2005/06/07ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
June 7, 2005
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session for the meeting of May
24, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard for the Affordable Housing workshop.
PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob
Hernandez and Harry Sidhu.
STAFF PRESENT: Dave Morgan, City Manager, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Sheryll
Schroeder.
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on June 3, 2005 at
the City Hall outside bulletin board.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP:
Elisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development, informed Council the request for the motel
children's study was scheduled for July. For the affordable housing workshop, she indicated
Council had been given a packet of information that contained the agenda, a copy of the power
point presentation, maps of the agency-owned sites and a copy of a Request for Proposal for the
construction of affordable housing as well as an outline of current projects underway for housing.
Ms. Stipkovich indicated one of the key documents used to indicate affordable housing programs in
Anaheim was the Housing Element of the General Plan submitted in 2000 and certified in 2003,
which showed approximately 100,000 housing units in Anaheim distributed between single family,
multi-family and mobile homes. She explained the State looked at the need in the Housing
Element in two categories, the existing need of the residents who were overpaying, overcrowded,
living in substandard housing conditions, and special needs categories and new construction. The
existing need in the Housing Element reflected over 27,000 households in those various conditions
of need. She advised the City had addressed some of those needs through Section 8, tax credit
programs and neighborhood improvement programs, particularly the renovation and revitalization
of specific neighborhoods, leaving about 17,000 households in a condition of needing assistance.
Under these scenarios, Ms. Stipkovich stated the City had worked with private development to
establish over 1,100 units that were completely rehabilitated and in many cases expanded and had
affordable rents for 55 years. Mayor Pringle asked what the parameters of those goals were and
the response was given that it referred to a complete build-out of the General Plan or a 20 to 30
year time period. Council Member Galloway felt the need for 2005 would be substantially higher
as the Housing Element was based on figures taken in year 2000; Ms. Stipkovich indicated she
had used the most recent census data the City had which was in 2000, but acknowledged the need
would be larger in 2005, especially in the overpaying category.
Mayor Pringle questioned the three projects phases of the Hermosa Village asking if units were
lost through the rehabilitation process. Ms. Stipkovich noted in the first phase, 16 units were
removed to provide for a recreation center but in the same phase, over 300 bedrooms were added
to the existing housing stock, actually adding square footage and living space in the first phase.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 2
Phases 2 and 3 were basically rehabilitating existing living space. In Paseo Village and Park Vista,
Ms. Stipkovich informed there were no reductions in the number of units; they were tax credit
programs and 100 percent affordable. In response to Council Member Chavez's statement that
the 1,135 rehabilitated units had little impact on housing stock, Ms. Stipkovich pointed out it was
not new construction but was taking substandard housing, making it into standard housing and
making it new affordable units by controlling and lowering the rents and adding more bedrooms
and more square footage. Ms. Stipkovich remarked the average cost for Paseo Village and Park
Vista was actually $25,000 per unit and as of now, Hermosa Village was about $50,000 per unit in
terms of subsidies.
The other category, new construction needs or the total build-out of the City requirements,
reflected 11,508 units in the various different income levels. Ms. Stipkovich noted for new
construction, the City was expected to provide over 10,421 additional units as of the time the
Housing Element was certified. With the General Plan Amendment that had been approved, staff
believed the number would be closer to 27,000 new units. Mayor Pringle asked why that figure
had doubled and Ms. Stipkovich replied it was due to the changes Council approved in the General
Plan which addressed the boulevard housing, the mixed use zoning, small lot subdivisions, and
other amendments which provided for more and denser housing. Within the Housing Element, Ms.
Stipkovich indicated a short term goal had to be established as to what the City thought could be
accomplished and the goal set for Anaheim was 2,858 units. The City planned on completing 689
units in the very low, 310 in the low and 466 in the moderate and in the above moderate, the goals
had been exceeded. Council Member Chavez confirmed with Ms. Stipkovich there were 416
multi-family rentals that were in process for the very low households and 72 units in the low
category. She indicated the figure of 2,215 for the above moderate income were units undenrvay
at market rate and included the units in the CIM project.
Council Member Chavez stated there were 8,000 units shown under existing need for the very low
income and asked how a goal of building only 600 units had been established. She pointed out the
8,000 was for existing need category and was being addressed through Section 8 and other
housing programs. The new construction requirement reflected what the State law said you need
to be building in trying to reach the long-term goal of total build-out, however, cities were allowed to
set reasonable goals within a certain time frame and the goal of 600 units was set as a reasonable
goal to be accomplished in a five to seven year period. She also mentioned with the sites the City
now controlled, including the OCTA parcels, a large portion was recommended for rentals and
there was the possibility of building 488 multi-family rental units for low and very low households.
She advised Council of the requirements and restrictions under redevelopment law and how funds
had to be spent in the various categories and had to meet proportionality requirements, further
indicating those goals had been met by Anaheim.
In discussing avenues for funding of affordable housing, Ms. Stipkovich pointed out redevelopment
law allowed agencies to extend redevelopment project areas that had been adopted prior to 1994.
Through a redevelopment plan amendment, a 10 year extension of the project areas would mean
10 more years of tax increment from those areas, which was a significant amount of money. More
importantly, she stated, instead of providing 20 percent for housing, the figure increased to 30
percent. She pointed out currently, with 20 percent funding, the City would spend $60 million for
very low housing, $35 million for low and $58 million for moderate housing. If the amendment was
approved, Anaheim would not only get 30 percent for housing but would also have to spend 85
percent of those funds for low and very low categories. This amendment would then allocate $200
million for very low, $195 million for low and $70 million for moderate categories. The net increase
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 3
was $140 million in additional funds for the very low category, $160 million for the low and $11.2
million for the moderate, a total setaside of $313 million by extending the project areas to 2050.
Ms. Stipkovich also discussed leveraging and refinancing $30 million in bonds of housing set
asides in order to purchase sites because it was determined building sites were critical in terms of
being able to develop housing. She also addressed the competitive process in selecting
developers for affordable housing.
Council Member Galloway asked for a time frame for extension of the redevelopment areas. Ms.
Stipkovich indicated staff had been working on the amendment and hoped to bring it Council in
December of this year and the extension would take effect the following fiscal year with additional
funds projected for 2006/07.
Council Member Hernandez asked for details on the receipt of federal and state funds for
affordable housing. Ms. Stipkovich indicated the redevelopment monies were local tax increment
dollars which the State allowed for use in the redevelopment areas. The federal funds were less
and were through programs such as HOME, CDBG and Emergency Shelter Grants. She noted
that HOME and ESG totaled approximately $2 million per year and the redevelopment funds
totaled $6 million and after debt service, reflected $4.5 million. Council Member Hernandez
inquired if the low interest rate market had any impact on the marketability of the bonds the City
was considering refinancing and according to the underwriters, Ms. Stipkovich commented, there
appeared to be no shortage of buyers. Council Member Hernandez then asked if there was any
distinction given between organizations such as Mercy Housing and Habitat for Humanity versus
private developers vying on affordable housing projects and the response was given they were all
dealt with in the same manner.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, stated Planning's approach to providing affordable
housing was typically relying on Redevelopment set asides and other public funds such as Section
8 rental assistance, HOME monies or tax credits and felt the extension of the Redevelopment
Project area discussed by Ms. Stipkovich was probably the best way to provide a significant
infusion of funds for affordable housing especially since 85 percent of those monies had to be
allocated to low and very low income families.
In addition to public subsidies there were methods that could shift some of the burden and cost of
providing affordable units to the private sector. She noted in response to the need for affordable
housing, some California cities had turned to mandatory inclusionary housing programs and found
them to be effective at providing affordable units. She reported that critics of such programs, for
instance, the director of the California Dept of HCD, argued that inclusionary programs acted as
potential constraints on the production of new housing. She explained that generally any voluntary
inclusionary programs relied heavily on federal, state and local financial subsidies to entice
developers to build affordable units remarking that the cost to subsidize the housing unit depended
on many factors such as the type of construction, the density of the project, the cost of land,
required parking and open space, and other development amenities and fees.
Ms. Vander Dussen advised Council of the steps a mandatory program could take to help close the
gap and make units affordable and outlined those specifics such as combining density bonuses,
reductions in zoning standards and applying those actions to residential and non-residential
development. She advised that various means could be used to satisfy these requirements such
as the dedication of land, the payment of a fee, collaboration with anon-profit housing provider, or
other means.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 4
She pointed out the City of Anaheim already had a number of incentives in place to encourage
affordable housing development which included an affordable housing ordinance that granted
deviations from code requirements to reduce construction costs and facilitate construction of
affordable units. She noted the City had also designated more than 800 acres presently used for
commercial and industrial purposes for new residential developments at densities ranging from 18
dwelling units per acre up to 100 units per acre which helped reduce land cost for new dwelling
units. Standards for small lot residential developments were introduced and the City amended
height limits to allow multi-family buildings to exceed two stories and also changed the permitted
density for ownership units from 18 to 36 dwelling units per acre to facilitate higher density
ownership housing. She added, second dwelling units were allowed in most of the neighborhoods
and the City also allowed density bonuses in exchange for the provision of affordable units.
