2005/08/23ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2005
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session on August 23, 2005 at
3:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard and the
Notice of Adjournment to 3:30 P.M. was posted on August 23, 2005.
PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob
Hernandez and Harry Sidhu.
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Tom Wood, 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 August 19, 2005
at the City Hall exterior bulletin board.
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: In re: Rosen's Electrical Equipment Company, California Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC Docket No. I & SE -
RAO 05/06 - 002.
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representative: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters Association, Local 2899
4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Agency negotiator: Dave Morgan
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and National Football League
Under negotiation: price and terms
Council reconvened at 5:35 P.M.
Invocation: Pastor Rudy Trejo, Calvary Apostolic Church
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 2
Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Proclaiming September 16, 2005, as Developmental Disabilities Day.
At 5:37 P.M., Mayor Pringle called to order the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim
Public Financing Authority in joint session with the Anaheim City Council.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO ANY OF THE AGENDAS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (ALL MATTERS EXCEPT PUBLIC HEARINGS):
William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, expressed his viewpoint on affordable housing as it related to
employer wages.
Michael Baker, Boys and Girls Clubs of Anaheim, announced the September 21st Annual Kids
Luncheon at the White House Restaurant to benefit the Boys and Girls Clubs of Anaheim.
Margie Via Real thanked Council for support of the Boys and Girls Clubs which had been a
blessing for her and her family.
Keith Nagayama, staff attorney with the Public Law Center of Orange County, spoke on behalf of
low income, very low income and extremely low income clients in Orange County as well as clients
residing in the Imperial Terrace Apartments. He announced a meeting with California Department
of Transportation, Friday, August 26th and requested an Anaheim staff member attend the 10 A.M.
meeting relative to Imperial Terrace apartments. Mayor Pringle asked that a Housing Division
staff member attend.
Ed Perez, Heritage Forum, announced the Forum would be providing its facility for the Orange
County Sheriff's Training Academy graduation class of 169 officers.
Larry Rosenberg, Anaheim Ballet Company, thanked the community for attending the Ballet
Company's performance at Pearson Park last Friday and announced a September 3rd
performance of Peter and the Wolf.
James Robert Reade expressed concerns related to the Police Department.
Alma Ramirez discussed homeless needs.
At 5:50 P.M., Chairman Pringle recessed the Anaheim City Council meeting to consider the
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency agenda, reconvening Council session at 6:15 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Pringle pulled Item 10 for further discussion and also indicated he would abstain on Items
14, 15, 16 and 24 due to a potential conflict he might have with those items.
Council Member Hernandez moved approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar Items 6 -41,
seconded by Council Member Sidhu to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 3
to approve the following in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations
furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar.
6. Reject certain claims filed against the City.
C118
7. Receive and file the Investment Portfolio Report for the month of July 2005; minutes of
8105 Budget Advisory Commission meeting of March 16, 2005 and minutes of the Workforce
Investment Board meeting of June 9, 2005.
8. Amend the FY 2004/05 Budget by increasing appropriations in the Police Department by
D106 $750,000; in the Public Works Department by $2,046,000; in the Convention, Sports, and
Entertainment Department by $25,000; and in the Employee Benefits Fund by $4,410,000.
9. Waive the competitive bid requirement of Council Policy 306 and authorize the Purchasing
D180 Agent to issue aone-year purchase order to Compulink Management Center, Inc. (the
parent company of LaserFiche), Accuflex Division, in an amount not to exceed $55,000, for
document imaging, conversion, and indexing of the Public Utilities Department records.
11. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, GKK Works, in the amount of
3628 $3,856,352, which includes the base bid plus seven additive alternates, for the East
Anaheim Gymnasium, approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow
Agreement pertaining to contract retentions and approve the appropriation authority for an
additional $559,179 from the Parksites and Playgrounds fund balance.
12. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Engineered Plumbing, Inc., in the
3629 amount of $542,870, for the Katella Water Main and approve and authorize the Finance
Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
13. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Belaire West Landscape, Inc., in the
3630 amount of $159,245, for the Crescent Avenue Parkway Beautification from Ventura Street
to the alley way west of Moraga Street.
14. Approve and adopt the Relocation Plan for the Gene Autry Way (West)/t-5 Highway and
D175 HOV Interchange Projects.
Mayor Pringle abstained.
15. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Justino
3631 Arellano and Isolina Padilla, in the amount of $18,000, for one mobile home located at 1844
South Haster Avenue, Space No. 4, for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Freeway Highway
project.
Mayor Pringle abstained.
16. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Jean Lasch
3632 and Jameel Assad, in the amount of $32,650, for one mobile home located at 1844 South
Haster Avenue, Space No. 5, for the Gene Autry Way (West)/I-5 Freeway Highway project.
Mayor Pringle abstained.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 4
17. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Miguel E. Real, in the amount of $14,300, for the
3633 purchase of real property located at 2459 East Lincoln Avenue, for the State College
Boulevard Widening Project.
18. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Maribelle Socorro, in the amount of $10,100, for
3634 the purchase of real property located at 149 South Paradise Lane for the Lincoln
Avenue/State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street Widening project.
19. Approve the Acquisition Agreement and authorize payment to Jacqueline H. Chambers,
3635 Trustee, in the amount of $10,500, for the purchase of real property located at 2308 East
Paradise Road for the Lincoln Avenue/State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street Widening
project.
20. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Ponciano and Lucila Santillana, in the amount of
3636 $9,400, for the purchase of real property located at 2131 East Lincoln Avenue for the
Lincoln Avenue/State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street Widening project.
