2010/11/09ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2070
The regular City Council session of November 9, 2010 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and
adjourned to 4:30 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The November 9, 2010 regular adjourned Council
meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M. in the Chambers of Anaheim City Hall located at 200
South Anaheim Boulevard. A copy of the agenda was posted on November 5, 2010 on the
kiosk outside City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle and Council Members: Lord Galloway, Bob Hernandez, Lucille
Kring and Harry Sidhu.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Tom Wood, City Attorney Cristina Talley, and City Clerk Linda
Andal
ADDITIONSIDELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION: None
Council moved to closed session at 4:31 P.M. to consider the following items:
CLOSED SESSION:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of Case: Priceline.com, Inc., et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al.,
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30- 2009 - 00244120 and related cases.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of Case: Barry Eisenberg v. City of Anaheim et al. USDC Case No. CV09-
04581 GW (CWx).
At 5:11 P.M., City Council returned to open session.
Invocation: Bishop Ryan Christensen, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day
Saints
Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Harry Sidhu
Presentations: Honoring Anaheim residents for their service in the Armed Forces with
the Anaheim Military Banner Program - Mayor Pringle introduced those
residents and family members receiving this honor.
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Recognizing Melissa Smith, Orange Unified School District Board of
Trustees
Proclaiming November 8 -12, 2010, as Veterans Memorial Week
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 2 of 17
Representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 3172, Mr. Gary Mason accepted the
proclamation, thanking City officials for understanding the hardships of new veterans and
appreciation for past veterans evidenced by its Military Banner Program and adoption of a
military unit. He presented the City with a POW MIA flag.
Recognizing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce 2010 Business Award
recipients
At 5:32 P.M., the Anaheim Public Financing Authority, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and
Anaheim Housing Authority were called to order for a joint session public comment session with
the City Council.
ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items except public hearings):
William Fitzgerald, resident, addressed his view of the impact of Disney contributions on local
election campaigns as well as other issues.
Mr. Salim, representing the Taxi Drivers Union, disputed what he termed the unfair practice of
barring certain taxi companies from picking up guests at the Hilton and Marriott hotels in
Anaheim. He added Disney hotels were also considering exclusive taxi contracts which would
further violate the City's franchise and deprive other drivers of convention and resort traffic.
Mayor Pringle requested the City Attorney brief Council at the November 16 meeting on the
City's legal position and the taxi drivers' recourse.
James Robert Reade, resident, objected to contradictory remarks aimed at his previous
comments on gang activity within the City citing specific instances of activity and police
response.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Sidhu removed Item No's. 14 and 19 from the
consent calendar for further discussion. Mayor Pringle also pulled Item No. 15, Council Member
Kring removed Item No. 25 and Council Member Hernandez removed Item No. 27. Council
Member Galloway then moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to
adopt the balance of 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 Hernandez. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Mayor Pringle
and Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried
7. Receive and file the minutes of the Housing and Community Development Commission
meeting of September 1, 2010, Cultural and Heritage Commission meeting of
B105 September 16, 2010, Community Services Board meeting of September 16, 2010 and
Public Utilities Board meeting of September 22, 2010.
8. Accept the proposal and approve a five year agreement with ValleyCrest Golf Course
Maintenance, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,694,384, which includes a 10%
contingency, for golf course maintenance services for the first two year period with
AGR- 2784.A pricing for the remaining three years subject to limited, negotiated price changes, and
subject to Council approval the option for ten additional one -year renewals, in
accordance with RFP #7440 (Continued from Council meeting of October 26, 2010, Item
No. 09).
D155 9• Approve the Community Development Block Grant Residential Improvement Program.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 3 of 17
10. Approve the Notice of Intent with the County of Orange for animal care and shelter
AGR- 1458.K.0.2 services for the period of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.
11. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Bruce J. Solari and Johrita
B. Solari, in the acquisition payment amount of $428,500, for property located at 1640 S.
AG4 -6551 Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Widening project from Ball Road to Katella
Avenue (R/W ACQ2009- 00346).
12. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the following
AGR- 4106.VIIl.I agreements, and any other related documents, as well as take necessary actions to
implement the agreements with the City of Los Angeles to secure transmission service
4106.V.1 for a portion of Anaheim's long -term energy purchases: (i) the First Amendment to the
4106.1.A Los Angeles- Anaheim IPP Base Capacity Transmission Service Agreement, (ii) the First
Amendment to the Los Angeles- Anaheim IPP Additional Capacity Transmission Service
Agreement, and (iii) the Form of Service Agreement for Long -term Firm Point -To -Point
Transmission Service.
13. Approve a master Interconnection Agreement for net energy metering and authorize the
Public Utilities General Manager to execute the agreement, together with any revisions,
D182 modifications, or amendments thereto, and to take such actions as are necessary or
advisable to implement the agreement as may be reasonably required or expedient to
carry out the provisions and intentions of the agreement.
16. Approve an agreement, with Dudek, in an amount not to exceed $719,000, to provide
construction management services for the proposed Water Recycling Demonstration
project and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the agreement,
AGR - 5762.111 and any other related documents, and take the necessary actions to implement and
administer the agreement.
17. ORDINANCE NO. 6194 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
M142 ANAHEIM amending various sections of Chapter 10.16 of Title 10 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to address the use of recycled water.
18. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
P124 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed No. 11386).
20. Certify that the amendment to Rule 29 contained in the Electric Rates, Rules and
Regulations is statutorily exempt under CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section
R100 21080(b)(8), in accordance with Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, Section
15237(a).
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -192 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM modifying Rule No. 29 of the Electric Rates, Rules, and
Regulations for the sale and distribution of electricity as adopted by Resolution No. 71 R-
478 and most recently amended by Resolution No. 2010 -036.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 4of17
21. Certify that modifications to various rules contained in the Electric and Water Rates,
R100 Rules and Regulations are statutorily exempt under CEQA, Public Resources Code,
Section 21080(b)(8), in accordance with Title 14 of the California Administrative Code,
Section 15273(a).
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM modifying Rule Nos. 1, 7, and 9 of the Electric Rates, Rules,
and Regulations for the sale and distribution of electricity as adopted by Resolution No.
71 R -478 and most recently amended by Resolution No. 2010 -036.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -194 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM modifying Rule No. 9 of the Water Rates, Rules, and
Regulations for the sale and distribution of water as adopted by Resolution No. 72R -600
and most recently amended by Resolution No. 2010 -037.
22. ORDINANCE NO. 6195 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending sections 1.04.240, 1.04.260 and 1.04.310 of Chapter 1.04 of Title
R100 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the procurement of materials, supplies and
contractual services.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -195 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the City Manager to enter into certain agreements
for and on behalf of the City when the amount does not exceed two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars.
Approve amendments to Council Policy 4.0, regarding purchasing procedures, and
Council Policy 4.1, regarding selection of professional consultants.
23. ORDINANCE NO. 6189 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Subsection .050 of Section 7.52.050 of Chapter 7.52 to Title 7 of
M142 the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to shopping cart containment and retrieval
(Introduced at the Council meeting of October 26, 2010, Item No. 35).
24. ORDINANCE NO. 6190 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending various sections of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Zoning
C280 Code Amendment No. 2010- 00091; Introduced at the Council meeting of October 26,
2010, Item No. 38).
ORDINANCE NO. 6191 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2010 - 00239; DEV2010- 00067; Introduced
at the Council meeting of October 26, 2010, Item No. 38).
26. ORDINANCE NO. 6196 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
M142 ANAHEIM amending and restating Ordinance No. 5670 to be cited as the City of
Anaheim Maintenance Assessment District procedural ordinance.
28. Approve minutes of the Council meeting of October 26, 2010.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 5 of 17
END OF CONSENT:
14. Approve an agreement with Orange County Sanitation District regarding the Water
Recycling Demonstration project and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to
AGR- 5726.1 execute the agreement, with any revisions that are in substantial conformance with the
agreement, and any other related documents, and to take any necessary actions to
implement and administer the agreement.
15. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, USS Cal Builders, Inc., in the
amount of $6,557,376, for the Water Recycling Demonstration project and authorize the
AGR - 5762.11 Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
Item No. 14 and 15 would be considered in one action.
Marcie Edwards, Public Utilities General Manager reported there were four related items
regarding the proposed water recycling demonstration project on the agenda. Item 14 was
approval of an agreement, Item No. 15 referred to the construction contract, Item No. 16
reflected construction management services and Item No. 17 was an ordinance to amend the
City's code to allow use of recycled water.
The recycling project would demonstrate and showcase water recycling, rainwater harvesting,
and water conservation which would reduce dependence on imported water and improve water
supply reliability. She added the project would be located next to City Hall and would ultimately
recycle up to 100,000 gallons a day of water to be used for landscape irrigation as well as for
non - potable water uses such as toilet flushing in the West Anaheim Tower. She explained the
project would be housed within a building with large windows to allow for viewing of the
equipment by the public and would have easy pedestrian access as well as a courtyard and
fountain to showcase the use of recycled water. She noted construction would begin in January
and should be completed within 16 months.
Council Member Sidhu congratulated staff for promoting ways to address anticipated high future
water costs with a project that also promoted public education. Mayor Pringle explained this
project would circumvent, to some degree, an inefficient process in which Anaheim's sewage
flowed through the sewer system to Fountain Valley where it went through a treatment process
and then returned to Anaheim to be percolated into the groundwater recharge basin. This demo
project, the first in the county, would capture, reclaim, and reuse water for landscape irrigation
and to flush toilets in office buildings and was a way of addressing Anaheim's future water
needs.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve Item No. 14 and 15, seconded by Council Member
Hernandez. Ayes — 5: Mayor Pringle and Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and
Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
19. Certify that the proposed modifications to the City's Electric Rates, Rules and
Regulations are statutorily exempt under CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section
R100 21080(b)(8), in accordance with Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, Section
15273(a).
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -196 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM modifying the Rates, Rules, and Regulations for the sale and
distribution of electricity as adopted by Resolution No. 71 R -478 and most recently
amended by Resolution No. 2010 -036.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 6 of 17
Public Utilities General Manager Marcie Edwards reported this item was a recommendation to
create two new electric rate options required by recent legislation as well as a recommended
electric rate increase of five percent this year and additional five percent in 2011. She stated a
five percent interest translated to about $3.50 more per month for an average residential
customer.