Ms. Vander Dussen informed Council that other incentives could include fee waivers, or reductions
or deferrals, for instance, for permit fees, processing fees or development impact fees. She stated
the City could grant deviations from development standards or could offer accelerated processing,
financial contributions or other incentives if the developer could demonstrate it could affect the
ability to provide affordable housing.
She remarked the City was on target to meet the five year goals for the production of new units
and had made significant progress toward the needs of existing residents as well. She noted the
Agency had provided more affordable units than required under State law and the City also had an
aggressive neighborhood enhancement program in place and the housing programs had been very
successful. Despite the success of the existing programs, Ms. Vander Dussen acknowledged the
City was aware it was not meeting 100 percent of the need for affordable housing and at a
minimum would recommend Council direct staff to initiate the following steps to continue to
promote the provision of affordable units: 1) recommend the City pursue the extension of
redevelopment project areas to provide additional funding for housing for low income and very low
income households, and 2) recommend Council direct staff to find a way to accelerate the
processing of applications for affordable units to provide another incentive for development of such
units.
Council Member Chavez stated the numbers addressing subsidies necessary for the construction
of affordable housing would scare any developer away and asked if there were any cities in the
County that had inclusionary programs in which projects such as these were being completed. Ms.
Vander Dussen indicated Irvine had adopted an inclusionary housing requirement for the area
surrounding the airport of 5 percent low, 5 percent very low and 5 percent moderate and did allow
developers to pay a fee in lieu of providing those units on site and required the high rise
developers to do that. The key to the program was that the developers purchasing Irvine property
were aware of those obligations and factored that in when purchasing the property. One of the
comments received from developers in the Platinum Triangle had been the fact they made their
purchase price assumptions on the development criteria that was presently in the Master Land Use
Plan so they had not assumed they would have the obligation of providing affordable units. She
also indicated Brea had an affordable program and San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano as
well, although there was not a lot of development in those areas.
Mayor Pringle asked how much redevelopment funds were used for affordable housing in Irvine.
Ms. Vander Dussen replied the only redevelopment area in Irvine was the EI Toro base so no
housing setaside funds were available. Council Member Sidhu asked what impact inclusionary
zoning would have on the housing market in Anaheim. Ms. Vander Dussen stated that was difficult
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 5
to predict, however developers indicate construction would cool down. Council Member Sidhu
asked who would bear the cost of the inclusionary requirement and Ms. Vander Dussen replied
that would depend on the program that was adopted and whether subsidies or development
standards were waived as incentives. Council Member Sidhu believed the inclusionary requirement
would either be subsidized by the City or the developer would pass the cost onto the new home
buyer. Ms. Vander Dussen mentioned that might depend on strategies used and if some of the
developers of for sale products could make certain units affordable to a particular level, the City
could provide down payment assistance or if they agreed to provide 15 units at a particular level,
the City could agree to reserve funds for down payment assistance for 15 of those buyers to help
with the disparities between the market rate and the affordable rates. To the question of where
does Anaheim stand in terms of affordability and rents compared to other Orange County cities,
Ms. Stipkovich stated Anaheim had a relatively low rent in terms of the Orange County market and
probably in terms of sales prices.
Council Member Galloway asked for details on park in-lieu fees of $7,000 to $9,000 per unit and
whether it could be waived. Ms. Vander Dussen stated park dedication fees applied throughout
the City, although they were higher in the Platinum Triangle to reflect the higher land values there.
The fees were to offset subdivision developments that could not provide a public park to meet the
recreational needs of the residents and the Community Services Department would use those
funds to either acquire parkland or make improvements to existing parks. She pointed out those
fees were governed by State law and could not be transferred to other City programs or services.
Council Member Chavez emphasized the point that park in lieu fees had not dissuaded developers
from building projects and asked for a complete breakdown of fees associated with new
construction; Ms. Vander Dussen indicated that information would be provided.
Council Member Hernandez asked if real estate values remained steady for the next five years,
what kind of annual income would be required for the purchase of a median household in Anaheim;
Elisa Stipkovich would provide that information. In a report he received from Cal State Fullerton
dated 2004, Council Member Hernandez explained it showed of 34 rental areas in the County,
Anaheim was 4'h lowest with a median rent of $818. Anaheim was also shown as having the 3~d
largest percentage of rental units in the County with Costa Mesa having the highest at 57 percent
Santa Ana at 49 percent and Anaheim at 48 percent. Mayor Pringle asked if the number of units
was reflected in the survey and Council Member Hernandez replied there were 48,373 in Anaheim
versus 36,975 for Santa Ana and 23,377 for Costa Mesa. Mayor Pringle remarked that even
though the percentage was higher for Costa Mesa, the total number of units in Anaheim was much
greater.
Council Member Chavez questioned the rental figure of $818 as he was not aware of any rentals
being that low in the area. He remarked this had been a very well attended workshop with much
community interest in the topic and with many experts in the field present and asked to hear their
comments.
Mayor Pringle asked Council to first share their individual perspectives and determine if members
of the Council wanted to hear from the public at this time.
Mayor Pringle stated he was a believer in the market. He pointed out Anaheim had taken a
proactive and aggressive stance to encourage more housing across the board, denser housing in
certain areas and all types and categories of affordable units and he did not want to take any
actions that would discourage that atmosphere. He believed it was acceptable to build in the
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 6
moderate and above moderate range as long as the need to build below the moderate range was
not neglected. Mayor Pringle agreed with Council Member Sidhu that the subsidy to make homes
and apartments affordable had to be paid by someone and felt inclusionary housing examples
across the country had proven that oftentimes it resulted in other homeowners paying higher costs
for their homes. He recounted a statement by the Mayor of Oakland that there was no inclusionary
zoning and no linkage fees in their city because those fees translated into taxes on new
construction, and Oakland wanted as many homes as possible.
He acknowledged the need for housing options for service workers in the community and stated
his goal was to address that need and concurrently increase housing for all economic levels. He
also felt the biggest tool available to promote affordable housing was through the use of
redevelopment funds by extending the redevelopment plan areas which were due to sunset and
with the 85 percent set asides gained through the extension, there would be much more monies
available for affordable housing programs. If Council concurred in extending the redevelopment
plans, he recommended staff receive clear direction to use those dollars to maximize the number
of units created. With the 19 parcels acquired from OCTA, Mayor Pringle believed the City should
aggressively seek affordable housing providers around the country to respond and find solutions to
the greatest use of those parcels. Additionally, he felt Council should direct staff to create a policy
that identified a certain number of units in the low and very low category over the next four or five
years and insure the City was committed to a plan and delivered those numbers. He did not want
to overlook rehabbing existing substandard units but would like to see a higher priority placed on
building additional affordable housing units for families that fall into those income categories. He
ended by stating all five Council Members could have a different perspective to some degree on
affordable housing issues but he believed those areas where the majority could agree upon should
be pinpointed so the City could start moving forward.
Council Member Hernandez concurred and suggested another avenue to increase affordable
housing stock was in streamlining the lengthy and burdensome process making it less expensive
for builders to consider affordable housing.
Council Member Chavez emphasized the great need for affordable housing for the working poor
and felt discussion and study of the issues was not enough. He also believed that approving one
project after another of high-end housing exacerbated the situation as those developments created
more service sector jobs. He pointed out the goals set for market rate housing had been met and
would be exceeded yet affordable housing programs had only addressed 5 percent of the goals.
He believed an action plan with strong goals should be created by Council to move forward on
getting more affordable housing.
Mayor Pringle responded that Council had made a much greater commitment to using its
resources than other cities had expressed. He thought the housing goals identified in the Housing
Element should be reassessed to set a more aggressive target or goals between now and 2007.
He wanted to ensure Council received enough information as to what would occur with the
opportunity to expand the redevelopment project areas and for staff to quantify those dollars to
determine what the value would be for the next three, four and five years for Council to determine
what additional property should be sought.
Council Member Galloway indicated by virtue of increasing the housing stock in this City as
aggressively as planned, it would alleviate some of the housing problems. She stated there was
not another city in the county doing this as aggressively. She stressed the success Anaheim has
had in being progressive and the passion created with the development of the Platinum Triangle.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 7
She felt that with the extension of the redevelopment project areas, the City would have three
times the funds to focus on affordable housing and did not believe it could be encouraged through
incentives only.
