the
City's agent, Roger Cunningham, to finalize the document. He said that he was flexible and the
City had shown the willingness to be flexible and he expected that the matter would be
concluded to everyone's satisfaction in a few weeks. He said that he was not opposed to the
City's right of entry and he would not hold up construction. The proposed escrow instructions
contain such a right of entry and if the Council approved the resolution of necessity while the
--'on
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 11
discussions were under way, he added that both the City and his family would become involved
in a costly and unnecessary legal undertaking. He explained that the City would have to draft a
complaint and file it with the court, pay court fees, attempt to obtain quarters of possession, put
up security deposits to obtain orders of process, go to the expense of serving process on his
parents, requiring his parents to file an answer. This represented significant, unnecessary effort
and expense for both parties since the City already had the makings of the deal for the
acquisition of the property, he said. If formal action on the resolution was continued, it was
probable that the parties would reach an agreement within a few weeks and all the legal
maneuvering and costs associated could be avoided. He said that the second reason he urged
Council to continue the matter was that certain requirements of law must proceed a resolution of
necessity and those had not been fully satisfied. Section 1245.230 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure required that an offer, which fully met the requirements of Section 7267.2 of the
Government Code, had been made to his parents, he said. He explained that prior to adoption
of the resolution of necessity and initiating negotiations for the acquisition, the public entity shall
establish an amount, which was compensation and would make the offer in the full amount, he
said. The public entity should provide the owner a written statement and summary of the basis
for the amount it established as just compensation, he informed. The written statement and
summary should contain details sufficient to indicate clearly the basis for the offer, he said,
including the date of valuation, highest and best use, and applicable zoning, principal
transaction, reproduction or replacement cost analysis and capitalization analysis supporting the
determination of value and where appropriate, the just compensation for the real property
acquired and for damages to remaining real property shall be separately stated and shall
include the calculations and narrative explanations supporting the compensation, including any
offsetting benefits. He said that the public entity may, but was not required to, satisfy the written
statement summary and review requirements of this section by providing the owner a copy of
the appraisal. These requirements of law had not been fully met, he said, and he had not been
provided a reproduction or replacement cost analysis and capitalization analysis supporting the
determination of value. He added that he had not been provided a copy of the calculations, a
narrative explanation supporting the compensation and had not been provided a copy of the
City's appraisal. He added that the letter he received stated that the appraiser had given full
consideration to the highest and best use of the property and all features inherent in the
property affecting its market value. He said that the letter said that the highest and best use
was as improved as a self-service car wash and he said that no narrative was presented to
support the assertion. He concluded by requesting that the matter be continued for two to four
weeks and would spare both the City and himself the cost of the legal formalities of responding
to a resolution of necessity and the requested continuance would not adversely impact the
City's street widening construction schedule. He said that the City must continue the matter or it
would be unlawful for the City to adopt the resolution of necessity until all of the conditions
speCified in the new law, California Government Code Section 7267.2, had been met.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Civil Engineer Meeks stated that Public Works had been in discussions with property owner
regarding a full-take of the property and were moving forward on that. She said that Public
Works would still have to condemn-out the tenant, the lease interest on the property for this
portion that was needed for the street improvements. She said the City was purchasing the
property subject to the existing lease on the property and she would need to come back and
condemn-out that portion of the lease for the street widening. She said that if the acquisition
agreement was done within the next two to four weeks, as the owner had indicated, the
documents could be reviewed by the owner and returned to Public Works and they would not be
--~ , -11
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 11
discussions were under way, he added that both the City and his family would become involved
in a costly and unnecessary legal undertaking. He explained that the City would have to draft a
complaint and file it with the court, pay court fees, attempt to obtain quarters of possession, put
up security deposits to obtain orders of process, go to the expense of serving process on his
parents, requiring his parents to file an answer. This represented significant, unnecessary effort
and expense for both parties since the City already had the makings of the deal for the
acquisition of the property, he said. If formal action on the resolution was continued, it was
probable that the parties would reach an agreement within a few weeks and all the legal
maneuvering and costs associated could be avoided. He said that the second reason he urged
Council to continue the matter was that certain requirements of law must proceed a resolution of
necessity and those had not been fully satisfied. Section 1245.230 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure required that an offer, which fully met the requirements of Section 7267.2 of the
Government Code, had been made to his parents, he said. He explained that prior to adoption
of the resolution of necessity and initiating negotiations for the acquisition, the public entity shall
establish an amount, which was compensation and would make the offer in the full amount, he
said. The public entity should provide the owner a written statement and summary of the basis
for the amount it established as just compensation, he informed. The written statement and
summary should contain details sufficient to indicate clearly the basis for the offer, he said,
including the date of valuation, highest and best use, and applicable zoning, principal
transaction, reproduction or replacement cost analysis and capitalization analysis supporting the
determination of value and where appropriate, the just compensation for the real property
acquired and for damages to remaining real property shall be separately stated and shall
include the calculations and narrative explanations supporting the compensation, including any
offsetting benefits. He said that the public entity may, but was not required to, satisfy the written
statement summary and review requirements of this section by providing the owner a copy of
the appraisal. These requirements of law had not been fully met, he said, and he had not been
provided a reproduction or replacement cost analysis and capitalization analysis supporting the
determination of value. He added that he had not been provided a copy of the calculations, a
narrative explanation supporting the compensation and had not been provided a copy of the
City's appraisal. He added that the letter he received stated that the appraiser had given full
consideration to the highest and best use of the property and all features inherent in the
property affecting its market value. He said that the letter said that the highest and best use
was as improved as a self-service car wash and he said that no narrative was presented to
support the assertion. He concluded by requesting that the matter be continued for two to four
weeks and would spare both the City and himself the cost of the legal formalities of responding
to a resolution of necessity and the requested continuance would not adversely impact the
City's street widening construction schedule. He said that the City must continue the matter or it
would be unlawful for the City to adopt the resolution of necessity until all of the conditions
specified in the new law, California Government Code Section 7267.2, had been met.
Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Civil Engineer Meeks stated that Public Works had been in discussions with property owner
regarding a full-take of the property and were moving forward on that. She said that Public
Works would still have to condemn-out the tenant, the lease interest on the property for this
portion that was needed for the street improvements. She said the City was purchasing the
property subject to the existing lease on the property and she would need to come back and
condemn-out that portion of the lease for the street widening. She said that if the acquisition
agreement was done within the next two to four weeks, as the owner had indicated, the
documents could be reviewed by the owner and returned to Public Works and they would not be
"""-",,'_"L..."t.".....,,.-""'Ir'9" fi",_,_,."",_,,""''''''-_FC_',
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 12
involved in litigation and the City would not file against them in the court and the City would just
file against the tenant interests in the property since they would no longer have an interest in the
property. She said that a two week continuance was acceptable.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to continue Item C1 for two
weeks to March 19, 2002. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of
portions of property located at 1025 West Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of conducting
roadway improvement (R/W ACQ 2001-00025) (Continued from the Council meeting of
February 26, 2002, Item C8).
176 C2. Public hearing to consider the abandonment of Ox Road, generally located west of the
Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) and east of Disneyland Drive, extending northerly from Ball
Road.
At its meeting held January 29, 2002, Item A 18, the Anaheim City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2002R-33 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets,
highways and service easements (Abandonment No. ABA 2001-00037) (Ox Road, west
of the 1-5 and east of Disneyland Drive).
Public Works Civil Engineer Natalie Meeks presented a staff report and said that the
abandonment of Ox Road was part of the acquisition agreement which the Council approved
previously with the Sheraton. She said that the City had entered into a three-way agreement
between the City, Orange County Transit Authority and the Sheraton and the Sheraton would be
acquiring the Spaghetti Station property and part of the agreement was that the City would
abandon Ox Road to consolidate all of those parcels.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to approve the CEQA Finding of
Categorically Exempt, Class 5. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to approve the Quit Claim Deed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-60 for adoption.
RESOLUTION 2002R-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS FOR ABANDONMENT NO. 2001-00037.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 4, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus and Kring.
Noes - O. Abstained - 1, Council Member Tait. Motion carried.
, 1T
l ~..
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 13
176 C3. Public hearing to consider the abandonment of a public utility easement located on the
east side of White Star Avenue between Blue Star Avenue and La Palma Avenue.
At its meeting held January 29, 2002, Item A 19, the Anaheim City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2002R-34 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets,
highways and service easements (Abandonment No. ABA2001-00049) (White Star
Avenue between Blue Star Avenue and La Palma Avenue).
Public Works Civil Engineer Natalie Meeks presented a staff report and said that the public
utility easement was no longer required by the Public Utility Department. She said that alternate
public utility easements had been dedicated to serve the property.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, closed the public hearing.
Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to approve the CEQA Finding of
Categorically Exempt, Class 5. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2002R-61 for adoption
RESOLUTION 2002R-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE
EASEMENTS FOR ABANDONMENT NO. 2001-00049.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and
Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions: None.
Council Communications:
Council Member McCracken noted that there was no meeting on March 1 ih due to the National
League of Cities meeting.
Council Member Kring announced that early detection was the key to saving lives since March
was Colon Cancer month.
Council Member Feldhaus directed staff to prepare an updated report on the golf courses and
how they were performing.
Mayor Daly directed the City Manager to report back to Council regarding negotiations
pertaining to the Dad Miller Golf Course.
Adjournment:
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Daly adjourned the
meeting at 6:35 P.M.
-'~~"''''n'''' .......-...-...-- "'-
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 5, 2002
PAGE 14
Respectfully submitted:
~~
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
___~...., . . _..,..... __.... ..,..,.._ .,.. "." ._.;....."_"...e~_..,,__.._.,,""_.,...._~~