SB32, she explained, mandated the Utility offer a pre- established rate to purchase power from
any renewable project located within the City the size of three megawatts or less. AB920
mandated the Utility offer all customers with solar systems the option of an annual cash
payment. Prior to this legislation, the Utility was offering a bill credit for any excess energy
delivered to the City. Both of these rates were state required, she explained, and did not result
in any significant change to what rate payers who did not choose to be on either of these rates
would pay.
The more critical proposal before Council was the increase of five percent base electricity rates
on December 1, 2010, and a subsequent increase of five percent on December 1, 2011. She
explained the business of providing electricity to consumers required considerable investment in
infrastructure, long -term power and fuel contracts as well as paying for significant legislative and
regulatory costs many of which were fixed in nature. The majority of costs did not drop when
customers used less power and the Utility received fewer revenues. Since the recession began,
revenues dropped by approximately $30 million per year and the cost of state legislated
mandates increased by roughly $45 million per year with fuel and purchase power costs
increasing significantly as well. The Department addressed this loss of revenues by eliminating
hiring, freezing wages and cutting a number of programs reducing both operating and capital
expenditures. She added the department's labor costs had been operating efficiently compared
to other agencies of similar size before the budget cuts were made, employing one person for
every 427 customers when the industry standard was one employee for every 278 customers.
After budget cuts of $20 million and using $70 million of reserves, she acknowledged, there
were few alternatives left for falling revenue with increasing and significant fixed costs.
She emphasized that staff did not take the issue of raising rates lightly, however, dwindling cash
reserves were no longer a viable option and further budget cuts would risk declines in reliable
service. She also pointed out the Utility's credit rate could be negatively impacted by further
loss of reserves which would increase interest rates when borrowing to fund system
improvement projects and could also cause risk premium charges because of diminished credit
worthiness. She added Anaheim Utility was a not - for - profit agency and recovered costs to do
business and nothing more. This rate increase would insure the Utility had the resources
necessary to continue its reliable history of service while protecting its long -term financial
viability. She added if the economy recovered more quickly than anticipated, the rate structures
were such that the Utility would be required to promptly return any over - collection to customers
in the form of a rate reduction.
Council Member Sidhu was supportive of this rate increase remarking customers had been
enjoying lower utility rates than other competitors and with this small increase, if the economy
returned quickly, rate reductions would automatically kick in. Mayor Pringle remarked this was a
plain and simple rate increase, not a tax and pointed out there was no profit based markup on
power and the Utility only recovered the cost of doing business. He added that under California
law, power utilities must purchase 20 percent more power than was needed at peak usages to
prepare for power surges in the City and also required the purchase of more green power which
was also more costly than long term coal or gas energy contracts. And now, he emphasized,
because of the recession, customers used less electricity resulting in less revenues which
caused rates to increase. He then moved to certify the proposed modifications were exempt
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 7 of 17
under CEQA and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -196 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
modifying the Rates, Rules, and Regulations for the sale and distribution of electricity as
adopted by Resolution No. 71 R -478 and most recently amended by Resolution No. 2010 -036;
seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Mayor Pringle and Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
25. ORDINANCE NO. 6192 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving an amendment to Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim
C280 Municipal Code relating to zoning and development standards (Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2008 - 00074; Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project; Introduced
at the Council meeting of October 26, 2010, Item No. 39).
ORDINANCE NO. 6193 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2008 - 00222; Revised Platinum Triangle
Expansion Project; Introduced at the Council meeting of October 26, 2010, Item No. 39).
Council Member Kring pulled this item to register a no vote consistent with the introduction of
these ordinances.
Council Member Hernandez then moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6192 OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving an amendment to Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to zoning and development standards and to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6193 OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to zoning, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call Vote: Ayes —
3: Mayor Pringle and Council Members Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes — 2: Council Members
Galloway and Kring. Motion Carried.
26. ORDINANCE NO. 6197 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
M142 ANAHEIM adding new sections, deleting sections and amending various sections of
Chapter 1.09 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to campaign reform.
Council Member Hernandez requested the City Attorney explain any possible council member
conflict of interest regarding this item. Cristina Talley, City Attorney, announced the question
before each member of the council would be whether or not there was a personal economic
interest or whether or not a decision on this item would affect personal finances such that a
member of council would not be able to vote due to a conflict of interest. The economic interest
would have to be in the amount of $250 or more in any 12 month period. There was lengthy
discussion on the conflict of interest question and whether a substitute ordinance or amended
ordinance could be considered. After this discussion, Council Members Hernandez, Galloway
and Kring remarked there could be a potential conflict of interest for them regarding this item
and left the dais.
Mayor Pringle stated that challenges within the campaign reform law had been brought to his
attention and he had then asked the City Attorney to help draft modifications which resulted in
this draft ordinance. He then asked the City Attorney if section 1.09.058.050 related to closing
campaign committees was removed from this ordinance, could the ordinance be introduced by
Mayor Pringle with the concurrence of Council Member Sidhu and would the full council be able
to consider second reading of the ordinance at the next meeting without declaring a conflict of
interest. Ms. Tally concurred. She then identified some of the changes proposed in the
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 8 of 17
ordinance remarking most were technical in nature to make the ordinance more consistent with
intent and easier to read.