21. Approve the Temporary Construction Easement Agreement with Jeffrey B. Nowicki, in the
3637 amount of $1,500, for property located at 2211 East Lincoln Avenue for the Lincoln
Avenue/State College Boulevard to Sunkist Street Widening project,
22. Appoint Mr. Alfred Perez to the Anaheim Workforce Investment Board representing the
B105 Business Community for afour-year term ending August 22, 2009.
23. Approve the renewal of the contract with READ/Orange County, the literacy program of the
3103 Orange County Public Library, to provide literacy services to the citizens of Anaheim
through the Library Division of the Community Services Department.
24. Approve the Reimbursement Agreement with Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC, in an amount
3546 not to exceed $32,500, to provide for Lennar Platinum Triangle to reimburse all costs
associated with The Planning Center's work on the Addendum to the Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report; and authorize the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
Mayor Pringle abstained.
25. Approve and authorize the General Manager of the Utilities Department to execute
3350 Amendment No. 1 with Siemens/Turner/Beta Joint Venture, to clarify the language in
Section 11.2.2 "Faithful Performance Bond," of the General Conditions portion of the Park
Substation Design-Build Agreement.
26. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an agreement with
3638 Boyle Engineering Corp., in the amount of $533,855, to provide consulting engineering
services in connection with drilling and equipping of proposed Well No. 54.
27. Review the need for continuing the Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency by
D175 the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Anaheim issued on February 9, 2005, and
the subsequent orders issued pursuant thereto, concerning land movement and property
damage in the vicinity of 357, 365 and 373 Ramsgate Drive in the City of Anaheim, and, by
motion, determine that the need for continuing the local emergency exists.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 5
28. Review the need for continuing the Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency by
D175 the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Anaheim issued on July 28, 2005, and the
subsequent orders issued pursuant thereto, concerning the discovery and disposal of
certain fireworks and other explosives in the La Palma Park area in the City of Anaheim,
and, by motion, determine that the need for continuing the local emergency exists.
29. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-152 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
D182 OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two years old
(Public Utilities Department).
30. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-153 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
P124 OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
properties or interests therein (City Deed No. 10852).
31. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-154 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
P124 OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10853, 10854 & 10855)
32. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-155 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
P124 OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
properties for interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10856, 10857, 10858, 10859, 10860,
10861, 10862 and 10863).
33. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-156 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM to vacate certain public streets, highways and easements
(Abandonment No. ABA2004-00099, 100 North State College Boulevard).
Public hearing scheduled September 27, 2005.
34. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-157 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and
easements (Abandonment No. ABA2005-109, 100 Katella Avenue).
Public hearing scheduled September 27, 2005.
35. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-158 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
D154 OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2000R-124 which established rates of
compensation for job classifications designated Middle Management.
36. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-159 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
D154 OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 92R-17 which established Personnel Rules for
Management, Confidential and Non-Represented Part-Time classifications.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-160 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2000R-130 which established Management
Pay Policies for classifications designated as Executive, Administrative, Middle
Management, Supervisory and Professional, including Police and Fire Safety Management.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 6
37. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-161 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154 CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and
conditions of employment for employees in classifications assigned to the General
Employees Unit represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-162 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and
conditions of employment for employees in classifications assigned to the Clerical
Employees Unit represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-163 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and conditions
of employment for employees in classifications assigned to the Utilities Unit represented by
the International Brotherhood Electrical Workers, Local 47.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-164 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and
the Anaheim Police Association.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-165 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 47 and the City of Anaheim.
RESOLUTION NO. 2995-166 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the General Truck
Drivers Union, Local 952 and the City of Anaheim.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-167 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
ANAHEIM for paying and reporting the value of employer paid member contributions under
the Public Employees' Retirement System for Full-Time Miscellaneous employees.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-168 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2001 R-57 which established rates of
compensation for job classifications designated as Confidential.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-169 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 92R-17 which established personnel rules for
Management, Confidential and Non-Represented Part-Time classifications.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-170 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution Nos. 2000R-123, 2000R-124, 2000R-125 and 2000R-
126, which established rates of compensation for job classifications designated as
Administrative, Middle Management, Professional and Supervisory Management.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-171 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2000R-122 which established rates of
compensation for job classifications designated as Executive Management.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-172 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM giving notice of its intention to approve an Amendment to the contract
between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement
System and the City of Anaheim.
ORDINANCE NO. 5988 (INTRODUCTION) AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City of Anaheim
and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
38. ORDINANCE NO. 5987 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
B137 ANAHEIM adopting Ad Valorem Tax rate of .00267 per hundred dollars assessed valuation
for purposes of redeeming general obligation bonds for storm drain improvements
authorized by ballot in 1980 (Introduced at the Council meeting of August 16, 2005, Item
#36).
39. ORDINANCE NO. 5989 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
M142 OF ANAHEIM amending Section 14.30.030 of Chapter 14.30 of Title 14 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to solicitation of vehicle occupants; and declaring that this
ordinance is an urgency measure which shall take immediate effect. Full text of the
proposed ordinance is available for review in the City Clerk's Office.
ORDINANCE NO. 5990 (INTRODUCTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Section 14.30.030 of Chapter 1430 of Title 14 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to solicitation of vehicle occupants.
40. ORDINANCE NO. 5991 (INTRODUCTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
C280 ANAHEIM AMENDING the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00136, (221 and 311 North Beach.
Blvd).
41. Approve minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of August 16, 2005.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
10. Reject the bid submitted by Integral Solar Energy Systems for the carports at Fire Station
D129 Nos. 2 and 8.
Marcie Edwards, Public Utilities Department, explained Item 10 was a rejection of bids for two solar
systems to be installed at two of the City's fire stations. She stated this action was part of the
City's response to meet Council's goal of having certain amounts of renewable energy in the
energy portfolio by a particular date. She explained the bids were rejected because they came
back at twice what was estimated as an appropriate cost commenting there were not many
vendors providing both fabrication and installation and in order to get bids in a more reasonable
range, staff would most likely split fabrication and installation and rebid the project.
