2011/02/15ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011
The February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council was called to order at 3:00
P.M. and adjourned to 4:00 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of
February 15, 2011 was called to order by Mayor Tait at 4:06 P.M. in the Chambers of Anaheim
City Hall located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. A copy of the agenda was posted on
February 11, 2011 on the kiosk outside City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Gail Eastman, Lorri Galloway, Kris Murray
and Harry Sidhu.
STAFF`PRESENT: City Manager Tom Wood, City Attorney Cristina Talley, and City Clerk Linda
Andal
ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION: None
Council moved to closed session to consider the following items:
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the Government Code)
Agency designated representative: Kristine Ridge
Name of employee organizations: Anaheim Police Association, Anaheim Municipal
Employees' Association - General and Clerical, Anaheim Fire Association, and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section
54956.9 (three cases)
At 5:14 P.M., Council session was reconvened.
Invocation: Pastor Roger Frick, Zion Lutheran Church
Flag Salute: Council Member Lord Galloway
Presentations: Department of Defense Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Award
to Police Chief Welter and Captain Michael Aquino
Mayor Tait introduced Captain Gil Flores who presented Police Chief John Welter and Captain
Michael Aquino each with the Employer Support award and the Seven Seals Award for their
patriotic support of Anaheim employees who served in the National Guard or Reserves.
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 2 of 15
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Proclaiming February 20 -26, 2011, as Engineering Week
Recognizing the Chamber of Commerce Women's Division Spotlight on
Youth recipients
AT 5:23 P.M., Mayor Tait called to order the Anaheim Public Financing Authority, Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority (in joint session with the City Council).
ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items except public hearings):
Carolyn Carpenter, Anaheim Family YMCA, announced the YMCA 100 anniversary and
annual fundraising campaign was scheduled for February 24 at the Anaheim Garden Walk,
and invited the community to attend.
Peter Comiskey, Anaheim Muzeo, announced the Green Impacts program at the Muzeo, a
contest for Anaheim youths to convert trash to art, create a video and present it on line for the
People's Choice and Judge's award. He added this was possible through a partnership with the
Anaheim Department of Public Works with monetary awards given in a number of categories.
Mr. Gordon encouraged City staff to contact him regarding gang problems.
Jewel Hodges, resident, encouraged Council's approval of Item No. 10, the award of historic
street lights for three streets in the historic district. She explained residents had been working
on the project for three years and were grateful for Council's support.
Carol Latham, Anaheim Arts Council, reported on the success of the Art Crawl stating over
1,500 people had attended and announced the dates of the next crawl, which would become a
quarterly event.
James Robert Reade, resident, identified Anaheim street gang names and locations urging
persistent police oversight.
Robert Fill offered his views on combating neighborhood impacts of medical marijuana
dispensaries.
CITY COUNCIL /ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JOINT PUBLIC HEARING:
7. This is a joint public hearing among the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the
Anaheim City Council to consider resolutions regarding a Disposition and Development
AGR.6669 Agreement by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Brookfield Olive
Street 111, LLC, for Phase IV of the Colony Park development.
City Council Action:
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Disposition and Development Agreement with
Brookfield Olive Street III, LLC, and making certain findings in connection therewith.
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 3 of 15
Executive Director Elisa Stipkovich explained a joint public hearing was necessary under
California law for redevelopment agencies disposing of property and requiring action by all
governing bodies involved. Item No. 7 was a recommendation to approve a disposition and
development agreement (DDA) with Brookfield Homes for Colony Park IV, the last phase of a
40 -acre neighborhood development in downtown Anaheim. She reported when this 12 acre
site became available; the former City Council authorized a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Twelve proposals were then received by the City and three developers interviewed. Ms.
Stipkovich stated Brookfield had submitted the top proposal which included the highest land
price to be offered at about $20.4 million.
This October, she stated, Council had approved entering into an exclusive right to negotiate with
Brookfield for Colony Park, Phase IV and as a result of that negotiation; a final DDA was before
Council to complete this 12 acre site proposed for 226 condominiums and townhomes. The
purchase price, she pointed out, was above fair market value for this site resulting from an
independent appraisal authorized by the City and a projection of future tax increment that
should be collected over the redevelopment project area life span was anticipated to be close to
$22 million. The Agency had already expended about $22.3 million through acquisition,
remediation and removal of buildings on this site and when added to the purchase price of
$20.3 million, net revenue of over $20 million was anticipated. She noted the developers were
also required to include a 25 percent affordable housing component, 10 percent low and 15
percent moderate, and staff projected there would be about 75 units that would qualify as
affordable due to the sales prices expected for the units. She added the Agency was also being
asked to commit $8 million in funds to be made available for down payment assistance for
individuals purchasing homes in that new project.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing.
