01/12/2016 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AND
REGULAR AJOURNED MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2016
The regular meeting of January 12, 2016 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:30
P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of January 12, 2016 was called to
order at 4:32 P.M. in the chambers of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard.
The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on January 8, 2016.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Jordan Brandman, Lucille Kring, Kris
Murray and James Vanderbilt.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Paul Emery, City Attorney Michael Houston and City Clerk
Linda Andal.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
William Fitzgerald offered his personal observations on matters unrelated to the closed session
agenda. Council Member Murray responded that the speaker's comments were not based on
truth and the language used was inappropriate in council chambers.
CLOSED SESSION: At 4:36 P.M., Mayor Tait recessed to closed session for consideration of
the following item.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the Government Code)
Agency Designated Representative: Paul Emery, Irma Moisa-Rodriguez
Name of Employee Organizations: Anaheim Police Association (APA), Anaheim
Firefighters Association, Local 2899 (AFA), Service Employees International Union,
Local 1877 (SEIU)
INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Tucker, Hope Community Church of Anaheim
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Kris Murray
PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing the Ballet Folklorico Donaji
Mayor Tait recognized the Ballet Folklorico Donaji dancers along with Edgar Reyes and Ysenia
Rojas for bringing the arts to Anaheim and uplifting the communities with their performances.
Recognizing Neighborhood Council Chairs and Vice Chairs
Mayor Tait indicted the city was divided into four geographic neighborhood groups, with its
members elected by the communities specifically to address and solve quality of life issues.
Anaheim Sporn, Community Services Superintendent, introduced the 2015 Neighborhood
Council Chairs and Vice Chairs.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 2 of 32
ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date):
Proclaiming January 18, 2016, as Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Dr. De Vera Heard, Orange County Black Heritage Council, indicated it took until 1983 with over
a million people signing a petition to implement Martin Luther King Jr. Day. She announced the
celebratory events taking place on January 18th and the Black History Parade scheduled in
Anaheim on February 6th. Mayor Tait added that on MLK Day, the Anaheim Union High School
students would take part in a Serv-athon, displaying acts of kindness and compassion
throughout the city.
At 5:38 P.M., the Anaheim Housing Authority was called to order(for a joint public comment
session with the Anaheim City Council).
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS: City Clerk Linda Andal advised of staff's request to continue Public
Hearing Item No. 23 to January 26, 2016. With the consent of Council, Public Hearing Item No.
23 was continued to January 26, 2016.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items). Prior to receipt of public comments, a brief decorum
statement was provided by City Clerk, Linda Andal.
Cecil Jordan Corcoran, Outreach Homeless Ministries, addressed the need for medical shelters
for the homeless as a path to getting them off the streets and other efforts he was undertaking
on their behalf.
An unidentified woman talked about her personal life struggles as a homeless woman living in
her car.
David Flores, Toastmasters International, explained his organization focused on developing
effective communication and leadership skills. He pointed out Anaheim had the honor of being
the home of the second oldest club in the world, and that Anaheim Club#2 had been serving
the community of Anaheim and its citizens for 90 years.
Tony Clement, President Anaheim Toastmasters Club#2, invited Council to attend their
anniversary celebration on February 6, 2016 as honored guests, providing invitations.
Mark Daniels urged Council to reinstate the People's Map and allow district potential candidates
to make their candidacy known in time for election in 2016. He recognized Mayor Tait as a
leader who transcended party politics and had reached out to the community on this issue. He
believed districting was a democratic issue that involved all voters, especially those who had
been marginalized for so long.
William Fitzgerald suggested districting organizers consider demonstrating in front of
Disneyland rather than City Hall to garner more national coverage.
Bobby Donelson, resident, thanked Council for handling the parking issues at Leatrice and
Wakefield area. He then submitted two resolutions from the American Postal Workers Union in
support of a ban on short term rentals in the city and further requested the city reverse its
position on short term rentals and enact a complete ban. Additionally, he supported reinstating
the People's Map and sequencing Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 for the 2016 ballot stating it was time
for the city to correct a long-lasting injustice.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 3 of 32
Lou Noble addressed the plight of the homeless, the need for emergency shelters or safe zones
in the city, the challenges the homeless faced in inclement weather, and the impact of the city's
no camping ordinance.
Pam Donelson commented on short term rental impacts, stating the rental property owners
were now taking her homeowners association to court and should they lose, her community
would end up as resort housing with no option for full-time residents other than to move out.
She also urged Council to listen to the voices of the public, ban the short term rentals and
restore the People's Map and place Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 on the ballot for 2016.
Gretchen Shoemaker, Georgia's Restaurant, expressed her appreciation of the Halloween
Parade; i.e., the community members who helped with the Sweet Potato Pie float, staff's
logistical support to the parade participants, and the kindness of one family in opening their
home to participants.
Mathew Barragan, MALDEF attorney, addressed the letters sent to the city in December
advising that delaying elections in a majority Latino district beyond 2016, whether caused by
undue delay in implementing district elections or by failing to sequence elections to provide a
Latino majority district vote in 2016 could elicit a legal challenge by MALDEF under the Federal
Voting Rights Act. He added there was nothing in MALDEF's letters that threatened litigation for
adopting the People's Map.
Ross Romero asked the Council to reconsider its stance and reinstate and implement the
People's Map.
An unidentified speaker read a statement from Zenada Pedroza who desired a strong city
council to support a community of members like her. She hoped Council would give the public
what they wanted and stop using MALDEF as an excuse to do otherwise.
Marguerita Hernandez, resident and member of Unite Here Local 11 (through a Spanish
Interpreter), stated she had volunteered to get districts in the city and was here to support
districting and the People's Map, along with her fellow hotel workers.
Victoria de Gomez, resident, urged Council to respect the wishes of the residents who strongly
supported the chosen districting map.
Gloria Ma'ae remarked she was speaking on behalf of some west Anaheim residents who were
fearful of speaking at council meetings. She indicated west Anaheim was shown in Districts 1
and 2 in the Recommended Map, had been a neglected area for years and had the largest
multi-cultural population in the city. She also wanted to keep the positive momentum moving
forward in cleaning up Ball and Beach Boulevard, an area that was rife with drug dealers, users
and prostitution and to that end, wanted to see both Districts 1 and 2 given the first opportunity
for local representation.
Doug Pettibone, resident, remarked with five retired judges, whose integrity and wisdom were
never in question and who volunteered their time and legal experience to come up with a map
that was agreed to by all, he wondered what they must think seeing the result of their hard work
and efforts. His hope was that Council would use that unanimous vote as a foundation to agree
on what to do going forward with the People's Map.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 4 of 32
Donna Acevedo, resident, addressed the death of Manuel Diaz and her son, Joel Acevedo, in
2012, remarking for her it would never be over. She indicated her son's trial was coming up in
February and that the officer involved in her son's death had been allowed to harass witnesses
in the community before the trial, intimidation that should not have been allowed to happen.
Ron Bengochea explained he had participated in the districting process, had drafted a map, and
out of the 30+ maps submitted, the Recommended Map was accepted and approved by all. He
urged Council to listen to the people and to reinstate the People's Map.
Jeff LaTourneau explained he had purchased his first home in Anaheim in 1987 but left after ten
years because the neighborhood had become a ghetto through neglect. He was still a business
owner in the city since 1996 and represented nearly 5,000 workers with Local 681 and dealt
with grievances of all kinds listening to the struggles of the workers, with poverty wages and
uncaring conditions of work. He emphasized the battle for districting would continue and
intensify until Council took the right action and addressed the communities of interest of its
marginalized voters and Council should not dismiss his comments just because he currently did
not live in the city. Council Member Brandman responded that he had known Mr. LaTourneau
for a long time, appreciated that he was here and would never dismiss his remarks.
Norma Sales, South Neighborhood Council, stated she would offer comments in Spanish for the
benefit of the audience. She remarked she had been working on the neighborhood council
because she cared about the community, had attended some of the districting meetings and
saw wide support for the Recommended Map. She was also part of the outreach campaign to
engage the community in this effort and did so expecting that the council would listen to the
residents and do the right thing.
Barbara Nelson, Fullerton resident, discussed a book on the passage of the Voting Rights Act
that described how Selma's Mayor, Police Chief and Registrar of Voters conspired to keep
Selma's black residents voiceless and impoverished. The Voting Rights Act happened when
people came from the outside, empowered residents and stood up for their rights and it was
time for Council to look back at history and allow change to happen.
Maria Munoz, resident (through a Spanish interpreter), explained she had lived in the city for 21
years and wanted better representation for her children and grandchildren. She asked that the
People's Map be reinstated, pointing out that MALDEF stated they had no objection to the
People's Map.
Gianni Valencia, resident, remarked she and others had put so much time and resources into a
map that completely represented the people. She urged Council to reinstate the People's Map.
An unidentified individual remarked he was in solidarity with residents fighting for justice,
equality, support and for resources for the homeless community. He also supported a ban on
short term rentals that had seen neighborhoods change and become an extension of the
tourism industry. He hoped Council would reverse its decision on the People's Map and listen
to the many voices instead of the few.
Arturo Ferreras, South District Council, stated one of the reasons why the Ponderosa
community asked for their submitted map to be removed, was to give way to a better map, one
that was unanimously agreed upon by all participants. He urged Council to reinstate the
People's Map they had previously approved unanimously. He also addressed short term rentals
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 5 of 32
specifically at Pepperwood Village and in their communities. He urged Council to ban STRs
because it divided the community.
Jeanine Robbins stated she was a member of the task force assigned to work on the STR
issue. She indicated members had been given a matrix to work with that considered structural
issues when the real issues were residential safety, quality of life and the destruction of
affordable housing in Anaheim. She felt STRs were driving down home values as it must be
disclosed upon listing when there were STRs in the surrounding areas and felt that banning
STRs was the only solution, because they were damaging neighborhoods needlessly and
brought no benefit to the city of Anaheim.