Mayor Pringle remarked he had brought this to Council's attention because it was part of an on-
going effort with the Public Utilities Department to use some of their resources to benefit the public
(which was a direction from Council to live by the same policy that required private utilities to spend
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 8
funds to benefit the welfare of the public). He stated this was a project where solar systems would
be installed on the roofs of fire stations to generate power for the facility. He recalled last year
public utilities funds were used to create picnic shelters at some schools and installed solar
photovoltaic cells on the top of the shelters generating power for the school at the same time as
providing shade for the students. The Mayor wanted to discuss ways to expand on the program
and encouraged the Public Utilities Department to find innovative ways to do that and to make sure
public buildings were more energy efficient.
Council Member Hernandez moved to reject the Integral Solar Systems bid, seconded by Council
Member Galloway. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway,
Hernandez and Sidhu; Noes - 0. Motion Carried
42. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-173 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM (I) approving the forms and authorizing the execution of a First
Supplemental Indenture, and Amended and Restated Remarketing Agreement and other
related documents; (II) approving the delivery of a Preliminary Reoffering Circular and a
Reoffering Circular; and (III) approving certain actions in connection therewith (related to
APFA Item #4)
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve Resolution 2005-173, seconded by Council Member
Galloway. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway,
Hernandez and Sidhu; Noes - 0. Motion Carried
43. Consider appointment to the Library Board, term to expire June 30, 2006. (David
6105 Laviguer)
Council Member Galloway nominated Carolyn Bryant and Council Member Hernandez nominated
William Townsend. A straw vote for Carolyn Bryant reflected 3 -Ayes; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members Chavez and Galloway. Noes - 1; Council Member Hernandez. Abstention - 1: Council
Member Sidhu. A straw vote for William Townsend reflected 2 -Ayes; Council Members
Hernandez and Sidhu. Abstentions - 3: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez and Galloway.
Noes - 0. Carolyn Bryant appointed to Library Board, term to expire June 30, 2006.
44. Discussion relating to the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan presentation/proposal
D114 (Mayor Pringle).
Mayor Pringle said he believed affordable housing was a difficult issue and after the two public
workshops had been held, he felt that every member of Council had a commitment and a concern
in insuring there was affordable housing in Anaheim. He reported very few cities were tackling the
issue which spurred a broad spectrum of philosophical beliefs and indicated some cities had
impact fees, with those dollars set aside for potential affordable housing uses, while other cities
had inclusionary zoning practices and others took no action but hoped it would happen. He stated
he wanted to offer a compromise because he felt each of those beliefs was represented on
Anaheim's Council. In trying to figure out how to be proactive in the area of affordable housing yet
have amarket-based approach to bringing it about, he asked Council Member Chavez to begin the
discussion eight weeks ago to work with him to come up with a plan with which all members of the
Council could live. He believed the City had the tools and resources to accomplish this, but felt
policy makers should take a position and give direction to City staff and ask them to carry out that
direction. Before this date, he noted, Anaheim had not developed a strategy that identified how the
City would move forward on the issue of affordable housing and due to the Brown Act, the Mayor
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 9
was restricted by State law from sitting down and discussing the matter with all five Council
members and coming to an agreement. Council Member Chavez and Mayor Pringle developed
the strategic plan which they felt represented differing points of views but would allow for a
consensus on a plan that set an agenda for affordable housing in the City. That plan, stated Mayor
Pringle, was sent to everyone on Monday, August 22nd and the Mayor provided specifics on the
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan as follows:
1A. The City would establish a goal of 1,200 new affordable family rental housing units to be
developed in the City of Anaheim over the next four years, a minimum of 33 percent of
those units being affordable to low income households and another 33 percent being
affordable to very low income households.
1 B. Whenever low or very low income units are removed as part of a City project, the
equivalent number of units shall be added to the following year's target number.
1 C. Units can only be counted towards these goals upon a signed agreement between the City
and the developer or when building permits are pulled, whichever comes first.
The Mayor commented his goal was to identify as a priority addressing the need for low and very
low and moderate income rental units and to utilize City resources and encourage others to
participate within the City to bring this about, not as a mandate but as a commitment of the City
and subsequently, require the City to be accountable on meeting those goals. He stated that part
of that effort would be to address zoning and building practices as described in item 2.
2. Zoning building practices shall enhance the development of additional affordable housing.
2A. Staff would explore and bring back to City Council a new density bonus ordinance to
encourage low and very low income housing units;
26. The City shall proceed with preparation of an ordinance to facilitate the conversion of motel
units and or the replacement of motel units with affordable rental units; this conversion
ordinance shall be used at limited motel sites.
2C. Staff shall prepare a mixed use overlay for targeted area which requires an affordability
component. This new overlay zone shall be applied to areas with access to mass transit.
2D. Low and very low affordable housing developments shall get a priority review and plan
check.
The Mayor wanted to create a couple of zoning tools that would be used very sparingly in key
targeted areas that could create apro-market mentality to bring about affordable housing in a
couple of areas. A builder would know there were certain areas identified for potential housing
stock and in those certain areas, if the builder chose to buy that property and develop it, there
would be an obligation for affordable housing. This would not mean that every high density
residential zone in the City would have an inclusionary setaside.
As heard during the workshop, Mayor Pringle stated there was a concern of motel uses in the City
and one of the recommendations of the motel task force was to have the City prepare an ordinance
that would allow for the conversion of some of those motels to rental units to solve an existing
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 10
problem and at the same time providing a more legitimate form of affordable housing than the one
presently used.
3. Additional staffing support shall be provided at the issue of affordable housing.
3A. The City Manager shall assign the Deputy City Manager to oversee and be responsible for
the full implementation of the strategic plan.