John O'Brien, Brookfield Homes, remarked his firm had started working on Colony Park in 2005
and with the Agency's cooperation, assembled the south portion of Colony Park and began
construction. He added Brookfield was completing the vision of redevelopment and fulfilling the
goals of the General Plan in creating what was incompatible and underutilized uses at the old
Quickset site and turning it into residential. Phase I and II were now complete with 270 homes,
Phase III was underway with two models in construction scheduled for opening in May, 2011;
and Phase IV would begin within the next 12 to 14 months. He added the entire Colony Park
would build out with 670 homes under a single homeowners association and Brookfield strongly
believed in the success of downtown Anaheim.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Sidhu moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. NO. 2011 -015 A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Brookfield Olive Street III, LLC, and making certain findings in
connection therewith, seconded by Council Member Murray. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Mayor
Tait and Council Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
At 5:57 P.M., the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was adjourned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Tait declared a potential conflict of interest regarding Item
No.'s 12 and 13 and would record an abstention on those items. Mayor Pro Tern Sidhu then
moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the consent
calendar in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
council member and as listed on the balance of the consent calendar, seconded by Council
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 4of15
Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Mayor Tait and Council Members: Galloway,
Eastman, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried
8. Receive and file minutes of the Community Services Board meeting of October 14, 2010
B105 and the Cultural and Heritage Commission meeting of November 18, 2010.
D117 9. Approve the Investment Portfolio Report for January 2011.
10. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, PTM General Engineering Services,
AGR.6670 Inc., in the amount of $371,302, for the street lighting project on Pine, Janss and Resh
Streets and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining
to contract retentions.
11. Approve the Agreement for Offset to Potential Lost Rent with Tin Truong and Diana
Truong, authorizing monthly lease payments in the amount of $2,000, for property
AGR.6671 located at 1606 South Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Widening from Ball
Road to Katella Avenue project (R/W ACQ2009- 00354).
12. Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by Lennar Platinum Triangle
Partners, LLC, that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and
AGR.3750 conditions of Development Agreement No. 2005 -00008 for the 2010 -2011 review period
for the A -Town Metro project in the Platinum Triangle.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 4: Council Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes
— 0. Abstention —1: Mayor Tait (Abstention due to potential conflict of interest)
13. Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by Platinum Triangle Partners, LLC,
that it has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development
AGR.5026 Agreement No. 2006 -00002 for the 2010 -2011 review period A -Town Stadium project in
the Platinum Triangle.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 4: Council Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes
— 0. Abstention — 1: Mayor Tait (Abstention due to potential conflict of interest)
14. Determine, on the basis of the evidence submitted by New Urban West Inc., that the
AGR.4829 property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development
Agreement No. 2006 -00004 for the 2010 -2011 review period for the Experience at Gene
Autry Way in the Platinum Triangle.
15. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of Public Works or designee to submit
thirteen improvement project(s) grant applications to the Orange County Transportation
R100 Authority for funding under the M2 Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program
(Grant) on behalf of the City of Anaheim, and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of
such grant on behalf of the City and amending the budget for fiscal year accordingly.
Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute any cooperative agreements with the
Orange County Transportation Authority to accept the grants, and increase the
Department's revenue and expenditure appropriation by a commensurate amount in the
fiscal year when the grants are awarded.
16. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -017 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
R100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the borrowing from its low and moderate income
housing fund for the purpose of paying the Redevelopment Agency's Supplemental
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 5 of 15
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) payment for fiscal year 2010 -11 and
making certain findings in pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33690.5 (related
to Agency Item No. 05).
17, RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
R100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the purchase of a portion of Assessor's Parcel
Number 365- 481 -13 and to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with Prado Ridge
Estates Homeowners Association.
18. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
R100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than
two years old (Convention Center, Sports and Entertainment).
19. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
R100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than
two years old (Police Department).
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
20. Consider an appointment to fill an unscheduled vacancy on the Sister City Commission,
term ending June 30, 2013.
B105
APPOINTMENT: Laurie Leonard
(vacancy of Henri Soucy)
Council Member Eastman nominated Laurie Leonard to the Sister City Commission, seconded
by Council Member Murray. No other nominees were offered and Ms. Leonard was
unanimously approved (5 -0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
21. This is a public hearing to consider adoption of an urgency ordinance to extend
Ordinance No. 6202 which imposes a moratorium on the establishment of medical
M142 marijuana dispensaries.