Council Member Murray responded Council voted unanimously on the moratorium for STRs and
staff was working on that issue to strengthen parameters, including consideration of a ban, and
that every citizen and resident of Anaheim had received notification of all meetings involving
short term rentals. She added that at no point had Council waivered from its position to address
the situation and did not understand why erroneous statements were made to the contrary.
Victoria Michaels objected to remarks made against Mayor Tait by an earlier speaker. She also
emphasized the public had spoken from their hearts this evening, pleading for reinstatement of
the People's Map.
Cynthia Ward, concerned for the homeless population during an El Nino winter, remarked that
Anaheim was uniquely suited to handle large crowds of people, and finding a shelter to handle
large crowds of homeless during the rain by using an empty shell of a building near the riverbed
or the Convention Center was possible. She asked the City Manager address the city's
strategy on this subject during his comment period. She added that when administrative policies
such as 1.5 were used that kept the Mayor from putting items on an agenda, the result was less
transparency for the public.
Ryan Bayliss, west Anaheim resident, stated for him, it made no difference which districting map
was selected, but he felt that West Anaheim should be represented in the next election.
Jose Moreno, resident, stated his support for the reinstatement of the People's Map and to
return neighborhoods back to the people by banning short term rentals. Regarding STRs, there
were seven in his neighborhood now expanding northward in the city where 'they were heavily
concentrated and even further so that multiple districts were now being impacted. He indicated
this was now a citywide issue and hoped Council would listen to resident's voices. On the
People's Map, he remarked MALDEF made it clear that they should not be used an excuse as
to why the People's Map should not be honored and re-approved by the Council. He stressed
the fact that many people participated in the process so they could help define the map for
themselves and their communities and after much compromise came to consensus on one map,
asking that Council put Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 up for election in 2016.
Joanne Sosa offered comments on behalf of Greg Diamond, who stated that the City of
Anaheim was being sued for violation of the Brown Act because of districting and he wanted the
rest of the community to know about the litigation and for Council to do the right thing.
Ada Tomayo, resident, remarked that she did not feel represented by Council Members elected
at large and therefore had spent countless hours walking for district elections and then
participated in the district map process while trusting City Council would recognize their efforts
and approve the Recommended Map. She would continue to be engaged, continue to walk the
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 6 of 32
street for every election to get the people out to vote and promising they would vote. She asked
Council to listen to the voices of the people and reinstate the People's Map.
Mariana Rivera (through a Spanish interpreter), stated Council had asked for community
participation and over 300 residents had responded and made their support known. She had
been involved since the city was sued for district elections. She urged Council to move forward
and bring back the People's Map
Martin Lopez, Sherwood Village, recounted the districting process from the citizen's advisory
committee he served on in August of 2012. He found it difficult to understand why Council's
decision had been reversed and vowed to continue the fight.
An unidentified individual remarked he became civically engaged in 2009 and had been a
participant of district elections because he wanted a Council Member from his area representing
him, adding that denying the People's Map was an injustice to the community. He urged
Council to do the right thing.
Marisol Ramirez remarked the people had been pushing for district elections to gain better
representation. She had participated in the process of developing a map and creating district
boundaries collectively with organizations, faith leaders and people from different communities
giving input into the process. She added the Recommended Map was the one pushed by all
communities, and was agreed to by all, adding that Council needed to reinstate the People's
Map.
Myrvette Judeh hoped the Council would reinstate the People's Map and by doing so would
unite the city and make a difference in their lives going forward.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Tait announced that his request at the December 15, 2015 Council meeting to direct staff
to put the vote of the People's Map on the agenda for January 12, 2016 was rejected by the City
Manager because the request was not made during Council Communications. He
communicated his surprise and anger by this action, especially when past practices with other
Council Members had been honored. He added that he should have been apprised at the
December meeting if his request to agendize the People's Map in January would not be allowed
at the time he made that request, especially given the importance of this civil rights issue. He
added, that his request was recognized and confirmed at the same meeting, based on
transcripts of that meeting.
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: None
At 7:24 P.M., the Anaheim Housing Authority was recessed.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Tait declared a potential conflict of interest on Item Nos. 5 and
8 as his firm had done worked this past year for Walmart. Mayor Pro Tern Kring then moved to
waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the consent calendar as
presented, in accordance with reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each city
council member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member
Brandman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring,
Murray and Vanderbilt.) Noes—0. Motion Carried
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 7 of 32
B105 1. Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting of November 18, 2015 and
Library Board meeting of October 12, 2015.
AGR-9576 2. Approve, authorize and direct the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to
execute and take the necessary, required or advisable actions to implement and
administer an agreement, and related documents, with ehs International, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $90,000 per year, for safety consulting services for two years with
the option of three one-year extensions, subject to a CPI adjustment, and reimbursable
expenses, in an amount not to exceed $10,000, over the course of the agreement.
3. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the
D180 Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Mallory Safety and Supply LLC, in the
amount of$170,396, for the purchase of 337 personal radiation dosimeters for first
responders, in accordance with the US Communities Cooperative Agreement
4400001839 contract pricing.
AGR-9577 4. Approve the Acquisition Agreement of Real Property with Robert E. Nixon and Sharon L.
Nixon, in the acquisition payment amount of$39,000, for the partial acquisition of
property located at 1313 North Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Improvement
Project from 1-5 to SR-91 (RNV ACQ2013-00461).
AGR-9578 5. Approve the Temporary Construction Easement Agreement with Wal-Mart Stores, in the
acquisition payment amount of$3,644, for property located at 1120 South Anaheim
Boulevard for the Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road Intersection Improvement Project (R/W
ACQ2015-00615 and R/W ACQ2015-00616).
AGR-472913 6. Approve an agreement with Carpi & Clay, Inc., in the amount $7,000 per month, for
federal advocacy services for one year with the option for the City Manager to extend the
agreement for an additional year.
P124 7. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain interests in real properties (City Deed Nos, 11899, 11900, 11902, 11903, 11913,
11914, 11915 and 11924).
8. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-002 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 Nos. 11921, 11922 and 11925).
P110 9. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a public utility easement located at 1001 North
Magnolia Avenue pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et
seq. - Summary Vacation (ABA2015-00332).
P110 10. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating two portions of Lincoln Avenue in accordance with
condition of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2012-148 generally located at 200
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 8 of 32
North Lemon Street pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et
seq. - Summary Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA2015-00319).
Authorize the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed and the City Clerk to record the
resolution and deliver the Quitclaim Deed to the applicant for recordation in the Orange
County Recorder's Office.
D129 11. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Fire Chief or his designee to submit a grant
application on behalf of the City of Anaheim to the Office of Domestic Preparedness of
the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such grant on
behalf of the City and amending the budget for fiscal year 2015/2016 accordingly.
If awarded, authorize the acceptance of such grant on behalf of the City, amend the
budget accordingly for the fiscal year in which the grant is awarded, and authorize the
Finance Director to carry forward into future fiscal years any unexpended appropriation
related hereto.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
D182 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM modifying the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations by
modifying Rule Nos. 4 and 8, which do not increase rates, for the sale and distribution of
electricity as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and most recently amended by
Resolution No. 2015-237 and determining that this resolution is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations.
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM modifying the Water Rates, Rules and Regulations by
modifying Rule Nos. 4 and 8, which do not increase rates, for the sale and distribution of
water as adopted by Resolution No. 72R-600 and most recently amended by Resolution
No. 2015-127 and determining that this resolution is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations
13. ORDINANCE NO. 6353 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
M142 ANAHEIM amending various subsections of Section 14.32.450 of Chapter 14.32 of the
Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to permit parking (Introduced at the
Council meeting of December 15, 2015, Item No. 27).
M142 14. ORDINANCE NO. 6354 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adding Chapter 4.19 to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Medical
Marijuana Cultivation and Processing) to prohibit medical marijuana cultivation and
processing activities in the City of Anaheim and determining pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that this ordinance is not a project pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3) and 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines (Introduced at the
Council meeting of December 15, 2015, Item No. 28).
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 9 of 32
M142 15. ORDINANCE NO. 6355 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Chapters 10.19 and 18.46 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating
to landscape water efficiency and determining that this ordinance is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15307 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
D114 16. Approve minutes of Council meetings of November 17, 2015, December 8, 2015 and
December 15, 2015.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: These items were considered at 7:27 P.M.
17. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AGR-7479.A OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the execution and delivery of a Revolving
Credit Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, payable from and
secured by subordinate revenues of the Electric System and the Water System
(continued from Council meeting of December 15, 2015, Item No. 30).
Dukku Lee, Utilities General Manager, reported this item related to a revolving line of credit for
up to $100 million with Wells Fargo Bank. The Utility Department used this line of credit in the
past because it afforded staff the ability to utilize very low interest rates and not the financial
reserve funds which then kept reserves at a reasonable level of about 150 days' worth of cash
on hand as opposed to other agencies that had upwards of 900 days of cash in their account.
The strategy was to keep reserve levels down and still operate and use the line of credit when
necessary. As an example, the exiting of the San Onofre Generating Station, a project that had
decommissioning trust fund payments to make and while staff was still in the process of
accessing those funds, the line of credit for$12.6 million was temporarily used while staff
gained access to the decommissioning trust. He pointed out this was viewed as a credit
positive from rating agencies and that the city had gone through a competitive process with four
firms bidding on these items; i.e. Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, R.B.C. Capital Markets and
Bank of America. Mr. Lee reported Wells Fargo had the most favorable terms and staff
requested this item be for a five year term.