3B. To establish a position of a Motel Family Homeless Housing Coordinator position which will
oversee direct interaction with motel families and transition support to affordable housing.
The Mayor indicated the motel workshop had discussed the concern that some motel residents
could be assisted and relocated to permanent housing if they had additional support and additional
people interacting with them. This provision would provide one person as the liaison within the City
that could sit down and work through individual situations, using the tools of the City from every
department, and transitioning many of those individuals from their present position into permanent
housing.
4. Community development staff shall have a priority to develop affordable housing.
4A. Each new property purchased by the Agency for affordable housing use shall be put out to
bid to "for-profit" and "not-for-profit" developers at the earliest possible time unless
otherwise directed by the City Council.
4B. Establish a timeline within which City-owned sites must be put within the development
process.
4C. The Community Development Department shall provide a quarterly progress report on all
affordable housing projects including property and property acquisition efforts.
The Mayor explained this provision would insure when properties were bought, acquired,
accumulated or provided to the Agency that staff immediately make a determination and get them
out to bid and transition them to housing use at the earliest possible time and through the quarterly
report process, Council would know what was happening with each of the properties the City
owned.
5A. The City shall move forward with expanding the life of the Redevelopment Project area and
establish from this year forward the use of 30 percent of the property tax increment funding
for the use of affordable housing.
5B. Negotiate with Orange County Housing Community Development for affordable housing
funding for Anaheim and provide $100,000 of the Transient Occupancy Tax collected from
motels where 50 percent or more of the units serve tenants who occupy those units for
more than 29 consecutive days be set aside for the Motel Family Coordinator position or
equivalent funds in the general fund.
6. Require City Council and every subsequent City Council to state these are their goals or not
and require a vote of the City Council's to step up and renew this strategic plan each year.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 11
Mayor Pringle ended the presentation by stating his interest in developing the plan was to address
the need for affordable housing in Anaheim and he believed the plan accomplished that objective.
For those who thought the City should not force private developers to build affordable housing,
Mayor Pringle explained this plan was a way to go about showing commitment and at the same
time not putting an undue restriction on developers coming into Anaheim's marketplace to build
without additional or new restrictions.
Council Member Chavez stated the Strategic Plan had been along-time coming as Anaheim was
in a crisis situation with housing. He stated half the people in Anaheim had incomes of $16 per
hour and less and that much of the development the City was considering and was building was
aimed at people above that economic level. He believed the Strategic Plan was a compassionate
plan that addressed the needs of the entire community, pointing out the goals were minimum
numbers and he believed, given staff's talent, those numbers could be exceeded with the tools
outlined in the plan.
Council Member Galloway thanked Council Member Chavez and Mayor Pringle for their effort.
She believed this was an innovative plan unlike any thing else in Orange County. She remarked
she had hoped there would be a new department head position that would not have any other
scope of responsibilities other than the affordable housing strategic goals.
Council Member Sidhu thanked Mayor Pringle and Council Member Chavez for bringing the plan
forward, although he felt more time was needed to consider the plan before making a decision. He
asked the Police Chief to provide a report, location by location, of all the high crime areas in
Anaheim as he believed the crime statistics would relate to high density apartments. Before
Council Member Sidhu could approve the plan, he requested the exact locations of the affordable
housing sites. He was supportive of the motel conversion ordinance and asked for the boundaries
of the overlay zone. He wanted to make sure both the non-profit and for profit builders bid on the
City projects and if a project were non-profit, that the tax dollars would return to the City. He also
did not feel that residents would support an affordable housing project in their neighborhoods and
felt the public should have a chance to come and speak about the locations. He also remarked
that he felt the only subsidy the City should provide should be with Redevelopment Agency funds.
Council Member Hernandez provided the latest census figures which indicated 48 percent of
Anaheim's housing stock was rentals and that 17,056 units were available for rent for under $750
and there were 2,400 units that were under $500 per month. In the next few years, he stated, the
Platinum Triangle developments would add to the housing supply and lower the demand and rental
prices would decrease. He also asked what the word "requires" meant in provision 2C, asked how
provision 6 would be implemented.
Council Member Galloway responded the average rent for atwo-bedroom apartment in Anaheim
was $1,317 per month and based on Federal guidelines of spending no more than 30 percent of
gross income on rent, the renter would have to average $25.33 per hour to afford that rent. She
indicated this was in comparison to the State minimum wage of $6.75 per hour and to the average
wage of the majority of new jobs created at $10 per hour. She reported that over 165,000 Orange
County households earned less than $10 an hour and that almost 55 percent of renters had
housing costs that exceeded 30 percent of their income and the average sale price of a single
family home in Anaheim was over $500,000. She pointed out Anaheim's Housing Element
showed the need for affordable housing units was great, and that the City had to produce 2,710
dwelling units for households at very low income levels and 1,639 for households at low income.
During the current 2004/05 planning period, she reported, Anaheim produced or approved over
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 12
3,000 new construction units and of those, the majority were market rate units. The City's focus so
far had been to produce affordable units only to serve the needs of seniors and special needs
population with none of the units produced meeting the housing needs of low and very low income
families.
Council Member Chavez also wanted to insure that the existing property owned by the Agency was
also put out to bid and that Council would be apprised of what was available. He did not agree
with the comment that the greatest crime occurred in high density apartments and stated he had
heard the Police Chief indicate there were more calls for service in detached homes than there
were in attached homes citywide. He stated there were no vacancies in Anaheim apartments and
they were all full and that two or three families could be found living in a single household
throughout the City and he believed the Strategic Plan was a step in the right direction.