ORDINANCE NO. 6204 (ADOPTION) AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM extending Ordinance No. 6202 adopting an interim measure imposing a
moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries and declaring that
this ordinance is an emergency measure which shall take effect immediately (A copy of
the full text of the proposed Ordinance is available for review in the Office of the City
Clerk).
Cristina Talley, City Attorney, reported this matter was before Council following actions taken on
January 18 when Council adopted an Interim ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on
the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. That ordinance was set to expire on
March 4 th unless extended by Council prior to that date. On January 18 Ms. Talley remarked,
Council directed staff to take a look at medical dispensaries in Anaheim to determine whether or
not they should be allowed in the City and if so, the types of regulations that would be
appropriate. Since that time, staff looked at various related issues such as location, the nature
and extent of secondary effects, whether or not regulations were suitable if they were allowed in
the City and the types of regulations, if allowed. That study process, she added, was still
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 6 of 15
underway and additional time was needed before bringing a recommendation back to Council
which was why this ordinance to extend the moratorium was needed.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comment and receiving none, closed the hearing.
Mayor Pro Tern Sidhu moved to adopt ORDINANCE No. 6204 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM extending Ordinance No. 6202 adopting an interim measure imposing
a moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries and declaring that this
ordinance is an emergency measure which shall take effect immediately, seconded by Council
Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Mayor Tait and Council Members: Eastman,
Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried.
22. CONTINUED PUBLIC RE- HEARING.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010 -00238
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010 -05515
C280 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: This 3.39 acre property is located at 851 & 905 South Western Avenue,
approximately 165 feet south of the centerline of Teranimar Drive.
The applicant proposes to: rezone this property from the Transition (T) zone to Single
Family Residential (RS -4) zone designation; establish a 32 -lot 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:
Approved Vote: 6 -0 (Chairman Pro -Tem Agarwal and Commissioners Ament, Karaki,
Persaud, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Chairman Faessel absent) with 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 David Stahovich)
ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
Approved Vote: 4 -1 (Mayor Pringle and Council Members Galloway, Hernandez and
Sidhu voted yes; Council Member Kring voted no) (Council meeting of November 9,
2010)
(request for re- hearing submitted by David Stahovich and granted on December 14,
2010)(continued from Council meeting of January 11, 2011, Item No. 16)
MOTION: Find and determine that a Negative Declaration is the
appropriate environmental determination for this request.
RESOLUTION NO. 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).
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 7 of 15
RESOLUTION NO. 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. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17387 (DEV 2010 - 00087).
ORDINANCE NO. (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).
Sherri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported this was a rehearing of a prior decision by
the Council to approve a residential development in West Anaheim. The applicant, Melia
Homes, proposed to construct 32 detached single family homes on a 3.4 acre parcel located
on Western Avenue with single family homes to the north, west and east across Western
Avenue and two -story apartments to the south. She stated the Planning Commission
unanimously approved this project last September and in accordance with CEQA adopted a
negative declaration as the project did not result in negative impacts to the environment. Their
decision to approve this project was appealed by a nearby resident, and after holding a public
hearing, City Council upheld the Commission's decision in November, 2011. As part of its
action approving the project, Ms. Vander Dussen announced, Council adopted a revised
negative declaration that included an expanded discussion of traffic impacts and response to
comments received at the Commission hearing which did not affect the earlier conclusion the
project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Following Council's approval, the appellant requested Council rehear this matter, the rehearing
request was granted in December and a public hearing date of January 11 was set. A few
days before this hearing date, Ms. Vander Dussen explained the appellant submitted a letter
questioning the project's density and claiming air quality, hydrology and water quality analysis
in the negative declaration were inadequate. In order to allow staff time to respond to these
concerns, the January 11 public hearing was continued to February 15, 2011. During this
continuance period, she added, the negative declaration was revised to analyze the appellant's
claims, with no significant effects upon air quality, hydrology or water quality identified. She
also emphasized that each of the issues identified by the appellant were properly addressed
and properly analyzed.
Ms. Vander Dussen stated Melia Homes proposed to develop 32 detached homes which
required rezoning the property from the Transition zone to RS -4 zone intended for small
lot/single family homes on in -fill parcels. She indicated the General Plan (GP) designated this
site for corridor residential uses intended to encourage attached housing including townhomes
and condominiums along arterial streets such as Western Avenue and allowed for a density of
up to 13 residential units per gross acre while the RS -4 zoning had a lower density limit of up to
11 units per "net acre and emphasizing the applicant proposed to develop single at a density of
9 units per gross acre. She explained the Municipal Code determined net density versus gross
density by deducting the area used for vehicular circulation on a private street from the overall
site area. She further explained that questions relative to the project's consistency with this
standard arose as the original exhibits calculated net density by deducting all easements,
including the private street and adjacent parkways and sidewalks from the gross area. Those
exhibits had now been updated showing the project complied with the density limits of the
proposed RS -4 zoning.