MOTION: Council Member Brandman moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2016-008, OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the execution and delivery of a
Revolving Credit Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, payable from and
secured by subordinate revenues of the electric System and the Water system, seconded by
Mayor Pro Tem Kring.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Tait remarked the danger of a line of credit oftentimes was that they were
planned for short term gaps in cash and debt could accumulate and could have a long term
credit, asking what assurances were in place so that would not happen. Mr. Lee responded this
was a five year term so it did not extend, and the Department had longer term debt in its
portfolio which was 20 to 30 year debt, so if the interest rates started to rise, staff could return to
the City Council and recommend fixing out in terms of longer term debt or routine long-term
investments. He added so that the credit did not max out, staff reviewed and monitored these
uses very carefully.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray
and Vanderbilt. NOES —0. Motion Carried.
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 10 of 32
B105 18. Consider (re)appointing representatives to serve on the Anaheim Union High School
District Foundation, for a one year term (continued from Council meetings of December
8, 2015, Item No. 22 and December 15, 2015, Item No. 31).
Anaheim Union High School District Foundation:
(RE)APPOINTMENT: Mayor Tom Tait (term ending December 31, 2016)
(currently held by Mayor Tom Tait)
(RE)APPOINTMENT: Council Member James Vanderbilt (term ending December 31,
2016)
(currently held by Council Member James Vanderbilt)
(RE)APPOINTMENT: Tom Morton (term ending December 31, 2016)
(currently held by Tom Morton, Staff)
Mayor Tait moved for reappointment of all three seats, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kring.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES —4: Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring and Murray.
NOES —0. ABSTENTION — 1: Council Member Vanderbilt. Motion Carried.
19. Consider an appointment to the Cultural and Heritage Commission to fill an
B105 unscheduled vacancy, term ending June 30, 2016 and Sister City Commission to fill two
unscheduled vacancies, terms ending June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 (continued
from Council meeting of December 15, 2016, Item No. 32).
Cultural and Heritage Commission
APPOINTMENT:
(unscheduled vacancy of Chris Maya, term ending June 30, 2016)
Sister City Commission
APPOINTMENT:
(unscheduled vacancy of Laurie Leonard, term ending June 30, 2016)
APPOINTMENT:
(unscheduled vacancy of Kyndell Thorson, term ending June 30, 2017)
Council Member Murray requested these appointments be continued to the next meeting,
and without objection the item was continued until January 26, 2016.
At 7:32 P.M., the Anaheim Housing Authority was reconvened,
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING (HOUSING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL):
21. This is a joint public hearing of the Anaheim Housing Authority and the Anaheim City
Council to consider resolutions approving a Purchase and Sale agreement, in
AGR-9579 substantial form, between the Anaheim City Council and the Anaheim Housing Authority
and authorizing the Director of Community and Economic Development to finalize and
implement said Purchase and Sale Agreement for properties within The Packing District
and Make building; The BARN at the circle on Center Street/Lemon Street; HomeMADE
building along the north side of Santa Ana Street east of the Packing District; and The
Barrel building at Anaheim Blvd. and Water Street (APN(s) 037-111-29 and 30; 037-024-
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 11 of 32
11; and 251-071-023 and 024; the northside public alley and a portion of the southwest
public alley).
City Council Action:
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Anaheim
Housing Authority substantially in the form attached to the resolution; authorizing the
Director of Community and Economic Development to finalize such Purchase and Sale
Agreement; authorizing the Director of Community and Economic Development to
implement such Purchase and Sale Agreement; and making certain other findings in
connection therewith.
John Woodhead, Director of Community Development, reported this was a joint public hearing
for both the City Council and the Housing Authority to consider the purchase of two Housing
Authority properties by the City of Anaheim followed by authorization of the sale of those two
properties along with two other former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) properties to Lab
Holdings LLC.
As background, he explained the Dissolution Law (AB X126) dissolved all redevelopment
agencies in the state of California, effective February 1, 2012. Prior to that date, the City of
Anaheim became the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency to administer the
dissolution and winding down of the Agency matters, but declined to retain the housing assets
and functions and instead, assets were transferred to the Housing Authority. Mr. Woodhead
added while the Housing Authority was permitted to manage all assets it received from the
former Redevelopment Agency, the Successor Agency was not able to do so until the California
Department of Finance (DOF) approved the City's long range Property Management Plan.
That plan listed about 100 acres of Successor Agency property as either a governmental use
property for transfer to the appropriate governmental user or 1) a property to be transferred to
the city for disposition and development per the Redevelopment Plan or 2) a property to be sold
without regard to development. He pointed out although Anaheim was one of the first
successor agencies to submit its Property Management Plan to the state (about three years
ago), the Department of Finance had only approved the plan on December 31, 2015, the last
day in which the DOF was required to act. During this waiting period, he pointed out staff
continued to work with several development partners who had already invested time and money
for potential projects and the Disposition and Development Agreement between the City and
Lab Holding LLC was now before the City Council for consideration. He added it was one of the
first in a series of pending projects that would be brought to the City Council for consideration.
The proposed Disposition and Development Agreement provided for the sale of four
development sites at fair market value and the private development of commercial and mixed
use projects. The developments would add unique and authentic content to CenterCity Anaheim
to build on the success of the Packing District, Center Street and new urban residential
communities. Mr. Woodhead indicated two of the development sites were housing assets
transferred to the Housing Authority under the dissolution law and given the changes in the law
and the loss of significant resources related to affordable housing, the Housing Authority
properties were no longer viable for development of the for-sale units originally planned for
those sites. Consequently, the Housing Authority intended to sell these properties to the city for
fair market value per the purchase and sale agreement that was before both entities for
consideration and place the proceeds into the low to moderate income housing fund consistent
with state law.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 12 of 32
Mr. Woodhead indicated that the proposed development would be completed by June 2019
under the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement. The locations of the four
projects were: 1) the Packing District and Make building (involving existing development,
completion of the historic building at Santa Ana/Anaheim for additional craft brewing and wine
production, and two additional restaurants at Farmer's Park); 2) the BARN at Center
Street/Lemon (with unique mixed residential, restaurant, etc.); 3) HomeMade consisting of live-
work environment for culinary businesses; and 4) The Barrel Building at Anaheim/Water with
historic preservation and commercial content and residential.
He reported the net proceeds from the sale of the Housing Authority properties would reimburse
the Housing Authority, as per the Purchase and Sale Agreement.
Council Member Vanderbilt recalled that last year a presentation was given on all the projects
the Department was considering, inquiring what the plans were for Beach Boulevard in
particular and the other areas of focus.
Mr. Woodhead responded that staff had continued to work with the original developer for Beach
Boulevard, the Lincoln Zelman Group, and had recently given them new appraised values
needed for the Property Management Plan that was just approved by the state. The firm was
looking at those numbers to ensure the development they had proposed was still viable. Mr.
Woodhead advised at this point, he had not heard any negative responses and intended to
bring that proposal in February or March of this year. The proposal would be considered along
with other deals with partners who had long-awaited the DOF's plan approval.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments and receiving none, closed the hearing.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Kring moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2016-009, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Purchase
and Sale Agreement with the Anaheim Housing Authority substantially in the form attached to
the resolution; authorizing the Director of Community and Economic Development to finalize
such Purchase and Sale Agreement; authorizing the Director of Community and Economic
Development to implement such Purchase and Sale Agreement; and making certain other
findings in connection therewith, seconded by Council Member Murray.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Murray supported finding additional parcels to entice this kind
of development in West Anaheim where it would make a big different as it has here near City
Hall.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray
and Vanderbilt). NOES—0. Motion Carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
22. This is a public hearing to consider a resolution regarding a Disposition and
Development Agreement, in substantial form, with Lab Holding, LLC and authorizing the
AGR-9579.I Director of Community and Economic Development to finalize and implement said
agreement for properties within The Packing District and Make building; The BARN at
the circle on Center Street/Lemon Street; HomeMADE building along the north side of
Santa Ana Street east of the Packing District; and The Barrel building at Anaheim Blvd.
and Water Street (APN(s) 037-023-10 through 14; 251-084-08; 036-191-48 and
potentially portions of 036-192-35, 36 and 38) (related to Housing Authority Item No. 21).
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 13 of 32
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Disposition and Development Agreement with Lab
Holding, LLC substantially in the form attached to the resolution; authorizing the Director
of Community and Economic Development to finalize such Disposition and Development
Agreement; authorizing the Director of Community and Economic Development to
implement such Disposition and Development Agreement; and making certain other
findings in connection therewith.(continued from Council meeting of December 15, 2015,
Item No. 34).
John Woodhead explained this was another public hearing required to consider the disposition
of four properties, the two Housing Authority properties that were the subject of Agenda item
No. 21 and two additional redevelopment properties.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments and receiving none, closed the hearing.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Kring moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2016-010, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Disposition
and Development Agreement with Lab Holding, LLC substantially in the form attached to the
resolution; authorizing the Director of Community and Economic Development to finalize such
Disposition and Development Agreement; authorizing the Director of Community and Economic
Development to implement such Disposition and Development Agreement; and making certain
other findings in connection therewith, seconded by Council Member Murray.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members Brandman, Kring, Murray
and Vanderbilt.) NOES —0. Motion Carried.
23. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM forming Underground District No. 64 (Orangewood) and
D182 determining said action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant
to Section 15302(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
This is a public hearing to consider a resolution revising the permit parking fees to
include a new parking study fee (continued from Council meeting of December 15, 2015,
Item No. 35).
At the request of staff, this public hearing item was continued to January 26, 2016.
24. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
D128 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting new permit parking fees (Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 14.32.450.
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported staff had been working to update council
policies and procedures regarding permit parking within the city. She advised approval of this
resolution would adopt revised permit parking fees. An effort was made to streamline the
process and make it more transparent, as well as opening up some opportunities for multi-family
permit parking, and she noted, part of that was to make sure the city was only implementing
permit parking requirements in areas that really needed it and therefore added a requirement for
a parking study to determine for that reason. The fee would help recover partial costs for that
parking study and was recommended at $500. Ms. Meeks added that typically when new fees
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 14 of 32
were implemented, staff would audit the process in about a year to see what the actual costs
were and if there were any adjustments needed for the budget in the following year.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing.