With the concurrence of Mayor Pringle and Council Member Sidhu, the amended ordinance was
introduced with Section 1.09.058.050 deleted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
29. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010 -00238
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387
C280 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010 -05515
VARIANCE NO. 2010 -04815
(DEV2010- 00087)
OWNER: Donovan Anaheim, LLC, Chad Brown, Development Manager, 660 Newport
Center Drive, Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660
APPLICANT: Melia Homes, Chad Brown, Development Manager, 660 Newport Center
Drive, Suite 1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 851 and 905 South Western Avenue
The applicant proposes to: rezone this property from the Transition (T) zone to Single
Family Residential (RS -4) zone designation; establish a 32 -lot (plus 3 lettered lots)
residential subdivision; permit 32 single - family residences with certain lots having rear
yard setback areas measuring 13 -feet, 5- inches in depth; and, to allow certain lots to
maintain driveway lengths smaller than required by code.
Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been determined to serve
as the appropriate environmental impact determination for this request.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Vote: 6 -0 (Chairman Pro -Tem Agarwal and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Persaud,
Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Chairman Faessel was absent) Approved, added
conditions of approval pertaining to restricted vehicular access to and from Western
Avenue and a prohibition of on- street parking of recreational vehicles.
(Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010; appealed by resident)
MOTION: H/G Find and determine that a Negative Declaration is the
appropriate environmental determination for this request
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -197 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining that the zoning map referred to in
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code should be amended and that the boundaries of
certain zones should be changed (Reclassification No. 2010 - 00238) (DEV 2010-
00087).
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010 -05515 and
Variance No. 2010 -04815 (DEV 2010 - 00087).
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -199 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17387 (DEV 2010 - 00087).
ORDINANCE NO. 6198 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to zoning (Reclassification no. 2010 - 00238) (DEV 2010 - 00087).
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, announced this item was a request to construct 32
detached single family homes on a 3.4 acre parcel located on Western Avenue, a half block
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 9 of 17
north of Ball Road. The project was surrounded by single family homes to the north, west and
east across Western Avenue and two story apartments to the south. In September the
Planning Commission unanimously approved this request to rezone the property from the
Transition Zone to the RS4 zone and approved a tentative tract map as well as a conditional
use permit (CUP) to allow 13 of the 32 residences to have reduced rear yard setbacks and a
variance to allow 18 of the 32 residences to maintain driveway lengths shorter than required by
code. The Planning Commission's decision to approve these items was appealed by a nearby
resident and the appellant expressed several concerns regarding the project's compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood particularly in relationship to surrounding single family
homes located immediately north and west of this site. Concerns had also been expressed
regarding the environmental impact analysis (EIA) conducted by staff and the public review
process. He reported staff had carefully reviewed each of the points raised by the appellant,
and prepared a detailed written response to all of the issues raised as part of the staff report.
He provided details on the project. The RS4 zone was intended for small lots with single family
homes on infill parcels. To more easily accommodate infill development, this zone allowed
flexible development standards that could be modified through the approval of a conditional
use permit. The density of the proposed project was nine units per acre and the Planning
Commission found that the proposed zoning to be compatible with existing single family homes
to the north and approved the applicant's request to rezone this property.
Mr. Amstrup indicated the proposed project complied with all the City's development
requirements with two exceptions: the first exception related to rear yard setback
requirements. The applicant requested 13 foot 5 inch rear yard setbacks on 13 of the 32 lots,
where a 15 foot rear yard requirement would normally be required. Seven lots were proposed
to have a decreased rear yard setback adjacent to the single family homes along the north
property line and six lots would have a reduced setback along the south property line adjacent
to an existing apartment complex. The developer proposed these setbacks in order to stagger
the building footprints, creating a more visually appealing and varied streetscape rather than
designing the project with a regimented setback from the private street. The Planning
Commission found the variation in setbacks would improve the appearance of the project with
negligible impact on adjacent properties and approved the CUP including the proposed
setbacks.
The applicant also proposed to reduce driveway lengths for 18 of the 32 units when code
required 20 foot long driveways for single family residents. Eighteen of the lots were proposed
to have 18 foot long driveways which could not be modified through the CUP process and must
be considered as a variance from the zoning code. Similar to the requested rear yard setback
modification, this request would result in a varied streetscape by staggering the location of the
building footprint, adding variety to the street scene and the Planning Commission concurred
and approved this variance.
Mr. Amstrup reported that one of the major concerns raised by appellant related to traffic
impacts. According to City's criteria, a traffic impact study was not necessary because the
project would not generate more than 50 trips at one intersection during the morning and
evening peak hour or more than 100 trips total during those peak hours. It was estimated that
the project would generate 24 morning peak hour trips and 28 afternoon peak hour trips and a
traffic impact study was not required. He provided more detail regarding the Traffic Engineer's
criteria for reviewing this project.
He stated a negative declaration was prepared for this project in conformance with CEQA but
that the appellant claimed an EIR should have been prepared. According to CEQA, he added,
an EIR was required only if an agency determined there was substantial evidence that any
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 10 of 17
aspect of the project could cause significant effect on the environment. Staff's thorough
analysis felt the negative declaration was the appropriate environmental document. Mr.