To accommodate infill development, Ms. Vander Dussen stated the RS -4 zone allowed flexible
development standards that could be modified through a conditional use permit process and
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 8 of 15
the project complied with all of the City's development requirements with two exceptions: rear
yard setbacks and driveway lengths. She announced the developer requested 13.5 foot rear
yard setbacks on 13 of the 32 lots when a 15 foot setback was required as staggering setbacks
along the street created a more visually appealing streetscape. Both the Planning Commission
and previous City Council concurred with that modification. In addition, a reduction in the
required 20 -foot driveway lengths to 18 feet for 18 of the 32 units was requested in order to
add further variety to the street scene, a standard that was used by several other Orange
County communities and would not have vehicles encroaching into the sidewalk. She added
the Commission and Council had found that this variance was justified by the development
limitations posed by the narrow width of the site and approved the request.
She stated the appellant also maintained that the proposed development did not fit into the
existing neighborhood; however both Planning Commission and City Council found that the
proposed residences would be compatible with the surrounding community. She then
identified the specific areas of compatibility as this site offered a transition in density between
the apartment communities to the south and single family residents to the north. in addition the
proposed homes would be two feet lower than the maximum height permitted in the RS -4 zone
and at least seven feet lower than the height permitted on adjacent properties.
Traffic impact was another concern raised by the appellant with Ms. Vander Dussen pointing
out a traffic study was required when a project generated more than 50 trips in one intersection
during the morning and afternoon peak hours or if the project generated 100 total trips during
the morning or afternoon peak hour and this project did not trigger the threshold for the need
for a traffic study. Concerns had also been raised regarding line of sight from the proposed
cul -de -sac to Terranimar Street with traffic engineering staff determining that the installation of
the cul -de -sac would not pose a traffic hazard to the area or conflict with the existing
intersection. Even though not required per City standards, she remarked, the Commission
added a condition of approval restricting access to this site to right turn -in and right turn -out
movement in response to community concerns raised at the hearing. She added that the
proposed improvements would align with the existing sidewalk and improve circulation and
visibility.
Prior to consideration of this project by the Planning Commission, Ms. Vander Dussen
remarked staff had prepared a preliminary analysis of this project's potential environmental
impacts. This preliminary analysis or initial Study was the basis for the adoption of a Negative
Declaration showing no significant impact on the environment. The appellant maintained that
at a minimum a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR) should
have been prepared for this project, however, she explained that following a thorough analysis
of the project's potential environmental impacts, staff concluded that a negative declaration
was the appropriate environmental document for this project and no EIR was needed or
appropriate. She also stated the appellant raised concerns about the noticing for hearings on
this project responding that all notices were done pursuant to state law and the city's regulation
regarding mailing and posting on or around the project site.
Other concerns raised by the appellant addressed storm drainage and fear that flooding would
occur in the back yards of adjacent homes and overwhelm existing street drains. She stated
the drainage study originally used in preparing the Initial Study analyzed the flow of water
across the site, including water flowing onto the site from adjacent properties and the capacity
of storm drains in the area and concluded storm water from neighboring homes and the project
site could adequately be collected and conveyed to public storm drains and that the storm
drains had adequate capacity to handle water. She added this type of analysis did not contain
the level of detail necessary to issue permits for grading and construction and based on
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 9 of 15
Council approval of this project, the applicant had subsequently prepared the required final
drainage study in anticipation of obtaining construction permits. This study was now reviewed
and approved by the Public Works Department and confirmed the proposed on -site storm
drains and the existing off -site drains would adequately drain storm water from this site and the
neighboring properties and that the project would not result in the flooding of nearby streets.
She noted that as this final study was available; the Negative Declaration was revised
incorporating the drainage study into the document.
She indicated the appellant's attorney also indicated the initial Study did not adequately
analyze air quality and green house gas emission impacts that could result form this project
and requested additional analysis be performed using a computer model known as URBEMIS.
Ms. Vander Dussen pointed out staff ran this model and examined both the short-term
construction related impacts and the long term operational impacts. The findings demonstrated
that the projected impacts to air quality were well below the threshold established by South
Coast Air Quality Management District and this project had less than significant contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions. The additional analysis confirmed the conclusions in the original
negative declaration that the air quality impacts were less than significant.