Council Member Chavez asked to have the workshop continued to allow public input from experts.
He remarked that if the City was to rely on the extension of the redevelopment project areas and
receive triple the funds, it would then triple the number of units able to be built and when the dust
settled, 1,800 units would still not be enough especially when you compared that to the
construction of 25,000 market rate residential units
Council Member Sidhu concurred with Mayor Pringle's statement. He did not feel an inclusionary
program was the answer as it put too much of a burden on the developers and would slow down
housing construction. He believed the answer was to do what Anaheim had been doing best and
that was working under redevelopment law. Council Member Sidhu recommended staff move
forward and look at ways to maximize affordable housing under redevelopment law and did not
support continuing the meeting for further input.
Mayor Pringle expressed appreciation for Council's comments. He remarked the discussion never
stops and as housing values go up, more people fall into the low and very low income categories.
He had no objection to scheduling another workshop within the new few weeks or months to hear
from the public on this issue. With no objection from Council, he asked staff to look into the areas
discussed today and bring back within the next few weeks specific ways to extend the
redevelopment plans, information on what that means and a policy that established a direction and
ways to ensure that direction would be followed for future Councils. Mr. Morgan added that staff
would also pursue the concept of expediting procedures for affordable housing projects.
FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 BUDGET WORKSHOP:
The City Manager, Dave Morgan, indicated this was a public hearing to review and adopt the City's
Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Budget pursuant to City Charter Sections 1202, 1203 and 1204. Council
had been provided with proposed budget documents and supporting information, all of which had
been available since May 2"d for public inspection as legally advertised. The public hearing would
be continued at the end of today to June 14, 2005. This hearing may at Council's discretion be
continued to subsequent dates prior to July 1, 2005 and still meet Charter requirements.
He stated for the second year in a row, local economic indicators pointed to continued
improvement in the economy and as a result modest growth was projected for key revenue
sources. At the same time, he warned, expenditures, without control, had the potential to grow at
unacceptable rates. Mr. Morgan reported the budget addressed the interests of Council and
focused on the concerns of the community, addressed capital requirements and continued to
emphasize public safety, economic development and maximizing the City's assets. He indicated
the proposed budget for fiscal 05/06 totaled $1,298,284,157 which represented a decrease of 0.3%
from the current adopted budget. Prior to introducing Finance Director, Bill Sweeney, the City
Manager providing an historical perspective of City staffing levels and organizational changes
since 1990.
Mr. Sweeney provided and overview of the City budget, addressing budget highlights and historical
steps taken to balance the budget since 1990. He stated despite cost pressures, the budget
funded all the current service levels and also some additional services in the Police Department
and was able to be accomplished in 05/06 through solid revenue growth and continued emphasis
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 8
on cost containment. He described the approach taken to balance the budget on the expenditure
side. He informed Council on the impacts of the national, regional and local economy, including
the state actions which reflected the final year for which the State would take funds from local
government through an agreement brokered last year.
He reported the total budget was just under $1.3 billion, slightly down from the current year and
that most of the variances was due to capital projects that would be completed this year. He noted
that about 50 percent of the total $1.2 billion City expenditures were due to enterprise funds such
as electricity, water, sanitation and convention and entertainment with the General Fund shown as
16.5 percent, a reflection of police and fire and general type services.
Council Member Sidhu verified the budget did not include annexation revenues, and Mr. Morgan
remarked that if the annexation went through, staff would be back with budget adjustments.
Mr. Sweeney presented General Fund expenditures by department and General Fund Revenues
by category with police and fire totaling over 62 percent in expenditures, consistent with California
municipalities. Mr. Morgan pointed out the numbers bear out Council's focus to emphasize public
safety and a five year history of general fund expenses reflected that commitment. On the revenue
side, Transient Occupancy Tax was the number one source of revenue coming into the general
fund and Mr. Sweeney provided historical and projected details on those revenue categories.
The Finance Director also presented departmental budgets, including City Council and
Administration as well as the Finance Department budget.
City Council, Administration and Finance Department Budget
City Council's budget proposed for next year reflected $518,312, and was comprised of 74 percent
labor costs with the remaining being operating expenses. City Administration totaled $4.2 million,
with the City Manager's budget of 37 percent, external affairs at 36 percent and the audit at 27
percent. The Finance Department contained a budget of $67,475,114 for six operating divisions,
including accounting, risk management, budget, purchasing and information systems. He
highlighted departmental accomplishments for the year as well as projections for next year.
Sheryll Schroeder presented the City Clerk budget of $800,656 which covered three operating
divisions and reflected a reduction from the current year due to no municipal elections for 05/06.
She emphasized departmental accomplishments for the year as well as changes from the current
year. An increase in labor costs was discussed.
At 3:05 p.m., Mayor Pringle adjourned the May 24, 2004 regular adjourned meeting and called to
order the regular meeting of June 7, 2005.
Jack White, City Attorney, presented the City Attorney's budget of $4,700,720 for the four divisions;
prosecution, civil, administration and police legal advice. Current caseloads, accomplishments for
this fiscal year and anticipated projects for the coming year were outlined. Council Member Sidhu
asked if the Angel Baseball team litigation was budgeted in this department and the response was
given that legal services related to each department were found in the departmental budgets and
this litigation was covered in the Enterprise fund for the Stadium.
Charlene Parker, City Treasurer, presented the Treasurer's budget of a little more than $1 million.
The Treasurer's office managed over $1 billion of portfolio bonds and defined contribution assets.
Highlighting this year's accomplishments, Ms. Parker remarked staff had earned over $29 million in
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 9
interest income and of that amount $17 million was earned by the portfolio and about $12 million
by bonds. Council Member Sidhu asked why personnel costs had significantly increased from
04/05 to 05/06 and Ms. Parker indicated the personnel had remained constant but the labor costs
had increased. Mr. Sweeney remarked that detailed information would be provided to Council to
answer that question but he verified the figure related to increased labor costs. Mayor Pringle
asked why the deferred compensation funds for outside legal services increased last year. Ms.
Parker indicated that a new contract for legal services reflected an increased hourly rate and the
department was anticipating filing plan documents with the IRS and for deferred compensation at a
total cost of $12,000. Mayor Pringle asked why that service was contracted out and Ms. Parker
remarked that at times specialized legal services were needed related to taxation.
David Hill, Human Resources Director, presented the Human Resources budget which provided
services to over 2,000 employees. With a budget of $4.2 million, Mr. Hill emphasized the
accomplishments for this year of two divisions, employee relations and information services and
personnel services and compensation and benefits.
Council Member Galloway asked for details on staff development. Mr. Hill stated it included both
in-house and external contracts for employee development and organizational development. Each
half of the year, training in development programs was offered for all city employees in areas such
as information technology, improving communication skills, improving personal effectiveness, time
management with about 1,500 to 2,000 employees in in-house training. The funds also covered
the leadership/scholarship program as the department had been aggressively developing the
second and third levels of the organization during this time because a higher turnover among the
leadership was anticipated in the future.
Roger Smith, Fire Chief, presented the 05/06 proposed budget for the department. Currently
organized in two divisions, administration and operations, the total budget requested was
$49,165,528 and 84.5 percent reflected labor costs. Chief Smith explained in detail the operations
of his department and the achievements which occurred during the year.
Chief Smith also reported on the Master Facility Fire Plan which addressed growth needs for the
department over the next 10 years. He explained the factors involved in determining the need for
expansion and the hiring of a revenue and cost consultant to develop a plan to increase revenues
to offset some of these costs through impact fees. He reported the plan defined the potential for a
cost for increased services to both police and fire and identified funds that could offset almost 62
percent of capital costs. He addressed the current and future development growth of the City
against the national standards of growth which guided fire station services, explaining the
recommendation was for every 5,000 units or 10 million square feet added, a fire station should
also be added. Chief Smith also explained the standards of coverage analysis that determined
how department personnel were deployed. He discussed response times, unit availability and
station distribution and the impacts when response times increased or unit availability dropped
below a certain percentile.
Chief Smith reported the Master Plan addressed the need for six new fire stations to be
constructed over the next 10 years noting that two stations were underway and should be
completed in 2006 and 2007, describing the location and service area of the proposed stations.
He also remarked on the need to enlarge or relocate three of current fire stations and indicating
staff was working on creative ideas to sell the current site for the North Net Fire Training Center to
possibly relocate to other property within the city and leverage some of the proceeds from the sale
in the overall capital project plan.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 10
Council Member Chavez asked if the Lennar project was approved, would there be a need to have
a fire station in the Platinum Triangle earlier than was scheduled. Chief Smith replied he would
take another look at the timelines, but these dates had been the department's best guess.