Mayor Pringle emphasized the goal of 1,200 units in four years was deliberately set and was used
to give direction to City staff to figure out ways to accomplish this goal. He stated the fact was the
City had not built a single unit for very low income family in 15 years and could not expect the
market to build them on its own because developers could make more money if homes were sold
at market rate and there had to be City participation to make it happen. He indicated State law
required cities to put money into these types of programs and Anaheim had set priorities over the
years as to how to spend those funds. With this plan in place, Council was giving staff the new
priority of using those resources in the area of housing to be spent in a very precise way. To
answer Council Member Sidhu's question as to where the housing would be located, Mayor Pringle
explained that no location was prescribed in this plan, and each location would come back to
Council for a decision. He pointed out that each new ordinance would come back to Council for a
vote as well as each area identified for an overlay zone. The plan was developed to identify to
staff what Council wanted to accomplish with its goal of affordable housing and have staff return to
Council with a strategy to achieve that objective. Council would then decide where, if at all, it was
desirable to have an overplay placed. With regard to the belief density was inherent in driving
crime, the Mayor stated if that were true he would not be supporting the Platinum Triangle, the
largest concentration of residential development in the County of Orange. He indicated there were
a number of properties purchased from Orange County Transportation Authority and CalTrans,
many of which were designated as affordable housing sites and Community Development
Department had RFP's drafted for three of those units . He stated the Community Development
Department was also presently negotiating on a Choc site on Lincoln which Council had
considered for affordable housing. In addition, there were also other developers looking to build in
Anaheim and were buying property privately for this purpose and with a goal of affordable housing
as opposed to punitive action toward developers, that was the Mayor's objective. He gave his
assurance that he believed staff was second to none and would follow Council's direction to meet
the goals of the Plan and that the Deputy City Manager would oversee each department's
participation in meeting those goals, rather than creating a separate department which would have
the responsibility but not the means of meeting those objectives.
Council Member Hernandez stated he believed in the free market as well but would like to discuss
the plan further with the Mayor to gain a better understanding.
Council Member Chavez felt Council had looked at the issue of affordable housing
comprehensively and moved to adopt the strategic plan, seconded by Mayor Pringle.
Council Member Galloway stated she accepted the Mayor's personal commitment that staff would
fulfill the goals of the strategic plan and she was committed to holding staff accountable.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 13
Council Member Sidhu remarked he would request to have the Chief of Police return with crime
figures in the areas where there was a high crime rate and to give the option to the public to see
where those areas were. He would prefer not to have a specific goal for affordable units, but to
see what the market provided.
Council Member Galloway asked if a developer was interested in affordable housing, who was the
contact person to assist in that process. The Mayor indicated the Deputy City Manager was the
contact to oversee the affordable housing goals and would in turn coordinate with Community
Development, Housing and Planning as well as with the newly created position of Motel Families
Coordinator and that the quarterly report would show how the City was meeting its goals. He
emphasized the annual review would provide a status report and Council could review and decide
what to do each following year.
Council Member Hernandez offered a substitute motion to continue the discussion to the next
meeting to debate and digest the proposal; seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote:
Ayes - 2: Council Members Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 3: Mayor Pringle and Council Members
Chavez and Galloway. Motion denied.
Roll Call vote on the original motion to approve the Strategic Plan: Ayes - 3; Mayor Pringle,
Council Members Chavez and Galloway. Noes -2: Council Members Hernandez and Sidhu.
Motion to adopt policy carried.
5:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
45. Applicant requests continuance to September 13, 2005.
N350 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00109
VARIANCE NO. 2004-04626
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16545:
OWNER: Red Curb Investments, P.O. Box 995, Torrance, CA 90508
AGENT: Thomas Hartley, 25971 Arriba Linda, 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.
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:
Negative Declaration approved (5 yes votes, Commissioners Romero and Velasquez
absent).
Reclassification No. 2003-00109 granted (PC2004-113).
Variance No. 2004-04626 granted (PC2004-114).
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 14
Tentative Tract Map No. 16545 approved.
(Continued from the Council meetings of November 16, 2004, December 14, 2004,
January 11, 2005, January 25, 2005, March 1, 2005, March 29, 2005, April 12, 2005, May
10, 2005, June 7, 2005, July 12, 2005, and July 26, 2005).
With no objection from Council, continued at the applicant's request to the September 13, 2005
meeting.
46. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
N350 NO. 136
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DAG2005-00007
OWNER: East Katella Partnership, 666 Sherbrook Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1 E7
AGENT: Ian Ellis, 1331 East Katella Development, 1849 Sawtelle Boulevard, Suite 600,
Los Angeles, CA 92707
LOCATION: 1221 and 1331 East Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 4.88"
acres with a frontage of 355 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, located 966 feet east
of the centerline of Lewis Street (Platinum Triangle Condominium Development).
Request to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigated Monitoring
Plan prepared for the project and circulated for public agency/ responsible agency review
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City
of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16832 - To establish a 3-lot, 336-unit airspace attached
residential condominium subdivision.
Development Agreement No. DAG2005-00007 -Request to adopt a Development
Agreement between the City of Anaheim and 1331 East Katella Development Company,
LLC and East Katella Partnership to construct a 336 unit residential and commercial mixed
use project and associated public street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended City Council approval of Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan No. 136 (5 yes votes, Commissioners Karaki and Perez absent).
Recommended City Council approval of Development Agreement No. 2005-00007
(PC2005-110).
Shari Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported the Planning Commission recommended
Council enter into a development agreement with East Katella Development Company to put into
operation the final site plan to develop a 336 condominium unit and 1,248 square foot commercial
space project. The project would be located at the corner of Katella Avenue and a proposed
connector street and was the 7th request in the Platinum Triangle since last year's adoption of the
Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and Overlay Zone. Ms. Vander Dussen stated the site
currently had a hotel and restaurant with light industrial uses around the property and Mr. Stox's
restaurant located immediately to the west. She noted Council recently approved the BRE
residential project immediately to the east and the two projects would share a proposed connector
street.