Amstrup indicated other procedural issues relating to hearings had also been raised by the
appellant and addressed by staff. He recommended Council uphold the Planning
Commission's unanimous approval of the project as it was compatible with the existing and
surrounding land uses and would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
Chad Brown, Melia Homes, introduced BJ Delzer, President of Melia Homes who would
address specific points raised by adjacent property owners.
BJ Delzer, Melia Homes, remarked he understood anxiety created by an infill project to the
neighborhood and its impacts from startup to the finished product. Melia Homes had reached
out to the neighborhood and in particular to 12 homeowners to the north and west of the project
and would continue to work with them. He stated Melia intended to take architectural detailing
to a higher degree as well as landscaping enhancements. He added his firm would be willing
to work with those homeowners if it made more sense to do landscaping enhancements on
their property as Melia would have no control over the new homes once they were purchased.
He intended to be a good builder and neighbor.
Appellant, Dave Stahovich had submitted numerous documents raising many objections to the
project. He stated the project before Council was not the project recommended by the
Planning Commission and did not meet the definition of an in -fill project. He stated it was not
consistent with the neighborhood and was spot zoning. He objected to the process and
procedure used for approval of the project as not consistent with CEQA and related guidelines
and code. He felt the studies were incomplete, out of date, and did not comply with CEQA and
also did not consider cumulative impacts. He cited parking, pedestrian access, existing
drainage problems with increased runoff and the lack of a greenhouse gas study as
problematic. He then requested the project be returned to the Planning Commission to rehear
with a complete EIR included.
Victor Real, WAND, opposed the project due to density, surface runoff and insufficient parking.
Debbie Ortiz, Terranimar Drive, objected to construction work occurring on the site during
evening hours.
Carl Braucksiek, Western Avenue, objected to this project stating 32 units were too dense for
this 3.5 acre site.
Esther Wallace, WAND, opposed this project due to density, lack of guest parking, and play
area for children.
Art Stahovich, resident, opposed the project due to the high density and potential flooding
concerns.
Jerry Warner, resident, objected to the project citing parking concerns.
Mark Patton, resident, offered a powerpoint presentation pointing out those areas of concern:
traffic, noise, parking, drainage /flooding impacts, and high density in support of his opposition
to the project.
Patricia Cotter, resident, opposed the project citing traffic, accident history, and the lack of park
space for the neighborhood.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 11 of 17
Richard Ortiz, resident, also objected to the project expressing concern with the setbacks and
the number of homes proposed for that site.
Joy Patton, Terranimar resident, opposed the project because of potential light and noise
pollution along with inadequate wall height on Westchester side which was two feet lower than
the proposed project.
Eric Cernich, a partner in this project, remarked his family had been a part of the Anaheim
community for many years and suggested neighbors visit a recently completed Melia project at
the corner of Ball and Juanita consisting of 28 homes on 2.4 acres of land to alleviate their
concerns.
Rudy Juarez, resident, thanked the City for the many improvements invested in West Anaheim.
He believed a solution could be found by meeting with the developers and some of the
residents.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing
Chad Brown, applicant, stated this was a project that did have challenges in fitting into an
existing neighborhood. He added under the transitional zoning, the density allowed could have
permitted up to 44 units on the property; however, Melia Homes selected a product type and
project that would utilize only 72 percent of that allowable density. The streets were designed
for full width, 36 feet, curb to curb, where fire hydrants would not impede available on- street
parking. Regarding the issue of flooding raised, he stated current regulatory requirements now
mandated a reduction in drainage at least equal to or a reduction in the amount of water exiting
the property which they implemented in their water quality management program and plan.
The runoff water generated from storms, particularly those first flush storms would be put back
into the ground as opposed to releasing it offsite into the storm drainage system.
Mayor Pringle thanked the speakers for sharing their perspectives. He pointed out that in 2004
when the general plan allowed for corridor residential development, the community was notified
of that modification which said residential development in smaller lot subdivisions would be
allowed on this site and in fact, this property was entitled to develop 13 units per acre under the
code and could be developed with 44 total units. He considered the project to be compatible
with the area, with a higher density development on the south, lower density on the north and
west and this parcel as a transition between those other properties. He added this project was
also consistent with WAND's input on a variety of projects to build single family detached for
sale homes, not rental, not apartments, and not attached units. He also remarked the variance
was for 18 foot driveways on some of the units instead of 20 foot driveways which would not
diminish the amount of off street parking. Mayor Pringle indicated he would support the actions
of the Planning Commission in this matter.
After some discussion, Council Member Sidhu was supportive of this project finding there was
no requirement for a traffic or greenhouse study, and that there was adequate space for refuse
pickup without impacting on street parking. Council Member Galloway confirmed the projected
range for sale of these homes was comparable with the value of the existing neighborhood
homes. Council Member Kring disagreed with the proposed density and recommended the
project be reviewed and to consider a reduction in the numbers of homes to be built. Council
Member Hernandez confirmed this project was the same project considered by the Planning
Commission and the only change was reflected in the negative declaration and initial study to
address questions raised about traffic and soil conditions on the site.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 12 of 17
Council Member Hernandez moved to find and determine that a Negative Declaration was
appropriate environmental determination; to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -197 OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining that the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code should be amended and that the boundaries of certain zones should
be changed; to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -198 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2010 -05515 and Variance No. 2010- 04815; to approve
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -199 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No.