Council Member Chavez noted there was an internal service fund specifically for motorized
equipment with $25 million in the account. Mr. Sweeney indicated the $25 million referred to total
assets; however the cash was reflected as approximately $13 million. He did point out the cash
balance was projected to drop below $5 million a year from now as those funds were used to
replace vehicles. The Finance Director stated the fleet manager was trying to accelerate the
replacement of trucks and expected to have a certain amount of cash available to do so over the
next three to four years pointing out the fund was for the replacement of fire apparatus in the City
but was not 100 percent funded as money was taken over time. Mr. Sweeney commented he was
working very closely with fire and fleet services and would return to Council with an answer as to
when the City could replace all the ladder trucks.
Mayor Pringle asked how the new stations would be equipped and the Finance Director responded
some of the equipment could be potentially covered as development impact fees were discussed
as part of the budget that helped identify funds to make those purchases. For Mountain Park, it
was pointed out staff was working with the developer to not only build the fire station but to also
acquire apparatus to fill it and this could be an alternative in the Platinum Triangle.
Council Member Galloway asked why Mountain Park station would be constructed before the
Platinum Triangle. Chief Smith stated that giving the numbers of units underway in the Platinum
Triangle, it would fall behind Mountain Park because they had a certain timeline on the Mountain
Park development. Mayor Pringle verified with Chief Smith that those dates were flexible and
would be updated as developments came on line. He remarked that as the number of units moved
forward in the Platinum Triangle area and required additional fire support, he sensed Council would
recommend construction of a new fire station for the Triangle at some point in the future based on
the number of units built.
Council Member Hernandez was supportive of the Master Plan and pointed out the fiscal
challenges in funding for the new stations and in equipping the new station with engines and
trucks. He inquired if there was any plan to incorporate a fire station into a building in the Platinum
Triangle or was staff looking at the free-standing fire station concept. Chief Smith noted those
discussions had not been held with the developer but he had some discussion with Community
Services Department to look at sharing properties in some of those areas and had been focusing
on stand-alone type of facilities. Council Member Hernandez asked Chief Smith to clarify for the
public the move-up and cover system to address response times and unit availability.
Mr. Morgan remarked there were fiscal challenges in meeting the capital needs outlined in the
Master Plan and that the development fee Council would be considering was only for capital
improvements and had nothing to do with the operations.
Marcie Edwards, General Manager of Utilities Department, presented the Utilities Department
budget. She outlined the accomplishments of the department, noting that the average retail
electric rate continued to be generally 25 percent lower than surrounding areas and water rates
were in the lowest 20 percent of 33 Orange County water providers. She pointed out the
department made direct transfers to the General Fund of approximately $18 million and funded
over $3 million in City projects. Revenues for 05/06 reflected $396 million, with 90% coming from
electric and water sales. With a total budget of $534 million, an increase of $19 million from last
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 11
year, she addressed operating and capital expenses for both electric and water. Ms. Edwards also
provided specifics on the capital budgets, emphasizing the accomplishments of the previous year.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and receiving no comments, closed the hearing. At 4:30
P.M., Mayor Pringle continued the FY 2005/06 budget public hearing to June 14, 2005 at 2:00 p.m.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
Mayor Pringle moved to closed session for the following items:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of
Government Code Section 54956.9)
Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball, LP, et al., Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 050001902.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of
Government Code Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Welch v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No.
030009927.
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of
Government Code Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Small v. People of the State of California, etc., et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 050006368 (and four related actions).
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant
exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code)
Number of potential cases: one or more.
Existing facts and circumstances: significant land movement and property damage to
the properties located at 357, 365 and 373 Ramsgate Drive; 4039 and 4043 Circle Haven
Road, 4033, 4039 and 4045 Maple Tree Drive.
At 5:15 P.M., Mayor Pringle reconvened the Council meeting.
Invocation: Pastor Jimmy Gaston, Church of Christ
Flag Salute: Council Member Galloway
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date)•
Recognizing Jacob R. Volkert on his retirement from the Boeing Company.
Proclaiming June 14, 2005, as Army Appreciation Day.
At 5:30 P.M. Mayor Pringle called to order the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim
Housing Authority (in joint session with the City Council).
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO ANY OF THE AGENDAS: An error in the address in the resolution
title for Item 27 was corrected to read 255 N. Larch Street. The appellant's request to continue the
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 12
public hearing for Item 41 to July 12, 2005 was unanimously granted by Council. The appellant for
Item 42 requested continuance of the public hearing to June 14, 2005 while the applicant voiced
opposition to the request. Mayor Pringle indicated Item 42 was on the agenda for consideration
and the matter of continuing the hearing to June 14`h would be discussed at that time. Item 36.1
was continued by Mayor Pringle to June 14, 2005.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (ALL MATTERS EXCEPT PUBLIC HEARINGS):
William Fitzgerald, HOME, addressed comments on misuse of public funds.
Reverend Brenda Lee asked for support for Operation God Bless the Armed Forces Family and
other charitable events.
Salim Arreola, Hermosa Village resident, commented on the issue of lack of parking spaces in his
residential development.
Richard McFarland, president of Eli Home, addressed offensive comments verbalized during oral
communications.
James Robert Reade spoke against a variety of issues and people.
Bob Ball, 40-year resident, urged Council's approval of Item 28, indicating he had presented a
detailed letter to the City Clerk on the matter.
Paul Andreason, Anaheim YMCA, invited Council to the 4th Annual Anaheim Achieved Showcase,
June 18th highlighting after school programs.
Bill Estep, resident, objected to the street vendors present night and day on 9th Street citing health
and safety risks and traffic concerns. The City Manager, responding to Mr. Estep's question and
verified the park in the Hermosa Village area was a City park and had not yet been named.
Margaret Patino, resident south of Hermosa Village, expressed concern with the safety issues
caused by street vendors parking their trucks on 9th Street south of Cerritos.
Alma Ramirez spoke on a variety of issues not related to agenda.
Cheryl Favela, resident, voiced opposition to vendors on 9th Street causing traffic safety concerns.
Frances Notaboum, resident, spoke in support of Item 28 and expressed concern over street
vendors parking on 9th Street.
At 5:49 P.M., Mayor Pringle recessed the Anaheim Council to call to order the Redevelopment
Agency. At 6:00 P.M., Mayor Pringle reconvened the Anaheim Council in joint session with the
Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority for a public hearing.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING:
8. A joint public hearing to consider an Amended and Restated Cooperation Agreement
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 13
2809 between the Anaheim Housing Authority, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and Anaheim
City Council for affordable housing on South Vine Street between East Broadway and East
Santa Ana Street.
Approve and authorize the Executive Director of the Community Development to execute a
Cooperation Agreement, on behalf of the City, with the Anaheim Housing Authority and
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to acquire properties for future affordable housing on
South Vine Street between East Broadway and East Santa Ana Street.
Elisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development, reported Item 8 was an amendment to a
cooperative agreement between three entities, the Housing Authority, the Redevelopment Agency
and the City Council. She explained the Redevelopment Agency had been acquiring parcels on
the site on South Vine Street between East Broadway and East Santa Ana Street over the last
couple of years finalizing the acquisition process in October 2004. The Housing Authority was the
entity to ultimately own the property acquired for the purpose of constructing very low income multi-
family rental housing. She remarked the City had an exclusive right to negotiate with Mercy
Housing and had been working with them for some time and the amendment was to allow
additional funding, if needed, to go into the project. She explained if extraordinary costs were
incurred in the development of this project, $700,000 of HOME funds and $1.4 million of
Redevelopment set aside monies would be added. In addition, the property was to be conveyed to
the Housing Authority and approval was requested of a Disposition and Development Agreement
between the Housing Authority and Mercy Housing. The Agreement would authorize along-term
ground lease to Mercy Housing to develop 60 units of very low income housing for families
contingent upon their receipt of tax credits being allocated in July 2005. Ms. Stipkovich further
stated if extraordinary costs were incurred and additional funding needed, the agreement
authorized the first $350,000 to be taken from the developer fee to be repaid out of cash flow, and
authorized the additional funding up to $2.1 million, if necessary, to be put in the form of a loan to
be paid back over the 55-year period.
Ms. Stipkovich indicated the total cost for the Redevelopment Agency both for land, demolition and
relocation was approximately $3.4 million which included some interest costs on the source of
funding for the acquisition and if the $2.1 million was needed, the total would reflect $5.5 million for
the project.
The Community Development Director recommended approval of the amendment to the
Cooperative Agreement and also approval of the Housing Authority Disposition and Development
Agreement with the precaution included in the agreement that the Housing Authority would have
the right to modify plans and specifications to insure cost containment.