William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, opposed the revisions stating there was over 40 permit
parking areas in Anaheim in which homeowners must pay the city $30 to park their cars in front
of their homes. He believed the purpose of this hearing was to increase city income by
establishing more permit parking in low income residential areas without allowing the
homeowners a vote.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the hearing.
Director Meeks clarified that the requirement for voting by the homeowners and residents was
still part of the program and that this additional step of a parking study was added to the
program to verify the need for permit parking.
MOTION: Council Member Brandman moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2016-011 , A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting new permit
parking fees (Anaheim Municipal Code Section 14.32.450, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kring.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES— 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray
and Vanderbilt.) NOES—0. Motion Carried.
25. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00502
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00279
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05796
C410 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05011
C280 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17879
OWNER: Orange Unified School District, 1401 N, Handy Street, Orange, CA 92867
APPLICANT: TRI Pointe Homes, 19520 Jamboree Road, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 4540 East Riverdale Avenue
The following land use entitlements are requested to permit the development of a 75-
unit small-lot single family residential project: amend the General Plan land use
designation from School to Low Density Residential; reclassify the subject properties
from the T (SC) (Transition, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-4 (SC) (Single
Family Residential, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone; a conditional use permit to allow a
small-lot single-family residential development with modified development standards; a
variance to allow a deviation of sound attenuation standards pertaining to maximum
exterior noise within the rear yard of any single-family residential lot located within 600
feet from a freeway; and a tentative tract map to create an 81 (75 numbered, 6 lettered)
lot single-family residential subdivision.
Environmental Determination: The City Council will consider whether a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is appropriate to serve as the environmental impact determination
for this request per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment, Reclassification,
Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit and Variance with modification to
Condition No. 42, added Condition No. 45 requiring the installation of high efficiency
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 15 of 32
HVAC systems for all residential units, and added Condition No. 51 requiring asbestos
testing before demolition of existing structures. Vote: 7-0. (Resolution Nos. PC2015-
091, PC2015-092, PC2015-093, PC2015-094 and PC2015-095) (Planning Commission
meeting of November 16, 2015).
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
a Mitigation Monitoring Plan for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00502,
Reclassification No. 2015-00279, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05796, Variance
No. 2014-05011 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17879 (DEV2015-00041) (4540 East
Riverdale Avenue).
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No. 2015-
00502 (DEV2015-00041) (4540 East Riverdale Avenue).
ORDINANCE NO. 6356 (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. 2014-00279) (DEV2015-00041).
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05796 and Variance No. 2014-05011 (DEV2015-00041) (4540 East Riverdale Avenue).
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17879 (DEV2015-00041)
(4540 East Riverdale Avenue).
David Belmer, Planning Director, reported this item involved a permit to construct a 75 unit
infill, single family residential housing project on the former Riverdale Elementary School site.
The project included an amendment to the general plan, a zone change, a conditional use
permit, a variance and a subdivision map, and was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a
public hearing on November 16, 2015, who unanimously recommended approval of the various
actions to the City Council.
Mr. Belmer indicated this was a 12 acre site located on Riverdale Avenue just west of Lakeview
Avenue with single family residential uses to the east and west, Riverdale Park and a fire
station to the north, and the 91 freeway to the south. It was currently owned by the Orange
Unified School District and up until 2010 was used for public school purposes and with a
declining enrollment, had been leased for the last five years to a private school. He stated
Orange Unified School District determined the site would not be needed in the future for public
school purposes and declared it surplus which enabled the district to consider the potential sale
of the site with residential land use being the optimum alternate use and the school district then
solicited offers for the property with TRI Pointe Homes identified as the most responsive bidder.
Mr. Belmer remarked TRI Pointe Homes was the applicant for the proposed project before
Council for consideration, a 75 unit residential site with detached homes and lot sizes ranging
from approximately 3,800 square feet to almost 13,000 square feet with an average lot size of
about 4,400 square feet. Access to the site was off Riverdale Avenue, a private street to be
constructed as part of the project (viewed by Council through a slide presentation) with on
street parking available and each home having a two car garage and the ability to park two
additional cars in the driveway, per Anaheim Municipal Code. He indicated the two-story
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 16 of 32
residences would range in size from 2,400 square feet to nearly 2,900 square feet with a
maximum height of 25 feet, offered three floor plans, four to five bedrooms with three different
architectural styles. In addition, an 11,300 square foot on-site recreation area was located in
the northwest corner of the site with passive recreation uses that included trees, picnic
benches, a demonstration garden and open turf areas. Off-site recreation was a public park
located to the north and convenient access to the river trail along the Santa Ana River. He
noted the proposed project would include five foot wide sidewalks, an eight-foot wide parkway
and a landscaped setback. It also included a six foot high block wall with a brick cap, not only
on the Riverdale frontage but surrounding the entire site, including surrounding the existing
homes that adjoined the property.
General Plan Amendment: Mr. Belmer explained the project was located in the school
designation of the General Plan and required a general plan amendment to low density
residential (the city's lowest residential general plan designation that allowed a maximum
density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre, with this project just shy of that figure at 6.2 units per
acre). The proposed modification to the general plan supported several general plan goals and
objectives outlined in the staff report including among them, additional infill housing
development that would address the city's diverse housing needs. He added that the Planning
Commission reviewed the general plan amendment and unanimously recommended it be
approved by the City Council.
Zoning Amendment: The existing zoning was a transition zone, the zoning designation
common for public and private school sites in the city with Mr. Belmer indicating the developer
was seeking to amend the zoning designation to RS-4, a designation that allowed for infill
residential development that was consistent with the low density general plan designation. He
added the Planning Commission reviewed the zone change in conjunction with the general
plan amendment and recommended approval of the RS-4 zoning as proposed consistent with
the existing neighborhood.
Tentative Tract Map: Mr. Belmer stated there was a required designated change to the
existing lot configuration which is one parcel to one that would allow for a 75 unit single family
residential development with common area lots to include a recreation area, some common
area landscaped parcels and the street, adding that the tract map complied with the Anaheim
subdivision requirements.
Conditional Use Permit: A conditional use permit was required to implement the proposed site
plan necessary for all infill single family residential developments proposed in the RS-4 zone to
ensure a high quality project design that achieved neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Belmer
remarked the proposed development complied with all applicable development standards in the
RS-4 zone except for a request to modify the rear yard setbacks of five lots with a rear yard
setback of 15 feet required, while only 13 feet was proposed. He added the setbacks could be
modified as part of a conditional use permit review consideration process and that staff was
recommending approval of that modification as did the Planning Commission. He further
added that the Commission made the finding that the lots were generally consistent with the
purpose and intent of the RS-4 zone, compatible with the project and creating no impact to the
existing surrounding property owners because the lots were in the interior of the development.
Window Placement: Mr. Belmer explained the window placement was carefully design by the
developer to minimize the visual impacts of the adjoining residences, especially on the second
story with the building articulation designed to partially offset the second story windows 31 feet
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 17 of 32
from the rear property lines to create the maximum possible privacy and least visual intrusion
to the existing single family homes.
Variance: A variance was requested related to the noise of the adjoining 91 freeway. Mr.
Belmer stated the code allowed for a maximum decibel impact of 65 decibels and seven of the
homes that adjoined the freeway would exceed that figure by four decibels. Per an extensive
noise study conducted for the project, the recommendation was a 12 foot high wall be required
in order to attenuate the noise impacts from 69 down to 65, the allowed maximum decibel level.
The 12 foot wall would be located along the freeway frontage and would be an addition to an
existing six foot high CALTRANS wall that existed along that right-of-way. He noted staff and
the Planning Commission agreed that was excessive with both concurring that the four foot
variance was supportable.
CEQA Compliance: For this project a mitigated negative declaration was prepared, the
document was circulated to public agencies on October 20th for an extensive comment period.
In addition, notices regarding the document were also sent to the adjoining property owners. A
comment letter was received by the SCAQMD regarding potential impacts resulting from air
pollution due to the site's proximity to the 91 freeway with that issue carefully evaluated by staff
and the CEQA analysis. He reported both staff and the Planning Commission concluded that
the impacts had been properly addressed and mitigated through the environmental document
and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The applicant also conducted extensive neighborhood outreach while sharing project
information to the surrounding community for this project and during the Planning Commission
public hearing some neighbors spoke both in opposition and in support of the project. With
regard to opposition, a petition against the project was submitted by a homeowner who lives on
Deerfield Street, which is one of the adjoining streets. The neighbors' concerns were related to
traffic and parking, loss of open space, and compatibility with existing neighborhood. The
Planning Commission carefully considered these concerns and unanimously determined the
project was designed in a way to provide a quality living environment for the future residents
and was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the City Council received
a letter of opposition dated January 11, 2016, requesting the developer be required to develop
the project under the city's RS-2 zoning designation versus the proposed RS-4. Staff reviewed
the zone change and believed the RS-4 zoning was appropriate as the developer was
proposing a project that fits with the city's low density residential general plan designation and
Planning Commission concurred. Mr. Belmer ended his presentation indicating staff
recommended Council approve the project by adopting the resolutions and ordinances before
Council.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments.