The appellant's attorney also stated the applicant failed to prepare a mandatory noise analysis
for this project with Ms. Vander Dussen pointing out Anaheim's Zoning Code did require the
preparation of noise analysis for new residential subdivisions located within 600 feet of an
arterial highway like Western Avenue. The purpose of this analysis was to ensure the project
was designed to comply with the City's noise standards. Exterior noise levels within private
yard areas could not exceed 65 decibels and within the interior of the home, could not exceed
45 decibels, measured on a complicated weighting scale that penalized noise in the night time.
The appellant maintained the study should have been submitted at the time the project was
filed for the Planning Commission, however, unless the site was located in an area where
exterior noise was expected to be greater than 65 decibels, the City's practice was to require
this analysis when applications for buildings permits were submitted. This allowed staff to
better evaluate interior noise levels based on the actual construction drawings for a
development. With respect to exterior noise levels, the General Plan analyzed future
anticipated noise levels along arterials and concluded noise levels would be less than 65
decibels at build -out of the City along this portion of Western Avenue which meant no outdoor
mitigation would be required for the project. She added that modern construction standards
typically reduced exterior noise levels by 20 to 40 decibels within a home so it was safe to
conclude the applicant could demonstrate that interior noise levels within these homes would
be below the 45 decibel limit. The appellant also raised concerns about the design of the
project's private street maintaining it did not comply with City standards. As proposed, nearly
the entire length of the street would be 36 feet wide with parallel parking on both sides. This
width fully complied with the City's private street standard. As permitted by the Code, the City
Engineer approved one modification to the City's private street standards in order to allow the
use of landscaped bulb -outs at six locations. Even at these six points, the minimum required
travel lane within 24 feet would be maintained insuring unobstructed traffic flow. These bulb -
outs were also designed to insure that water flow could occur as required.
She ended her presentation stating staff recommended Council uphold the Planning
Commission and City Council's previous approvals of the proposed project explaining that all of
the issues raised by the appellant and other members of the public were thoroughly analyzed
and addressed and the revised negative declaration appropriately concluded that the project
would not have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the number of homes
proposed was well below the site's maximum permitted general plan density and the project
was designed to fulfill the City's goals for infill development.
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 10 of 15
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing, inviting the appellant to speak, followed by the
developer and to conclude with rebuttals from both sides.
Dave Stahovich, appellant, complained the neighboring residents were not given an
opportunity to meet with the developer and express their concerns during the development
process. The issues raised by the neighbors from the beginning were incompatibility, a
substandard intersection at Terranimar and Western Avenue, lack of pedestrian access,
drainage and potential flooding issues to adjacent properties, line of sight concerns at the
intersection, and traffic and parking concerns. He added that the surrounding neighbors had
been present at earlier hearings and were here this evening because having their comments
heard on this project was important to them. He felt mistakes were made by the City as
evidenced by the repeated revisions to the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and Tract Map
and urged Council's reconsideration of this project.
Chad Brown, Melia Homes, remarked this was the third public hearing for a project that had
been approved twice before and had remained unchanged with all concerns vetted by,staff
through public review and public hearing processes without modifications to its design. He
stated this was a good quality, well- designed project that used only 73 percent of what was
permissible under the General Plan designation of residential corridor on the site. He noted
parking was being provided in excess of what the Code required with spaces available for
guests. He indicated density and drainage were two concerns raised and that his project was
consistent with expectations of what the General Plan allowed and anticipated to occur on this
site. He added the drainage flow from adjacent property owners were integrated into the
project's design for'drainage and would be maintained by a proposed homeowner's association
in perpetuity, always maintained and open and part of the final design for the project. He asked
for Council's approval of a project offering new market -rate single family detached homes
without outside impacts and one that would create a number of jobs for the greater Anaheim
area.
B.J. Delzer, Melia Homes, looked forward to delivering a quality designed project that would
stand the test of time and would be looked upon with pride by the community. He remarked
Melia Homes had reached out to the community, held meetings and would continue to do so,
and requested Council's support of the Donovan Ranch project.
Mayor Pro Tern Sidhu asked what the distance was between homes and /or roof lines. Mr.
Brown responded the homes were roughly ten feet apart or about seven feet between roof
eaves.