17387; and to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6198 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending
the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning;
seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 4: Mayor Pringle and Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes — 1: Council Member Kring. Motion Carried.
30. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010 -00092
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010 -05518
C280 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010 -00071
(DEV2010- 00128)
OWNER: John Knaak, Knaak Family Trust, 4016 Crown Ranch Road, Corona, CA
92881
APPLICANT: Mike Ayaz, Law Office of Ricke Blake, 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106,
Santa Ana, 92706
LOCATION: 2162 West Lincoln Avenue
The applicant proposes a zoning code amendment to allow the expansion of a legal
non - conforming use within the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone.
The applicant also requests approval of a conditional use permit and determination of
public convenience or necessity to allow the expansion of an existing legal non-
conforming bar.
Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (Existing
Facilities).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Vote: 3 -2 to deny requested actions (Chairman Pro -Tem Agarwal and Commissioners
Karaki and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Persaud and Seymour voted no.
Chairman Faessel and Commissioner Ament were absent)
(Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010; appealed by owner)
MOTION: Uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny Zoning
Code Amendment No. 2010 - 00092.
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2010 -05518 (DEV 2010-
00128).
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denying Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
No. 2010- 00071(DEV 2010- 00128).
OR
MOTION: K/S Find and determine that a Class 1 - Categorical Exemption is the
appropriate environmental determination for this request.
ORDINANCE NO. 6199 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Subsection .020 of Section 18.22.040 of Chapter 18.22 of Title 18
of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to nonconforming uses.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 13 of 17
MOTION: K/S Continue the public hearing related to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2010 -05518 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-
00071 to the November 16, 2010 City Council meeting for further Council action.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Department, reported this item was an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny the expansion of the Bottoms -Up Tavern located in the
Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay zone (BCC). The BCC overlay zone was approved in
1999 following adoption of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridor's redevelopment project
area in 1993. The overlay zone and associated redevelopment plan were intended to
encourage the replacement of aging mid -block strip commercial uses with new residential
developments, encourage new commercial development at key intersections and discourage
land uses considered undesirable or blighted. He stated that one of the blight findings made
during the establishment of the redevelopment project area related to the heavy concentration
of alcohol related businesses in the neighborhood and to address this overconcentration issue,
the BCC overlay zone prohibited new alcohol businesses including bars and cocktail lounges,
liquor stores, nightclubs and convenience markets with alcohol sales. It also prohibited new
massage parlors, pawn shops and sex - oriented businesses that could be allowed in other
areas of the city and prohibited the expansion of these businesses including bars that could
have been established prior to the adoption of the overlay zone. Such businesses, he added,
would be considered legal, nonconforming, in that they were legally established before the
rules were changed in 1999 and Bottoms Up was considered a legal nonconforming use
because the tavern was in existence at the time the overlay zone was adopted.
He stated the prohibition against the expansion of legal non - conforming uses in this zone was
unique in that nonconforming uses within all other areas of the city were allowed one time
expansions of ten percent or 1,000 square feet, whichever was less. The intent of the
prohibition was to encourage continued development consistent with the adopted
redevelopment plan and the City's larger vision for the West Anaheim area. Mr. Amstrup
pointed out there were currently 34 businesses with liquor licenses in this zone and in 1998 the
BBC redevelopment project area was adopted and took in most of the remaining West
Anaheim commercial corridors outside of Brookhurst Street. These two areas were later
merged into the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment area, and the merged
area was adopted to address blighted conditions that existed at the time, including
incompatible land uses, deteriorated and obsolete buildings and high crime rate. The BCC
overlay zone contained five existing bars on 156 acres of commercial land. The Beach
Boulevard Corridors Redevelopment project area which had 174 acres of commercial land,
contained only three bars. Over the past 10 years, Mr. Amstrup reported the agency had
invested $72 million in the West Anaheim commercial corridors area in an effort to eliminate
blighted conditions and barriers to reinvestment and included infrastructure upgrades,
streetscape enhancements, a new West Anaheim community center and retail investment
including the Westgate Shopping Center now under construction.
The code amendment proposed by the applicant, he explained, would permit all nonconforming
uses within the BCC overlay zone, including bars, to expand subject to approval of a
conditional use permit. In response to questions raised during the Planning Commission
hearing on this item, staff reviewed all the existing bar locations within the corridor in order to
determine if they had the potential to expand and confirmed all of them had the ability to
expand. He added the Redevelopment Agency invested in retail development in this area
including a retail center anchored by Home Depot near the 1 -5 freeway and the Agency also
continued to encourage new residential development in the area and since the redevelopment
plan was adopted, six new residential developments with 420 units had been built in the
corridor. One of these residential neighborhoods was a single family neighborhood south of
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 14 of 17
the project site and another to the east. He remarked staff believed if the vision was to attract
new development, especially new residential development, the prohibition on expansion of
nonconforming uses needed to be maintained.