Rick Wood, TRI Pointe Homes, provided background on the proposed development. TRI
Pointe Homes was selected by the school district as the developer in August of 2014 and
immediately began community outreach efforts in January 2015 to the 92 residences adjacent
to the property. He reported outreach occurred on weekends to try and contact as many
homeowners as possible and in general had a 40 percent success rate in reaching those
homeowners. Going door to door, TRI Pointe gained insight as to what the adjacent
homeowners understood was allowed on the site, what their concerns were (traffic, privacy,
dust control, and drainage) and involved them from the very beginning, taking their input into
consideration when preparing the final site plan. A second round of community outreach was
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 18 of 32
conducted with the homeowners giving them a brief description of the plans and as part of
those discussions, TRI Pointe redesigned the site so there was not a huge grade difference
between the new development and the adjacent residences that existed at that time by
purposely placing the entry and the open space up against existing residents because of the
inability to match their grade; in this manner the new homes would not be looming over existing
homes. The site plan and development application was then submitted to the city while the
applicant continued to have discussions with the homeowners, with 12 of them electing to have
one-on-one conversations in their homes on weekends or evenings.
Mr. Wood indicated that process continued until the Planning Commission hearing in
November. Addressing window placement, he indicated the primary windows at the rear of the
homes were placed on the sides of the homes so no windows would overlook existing
residences. He added the setbacks were increased by nearly 40 percent above code and the
back of the building was set back so that the entire rear façade of the structure was not two-
story. In addition, TRI Pointe took into consideration the community input and tried to work with
each homeowner that would engage with them and believed the final plan was the best viable
use for the property in terms of public benefit. It would also generate nearly $18 million to the
Orange Unified School District for facilities, $21 million in local revenues, 300 jobs created
along with $3.1 million in local income and $750,000 in taxes and other revenues while
addressing the housing needs for this part of the county.
Council Member Vanderbilt questioned whether offsite parking was available and would it
impact the limited parking available at Riverdale Park. Mr. Wood responded that four cars
could be parked on the housing sites and there would be parking available on the street as
well, generally about one spot per home.
Tim Boudreaux remarked he had lived at Deerfield Street for 37 years and his home backed up
to the school field. He objected to a residential development asking that the site be retained for
school use as it had been for the last 49 years and not be sold for financial gain. Another
alternative was for use as a sports park as the field was used on a daily basis by soccer clubs
or if the property must be rezoned, that it be rezoned to conform to the surrounding
neighborhood, adding this development would grossly overwhelm the existing homes.
Richard Foltz, Deerfield Street, stated he was one of a group of more than 50 long-time
residents who signed petitions opposing the general plan amendment. He objected to the
zoning redesignation, stating it was Anaheim's highest density allowed for single family
detached homes when the existing homes were zoned R-2 with larger lots and nearly all single
story homes. He added the residents always had the expectation that Riverdale School would
be used for educational facilities and a sports field and believed there was an interested party,
the Rancho Santiago Community College District, who was interested in the site. He urged
Council to deny the general plan amendment and allow Rancho Santiago the time to negotiate
for the site.
William Fitzgerald objected to the development.
Mack Sanchez, representing Anaheim Soccer, remarked the club had been in the area for 18
years and for the last eight years had been using and caretaking the sport field at Riverdale
Elementary School at a cost of$5,000 to $10,000 a year to maintain the site. The soccer club
hoped the funds from the sale of this school site would be used at the local high schools —
Canyon, Orrin, Villa Park, which were less than desirable facilities for running sports programs.
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 19 of 32
He added that playing year round soccer, it was a struggle to maintain fields for sports use and
he hoped the school district would add turf fields, improve facilities and develop grass fields for
the kids to use.
Lauren Prescott, spoke on behalf of three retailers located at Lakeview Plaza, the only retail
center within walking distance of the Riverdale site. She had signatures of the owners of
Renewed Fitness, Far East Garden Restaurant and the Bocce Italian Fine Dining who looked
forward to welcoming the new Riverdale families to their establishments.
Paul Kott, resident, remarked his real estate business was celebrating their 39th year of doing
business in Anaheim. He had met with TRI Pointe Homes to learn about the proposed project
and was pleased with the site plan, designs and amenities, adding that two former school sites,
John C. Fremont Jr. High and Crescent Jr. High were now successful residential
developments. He stated that the city's housing stock had approximately 120,000 residential
units of which more than half(about 65,000)were rental apartments and the balance were
single family dwellings. Over the years he had seen many potential development sites
approved for uses in density levels that were unattractive or detrimental to the neighboring
property owner but did not have the same concern with TRI Pointe Homes. He believed the
proposed use was logical and the most appropriate use and would have a positive appreciation
impact on the value of the existing homes. He believed Anaheim Hills and the Canyon area
would be improved by this project and urged Council's approval of the development.
Diane Gaynor, spoke on behalf of Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Bucknum of Mission Viejo, who
wished her support of the Riverdale development to be noted. Her letter of support was
submitted for the record.
Carolyn Cavecche, OC Taxpayers Association, remarked her organization supported the
redevelopment of the former Riverdale school site that had been closed only after it was
deemed surplus due to the declining enrollment today and in the future. She noted the
proceeds from the sale would raise nearly $18 million to be used to upgrade existing school
facilities in the Orange Unified School District. She added the city had an opportunity to
purchase the property at fair market price but its below market offer of$10 million was rejected.
She added that the applicant was not a member of the OC Taxpayers Association and her
organization had no financial gain in their support and urged approval of the plan on behalf of
the OUSD taxpayers.
Robert, speaking on behalf of Steven Kaller, local business owner, submitted a letter of support
for the record. He stated Anaheim as an international destination city with entertainment
giants, major league sports, industry and finance, and thousands of mom and pop companies
like his. He added the site area required attractive and well built homes that made economic
sense to homebuyers and that the Riverdale plan was the right plan for this location. The
development would bring in important revenues for local services, provide brand new homes as
job growth increased and would help fund services and facilities that were sorely needed in the
Orange Unified School District.
Steve LaMotte, OC BIA Government Affairs, supported the Riverdale Plan and did so because
of 300 local construction jobs created, $21 million in local revenues generated during
construction, millions in taxes and fees supporting parks and recreation, schools, transportation
and other vital infrastructure, as well as providing new homes for a county that had a shortfall
of 7,000 just to keep homes affordable. The site was consistent with residential land use in the
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 20 of 32
Riverdale neighborhood and was in East Anaheim, an area that was park rich and exceeded
both the city standard as well as the Quimby Act. He submitted support letters from the
Business Council's pack of realtors emphasizing the BIA of Orange County as well as the
Pacific West Association of Realtors supported this plan and recommended its approval.
Stacey Porter, Christine Dunne, and Rachel Harmon were representing hundreds of Anaheim
parents whose children attended Canyon High School and were united for the sale of Riverdale
school site as it would provide for essential and necessary improvements to Canyon. They
appreciated TRI Pointe Home's efforts to increase rear setbacks as well as reconfiguring
windows to increase privacy for existing homeowners and of the lengthy community outreach
they undertook. She added the funds raised for the sale of the surplus school site could only
be used for school facility improvements and believed that the best use of a portion of the
funds would help to improve the dilapidated track and field areas, explaining they were in such
poor condition that use by students was severely restricted. She added that the sale of the
school site was the only hope parents had to make important school facility improvements and
urged Council to approve the Riverdale plan.
Michele Gabbard, nearby resident, spoke in support of the Riverdale development stating the
nearly $18 million from the sale of the school site would benefit Canyon High School and other
aging schools within Orange Unified School District. She added this was important because
unlike other schools in Anaheim that benefited from a $249 million school bond recently
passed, Orange Unified Schools located in Anaheim would not and had not passed a school
bond measure in ten years although parents were working on that. She also appreciated that
the TRI Pointe development would increase the value of her home and asked Council to
approve the project.
Mike Brooks, resident, remarked he fully understood the condition of the Orange Unified
School District having attended those schools from elementary through high school and also
appreciated the fact parents were hoping the $18 million from the site purchase would go
towards their sports field. He was opposed to the RS-4 zoning, stating it was the densest
zoning possible and not appropriate for an RS-2 community. The existing homeowners would
have a wall of two-story houses towering over them and should be downsized to an RS-2 zone
which would make the residences more affordable and not the $800,000 shown on TRI
Pointe's website for homes now selling in Orange County.
Bobby Donelson, Sherwood Village, warned residents that many of these new homes could be
turned into short term rentals with thousands of strangers coming into their community. He
objected to the city condoning the practice and allowing this to happen, expressing his concern
that this profitable business would not be banned.
Rick Wood, TRI Pointe Homes, provided closing remarks stating that 6.2 dwelling units per
acre was not that far off from the existing neighborhood density and that the RS-4 zone was
created for infill purposes such as this. All of the streets would have parking on both sides, the
setbacks exceeded code requirements, and some of the setbacks on the adjacent homes were
not as great as what TRI Pointe proposed. He added that in an RS-2 zone, two story homes
could still be built. On the issue of short term rentals, Mr. Wood indicated this was a Planned
Unit Development and would be covered by CC&R's that could contain provisions in them that
did not allow for short term rentals. He added the square footage of the homes was not that
large, 2,400 to 2,800 square feet and if larger lots were used,those square footages would be
much larger than what was proposed.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 21 of 32
Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if it was possible to include language in the CC&Rs
prohibiting short term rentals with staff responding a provision could be included and would
most likely be the home could be rented out, but not for less than 30 days. Mr. Vanderbilt also
disclosed that he had been in contact with a TRI Pointe representative prior to this meeting and
also spoke to Mr. Foltz on the phone yesterday regarding his correspondence. He added that
in that correspondence he mentioned a 50 person petition, asking if it was available for review.
Mr. Belmer indicated he believed it was attached to the agenda report, adding that it was a 50
person petition representing 26 properties, most immediately adjoining the school site on
Deerfield and citing issues regarding traffic, density and compatibility. He added that one of
the factors in staffs recommendation of the project was the amount of extensive outreach done
by the developer which generated requests that the development not impact the neighborhood
to the maximum extent possible, ensure access did not impact, ensure two-story homes did not
affect the neighborhood's privacy, and lastly to address the grade differential between the two
properties. Mr. Belmer added the Planning Commission concluded all those tests were met to
the maximum extent possible given the fact new homes were being constructed on a site
where they currently did not exist.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mayor Pro Tern Kring stated she had met with the consultant, Greg McCafferty, yesterday
regarding this matter. Mayor Tait indicated he had met with the applicant some time ago and
also met with some of the existing residents, Mr. Foltz recently, and Debbie some time ago.