David Hubbard, Melia Homes counsel, stated the single legal issue with regard to CEQA was
whether the appellant presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project
would create a significant impact on the environment. In this case, he remarked, City staff
reviewed the project three times and in each instance found there was no substantial evidence
of a potential significant environmental effect on each of the CEQA issues raised. The
argument presented that staff miscalculated the buildable acreage on the property was
addressed by staff with detailed explanations as to how those calculations were performed. The
appellant's statement that a noise study should have been part of the process was also
addressed with Mr. Hubbard pointing out the Code's reference to a noise study had one
purpose which was to determine whether the existing noise environment would have an impact
on the project, not whether the project would have an impact on the environment and should not
have been included in the negative declaration. He added City staff assessed at every turn
each issue raised by the appellant, rechecking and assuring every issue was given due respect
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 11 of 15
but that no evidence had been found which changed their determination on the proper
environmental document for this project.
Mark Patton, adjacent resident, stated in reality the proposed homes were too dense for this in-
fill property even if it didn't meet the permitted density per the code. He added cramming 32
two -story buildings into this space surrounding by 14 single story homes was not a transition but
an invasion and that in most cases, several property lines would cross the existing back yards of
resident, bringing noise, loss of privacy and parking problems. He mentioned the flooding that
occurred in west Anaheim six years ago due to housing projects built on Ball Road which
caused a change in drainage flows and a cumulative effect on existing storm drains.
Richard Ortiz, Terranimar resident, stated with this proposed project, 2.6 new homes would
touch his backyard with a setback of 13.5 feet between them. He opposed the project because
of density, the elevation between the homes and the drainage and traffic issues it would cause.
Rudy Juarez, resident, hoped to still be able to meet with the developer and come to some type
of compromise. He felt his privacy would be ruined and his quality of life changed for the worse
if the proposed project was approved.
Esther Wallis, WAND, stated WAND did ask for single family homes and was not supportive of
this type of density. She explained there were several aspects of the development disturbing to
residents: density, i.e., putting large homes in small lots, shortened driveways, reduced
backyard setbacks, and drainage problems. She pointed out that varying streetscapes versus
one continuous setback distance from the street was for the benefit of the developer to provide
higher density. She added that no consideration had been given to the existing residences
adjoining their back yards with such limiting neighboring yards. She discussed drainage
problems happening in other areas of the City caused by not addressing drainage properly
during development.
Joy Patton, Terranimar resident, discussed the loss of property values for existing homeowners
with the addition of two -story, high density homes blocking out sunlight and impacting privacy
and noise.
Carl Braucksiek, resident, remarked the front of his home was on Western Avenue but his
backyard with the swimming pool was on the side backing into one of the two -story homes, ten
feet away. He recommended Council visit the property and to see the impact of this proposed
development.
Art Stahovich, resident, remarked the proposed backyards were small and lacked playing space
for children.
Chad Brown, Melia Homes, rebutting statements made, remarked the only variance requested
as part of this application was for the driveway lengths. The standard 20 foot length was
appropriate for the older style tilt up garage doors, but the 18 foot requested length was the
standard now in many areas of Orange County and allowed access to the garage though a roll -
up door. He added that within the RS -4 zoning designation a conditional use permit was
required for any development submittal as it set a precise plan of development. He also added
City staff were the experts regarding net density calculations and his project had met City
requirements.
Dave Stahovich, appellant, rebutting statements made, remarked the west edges of Lots 16 and
17 were treated as side yards but clearly abut to a rear yard of a neighbor and that Anaheim's
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 12 of 15
Code states side yards must be perpendicular to a road, which was why corner lots or cul -de-
sac end lots were typically larger. He added Rudy Juarez's property would have a roof line 3.5
feet from his rear yard property line with a 9 foot block wall at the property line and a 27 foot
high home behind it. He again objected to the density calculations.
Jim Bolton, KNA Engineering, reviewed this property on behalf of the appellant. He felt there
was not enough information to take into account the sheet flow aspect of drainage coming off
these yards. The way it was currently depicted, water would pond in the backyards in order to
get it into the drains and there was not enough information to analyze the effect to the neighbors
on the north. Referencing drainage of the overall project in its current state Mr. Bolton
remarked, the site drained to the west away from Western Avenue not toward Western Avenue
and the reason the site was proposed to be raised was to have it drain back towards Western
Avenue where he presumed there was adequate capacity.