Council Member Sidhu asked why the cost increased from the $700,000 originally estimated to
$1.4 million for the project. Ms. Stipkovich did not feel the costs had increased but that the
request for additional funding related to the developer's level of confidence in the cost estimate
used by Keyser Marston, the City's real estate economist who prepared the estimate. Mercy
Housing was concerned that the estimate was too low and costs were difficult to project due to the
fluctuation in commodities and labor. In exchange for agreeing to additional funding if needed, Ms.
Stipkovich requested the City have the ability to bring the project in as reasonable as possible to
which the developer agreed. Council Member Sidhu questioned whether other bids were received
and if not, why the exclusive contract with Mercy Housing. Ms. Stipkovich indicated the City had
been working with Mercy Housing for amulti-family project in West Anaheim but due to changes
that had occurred, the site was no longer able to accommodate multi-family units. Rather than try
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 14
to change the overlay zoning for that site, the City indicated they would work with Mercy Housing to
locate another suitable site in the City. Council Member Sidhu asked how the City would know if
reasonable costs were received for the 60 units. Ms. Stipkovich indicated this would be an open
book project, the City would be reviewing every subcontractor, would work with Mercy Housing on
the design development drawings to go out to bid and get on-going cost estimates during the
process. Council Member Sidhu asked what the developer would receive to build the project and
Ms. Stipkovich replied Mercy Housing would receive $1.4 million. She indicated she had
discussed reducing the developer fee when the costs increased from $700,000 to $1.4 million and
Mercy Housing had preferred not to do so at the time.
Council Member Sidhu stated he did not object to Mercy Housing as the developer but preferred a
competitive bid process to get the best cost for the City. Ms. Stipkovich indicated she was
recommending approval of the agreement due to the time frame for the State tax credit allocation
in July as there would not be adequate time to seek other proposals.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
Ben Phillips, Regional Associate Director for Mercy Housing, stated their mission was to provide
quality, affordable, program-enriched housing specifically for families who had very low incomes.
As to the reason for additional funding for this project, Mr. Phillips pointed to the impact booming
economy in China had on construction materials and the impacts of the war in Iraq, as well as
increased workers compensation insurance. Because of those increased costs and Mercy
Housing's conservative cost estimating practices, the firm had come to an agreement with the City
which put control over the cost of the project as much in the City's hand as in Mercy Housing with
the total amount being capped and any dollars beyond that amount to be at the risk of Mercy
Housing.
Scott Darrell, Director of Kennedy Commission, reported that many members of the community
were present during the earlier workshop on affordable housing and asked that he express their
support for this project.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing.
Council Member Hernandez indicated he was pleased with the Mercy Housing work product and
felt the final negotiations were inventive and showed the commitment on both parties to come to
agreement toward providing affordable housing without imposing constraints on building
contractors.
Council Member Chavez thanked staff and Mercy Housing for coming to agreement and moved to
approve the Amended and Restated Cooperation Agreement and to authorize the Executive
Director to execute the Cooperative Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency and the City.
Mayor Pringle remarked that he might not have been supportive of this project if it was not for the
innovative elements drafted by Ms. Stipkovich which allowed the City greater oversight as to cost
containment. He pointed out over $5 million of property tax dollars would be invested in this single
project for 60 units and was necessary for the very low income families but that Council should
ensure these opportunities were available for people all across the housing spectrum.
Council Member Sidhu confirmed that if the tax credit allocation was not received on this go-
around, the entire project would go out to bid.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 15
Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and
Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
At 6:25 P.M., Mayor Pringle adjourned the Anaheim Housing Authority and the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Pringle removed Item No's. 11 and 14 for separate discussion; Council Member Galloway
removed Item 21. Item 36.1 had been continued to June 14, 2005.
Council Member Hernandez moved approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar Items 10 -
36, seconded by Council Member Sidhu to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions
and to approve the following in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations
furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar.
10. Receive and file minutes of the Budget Advisory Commission meeting held April 20, 2005.
B105
12. Accept the low bid of CDCE Inc., in the amount of $119,830.50 (including tax), for thirty-
D180 eight Panasonic Toughbook laptop computers and related carry accessories in accordance
with Bid #6616; accept the low bid of Genesis Computer Systems, Inc., in the amount of
$25,174.71 (including tax), for thirty-six thermal printers; and waive the sealed bidding
requirement of Council Policy No. 306 to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a
separate purchase order, to CDCE Inc., in an amount not to exceed $98,600 (including tax),
for installation parts and labor and extended service contracts for the systems.
13. Accept the bid of Clean Sweep Supply Company, in an amount not to exceed $169,021
D180 (including tax), for paper products for the Convention Center, for a period of one year with
up to three one-year renewal options and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the
options to renew in accordance with Bid #6625.
15. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Inspection Engineering Construction,
3521 Inc., in the amount of $43,299, for the State College Boulevard Intelligent Transportation
System from Via Burton Street to Wagner Avenue and approve and authorize the Finance
Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
16. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc., in the
3522 amount of $218,999, for the miscellaneous well destructions and approve and authorize the
Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
17. Reject all bids submitted for the Demolition of Unit and Oelkers Substations.
D175
18. Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement of Tract No. 16817, located at 2507-
P178 2525 West Picadilly Way.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 16
19. Approve the Acquisition Agreement and Residential Rental Agreement with Julie Hoa-Yen
3523 Nguyen for the purchase of real property located at 1792 South Carnelian Street, in the
acquisition payment amount of $510,000, including escrow fees to Grover Escrow
Corporation, for the Katella Avenue Smart Street (Ninth Street to Humor Drive).
20. Approve an agreement with WLC Architects, in the amount of $300,000, for architectural
3525 services for the construction of Fire Station No. 11.
22. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement with Children's Bureau of Southern California
3196 to increase the City's maximum compensation amount from $34,470 to $35,670 for the
period of October 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 to provide services that support safe and stable
families and increase the revenue and expenditure appropriations, in the amount of $1,200.
23. Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute a Cooperation Agreement with the
3517 Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority for the purpose of acquiring
land for future housing projects (OCTA Crescent and Wilshire remnant housing parcels)
(related to Agency Item #3 and Authority Item #6).
24. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a Cooperation
3516 Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to facilitate the development of public utilities
facilities and implement redevelopment of the Downtown area (related to Agency Item #2).
25. Approve the Revocation of Covenant regarding Occupancy Limitations thereby terminating
C220 the original covenant pertaining to occupancy limitations for Conditional Use Permit No.
3096 for the property located at 3601 West Ball Road.
26. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-100 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
P124 OF ANAHEIM accepting City Deed No. 10830 conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
property interests granted therein.
27. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-94 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
P110 OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and
easements (Abandonment No. ABA2005-00108, 25 N. Larch Street). Public hearing
scheduled July 12, 2005.
28. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-95 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
D175 OF ANAHEIM designating (I) Ninth Street between Cerritos Avenue and Calle De Las
Estrellas and (II) the south side of Cerritos Avenue between Ninth Street and Walnut as
"Permit Parking Only" streets (Permit Parking Area No. 16).
29. ORDINANCE NO. 5969 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
3503 approving entering into the Natural Gas Project Gas Sales Agreement (Project A)
(Introduced at the Council meeting of May 24, 2005, Item #22). ORDINANCE NO. 5969
ADOPTED.
30. ORDINANCE NO. 5970 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
C280 amending Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the zoning
regulations to be applicable to certain property upon annexation to the City of Anaheim
(Introduced at the Council meeting of May 24, 2005, Item #23). ORDINANCE NO. 5970
ADOPTED.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 17
31. ORDINANCE NO. 5971 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
C280 amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to
zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00126, 1429 West Crone Avenue) (Introduced at the
Council meeting of May 24, 2005, Item #24). ORDINANCE NO. 5971 ADOPTED.
32. ORDINANCE NO. 5972 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
3517 amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
C280 zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00127, 2401 E. Katella Avenue) (Introduced at the
Council meeting of May 24, 2005, Item #25). ORDINANCE NO. 5972 ADOPTED.
33. ORDINANCE NO. 5973 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ARA approving the Redevelopment Plan Amendments to extend by one year the effectiveness of
the Redevelopment Plan and the time limit for the receipt of property tax increment for the
Merged Project Area (Introduced at the Council public hearing of May 24, 2005, Item #29).
ORDINANCE NO. 5973 ADOPTED.
34. ORDINANCE NO. 5974 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i)
3504 approving Development Agreement No. 2005-00001 by and between the City of Anaheim
and BRE Properties, Inc., (ii) making certain findings related thereto, and (iii) authorizing the
Mayor to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City (Introduced at the Council
public hearing of May 24, 2005, Item #31 ).