Council Member Murray remarked she had been briefed by the applicant and reviewed a
number of correspondences from residents adjacent to the former school.
Council Member Murray thanked both the residents and the applicant for working extensively to
insure this development would enhance and not detract, based on some of the concerns
raised. Additional and quality housing was needed in Anaheim and across all of Orange
County, pointing out the city had state and federal mandates that required the establishment of
infill developments and other opportunities for residents and for future growth. She pointed out
this project met the metrics of quality, going above and beyond on the traffic component and
the setbacks and the outreach to the community had been extensive and the Planning
Commission had unanimously approved the project and recommended it to Council for
consideration. She hoped the Orange Unified School District would agree on how to move
forward to improve schools and recognized funding was a critical need for school facility
enhancements across the eastern end of Anaheim and the sale of this property for
development could make that possible. She would be supporting this project.
Council Member Brandman disclosed he had met with the applicant and received
communication from the residents.
Mayor Tait remarked if this project were privately owned he would support it, but as it was
zoned for a school and not for high density single residential development, and once sold could
never be used for a school in the future, he would not support it. The park space was regularly
used by kids playing soccer and offered some green space in the neighborhood. In
discussions with Rancho Santiago Community College District, he understood they were
interested in the site and would be willing to pay over $10 million. He appreciated TRI Pointe
Homes and the product they delivered but was opposed to development on public land.
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 22 of 32
Mayor Pro Tern Kring reported she would be supporting the development of housing because it
was needed and would increase the value of the existing neighborhood, would create new
business and new customers for the area, and the Planning Commission unanimously
approved it. She added that stronger language regarding short term rentals could be required
in the CC&Rs if desired and she would enthusiastically support the item.
Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if the city determined the RS-4 zoning should be RS-2,
what would happen at that point. Mr. Belmer responded this was a discretionary action before
Council as it was before the Planning Commission and the purchase and sale agreement did
reflect that the sale was contingent on approval of this item. He explained that the city did not
dictate the RS-4 zoning, it was the result of a collaborative action between the school district
and the developer-and the developer and staff as to what would yield the kind of housing
development that would be most reflective of what the house buying population wanted. In
today's market, he added, the RS-4 zoning had become popular because it appeared to be
aligned with what the buying population was looking for in single family detached homes and
smaller lots.
Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if the city could also include language that prohibited a
short term rental use with the city attorney responding a condition of approval could be
proposed that would impose that requirement, and he may wish to ask the applicant whether
they would agree to that requirement for the record. Mr. Houston also pointed out that if the
zoning designation was changed or denied, staff would have to return to Council with
resolutions that reflected the change. Mayor Tait then asked the applicant whether there could
be a provision in the CC&Rs restricting short term rentals with Mr. Wood responding in the
affirmative. Mr. Vanderbilt confirmed with staff that parking on both sides of the street within
the project site was possible.
Council Member Brandman remarked this project that would benefit the 92807 and 92808
communities in Anaheim had been approved on a 7-0 vote by the Planning Commission who
held projects to a high standard. He appreciated the project as designed and would give his
support.
MOTION: Council Member Murray moved to approve the following and seconded by Council
Member Brandman:
• RESOLUTION NO. 2015-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
a Mitigation Monitoring Plan for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00502,
Reclassification No. 2015-00279, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05796, Variance
No. 2014-05011 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17879 (DEV2015-00041) (4540 East
Riverdale Avenue; and
• RESOLUTION NO. 2016-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No. 2015-
00502 (DEV2015-00041) (4540 East Riverdale Avenue); and
• ORDINANCE NO. 6356 (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. 2014-00279) (DEV2015-00041); and
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 23 of 32
• RESOLUTION NO. 2016-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05796 and Variance No. 2014-05011 (DEV2015-00041) (4540 East Riverdale Avenue);
and
• RESOLUTION NO. 2016-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17879 (DEV2015-00041)
(4540 East Riverdale Avenue)
DISCUSSION: Council Member Vanderbilt requested language in the CC&Rs to prohibit
short term rentals. Michael Houston responded that the record would reflect that the
resolution of approval for the tentative tract map would include a condition which prohibited
short term rentals, generally meaning rentals that were less than 30 days.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES —4: (Mayor Pro Tern Kring and Council Members: Brandman,
Murray and Vanderbilt). NOES — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried.
26. This is a public hearing, held pursuant to direction given at the City Council meeting on
December 15, 2015, regarding the formation of and boundaries for six City Council
districts to be reflected in a districting map, including, without limitation, consideration,
E127 discussion, modification and potential action (including action directing staff to prepare
one or more ordinances for consideration at an upcoming meeting) on one or more
districting map(s) submitted during the districting process undertaken by the Anaheim
Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts ("Committee"); to consider, discuss and act
(including action directing staff to prepare one or more ordinances for consideration at
an upcoming meeting) on which four City Council districts will hold elections in 2016 and
which two City Council districts will hold elections in 2018; and such other matters as
may be related to formation of six City Council districts. At the public hearing the City
Council may receive staff presentations on and may discuss and take potential action
(as described herein) on one or more districting map(s) submitted to the Committee,
including without limitation districting maps that include two or more Latino majority
citizen voting age population districts and/or other districting maps, including the map
identified as "Recommended Plan (Map 3)" in the Final Report of the Committee.
Michael Houston, City Attorney, stated this was a public hearing regarding the formation and
boundaries for six City Council districts to be reflected in a districting map, and to consider
which four districts would hold elections in 2016 and which two districts would hold elections in
2018 and to provide direction to staff regarding preparing an ordinance(s) for consideration by
Council at a later date.
He indicated at the December 8, 2015 council meeting, City Council postponed indefinitely
adoption of Ordinance No. 6349 which was introduced on November 17th to approve the
Recommended Map as the districting map and also sequencing elections in the map's six
districts. At the December 15, 2015 council meeting, a request was made during Council
Communication that staff schedule public hearings on January 12th, January 26th and February
6th of 2016 to consider maps submitted to the committee and further requested staff be available
to present submitted maps that include two or more Latino majority citizen voting age population
districts. The public hearings were scheduled and noticed as directed.
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 24 of 32
Mr. Houston explained this hearing would allow for discussion of all maps submitted to the
committee and for direction on any such maps. After hearing testimony and holding discussion,
Council could do the following: 1) direct the city attorney to prepare ordinance(s) establishing a
particular districting map for consideration and potential introduction/adoption at future
scheduled hearings and/or 2) identify which four districts should be up for election in 2016 and
which two districts should be up for election in 2018 for inclusion in any of those ordinances.
After tonight's hearing, two public hearings would follow on January 26th and February 9th. He
added, if tonight's hearing did not lead to Council direction to include any maps in one or more
ordinances, then more than three meetings would be required.
Mr. Houston presented districting criteria established by the California Elections Code; i.e. equal
population, boundaries of districts that might coincide with factors such as topography,
geography, cohesiveness, communities of interest, and under current state law and circuit
decision law, total inhabitant population was required. He noted there were several reasons that
justified small population deviations including communities of interest, following natural and
manmade boundaries, compactness and contiguity, population growth and providing voters with
opportunities to retain their elected representatives. He pointed out Council could now ask any
questions or present any particular maps for staff to focus on prior to opening the public
comment portion and the city's demographer, Justin Levitt, could walk through any of those
maps including the two Latino majority citizen voting age population (CVAP) districts or the
Recommended Plan.
Mayor Pro Tern Kring asked why the Reyes 2 map was referred to as a test map. Mr. Levitt
responded that Reyes Map 2 was drawn on August 20th as a result of the Committee asking for
a test map to look at Reyes Map 2 as it was originally drawn with two majority Latino seats,
District 3 and District 4. Mr. Houston clarified that the Recommended Reyes Map was the
August 29th revised map. Ms. Kring remarked there were some differences between the August
20th and August 29th Reyes Map, because Ponderosa was in District 4 on the August 20th map
and in District 5 in the August 29th version. Mr. Levitt stated that in order to get the second
majority Latino district, District 4 was moved northward up to the intersection of State College
and La Palma and to gain population in District 5, it included part of the Ponderosa
neighborhood. Mr. Houston, after conferring with Mr. Levitt, showed another version of the
August 20th map, indicating the first version was not the accurate August 20th version, explaining
the difference in the configuration.
Mayor Tait then inquired if the August 20th Reyes 2 map was the judge's recommended map.
Mr. Houston responded it was the test map the Committee requested, which was to take the
Recommended Map and turn it into a two majority Latino CVAP map. The Recommended Map
was the August 29th revised Reyes Map 2. Mayor Pro Tern Kring added that the August 29th
version showed District 3 as the Latino majority with Districts 4 and 5 Latino pluralities with Mr.
Levitt concurring.
Mayor Tait asked if all maps were submitted had been studied by the judges in a process that
lasted five months. Mr. Levitt replied that every map was submitted to the Committee and
authors of the maps presented to the Committee, all the consultant drafts were presented as
well and they were made public on the city's website. In addition, the judges received copies
and statistics accompanying each map that was submitted. Mayor Tait then asked if the public
had an opportunity to comment on these maps during the ten public hearings that were held
with Mr. Levitt indicating they did and had commented on a number of them with some receiving
more commentary than others. The Mayor further asked if Mr. Levitt had gone through this
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 25 of 32
process with other cities and did he believe that in Anaheim, it was a more robust discussion
than most. Mr. Levitt indicated there was a great deal of participation in Anaheim, and that
more public maps had been received here than were submitted for the process in the city of San
Diego.