Because the project was located within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, she
indicated the applicant requested approval of a development agreement to implement the final site
plan, which had been previously approved based upon a finding the project was consistent with the
Master Land Use Plan and the Mixed Use Overlay zone. Ms. Vander Dussen provided specifics
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 15
on the details of the building structure as well as landscaping and recreational amenities. She
stated the development agreement had a five year term consistent with a standard agreement
approved by Council and that Staff recommended adoption of the development agreement as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. The applicant's representative, Ian Ellis, stated the
developer looked forward to construction of the project and was available for questions.
With no other comments received, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member Sidhu moved approval of the CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 136, seconded by Council Member Hernandez and
introduction of Ordinance No. 5992.
ORDINANCE NO 5992 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005-00007.
Council Member Galloway asked for specifics related to the project. Mr. Ellis responded there
would be 336 "for sale" market-rate residential condominium units, ranging in size from 800 to over
1,500 square feet, with one retail component at the corner of the new connector street and Katella
Avenue. He explained the condominiums would be four stories with two stories of subterranean
parking, would provide on-ground recreation amenities that included a pool, barbeque areas as
well as roof-top terraces to try and create more open space for the residents. The amenities also
included an exercise room, recreation room with a kitchen, cabana area, grass and turf areas,
dining courts, outdoor fireplaces, fountain courtyards, rooftop terraces with sundecks, and a putting
green. He noted the sales prices were not yet set, but was hopeful to have units in the beginning
$300,000's and move up from that point. Council Member Galloway asked on what group the
developer was focusing market efforts and Mr. Ellis responded that typically they were looking for
young professionals, first time homebuyers, and seniors, but would not focus advertising on any
type of market as their standard strategy was to make sure they had units in the affordable price
range relative to the area and slightly below the price point of other builders in the area but he
would not know the exact price until the market was ready.
Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and
Sidhu; Noes - 0. Motion Carried
47. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE MOUNTAIN PARK DEVELOPMENT
C300 (MIS2005-00120)
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PLAN NO. 137
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-00436
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. SPN2005-00031 (Mountain Park Specific Plan,
Amendment No. 11:
OWNER: The Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92658
AGENT: Bryan Austin, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92658
LOCATION: Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange
County, California.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 16
Water Supply Assessment for the Mountain Park Project (MIS2005-00120)-Request
that the City Council adopt the Water Supply Assessment for the Mountain Park project as
required by Section 10910 of the California Water Code.
CEQA Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137
- Request that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. 331("EIR No.
331 ") including adoption of a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137. EIR No. 331 has been prepared
to serve as the environmental document for General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00436
and the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Implementation is intended to include, but not be
limited to, the approval of development area plans, subdivision maps, grading permits,
street improvement plans, final site plans, and other related actions.
General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00436 -Request to amend the City
of Anaheim General Plan, Safety Element, Figure S-5 (Fire Protection Areas), to remove
the Mountain Park Specific Plan development areas from the Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation.
Specific Plan Amendment No. SPN2005-00031 (Mountain Park Specific Plan,
Amendment No. 1) -Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan to implement the
adopted City of Anaheim General Plan by reducing the number of residential units from a
maximum of 7,966 to a maximum of 2,500; amend the City of Anaheim Zoning Code
(Chapter 18.112) to replace and supersede current Zoning and Development Standards;
and, provide for the following uses: a City fire station; a school site and adjacent public
community park; public and private recreational facilities, including riding and hiking trails
and a trail staging area; an interpretive center and store concession; and roadways and
utilities necessary to serve the proposed development.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended Council approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 137, with the addition of Measure 6-9, pertaining to grading plans for
Development Area 4 (PC2005-113).
Recommended Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00436 (PC2005-
114).
Recommended Council approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. SPN2005-00031
(Mountain Park Specific Plan, Amendment No. 1) (PC2005-115).
Planning Director Shari Vander Dussen provided historical background on the project, stating that
in 1991, Council had approved the Mountain Park Specific Plan for development of approximately
3,000 acres and had entered into a development agreement with the Irvine Company that allowed
for the construction of 7,966 homes and 179 acres of commercial land uses as well as associated
schools, parks and public facilities. She reported several actions had occurred since 1991 that had
affected the property, including the adoption of the Orange County Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (OCNCCP) and the Habitat Conservation Plan and the Irvine Company's
dedication of open space for the Nature Conservancy Anaheim Conservation Easement. As part
of the General Plan update program, the Irvine Company requested the City study and incorporate
revisions to the Mountain Park Specific Plan land uses and those amendments approved in May
2004 included redesignating the property to low/medium density residential and low/medium
hillside density residential land uses, redesignating a substantial portion of the project site for open
space, limiting the maximum number of dwelling units to 2,500 and incorporating necessary
changes to the circulation element. Also, in connection with the General Plan update, the Irvine
Company requested Council terminate the 1991 development agreement.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 17
Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the Mountain Park project included four components: 1) a request to
amend the General Plan (Safety Element) to remove the Mountain Park development areas from
the very high fire hazard severity zone and place them in a special protection area designation
having preventive regulations suitable for developed areas; 2) a request to amend the Mountain
Park Specific Plan by reducing the number of residential dwelling units from a maximum of 7,966
to 2,500 and to amend the zoning code to replace and supersede current zoning and development
standards and provide for land uses that included a City fire station, school site and adjacent
community park, public and private recreational facilities, including riding and hiking trails and a
trail staging area, an interpretive center and roadway and utilities; 3) a request for certification of a
final environmental impact report (EIR) including adoption of statement of findings of fact, a
statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring program; and 4) per State law,
approve the water supply assessment as a prerequisite of certifying the environmental impact
report (EIR).