3505 ORDINANCE NO. 5975 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i)
approving Development Agreement No. 2005-00002 by and between the City of Anaheim
and BRE Properties, Inc., (ii) making certain findings related thereto, and (iii) authorizing the
Mayor to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City (Introduced at the Council
public hearing of May 24, 2005, Item #31).
3506 ORDINANCE NO. 5976 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) approving Development Agreement No. 2005-00003 by and between the City of
Anaheim and BRE Properties, Inc., (ii) making certain findings related thereto, and (iii)
authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City (Introduced
at the Council public hearing of May 24, 2005, Item #31).
ORDINANCE NOS. 5974, 5975, & 5976 ADOPTED.
35. ORDINANCE NO. 5977 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
C200 ANAHEIM amending Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to land development
and resources. ORDINANCE INTRODUCED.
36. Approve minutes of the Council meeting held May 24, 2005.
36.1 Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperation Agreement dated
June 1, 2005 between the City of Anaheim, City of Yorba Linda and the Redevelopment
Agency for the Savi Ranch/Weir Canyon Traffic Improvements (related to Item #4.1).
Mayor Pringle continued Item 36.1 to June 14, 2005.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 18
11. Approve the Fiscal Year 2004/05 write-off of uncollectible miscellaneous accounts
D128 receivable totaling $401,350.48.
Mayor Pringle questioned the $220,000 in booking fees that were part of the write-off. Mr. Morgan
indicated the uncollectible invoices were referred to a collection agency and while the City wrote off
the accounts under standard accounting practices, the collection efforts continued.
Mayor Pringle moved to approve Item 11, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote:
Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0.
Motion Carried.
14. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the
D180 Purchasing Agent to issue a six month purchase order to Hernandez City Services, in an
amount not to exceed $24,000, for shopping cart retrieval services for the Planning
Department.
Mayor Pringle reported Item 14 was a contract for Hernandez City Services for retrieval of
shopping carts found on City streets that it had been extended a few months ago and was back for
another six month extension. Mr. Morgan indicated there was an effort to come up with some
enhancement of a City ordinance to work more aggressively to insure carts were picked up on City
streets and this was an interim step until the draft ordinance was finalized.
Council Member Chavez moved to approve Item 14, seconded by council Member Sidhu. Roll Call
vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes -
0. Motion Carried
21. Approve and adopt the Relocation Plan for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Highway and
D175 HOV Interchange Projects.
The City Manager reported Item 21 was a recommendation for approval of a relocation plan for the
Gene Autry Way I-5 HOV interchange projects. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, stated
the plan was developed to meet both federal and state requirements for relocation which would
study available housing as well as the housing that was going to be eliminated by the project in
order to assess impacts and how to best relocate residents. She noted the plan also set up the
process to address the needs of the people, how to work with them and what appeal processes
would be available to them. She reported it was a State requirement to have this plan approved
before sending 90-day notices to relocate. Ms. Meeks indicated this had not happened yet and
was not in the near future, but the department wanted to get the plan in place so everyone
understood their options.
Mayor Pringle indicated this was a project anticipative of the I-5 widening and has been
environmentally cleared through that process with some efforts going on for about 10 years.
Currently Gene Autry only traveled east of the I-5 freeway and this would connect it to west
necessitating the relocation of some mobile home residents. Ms. Meeks confirmed there were a
number of alignments studied through the environmental process and this chosen alignment was
determined to have the least impact on the area residents and that she had been meeting with the
property owners since then. There had been a meeting two years ago, another meeting in October
of last year and a most recent general meeting about the project with a specific relocation meeting
held for the occupants.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 19
Council Member Galloway appreciated the packet of information provided and asked for details on
the process. Ms. Meeks indicated a date had not yet been given as to when the families must
leave the mobile home park. She noted the department had just started to meet with the
occupants at the first mobile home park and benefit letters would be mailed to them in the next
week or two. She noted staff had tried to inform the occupants and work with them to let them
know they had at least nine months to move. She explained the most recent meeting was for all
the occupants and staff tried to match additional City benefits such as Section 8 housing vouchers
or first time homebuyers programs and had representatives from those programs at the community
meeting to help maximize benefits. She indicated there was also a relocation consultant available
to meet with the families, find out their needs and present different options for them. She further
stated families were able to go out and find their own housing and could take their relocation
benefits with them if they moved out of the City, remarking that many of them remained local.
Council Member Chavez advised he had not had a chance to review the information and that the
owner of one of the properties had come to him requesting some time to consider the impact to his
property and asked to continue the item for a couple of weeks.
Mayor Pringle responded the property owner in question had visited him a year ago and was well
aware of the process and had been negotiating for some time. He felt the property owner might be
using this matter as leverage to discuss other uses of his property and that the residents had been
dealt with great sensitivity by staff during this process.
Council Member Chavez recognized there had been discussion by occupants and property owners
on this matter, however, he requested a one week continuation as that would give him time to
become informed on the project. With no objection from Council, Mayor Pringle continued this item
to June 14, 2005.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
37. Consider appointing two members to the Senior Citizen Commission to complete the
B105 unexpired terms of Kamal Naffa, term to expire June 30, 2007 and Charlotte DeVaul, term
to expire June 30, 2006.
Mayor Pringle continued this item to June 14, 2005 and requested Council Members Hernandez,
Galloway and Sidhu to come up with nominees for the Sr. Citizen Commission as there would now
be three vacancies.
38. Consider appointments/re-appointments to Board and Commission members whose terms
B105 expire June 30, 2005. All terms will be for four years, expiring June 30, 2009, except for the
Senior Citizen Commission, term of three years, will expire June 30, 2008.
Mayor Pringle moved to re-appoint all members of boards and commissions requesting
reappointment, excluding Alden Esping to the Community Center Authority, seconded by Council
Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway,
Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 20
Budget Advisory Commission:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
REAPPOINTMENT: JEFFREY McNUTT
APPOINTMENT: ALDEN ESPING
Council Member Chavez nominated Alden Esping to the Budget Advisory Commission and with no
other nominations offered, the appointment was unanimously approved.
Community Center Authority:
Term to expire June 30, 2009
APPOINTMENT: DIANE SINGER-QUEZADA
Council Member Chavez nominated Diane Singer Quezada, and with no other nominees offered,
the appointment was unanimously approved.
Community Services Board:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
With no objection from Council, Mayor Pringle continued to June 14, 2005.
Cultural and Heritage Commission:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
REAPPOINTMENT: MARIA LEANO
REAPPOINTMENT: GARY MURRAY
Golf Commission:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
REAPPOINTMENT: KATHY WRIGHT
Mayor Pringle continued the second appointment to June 14, 2005.
Housing & Community Development Commission:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
REAPPOINTMENT: STEVE ROSCO
REAPPOINTMENT: DAVID YVASKA
Investment Advisory Board:
Term to expire June 30, 2009
Mayor Pringle continued appointment to June 14, 2005
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 21
Library Board:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
REAPPOINTMENT: SUSAN FAESSEL
REAPPOINTMENT: MARY HIBBARD
Park and Recreation Commission:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
With no objection from Council, Mayor Pringle continued the appointments to June 14, 2005.
Planning Commission:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
REAPPOINTMENT: GAIL EASTMAN
REAPPOINTMENT: ED PEREZ
Public Utilities Board:
Terms to expire June 30, 2009
REAPPOINTMENT: DOUG CLARK
REAPPOINTMENT: MARCIA GARTEN
REAPPOINTMENT: PAUL RICH
Senior Citizen Commission:
Terms to expire June 30, 2008
REAPPOINTMENT: KITTY PRESTON
Mayor Pringle continued the second appointment to June 14, 2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
39. A public hearing to consider the granting of anon-exclusive franchise to Southern California
3071 Edison (SCE).
Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager, reported on July 27, 2004, Council had granted a 30-year
franchise and letter agreement to Edison. Subsequent to that action, Edison requested some
revisions to the franchise document. Approval of these revisions requested by Edison required
Council adopt a revised franchise ordinance and staff believed the revisions were minimal and
recommended approval.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
Steve Nelson, Region Manager for SCE, thanked Council for their patience in hearing this matter
and reviewing it again. He indicated the changes provided a solid framework to move forward with
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 22
the City on many of the benefits within the franchise and indicated the franchise had been revised
by SCE and was ready for approval for the 30-year partnership with the City.
With no other comments offered, the public hearing was closed.
Council Member Hernandez moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 5978 AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting to Southern California Edison Company, its successors and
assigns, anon-exclusive franchise to use and to construct and use, solely for transmitting
electricity through the City of Anaheim (except in cases of subsequent annexations and of
customers served under fringe agreements), poles, wires, conduits and/or appurtenances, in,
along, across, upon, over and under the public streets, ways, alleys and places, as the same now
or may hereafter exist, within said municipality.
Seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
40. A public hearing to consider the abandonment of a portion of public alley rights-of-way
P110 adjacent to 510 South Harbor Boulevard (Abandonment No. ABA2005-00106.)
At the Council meeting held April 26, 2005, Item #23, the Anaheim City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2005-47 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways
and service easements (Abandonment No. ABA2005-00106).
REQUESTED BY: Castle Development L.L.C., 9017 Harvard Avenue, Villa Park, CA
90620.
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, reported the property owner requested abandonment of
the alley as they were proposing redevelopment of the property. The lot would be consolidated
and re-subdivided into seven lots and the alley would be dedicated to serving the new seven lots.
She advised staff was recommending approval of the abandonment.
Mayor Pro Tem Chavez opened the public hearing and receiving no testimony, closed the hearing.
Council Member Galloway moved to approve the CEQA finding of Categorically Exempt, Class 5
and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2005-96 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
approving Abandonment No. 2005-00106 and to approve the quitclaim of the City's right, title and
interest in the abandoned area, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5;
Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion
Carried
41. Applicant requests continuance to July 12, 2005.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
C280 RECLASSIFICATION N0.2003-00109
VARIANCE NO. 2004-04626
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16545
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Red Curb Investments, P.O. Box 995, Torrance, CA 90508.
AGENT: Thomas Hartley, 29462 Thackery Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677.
LOCATION: Property is approximately 53 acres, having a frontage of 190 feet at the
terminus of Avenida de Santiago, located 260 feet west of the centerline of Pointe Premier.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 23
Reclassification No. 2003-00109 -Request reclassification of the property from the T
(SC)(Transition; Scenic Corridor Overlay), formerly the RS-A-43,000(SC)
(Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RH-2(SC) (Single-Family
Hillside Residential; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and OS (SC) (Open Space; Scenic Corridor
Overlay) zones.
Variance No. 2004-04626 -Request waiver of required private street standards to
construct a private residential street without sidewalks or parkways.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16545 -Request to establish a 28-lot, 21-unit detached single-
family subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended Council approval of Reclassification No. 2003-00109 granted (PC2004-
113) (5 yes votes, Commissioners Romero and Velasquez absent)
Variance No. 2004-04626 granted (PC2004-114).
Tentative Tract Map No. 16545 approved.
(Planning Commission's decision appealed by Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement
District).
(Continued from the Council meetings of April 12, 2004, March 29, 2005, March 1, 2005,
January 25, 2005, January 11, 2005, December 14, 2004, and November 16, 2004).
This item was continued to July 12, 2005.
42. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.329 and MITIGATION MONITORING
E200 PLAN NO. 132
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2004-00416
RECLASSIFICATION N0.2004-00114
VARIANCE NO. 2004-04597
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16440
OWNER: Stonegate Development, LLC, 27071 Cabot Road, Suite 106, Laguna Hills, CA
92653.
LOCATION: Property is approximately 32.3 acres, located approximately 1,400 feet south
of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road (an existing
maintenance road) between Festival Drive to the east and Eucalyptus Drive to the west.
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00416 -Request (a) to amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan from the Estate Density Residential designation to the Low
Density Residential designation, (b) to amend the Land Use Element and the Green
Element of the General Plan to reconfigure the Open Space designation on the subject
property and (c) to amend the Green Element of the General Plan to realign the north-
south regional trail.
Reclassification No. 2004-00114 -Request reclassification of the property from the T
(SC) (Transition; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RS-2 (SC) (Residential, Single-
Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and the OS (SC)(Open Space; Scenic Corridor Overlay)
zone, or a less intense zone.
Variance No. 2004-04597 -Request waiver of minimum front yard setback for Lot No. 13
of Tentative Tract Map No. 16440.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16440 -Request to establish a 39-lot, 35-unit detached single-
familysubdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended City Council approval, with modifications to Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
132.
Recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00416 (2005-70).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 24
Reclassification No. 2004-00114 granted (PC2005-71).
Variance No. 2004-04597 granted (2005-72).
Tentative Tract Map No. 16440 approved.
(Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision submitted by Mr. Dutt).
Mayor Pringle remarked that the appellant had requested Item 42 be continued today and he
would proceed with the staff report, hear from the applicant and the appellant and then determine
whether to continue the item or take action on it.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported that in April, 2005, the Planning Commission
approved the 35 unit single family subdivision on 32 acres of undeveloped land. She offered the
following specifics related to the development: 1) The applicant was proposing to develop this tract
with residences ranging in size from about 3,200 square feet to 4,000 square feet on lots that
ranged from 7,500 to 20,000 square feet; 2) The applicant prepared an EIR to address the
environmental issues associated with the development of this property; 3) The property was
surrounded by single family residences to the east and west, undeveloped land to the north and
undeveloped land in Deer Canyon Park to the south; 4) Santa Ana Canyon Road would provide
road connection to the project; and 5) Access to the proposed homes would be provided by a new
street, Deer Canyon Road.
To accomplish the project, she informed Council the applicant requested an amendment to the
land use and green elements of the General Plan and the request included three components: 1)
modifying the land use designation on a portion of the property from Estate Density Residential to
Low Density Residential, reconfiguring and increasing the existing open space designation on the
property and realignment of the north/south regional riding and hiking trail. In addition, Ms. Vander
Dussen stated the project included a request to reclassify the land to Residential Single Family,
Scenic Corridor Overlay zones and Open Space Scenic Corridor Overlay zone, a variance to waive
the minimum front setback for Lot 13 and a tentative tract map to establish 39 lots fora 35 unit
subdivision.
Ms. Vander Dussen explained the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project was
appealed to Council by a neighboring property owner based on a disagreement over a condition of
approval on the tentative tract map which pertained to the reservation of an easement on the
applicant's property that would allow access to any future development to the south on the
appellant's property. The appellant was in opposition to the project since the condition did not
specify a purchase price for the easement. She indicated staff worked with the applicant and the
appellant to arrive at a solution that allowed the project to move forward while providing the
appellant with the opportunity to gain access through the development to serve the adjacent
appellant's property within a defined financial framework. This solution resulted in a newly
proposed condition to reserve an easement across Stonegate's property for the benefit of the
appellant and was read in its entirety by Ms. Vander Dussen.
Additionally, Ms. Vander Dussen indicated staff wanted to add one more condition, unrelated to the
prior condition, to insure future public access to Deer Canyon Park on the applicant's property and
read that condition to Council as well.
Mayor Pringle asked if access was through the new road, not through the new development and
Natalie Meeks responded that currently there was an easement over the existing maintenance
road for utility purposes, and the department wanted to clarify that if access was ever granted all
the way to Deer Canyon Park, that road could be accessed by the public. The Mayor asked if
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 25
there was an existing easement on that property for the adjoining property owner and the response
given was there was an easement for storm drain purposes, but where the adjoining property
owner was requesting an easement, there was none. Mayor Pringle then inquired if there was an
easement for the adjoining property owner to have access to his property on Deer Canyon Road
and Ms. Meeks verified there was, but not through the proposed development.
Ms. Vander Dussen ended her report by stating she had worked closely with the applicant and the
resource agencies to insure the project design would have minimal impact on the sensitive
environmental properties surrounding the area and recommended approval of the project because
the design and density were appropriate for the property and the project would be compatible with
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Council Member Sidhu asked how the appellant accessed his property and Ms. Meeks indicated it
was through Eucalyptus Drive and in order to achieve access to Deer Canyon Road, staff would
need to analyze the development plan and the appellant would need to go through the proper
environmental reviews as well. Council Member Sidhu asked if the proposed reservation
easement was approved, would the appellant have to go through the review process and Ms.
Meeks indicated that any development on the appellant's property would need to go through all of
the City's processes for entitlement purposes and through state and resource agencies for
environmental impacts. Council Member Sidhu asked how the property owner to the south was
affected. Ms. Meeks stated the owner, Mr. Pulliam, had indicated there was no future desire to
develop his property and he did not oppose the project or provide much input on it and that the
project before Council today would not have an impact on his property.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
Gordon Youde, Stonegate Development Company, indicated he was fully in support of the staff's
report and recommendations. Addressing the second proposed condition, he advised it had
always been Stonegate's intent to grant the City full public access on the maintenance road. He
indicated the adjoining property to the south had already been granted public access across
Stonegate property for public purposes with the only missing link between the Deer Canyon Road
and the City's wilderness park being the Pulliam property. In addition to that, he confirmed
Stonegate had granted a 40 foot easement across the property from the south end to the north end
and had granted that property owner the rights that Stonegate had obtained through the free
market purchase of their rights to cross the property to the north. He noted the property owner to
the south did have access rights across Stonegate property all the way out to Santa Ana Canyon
Road.