To the question whether the process was fair or not, Ben DeMayo, outside legal counsel,
responded it had been a very fair process with Mr. Levitt adding that the judges asked questions
of the audience, particularly when there was confusion on some points and invited the public to
provide specific testimony on points throughout the process. The Mayor also asked if the
judges considered the legality of the maps as they determined which maps would pass legal
muster and not in violation of the Federal and State Voting Rights Act to which Mr. Levitt replied
there was much discussion on those aspects of the maps. Mayor Tait commented that a
process had been developed and followed with a panel of judges selecting one map as the
Recommended Map out of 30+ maps submitted through a process that was deemed fair. He
emphasized it was no wonder the public was upset over the result, especially when the City
Council had supported and approved the Recommended Map when it was first received.
Changing that result seemed unfair and he believed the Council should stay with the
Recommended Map, one that through compromise and consensus was agreed upon by all
participants in the process because the breakdown had not occurred until the sequencing of
district elections was considered.
Mayor Tait further pointed out that he had asked that the City Council vote on the People's Map
today, but it was not on the agenda. Mr. Houston remarked at this point in the process, the goal
was for Council to ask questions on particular maps or other matters and then open the public
hearing. After the close of public comments, discussion would then take place and before
Council for consideration were any maps submitted to the Committee and direction could be
given to staff for an ordinance(s) to be brought back. Mayor Tait confirmed that Council could
request staff prepare an ordinance approving one of these maps tonight, but it could not actually
be voted on and approved, and if no action was taken, additional public hearings would be
required. As far as sequencing was concerned, Mr. Houston explained a motion could be
offered for a particular map with the sequencing included or Council could leave the sequencing
issue open and fill in the blank at the next hearing.
Council Member Brandman concurred that the process was entirely fair, having monitored and
re-watched most of the meetings. Council Member Brandman asked if the judges at any time
considered sequencing and the fact that one of the four districts for the 2016 ballot would be a
two year seat. Mr. Levitt responded the judges did not discuss the sequencing of elections for
2016 and 2018. Council Member Brandman asked what the intent was in creating two majority
Latino districts with Mr. Levitt replying the judges were interested in seeing whether or not it was
possible to get a second majority Latino District, using the Reyes map. Mr. Brandman asked if
that was based on periodical data that showed it was preferential to have two majority Latino
districts with Mr. Levitt responding that there had been testimony from groups on that subject
and there was an obligation to consider whether or not two districts could be drawn and what it
would look like; as such, he reported he drew the map for a second Latino majority districts
starting with the basic outline of the Reyes map. Council Member Brandman asked why the
judges did not choose a map with two Latino majority districts with Mr. Levitt indicating he
believed it was the testimony they received and after reviewing the test map, the Committee
preferred the Recommended Map without two majority districts as revised on August 29, 2015.
Mr. Brandman added that sequencing was not part of their assessment when they ended up
with the final map although it was part of the deliberation for City Council as a policy body when
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 26 of 32
making their decision. Referring to the earlier revised map, Mr. Brandman asked why the
modifications between Districts 1 and 2 with Mr. Levitt indicating there had been some
comments on August 13th about the Brookhurst Community Center's connection to Little Arabia
community and the judges asked him to look into another alignment of those two districts west
of Euclid that put the community center into District 2 and population wise, he could follow major
roads (Euclid) to follow this alignment. Council Member Brandman summarized that at the
request of the judges, Mr. Levitt developed a map that created two majority Latino districts, two
CVAP districts, and a plurality district which could under a certain sequencing offer two majority
seats up for election in 2016 and that there would also be a Latino majority seat up in every
cycle because this map had two Latino majority seats. Mr. Levitt concurred, stating that was
correct if both were up for election in 2016. Council Member Brandman pointed out the
Recommended Map did not provide for that alternative because it only had one Latino majority
seat and it had been important to the community to have as many Latino majority seats up for
election as possible in presidential cycles where there was a higher turnout. He added that was
the paradigm in trying to create an environment where there was a higher turnout in the seats
which had communities of interest with Mr. Levitt agreeing.
Council Member Murray inquired if there was a negative under the California Voting Rights Act
to have more than one Latino majority CVAP seat in the city. Mr. DeMayo responded that under
the Federal Voting Rights Act, that was part of the reason the judges originally wanted to look at
proposals that had two Latino majority seats because the VRA law came into play in some
jurisdictions when there were runoff elections and that somewhere there needed to be a
majority, as a plurality would not win the seat. She asked if federal cases generally talked about
a majority requirement with Mr. DeMayo responding a majority of citizens of voting age was
needed. She asked if that was the standard used on Federal case law, not whether it was a
plurality with Mr. DeMayo stating it was the general standard.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments
Mark Daniels stated the People's Map met the requirements by five retired judges and no one
questioned that fact. He added there had never been anything more obvious asking why the
Council would question that point. He strongly urged Council to move forward, reinstate the
People's Map, and sequence Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 in 2016 and Districts 2 and 6 in 2018. He
spoke of his interest in the District 1 seat as well.
Joanne Sosa expressed her lack of faith that Council would take the right steps and reinstate
the People's Map, after so much time and effort had been undertaken by a panel of five retired
judges with significant public participation who anticipated the recommended map would be
approved. She also objected to staff's denial of the Mayor's request to put the Recommended
Map on the agenda for voting purposes.
Joese Hernandez, who went through the Anaheim school system and now worked in the city,
was discouraged that an effort to change the electoral system that marginalized communities
was being challenged. He had volunteered for Measures L and M and spoke about his distrust
in elected officials, and warned of the consequences if the situation did not turn around.
Benita Gagne, west Anaheim, remarked she had analyzed all of the maps that had been
submitted and put on the city's website and found that more than half only had one Hispanic
majority district and of the remainder, found 17 maps that had two or more, adding that number
did not correspond to the staff report's figure of 18 and explained how the error occurred. She
City Council Minutes of January 12, 2016
Page 27 of 32
remarked there was no way people could be entirely objective on the map and what the
sequencing would achieve, other than rolling the dice.
William Fitzgerald opined that Disney wanted to maintain control of the city and one way was to
delay elections by districting and wait until the February census figures were released and
lengthen the process significantly until April resulting in a lawsuit against the city. Mayor Tait
apologized for this speaker's mean-spirited commentary.
Jeanine Robbins stated Council Members Brandman, Murray and Kring no longer adequately
represented the public and showed a lack of respect for the process, the law and the people of
Anaheim. In the State of the Union address by President Obama, he spoke about ending the
practice of drawing congressional districts so that politicians could choose their voters and not
the other way around. Ms. Robbins emphasized that the residents of Anaheim voted and they
want the People's Map that was chosen by a panel of five retired judges and initially approved
by this City Council, then taken away.
Greg Diamond, speaking in part on behalf of his client Brian Chuchua, discussed the challenges
of commenting on 40 potential maps in the limited time provided. He stated the judges were
aware of sequencing but had determined that what mattered was when a district held its first
election, not whether it was up for ballot later. They also became aware of crossover maps
when Latinos had commented that they did not want to be four out of six districts in which they
were in the minority and the judges concurred. Referring to the Brookhurst Community Center,
he stated the drafter of that map indicated she had changed her mind and supported the
People's Map. Both Mr. Diamond and his client supported the People's Map as well and the
sequencing of Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5. He pointed out there were not many maps submitted that
met the judge's criteria because many individuals and organizations submitted more than one.
He warned that if the Ponderosa community was split, a lawsuit would result because it would
dilute that community's ability to elect a representative. Referring to Council Member
Brandman's request to postpone action indefinitely until the census figures were provided mid-
January, he stated those figures would not be received by the end of January and should the
demographics change within the districts, the problem might be solved and if it did not, Council
majority would look worse and filing a lawsuit would become easier.
Jeff LaTourneau stated he was saddened over the divisiveness of this issue, between friends,
between labor unions and between Council Members. He also regretted that the Mayor's
request to place a vote of the People's Map on tonight's agenda was not honored by staff and
then offered his interpretation on what would happen as a result of Mr. Brandman's
recommendation. He stated as a result, there would be hundreds of posters at the biggest
convention of the year on January 21st and picketers would not stop until justice was done.
Bobby Donelson stated he was in proposed District 4 and he was a strong supporter of the
People's Map. He was appreciative that the parking problem for the Ponderosa area had been
mitigated and could not understand why it went on for ten years. He was also opposed to the
division of the Ponderosa community as it would deprive a section of the community that had
been disenfranchised for years from representation. He spoke of the setback during
consideration of election sequencing and whether or not there were hundreds of emails from
District 2 residents requesting their district be up for election in 2016 and thought the actions at
the last meeting had been unanticipated and hurtful to the public that left him distrustful of
government.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 28 of 32
Mayor Pro Tem Kring remarked to the previous speaker's comments that she had not been on
the Council when no parking was allowed in Ponderosa for many years, adding that the Police
Department asked the city to prohibit parking at that time as this was a gang territory and
experience had proven the crime took place behind parked cars. She added that area, with the
help of the police and the community, cleaned up the problem and was why parking was able to
be restored.
Maria deGuzman, District 5 resident, remarked it was important for the City Council to reinstate
the Recommended Map that resulted from the hard work of the Advisory Committee and the
community members and it was important for the community to believe in the City Council.
Myrvette Judeh remarked the August 29th map was the one the panel of judges revised and
approved as the final recommended map and was dubbed the People's Map because it was
unanimously voted on by the people, the Advisory Committee and the City Council, and
subsequently canceled. Because District 3 was the reason Measures L and M were put on the
ballot and subsequently approved, it could not be left out of the election cycle in 2016. She
urged Council to move forward, set aside their personal interests and reinstate the People's
Map, establishing any sequence of district elections as long as District 3 was included in 2016.