In addition to requesting a zone code amendment to allow nonconforming uses to expand
within this overlay zone, the applicant was also requesting approval of a conditional use permit
(CUP) to allow the proposed bar expansion by increasing the 1,460 square feet of non-
conforming bar to 2,695 square feet which was a 1,235 square foot expansion. He explained
the Code required 52 parking spaces and the site contained only 23 spaces. A parking
variance was not requested because the applicant would enter into a shared parking
agreement to provide the required number of parking spaces off site. Offsite agreements, he
noted, could be approved by staff when an adjacent property had more parking spaces that
were required by code or had businesses with different hours that would allow sharing. The
owner of the property also owned the dentist office on the property to the west and intended to
use 22 spaces to provide a total of 44 spaces. If this off -site parking agreement was approved
eight additional spaces would still need to be attained through a shared parking agreement with
another nearby property or apply for parking variance.
The adjacent dental office parking lot which the applicant proposed to use was locate within 10-
15 feet of the adjacent 2 -story single family homes which had windows overlooking this parking
area. During the review of the CUP, the Commission determined that the proximity of these
homes to the proposed parking area would be problematic due to the noise created by voices,
car stereos, alarms and engine noise during late night hours and allowing bar patrons to use
this parking area would also be contrary to one of the primary goals of the existing
redevelopment plan which was to encourage land use compatibility within the Brookhurst
Corridor area. It is this type of compatibility issue, he added, that was the basis for the existing
overlay zone restrictions. Currently the small size of the bar helped to insure parking and
outdoor activities were confined to the front of the business along Lincoln Avenue and because
of this few complaints had been generated. Mr. Amstrup remarked that the Planning
Commission determined that expansion of the bar and bar parking area would result in
additional noise impacts to the adjacent single family homes.
Lastly, the applicant was also requesting approval of a determination of public convenience or
necessity or PCN as required by state law when an alcoholic sales license was requested for a
property within a police reporting district with a crime rate above the city average or when there
was an overconcentration in the number of licenses in a census tract.
Mr. Amstrup ended his presentation recommending Council uphold the Commission's denial of
the expansion as being inconsistent with the goal of the areas' redevelopment plan and
possibly serving to intensify land uses which has been deemed a blighting influence in the
area. The Planning Commission also determined that although this business operated in a
responsible manner, if the code amendment was approved, it would allow for other bars or
nonconforming uses to seek expansion to the detriment of the surrounding community. He
added if Council believed the code amendment allowing expansion was appropriate, staff
would continue to recommend that the associated CUP and PCN request be denied on the
basis that the proposed expansion would likely result in a substantial negative impact to the
adjacent homes.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
Mike Ayaz, attorney speaking for the applicant, offered a detailed explanation of why the
expansion should be approved. He explained the request was to amend the code to allow
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 15 of 17
businesses to come before the Planning Commission based on individual merits. To date, his
client had spent $23,000 in city fees, $25,000 in architectural and attorney fees and was
planning on spending another $200,000 to remodel the building. His efforts, he explained
would not only benefit the surrounding property but would also be the type of redevelopment
this area was lacking. He added his client had operated the tavern for nine years and was a
model business citizen, responsible to the community and his employees. He pointed out no
objections had been raised by the nearby community, but were from WAND activists who lived
miles from the site.
Ricke Blake, applicant's attorney, stated current restrictions on existing bars being prohibited
from expanding contradicted the City's vision for economic development of the general plan to
retain, expand and diversity the economic basis of the City, attract new industries and
employment with business friendly climates, and to revitalize Anaheim's major corridors to
provide an attractive setting for business community and introduce or expand retail operations
or opportunities in the city. His client was asking to expand a successfully operated business
and was asking to do this through a conditional use permit process which provided for
conditions under which he must operate.
Esther Wallace, WAND, remarked members of the community had spent much time before the
Planning Commission and the Council to do away with some of these businesses. She
objected to the proliferation of alcohol related businesses and the precedent setting aspect in
expanding this business.
Jerry White, owner, detailed his operation, remarking he had worked hard to provide a
comfortable friendly atmosphere, with zero drug tolerance. He stated it took him two years to
change his clientele after he purchased the tavern nine years ago to the friendly neighborhood
atmosphere the Bottoms Up patrons enjoyed.
James McKenzie, resident, objected to the project on the grounds it should adhere to
redevelopment requirements and would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
Beverly Sheldon, resident, indicated this area had improved greatly by development in the BCC
overlay zone and saw no reason to change those development guidelines.
Victor Real, resident, opposed this project citing parking issues, crime rate statistics and a
proliferation of alcohol related businesses in this area.
Susan B., 210 Broadview Street, spoke against this project remarking she did not want to the
progress made in West Anaheim stop by approving this request.
John Knaak, landlord, supported this project, remarking he was unable to lease these buildings
as they lacked appropriate parking and it made sense to allow for expansion of a successful
operation.
Reverend Lou Sheldon opposed this expansion citing precedent and long -term impacts to the
neighborhoods.
Patricia Cotter, resident, remarked she had spent considerable time in getting the BCC overlay
zone passed in order to make this area a better place for residents and encouraged Council to
not make an exception with this expansion.
Linda Kanske, Kanske Properties, opposed the expansion because she feared having her
parking lot being used by overflow patrons of the bar.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 16 of 17
Bob Walker, resident, recommended denial of the expansion believing that the variance would
allow conditions to change and have a negative impact on the corridor.