Should Council approve the project, Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the ordinances necessary to
address the zoning issues would be presented for introduction at the next Council meeting.
Ms. Vander Dussen indicated copies of the revised findings of fact, statements of overriding
considerations for traffic and circulation were provided for Council, commenting the revisions
reflected the Irvine Company's agreement to fund some of the improvements identified in
Mitigation Measure 7-1 (improvements to Weir Canyon Road/La Palma intersection) instead of
paying its fair share of the costs. Also distributed was a copy of letter from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City's response to that letter as well as additional
correspondence received on the project.
She reported the applicant had prepared a traffic study to analyze the impacts of the Mountain
Park project on the circulation system, which was reviewed by City staff and the EIR consultant.
Ms. Vander Dussen remarked the applicant could not be required to remedy existing circulation
problems and that there were regional transportation issues in the Anaheim Hills area with several
agencies working together towards a solution. She detailed the off-site circulation improvements to
be provided by the Irvine Company: 1) Gypsum Canyon Road would be widened to four lanes
from the 91 Freeway to Santa Ana Canyon Road. The intersection with Santa Ana Canyon Road
would be improved with two southbound thru lanes and a southbound right-turn lane, two
northbound thru lanes and a northbound left-turn lane and two eastbound left-turn lanes and an
eastbound right-turn lane. In addition, the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and the 91
Freeway would be improved with additional lanes at the ramp. The estimated value of all the
improvements to Gypsum Canyon was $7.5 million. 2) Santa Ana Canyon Road would be
widened from the 241 to Gypsum Canyon Road and the biggest improvement to Weir Canyon
Road would be the interchange with the 241; this alone would cost over $8 million. 3) In addition,
Weir Canyon Road would be improved as a four-lane divided roadway from the 241 to Blue Sky
Way and it would be re-striped to transition from afour-lane roadway at Blue Sky Way to six lanes
at Oak Canyon Drive. The applicant would make a fair share contribution toward the conversion of
an eastbound third thru-lane to a third left-turn lane at the Weir Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon
intersection and would also make a fair share contribution toward improvements to Weir Canyon
Road between the 91 and La Palma. In addition, the Irvine Company would make a fair share
contribution to improvements at Weir Canyon Road and La Palma including the addition of a third
northbound thru-lane and conversion of southbound right-turn lane to a shared thru or right-turn
lane. Irvine Company would also be paying for the conversion of the second eastbound thru-lane
to a shared second thru second right-turn lane (fully funded by the applicant). The estimated value
of all improvements to Weir Canyon was approximately $9.6 million. 4) A portion of Oak Canyon
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 18
Drive would be abandoned east of Running Springs Road and it would be improved with a vehicle
maintenance road and landscaping. Ms. Vander Dussen stated the total value of the traffic
mitigation was valued at almost $18.7 million.
Detailing the recreational amenities to be provided in the Mountain Park project, Ms. Vander
Dussen reported there would be a 15-acre city park with lighted fields, community building and
other facilities, seven acres of private parks, including swimming pools and play areas within the
project valued at $50 million in terms of land and improvements. She indicated there would be
numerous trail improvements provided as part of the project: 1) one mile of riding and hiking trail at
Santa Ana Canyon; 2) Mountain Park Drive provided and dedicated to the County of Orange,
including the grade separation crossing at the intersection; 3) 1.2 acres dedicated and improved for
a staging area for equestrian, hiking and cycle access to Gypsum Creek Trail; 4) improvement of
three miles of local hiking trails, construction of one mile of bike lane on Mountain Park Drive,
public access to the Gypsum Creek area and a managed trail access to an additional 1.5 miles of
the Gypsum Creek trail in the Irvine Ranch Land Reserve. The value of these improvements
totaled more than $84 million related Ms. Vander Dussen.
On the issue of schools, Ms. Vander Dussen noted the Irvine Company had proposed a voluntary
contribution of over $1.1 million to improvements to Canyon High School including lighting,
construction of a restroom, and a new basketball court and had entered into an agreement with
Orange Unified School District to address school impacts. The value of the agreement, she
emphasized, was significantly greater than the value of school impact fees that would ordinarily be
paid with development. Specifically, the Irvine Company would construct a K-6 school on ten
acres adjacent to the sports park in the West Village and would provide $3.4 million to the District
for middle school improvements and $4 million for high school improvements.
Ms. Vander Dussen also indicated Mountain Park would include the construction of a fully-
equipped fire station on Santa Ana Canyon road and the applicant would pay police impact fees
estimated at $900,000. In addition, the project would also result in the construction of water
reservoirs with a capacity of 8.8 million gallons to serve Mountain Park and provide emergency
storage for other areas of Anaheim Hills.
On July 27th, concluded Ms. Vander Dussen, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended to Council certification of the EIR, as modified at the Commission meeting, approval
of the General Plan amendment and the specific plan amendment and the Anaheim Public Utilities
Board recommended approval of the water supply assessment on August 4th. She noted that after
Planning Commission's actions, the City of Yorba Linda submitted an appeal requesting the
Commission's actions be considered by the City Council, however, since Council had the final
approval authority on these applications per Municipal Code, the appeal was not necessary to
bring the matter before Council. She did point out Council actions were inclusive of the issues
raised by Yorba Linda related to consistency with general plans. She commented that staff did not
believe there was a legal obligation to do so, however, staff had compared the proposal to Yorba
Linda's General Plan and had not identified any inconsistencies. Concluding the presentation, Ms.