Martin Lopez, resident, urged Council to stop ignoring the people's choice, reinstate the
Recommended Map and stop wasting everyone's time. He added that five fine, intelligent
judges donated their time to listen to the public, asking hundreds of questions and asking the
consultant to come up with the Recommended Map. He urged Council to stop ignoring the
people's choice and reinstate the People's Map, otherwise the issue would be taken to the
streets.
For technical reasons, a five minute recess was taken at 10:47p.m., with Mayor Tait
reconvening the meeting at 10:53 P.M.
Jose Moreno remarked there had been 18 public meetings about districting and the district
maps, ten by the panel of judges, four in the neighborhood councils and four public hearings in
the council chambers, and over 1,000 people, mostly residents, participated in the process. In
addition there were more than 30 maps considered and the judges were clear that they wanted
the people to participate, discuss with each other and compromise their own ideas to build a
map that would represent the interests of all. He emphasized the People's Map was the product
of huge compromises by people, including those who were part of the lawsuit. The people
compromised indicating they could live with one Latino majority CVAP as long as the other
districts had Latino electorates that could influence elections; i.e. a plurality district. He added
that MALDEF came to this meeting and clearly stated that their problem was not in the district
map but in the sequencing of districts for election. Another map that received some
consideration was the consultant map 2 and Gail Eastman spoke during a meeting that the
Colony was a community of interest and did not want to be divided and the judges concurred.
He added many residents from different parts of the city, often from different political
philosophies came to a compromise both legally and politically and was the reason why the
People's Map meant so much and he hoped City Council would honor their efforts. He urged
Council to support the People's Map and sequence Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 in 2016 with the
remaining two districts in 2018 and to move forward.
Ada Tomayo thanked Mayor Tait and Council Member Vanderbilt for their support and asked
Council to approve the People's Map and select Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 for election in 2016,
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 29 of 32
emphasizing the public wanted the People's Map, they wanted one Latino majority CVAP and
two pluralities, and MALDEF clearly stated it had no objection to the People's Map
Victoria Michaels, 20 year resident, urged Council majority to reverse its decision, listen to the
people, reinstate the Recommended Map, and to turn the disappointment of the public into a
more positive note. She was also upset that Mayor Tait was denied the ability to put an item on
tonight's agenda and hoped for a new start for the City of Kindness.
Marianna Rivera (through a Spanish interpreter) did not understand why Council approved the
People's Map and then rescinded that approval, in effect going backwards instead of forward.
She added the people would continue to attend council meetings and make their wishes known
until they had the right to be part of their government.
Gretchen Shoemaker disagreed with the decision to not approve the People's Map, and she
was saddened over the discord that occurred because the city continued to deny the right of a
group of people to have representation and a seat at the political table. All they wanted, she
underscored, was the right to take part in their government.
Ryan Bayliss, resident, remarked that during this meeting he had begun to understand the
relevance of the Recommended Map and the need to accept it and move forward and to include
west Anaheim residents. He valued the concept of voting for someone who lived in his area
and understood his issues and urged the city to come to an agreement on the map and vote to
approve it at the next council meeting.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Council Member Murray announced she had technical questions and asked if Dr. Moreno would
be open to one of them based on his history with this issue. As a plaintiff and during the
settlement discussions, she indicated there had been no discussion about sequencing, asking
why that was not considered a priority at the time of the settlement. Dr. Moreno responded that
he could speak to what was discussed and one issue was they did not want the development of
the boundaries and districts to be in the hands of the City Council, they wanted it to be out of the
political process and that the people would trust that the decision Council ultimately made would
make based on an objective and fair process and was the reason why they agreed to the panel
of five judges. He added that by agreeing to have the judges design the districting map, they
felt confident the parameters of the law would be followed and the disenfranchisement of Latino
voters to influence elections would be corrected. He further added when MALDEF sent their
letter, they did not feel it was a challenge to the map but rather it was the sequencing that would
violate the law and what the plaintiffs had been asking for all along was for the city to follow the
law.
Council Member Murray remarked she understood why he wanted the process to be objective
and independent but was not clear when sequencing became a priority and why it was left off
the table for a year. Dr. Moreno responded that the Recommended Map was legally strong and
defendable; it gave an opportunity in three districts for the Latino electorate to influence
elections and did not create a dominance of the Latino electorate. He added that was why
concern was raised on sequencing because changes to the map by creating two CVAPs would
lock in two districts and there was no ability to influence the rest and also locked in the Latino
electorate as a permanent minority of the city. Ms. Murray asked when the final map was
recommended was there a discussion at Los Amigos, or among the plaintiffs or the community
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 30 of 32
who was speaking in support of the final map to also encourage a sequencing or was that at all
considered once the map and the process was completed. Dr. Moreno answered that once the
map was approved, then the discussion became the communities and what sequencing they
would like to see. Council Member Murray asked if there had been a desire to involve the
judges in a discussion of the sequencing as the map was being finalized with Dr. Moreno stating
there was a conversation but it was made clear that sequencing was not the charge of the
judges in their deliberations. Ms. Murray further asked, from a technical standpoint, was
sequencing something that was a prioritization as the final map was being considered for the
judge's recommendation with Dr. Moreno indicating that he did not recall the judges talking
about the sequencing nor did the public. When asked again when sequencing was elevated to a
priority, Dr. Moreno stated the map was assumed to be legal and the sequencing was a
question of politics and it became a priority of the community when City Council raised concerns
from the dais in their interpretation of the MALDEF letter. He added that the City could have
raised sequencing during negotiations as well.
Mayor Tait stated when sequencing became such an issue was when District 3, the one Latino
majority CVAP was to be excluded from the 2016 election and the community became upset
and began addressing their concern. Mayor Tait added there had been much testimony
received and at one point, the Council all agreed on the People's Map and he wanted to go
back to that moment and move to adopt the People's Map.
MOTION: Mayor Tait then made a motion to ask staff to draft an ordinance adopting the
People's Map and omitting the sequencing of elections at this time, seconded by Mayor Pro
Tern Kring for purposes of discussion.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tern Kring asked to review the August 20th map, remarking that she
believed it was a good map because there were two majority Latino districts, but she recognized
that the public did not want to divide Ponderosa which was why she seconded the Mayor's
motion to adopt the August 29th People's Map. She added that she would also like to amend
that motion to include the sequencing, recognizing that speakers from west Anaheim, including
a petition of 100 signatures had requested Districts 1 and 2 be considered in the 2016 election
however, since Council Member Vanderbilt had now moved to District 2, she recommended the
sequencing of Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 for 2016 and then Districts 2 and 6 in 2018 as an
amendment to the Mayor's motion.
Mayor Tait accepted that amendment. The City Attorney remarked that technically under the
city's rules, the motion to amend and add sequencing to the main motion would need to be
seconded and then voted on separately.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Murray stated she would be supporting this motion, but had
one follow up question to MALDEF, explaining it was their letter that mentioned if the city chose
a map with only one CVAP seat, it would be challenged legally because the CVAP was not
robust enough, asking if MALDEF would support a map with one CVAP. Mr. Bergin, MALDEF,
responded that question should be answered by the City Attorney. He then spoke to the
contents of the MALDEF letters drafted in December, a demand letter notifying the city that if it
did not put a majority Latino district up in 2016, it could potentially be violating the FVRA as
intentional discrimination by denying Latinos the right to participate in the electoral process. He
stated MALDEF supported the People's Map that was before Council tonight and their letter
referred to the districting sequencing, not the map.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 31 of 32
Council Member Murray remarked that before Council adopted the final plan, she wanted to
consider additional options, to speak to LULAC and MALDEF and to the community to make
sure that the ultimate map adopted would withstand legal challenge and would hold up more
than just the initial election cycle. Having taken that time, she was prepared to support the
Recommended Map tonight and wanted to make clear that at no point did any member of this
body want to delay district elections beyond 2016. To address voters who had felt
disenfranchised, she spoke of Anaheim's programs that reached out to voters in their
communities, neighborhood district councils, and senior and community centers with ballots
provided in multiple languages, all in an effort to accommodate voters. She addressed as well
the investments made in the neighborhoods, looking at areas that were the oldest and most
economically challenged and were just now bearing out, adding that a breakdown of all those
services and improvements were shown in the city's annual budget and available to all. She
appreciated all who spoke and raised their concerns and hoped to move forward in a
constructive manner.
MOTION: Mayor Tait reiterated there was a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Kring, seconded by
Council Member Murray to amend the previous motion to include sequencing, the placing of
Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 on the November 2016 ballot and Districts 2 and 6 on the 2018 ballot.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray
and Vanderbilt). NOES—0. Motion Carried.
MOTION: Mayor Tait directed staff to prepare an ordinance approving the Recommended Plan
(Map 3) and placing Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 on the November 2016 ballot and Districts 2 and 6 on
the 2018 ballot, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kring.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Tait remarked on the historic action taking place, thanking the community
for coming out and caring about how they were governed, the volunteer judges for their hard
work and wisdom, and staff for the many hours they devoted to this process and lastly for the
City Council for coming together on this dais.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES— 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray
and Vanderbilt). NOES—0. Motion Carried.
Council Member Brandman remarked, in the spirit of the New Year and with the adoption of the
People's Map and district sequencing, he looked forward to the New Year as one Anaheim.
Mayor Pro Tern Kring thanked the community for their energy, passion and commitment to
Anaheim and she believed democracy had been served and looked forward to a great start in
the New Year.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Pro Tern Kring requested the meeting be adjourned in the name of Frank Cozza, Sr.
Council Member Vanderbilt requested the winners of the Creative Writing Project be recognized
at an upcoming meeting and presented a PowerBall ticket he purchased on behalf of the City
Council, with winning proceeds to go to the general fund.
City Council Minutes of January 12,2016
Page 32 of 32
ADJOURNMENT:
At 11:56 P.M., Mayor Tait adjourned the January 12, 2015 meeting in memory of
Frank Cozza, Sr.
Re •-ctfully submitted,
f r
Linda N. Andal, CMC
City Clerk