Irma Ramirez, resident, stated her neighborhood was heavily impacted with liquor businesses
and requested the expansion of this business be denied.
Dr. Bart D. resident, opposed the expansion, stating the neighborhood would benefit from
family type businesses.
Wendy Walker, resident, opposed the expansion, and asked that the marijuana collectives and
cigarette -sh i s- ie -of -prohibited - businesses in the e- overlayy zone.
Offering rebuttal, Mike Ayaz indicated the fagade of the building would be remodeled as well as
the interior. He pointed out the bar was not being expanded to use the four suites available in
the building, as part of that would be used for storage and the expanded half of the tavern
would not be open until 6 P.M., when parking at the adjacent dental office would then become
available.
Mayor Pringle stated he felt some of the terms of the overlay zone were too restrictive. With
that being said, he did have a concern about setting a precedent for other business within in
the BCC overlay zone to expand. He asked city staff if there was a way to allow expansion of a
legal non - conforming alcohol serving business in the BCC overlay zone and limit its precedent
setting characteristics either by occupancy level or by another method. Discussion was held
on this issue. Mayor Pringle explained he was leaning toward the direction of allowing a good
business operator to expand while limiting future impacts on the BCC overlay zone. Council
Member Kring stated she would also support this expansion as it was a thriving neighborhood
business. She added she had voted for the BCC overlay zone when it was adopted but had
also approved exceptions to the overlay zone such as gas stations which needed the ability to
sell beer and wine in order to get financing for their business. Council Member Hernandez did
not support this expansion request stating the overlay zone was adopted to clean up blighted
conditions and he felt there was no need to amend that plan and open the door for further
complications. Council Member Sidhu supported this request, asking the applicant to make
sure improvements to the exterior of the building was included and that the parking lots were
landscaped and seal coated and patrons were monitored as they left the premises. Council
Member Galloway indicated she would vote against this request as it was a personal issue for
her.
Ms. Vander Dussen suggested the categorical exemption should reflect a certain square
footage so that the maximum allowable opportunity to expand would be limited to no more than
100 percent of the existing size and also suggested that a business that presently held an on-
sale liquor license would have a one time opportunity to double their square footage provided
they expanded into an existing building as opposed to building a new structure and that they
would be required to upgrade the exterior facilities of that building through the CUP process.
Council Member Hernandez asked what the impact of that motion would have on the overlay
zone with Mayor Pringle responding there were presently five on -site alcohol licenses in this
area which could expand under a CUP process, pointing out that ability was available to those
five businesses only, not to new businesses.
As a point of clarification, Ms. Tally asked if Council wished to introduce an ordinance that
would modify the BCC overlay zone with the terms and conditions discussed this evening. If
so, the ordinance before Council would be amended this evening and return for adoption at the
November 16 meeting. Mayor Pringle concurred and also recommended the approval of the
CUP for this tavern return at the same time with detailed conditions that addressed all issues
raised along with the findings for the PCN.
Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2010
Page 17 of 17
Council Member Kring moved to find and determine that a Class 1- Categorical Exemption was
the appropriate environmental determination for this request and to introduce ORDINANCE
NO. 6199 as amended, amending Subsection .020 of Section 18.22.040 of Chapter 18.22 of
Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to nonconforming uses and to continue the
public hearing related to CUP #2010 -05518 and Determination of Public Convenience of
Necessity No. 2010- 000071 to the November 16, 2010 Council meeting for further action.
Ayes — 4: Mayor Pringle and Council Members: Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes — 1:
Council Member Galloway. Motion Carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions: None
Council Communications:
Council Member Hernandez announced the 4" Annual Disability Forum to be held on November
17 at the convention center. Purpose is to bring elected officials, housing stakeholders and the
public to discuss housing needs for persons with disabilities. In addition to Veterans' Day
Celebration to be held on November 10 at City Hall, other Veteran's Day events were
highlighted. He requested staff place an item on next week's agenda to consider the renaming
of a city park to Ronald Reagan Park in commemoration of President Reagan's 100
anniversary. Ask staff to review possible park naming options to bring back at the next meeting.
Council Member Galloway recognized City employee, Karen Vera, City Administration.
Council Member Kring announced the Veterans' Day Celebration to be held on November 10
inviting the community to attend. She congratulated Mayor -elect Tom Tait and Council
Members -elect Kris Murray and Gail Eastman. She spoke of Anaheim resident, Bill Weaver,
who would be participating in the Senior Olympics being conducted in several Orange County
cities.
Council Member Sidhu attended a groundbreaking ceremony for Jamboree Housing Greenleaf
Development, a 100 percent affordable housing project and the grand opening of the newest
public park in the Colony Historic District, a tribute Anaheim's great historical background and
future. He also congratulated Tom Morton for receiving LEED certification for the Anaheim
Convention Center, only one of 14 nationwide that won this distinction.
Mayor Pringle congratulated newly elected Mayor Tom Tait, Council Members Kris Murray and
Gail Eastman and Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustee, Jordan Brandman.
Adjournment: At 10:14 P.M., with no other business to conduct, Mayor Pringle adjourned the
November 9, 2010 council session.
Res tfully submitted,
Linda N. Andal, CMC
City Clerk