On the issue as to whether or not to continue the hearing, Mr. Youde stated it had been six weeks
since the Planning Commission approval and his staff and consultants were already meeting with
City staff to resolve issues and were present and he felt it was time to proceed rather than to
continue the hearing.
His position on the appellant's request was that Stonegate originally disagreed with the condition
with staff, had a number of meetings on it and had arrived at a compromise conclusion and had the
condition remained it was at the Planning Commission meeting, there would have been no further
objections by Stonegate. He said given the appeal, Stonegate would restate their original
objection which was to provide an easement from the interior road knuckle to the property on the
south was a burden on his property for significant reasons. One of those reasons was timing
dislocation. He felt Stonegate was at the end of the entitlement process and expected to have
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 26
constructed homes on those lots within two to three years whereas the adjoining property was at
the beginning of the entitlement process which would create a situation where there was a
potential road that would come into play between two homes that were already built on two of the
best lots in the entire development. Stonegate would then have a road that may be retrofitted.
The other reason was physical as there was 38 feet of grade separation between the knuckle and
the property line, so this was not a flat road but would require roadway as well as slopes and a
significant amount of retrograding in order to create stabilized slopes. Stonegate was concerned
that the retrograding could have a potential effect on the pads that lie above the road. Additionally,
he noted the route of the road goes through undisturbed habitat which was part of their agreement
with U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service for their Section 7 permit, and would disturb habitat already
determined to be undisturbed in part of their mitigation program. For those reasons, Stonegate
objected to the new condition. He further stated if Council should continue the hearing, Stonegate
had worked hard on complicated language in order to try to address the impacts and to ensure if
the appellant does in fact build that road, then he would be responsible for the effects that could be
created. The appellant would be dealing with the homeowners association at that point and
prospectively with the occupants of those two lots.
Mayor Pringle confirmed that Stonegate purchased additional access across the property to the
north so that Deer Canyon Road could be enhanced to access their property. Mr. Youde stated he
purchased the access from the adjoining property owner three years ago and he agreed with the
conditions of approval proposed by staff as to what the road section would be in that area of the
property. Mayor Pringle asked at this point in time were other developments envisioned on that
road and Mr. Youde responded others were proposing ideas but he did not know where they were
in the process. Mayor Pringle asked if there was other access to the property prior to Stonegate
purchasing the access. Mr. Youde replied the legal access was Eucalyptus, the same as the
appellant's property. In order to build more than six units on the property to the south, Mayor
Pringle questioned whether the existing maintenance road could be used as it currently stood.
Natalie Meeks stated the existing maintenance road would only support four lots. Mayor Pringle
asked if access could be taken on Eucalyptus and Ms. Meeks replied the grade differential would
make that infeasible and in addition, it would not work environmentally as the City was trying to
preserve the canyon bottom in that area.
The Mayor then inquired if an individual wished to modify Deer Canyon road to the same standards
that Mr. Youde was modifying the road from Santa Ana Canyon to his development, was that
possible? Ms. Meeks pointed out an additional easement would be acquired. The appellant was
to acquire a 40 foot easement across the Stonegate property, which did not meet the City's
standard of 56 feet. She added the other issue was one of the reasons staff worked with
Stonegate to align their road and that was to minimize impacts to the natural channel there due to
habitat restrictions placed by both the City and resource agency. Mayor Pringle verified that none
of the width along Deer Canyon Road was part of the obligation of the resource agency.
Manny Dutt stated he was one of the property owners appealing the development. In the interest
of moving forward with the project, he stated he would agree with the condition as proposed by
staff even though he would be obligated to buy within seven years but the developer or its
successor was not obligated to sell at any time.
Mayor Pringle pointed out Mr. Dutt's appeal was because he wished to seek an easement on a
neighbor's piece of property. Mr. Dutt responded originally there had been a condition similar to
the present condition and it had been written so that he could purchase the easement at a fair
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 27
market price, but the language relating to fair market price had been removed by Stonegate at the
last meeting.
Steve Sheck, Mr. Dutt's attorney, stated Condition #5 to the Tentative Tract Map approval was
originally contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission with the language at the end
dealing with aseven- year limitation being the only new language added to the condition. At the
Planning Commission hearing, the language relating to fair market value was removed which gave
his client concern. Without that language, the condition stated there was a reservation of an
easement but there was nothing said with respect to cost of value that had to be paid for that
easement by his client who had been willing to pay fair market value for the property, recognizing
the fair market would include certain of the costs incurred by the developer in developing and
improving Deer Canyon Road and the internal streets. He stated any issues with respect to the 56
foot wide easement and the roadway that would be built there would be addressed at the time it
was constructed and any impacts to that construction would be his client's obligation. Mr. Sheck
pointed out the purpose of wanting to maintain the access way was to keep an alternative access
route to allow Mr. Dutt to maintain the right to access his property for future development. He
noted the language drafted by City staff today in conjunction with Assistant City Attorney was fully
acceptable to his client and the only reason he appealed was that this language was taken out
during the approval by the Planning Commission.
As no other testimony was offered, Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing.
Mr. Youde, provided rebuttal, thanking Mr. Dutt for allowing the hearing to continue. He indicated it
was still his preference to not have the burden of this easement road and would be willing to state
that Stonegate would be willing to enlarge the easement on Deer Canyon if that would satisfy Mr.
Dutt rather than have this road potentially come back to already built houses. It was still his
preference the condition be removed, however, if Council determined it was necessary, he would
accept that. Mayor Pringle asked if the easement provided across the western portion of the
property on Deer Canyon Road was restricted to 40 feet and Mr. Youde answered it was what Mr.
Dutt requested and what was granted. Mayor Pringle affirmed that Mr. Youde would be willing to
grant the 56 feet with the provision that any improvement and any impacts or additional
environmental clearances would be Mr. Dutt's responsibility.
Mayor Pringle stated he would not support the condition related to the easement language
presented by staff. He believed easements and discussion of legal arrangements should be left up
to the property owners to make those determinations. He noted there had been negotiations
between the two property owners over the last couple of years and that the project had been
scaled back to be developed solely on the Stonegate property. He recognized the obligations Mr.
Youde had undertaken from the cost of the traffic lights to road improvements to the mitigation
necessary to develop this piece of property under the City's General Plan and open space
requirement and reiterated he did not feel comfortable forcing Mr. Youde to allow access through
the middle of his property under the conditions written by staff.
Council Member Hernandez concurred with Mayor Pringle. He acknowledged this was
Stonegate's property and he felt any imposition made on Stonegate at this point, other than what
they wanted, equated to a taking and Council had passed a resolution against eminent domain.
He supported Stonegate's project with the addition of the condition relating to public access to
Deer Canyon Road.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 7, 2005
Page 28
Council Member Hernandez moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's
decision; to approve CEQA findings - EIR #329 & Mitigation Monitoring Plan #132; to approve
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-97 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN; to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2005-98 AMENDING ZONING
MAP OF TITLE 18 OF CODE; to approve RESOLUTION 2005-99 GRANTING VARIANCE No.
2004-04597 and to approve Tentative Tract Map #16440 as amended, second by Council Member
Galloway. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway,
Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
Report on Closed Session Actions:
The City Attorney reported Council had authorized the filing of a cross complaint against
CALTRANS in the case of Small vs. People of the State of California (and 4 related similar actions
related to the Maple Tree landslide area), OCSC No. 050006368. VOTE: 5-0.
Council Communications:
Council Member Hernandez announced that Flag Day ceremonies would take place on Sunday,
June 12, 2005 at Center Street Promenade and Clementine
Council Member Sidhu requested a discussion item relating to recognition of volunteer
Commission members, on an annual basis, be placed on the June 14, 2005 agenda.
Council Member Chavez recognized Michael Baker's recent marathon run.
Mayor Pringle announced the opening of Magnolia Power Plant, the public utility plant owned by
Anaheim (majority), Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Colton and Cerritos to provide citizens with
lower rates for natural gas. He also reported he had met with the Secretary of Homeland Security
along with the Police Chief and Fire Chief to join in a roundtable discussion of how homeland
security dollars were being spent remarking that Anaheim had received a commendation for
utilizing that resource to benefit all of northern Orange County in a cooperative effort. He further
announced that he would be participating in the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Chicago in the
upcoming week.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor
Pringle adjourned the meeting at 7:45 P.M. to June 14, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. for the continued fiscal
year 2005/06 budget public hearing.
Respectfully submitted:
Sheryll Schroeder, MMC
City Clerk