Bob Edmunds, appellant's attorney, remarked there was a legal question as to whether or not
Mr. Braucksiek's property had a dedicated right -of -way easement on it. If it was determined to
be private property, the line of sight and public access would be affected. Regarding the need
for a noise study, Mr. Edmunds referenced sections of the General Plan and its supporting
environmental report which did not address Western Avenue, specifically. He stated it
referenced several areas in the City where 65 decibels noise contours overlap residential areas
(such as Western) and where the citing of sensitive land uses within these contours represents
a potentially significant impact and would require a separate noise study through the
development review process to determine the level of impacts and required mitigation. He
believed the noise study was needed now rather than waiting for the building permit, which was
not consistent with City Code. He stated a reduction in City standards for a private street,
relating to the proposed bulb -outs, required an exemption which had not been done. He also
challenged the density calculations for the site stating the Code did not provide for rounding up
or down of numbers and further stated the definition of density excluding public and private
streets could be interpreted differently and explaining how this could occur. He believed it was
a mistake on staff's part to exclude the green areas in the parkways and provided details on the
rationale. It was his opinion that the correct density numbers was calculated at 2.6 net acres x
11 or 28 units. Referencing drainage, he indicated the drainage study did not contain enough
information to analyze how sheet flow comes off the raised property and how the homeowners
association would access and maintain the drains on neighboring properties.
David Stavhovich invited residents who were present and opposed to this project to rise and be
counted.
Council Member Eastman requested information on the proposed homeowner's association and
CC &R's. Chad Brown, Melia Homes, responded that in the Tentative Tract Map resolution,
condition no. 4 required a maintenance covenant to be reviewed by City Attorney's office that
addressed ongoing maintenance for the private streets, private storm drain facilities, and private
sewer, which were part of this project. For the homeowners association, the Department of
Real Estate for California regulates budget limits, feasibility applications and extra funding
resources for reserves. Council Member Eastman asked if requiring cars to be parked in
garages was part of their plan. Mr. Brown remarked that one of the conditions placed by the
Planning Commission and accepted by the developer was to require garage parking. He also
agreed to prohibit the parking of any recreation boats or vehicles on the driveways or streets.
Mayor Tait requested clarification on the issue of drainage. John Erickson, developer's civil
engineer, remarked that level of detail was normally handled in the final design. He added City
staff requested he look at the pickup points along the yards and with the developer, had come
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 13 of 15
up with a preliminary design to pick the water up every five feet along lot lines. He stated the
elevations along the lot lines and within the lots were relatively flat with two to three inches in
elevation. That preliminary review, he added, was being reviewed by staff.
Council Member Murray asked staff to address some of the questions regarding the validity of
the staff report raised by the appellant's attorney. Ms. Vander Dussen responded that the Code
specified the different definitions regarding density. The RS -4 zone specifically stated the
maximum density of residential units in the RS -4 zone shall be 11 dwelling units per net acre.
The reference to net acre then takes you to the definition in the Code that states the overall
acreage in an area excluding public and private streets and alley is the net acreage and did not
require the lettered lots to be excluded from that calculation. She added this was not
necessarily consistent across different municipal codes in other cites, but Anaheim's code
specifically called out just the street area to be deducted when determining the net acre. The
map reported 11.03 acres which was correct and not disputed by the City, but she stated, the
calculations were typically taken to the first decimal point when calculating density so the 11.0
was the number focused on. Mayor Tait asked if the code says 11.0 or 11 with Ms. Vander
Dussen responding that it refers to 11.
Mayor Pro Tern Sidhu asked how many variances were being requested with Ms. Vander
Dussen stating there was one variance application to allow driveways on 18 of the lots to be 18
feet instead of 20 feet; the one variance application which applied to 18 different lots in the
subdivision. The setback was not a variance as the Zoning code allowed certain flexibilities in
development standards with the approval of a conditional use permit, and the developer did not
have to file an application for a variance to propose the shorter rear yard setbacks. Mayor Pro
Tern Sidhu asked how many projects in west Anaheim had been approved when calculating the
same net density. Ms. Vander Dussen responded the RS -4 zone was the only zone that
contained a net density calculation. Jonathan Borrego responded there were three other RS -4
projects approved in the City, two in west Anaheim and one in east Anaheim. The properties in
west Anaheim were developed and one was nearby at the corner of Western and Orange.
Those project densities were consistent with the way the City calculated density for this project.
One was developed at 11 units per acre and the other was developed slightly lower.
Mayor Tait requested transitional zoning be clarified. Ms. Vander Dussen responded the
General Plan for this project was corridor residential and allowed up to 13 units per acre and
was typically associated with attached road type housing along arterial highways. This project
was different and coming in at a lower density. A project with a higher density could be built on
this site with the only discretionary action being the rezoning to an RM -3 zone, which would
allow for row house type projects.
Council Member Murray remarked that dramatic photos had been shown with flooding on
Western asking if there were adequate storm drains on that arterial street. Natalie Meeks,
Public Works Director, remarked that to the west of this area along Ball Road and into the
county channel, the storm drains were not adequate for today's standards for development and
some of those drains were considered undersized based on the City's master plan. She added
the City did a recent Master Plan Drainage Study of this entire area and drainage basin and
could state this area was not impacted by undersized storm drains near the county channel.
The flood photos shown were of Knott and Ball Road, not Western Avenue.
Council Member Galloway asked if the developers, after hearing the neighbors concerns, were
amenable to reducing the density of the project. Jonathan Borrego responded there had been
conversations with the developer about reducing densities in the past and that the developer
had discussions with the neighbors early on in the process and elected to stick with the
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 14 of 15
proposed density. In terms of maximum number of units that could be built on the property
under the General Plan, 44 units would be allowed but when taking into consideration
development standards, setbacks, parking, etc., that number would be lower and closer to 42.
Regarding the dispute over line of sight and traffic, Council Member Eastman asked how much
of the property at Western and Terranimar was private property. Ms. Meeks responded the City
was not able to find a recorded dedication of that property but did have documents that in 1968
that property was subdivided at that location and there was a requirement to dedicate 25 feet to
the City. She further stated it did not impact approval of this project because there was still
visibility from the proposed street regardless of the dedication and it would not affect line of sight
from this property.
Mr. Braucksiek stated when he bought the home, his yard reached the curb. He built a sidewalk
even to the neighboring fence and the greenery mentioned during earlier comments, was not on
his property, but was on the Donovan Ranch site.
Council Member Murray asked if there was or was not a line of sight issue with Ms. Meeks
responding there was no issue. Vehicles had the ability to pull out and staff could make sure
that no parking was allowed immediately adjacent to the street by putting a red curb there. This
would allow vehicles to pull out far enough before having to enter into travel lanes. Council
Member Murray suggested that recommendation be included.
Council Member Sidhu remarked that he had voted for this project in November, however, since
that time, more information had come to light. His concern was density and impacting the
quality of lives of the existing neighborhood. He recommended continuing this matter and to
allow the developer and community to come up with a plan that worked for all.
Council Member Murray stated CEQA was a stringent environmental regulation in California and
the developer and the City, at great expense, had reviewed the project three times. She added
she would support approval of the project as it would provide quality workforce housing for
Anaheim's long term needs.
Council Member Galloway would also support the project, as staff addressed all issues raised
and this project would provide for Anaheim's future.
Mayor Tait remarked that he had only one issue keeping him from supporting this project. His
issue was with Lots 16 and 17 in which one backyard was facing another's side yard. He
concurred with Mayor Pro Tern Sidhu's recommendation to continue the matter and allow the
developers to work with the community and come to a resolution, specifically to consider Lots
16 and 17.
Mayor Tait reopened the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Sidhu then moved to continue the
public hearing to March 22, 2011, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll call vote: Ayes
— 3: Mayor Tait and Council Members: Eastman and Sidhu. Noes — 2: Council Members
Galloway and Murray. Motion Carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions:
City Attorney, Cristina Talley reported that City Council authorized the City Attorney's Office to
initiate litigation on three cases.
Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2011
Page 15 of 15
Council Communications:
Council Member Eastman spoke of Make Kindness Contagious Month and other Anaheim
organizations that were taking its slogan to heart and encouraged residents to submit stories
about acts of kindness on the City's webpage.
Mayor Pro Tern Sidhu spoke of his attendance at the first annual "Dentists Pulling from the
Heart Day" held February 13 led by Dr. Chuck Le in partnership with Youth Leadership America
offering free tooth extractions to area residents. He also spoke of Presidents' Day and
requested that tonight's meeting be adjourned in memory of Keith Murdoch, former Anaheim
City Manager.
Council Member Galloway thanked and recognized Lorinda Logan for her years of service and
recognized City employee Julian Harvey for his act of kindness featured on the City's "Acts of
Kindness" website.
Council Member Murray announced several upcoming meetings and events: the Central District
Neighborhood Council meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 23; the YMCA 100 Year
Celebration to be held on Thursday, February 24; the Anaheim Beautiful Luncheon to be held
on March 2; and the Assistance League Springtime in Paris event on March 5.
Mayor Tait recognized city employees serving as Reserves and the need to take action on the
budget. He also highlighted the accomplishments and success of Keith Murdoch, former
Anaheim City Manager and adjourned the meeting in his memory.
Adjournment: At 8:59 P.M., Mayor Tait adjourned the meeting in memory of Keith Murdoch,
former Anaheim City Manager.
Resp6c Itylly submitted,
Linda N. Andal, CIVIC
City Clerk