Vander Dussen stated staff recommended approval of the Mountain Park project.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Dan Miller, Irvine
Company representative, remarked the project would be the final development in the eastern area
which was adjacent to over 100,000 acres of open space, including the Cleveland National Forest
and areas under the Nature Conservancy. He noted his firm had been working on the plan for
twenty years, starting in the 1980's when the County of Orange was considering the area for a jail
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 19
and a landfill. At that time Irvine Company worked with the City of Anaheim to put the first plan
together to make it difficult for the County to try to condemn the area and locate those unwanted
public facilities. The initial plan had been for about 10,000 homes, with the plan approved in 1991
scaled down to approximately 8,000 homes as well as a number of commercial/retail uses. At that
time, he explained, the Irvine Company entered into a development agreement with the City which
gave them the right to build that project. He emphasized the current plan before Council for
approval voluntarily reduced the amount of dwelling units proposed to 2,500 and would preserve
over 90 percent of the site in open space, trails, parks and other amenities.
Roger MacLean, Irvine Company's Senior Vice President, Urban Planning Design, remarked the
Mountain Park site was the overlapping of the two far fringes of Anaheim's and Irvine Company's
properties. He explained the element that started Irvine Company thinking differently about the
1991 specific plan was the dedication of the land reserve, 11,000 acres of open space which the
developer saw as an opportunity to reconsider the plan and make it more responsive to the quality
of the site surrounded by Chino National Park, Cleveland National Forest and other open space
components. The project, he stressed, contained 2,500 homes with 87 percent of the site
preserved as open space.
Taking into account slope analysis, habitat and vegetation analysis, north and south sun exposure
and wetlands feeding the habitat, an opportunities and constraints map defined the basic principles
of the development. Mr. MacLean explained the resulting plan preserved Gypsum Canyon as
open space and developed a series of neighborhoods based on the sensitivity to their site and the
ability to grade without extensive mitigation ending up with a village within a large open space
framework and a number of small residential components.
Mr. MacLean indicated the plan was then tested with different product types relating to the density
and grading issues and after several years of study, it resulted in 2,600 acres of open space, 2,500
dwelling units with public schools, a community park and an elementary school. The road system
would have access off Weir Canyon through the community park and elementary school site
which the public could access and then through vehicular gates to control automobile traffic with
the primary purpose to avoid cutting-through traffic in either direction. The other access, he
explained, came from the 91 and Gypsum Canyon Road through a vehicular gate through Quarry
Village and back up into Creekside Village into open space. All the open space would remain open
to public trails, preserved as part of the heart of the community, with a series of neighborhoods
with different compositions of residential products all dealing with market demand and expectation
and customer requests. The architectural character developed was in keeping with the site,
utilizing stucco plaster Spanish style architecture with warm colors to blend in with landscape,
which also enabled the higher density cluster housing using a compatible Santa Barbara style and
for the more rural densities, a Monterey and ranch style, as part of the overall Spanish theme. He
stated guidelines were in place as part of the specific plan and would be provided to builders to
guide them in the development of the residential product.
Mr. MacLean reported Irvine Company was also concerned with how the development looked from
the outside and attention was given to ensure it was well landscaped, that construction was
responsive to the hillside topography and maintained the hillside character as well as the water
storage and storm drainage.
John Bose provided specifics on the traffic mitigation measures. He stated: the Weir Canyon
interchange and extension to connect to the 241 interchange would save vehicles approximately
four miles to directly access the 241 interchange; the upgrading of Gypsum Canyon 91 interchange
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 20
would widen the two lanes to four, modify the ramps to be compatible with the widened cross
section and would extend to the project south of Santa Ana Canyon Road. A third project was the
realignment and widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Gypsum Canyon and the 241 right-
of-way and a 4th project would have right-of-way adjacent to the Mountain Park project reserved
for future 91 widening. He indicated Irvine Company had worked closely with CalTrans engineers
and had set back the project to allow the worst case widening to occur without having any impact
on the project. Offsite, he indicated there were three locations where the developer was
contributing their fair share towards future improvements: 1) The first one was at Weir Canyon and
La Palma, with a 37 percent responsibility, but pointed out Irvine Company intended to have a 100
percent commitment for the eastbound approach to that intersection. Mayor Pringle added that
was one of the questions raised by Yorba Linda and asked what the improvement would entail at
Weir Canyon and La Palma. Mr. Bose remarked Anaheim had been working on a cooperative
project with the City of Yorba Linda for the widening of Weir Canyon from 91 to La Palma and
included in that was an upgrading of the Weir Canyon and La Palma intersection (northbound right-
turn specifically) and that total project in the City's cooperative funding was what Irvine Company
would be providing a fair share contribution towards the cost. Mr. Bose clarified the 37 percent
represented the difference between existing traffic and future build-out at that location as it related
to how much of that future traffic was coming from Mountain Park. The 100 percent of the
improvement related to the need for an eastbound approach, which would be re-striped and the
addition of a second right-turn lane. Mayor Pringle confirmed the eastbound traffic on La Palma
approached that intersection, and on the west hand side of that intersection was the area Irvine
Company would re-stripe and add a secondary right-turn lane. Mayor Pringle asked Mr. Fick for
specifics on all the elements that would be part of that specific improvement. Mr. Fick indicate that
one element would be the eastbound traffic on La Palma as it approached Weir Canyon at the
right-turn capacity, a second would be the northbound traffic on Weir Canyon to add right hand turn
capacity onto La Palma and in addition to those two elements, staff would be working on various
intersection improvements.
Mr. Bose added the next project for which the Irvine Company had a fair share contribution was at
the intersection of Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Road. He remarked Anaheim had
identified in the General Plan of long-range improvements, the need for a triple left-turn on
eastbound Santa Ana Canyon Road to northbound Weir Canyon. Responding to Mayor Pringle's
request for clarification, John Lower, Anaheim Traffic Engineer, explained vehicles traveling
eastbound from the Festival Shopping Center on Santa Ana Canyon Road to make cleft-turn to
head towards the 91 Freeway, would fill-up the two left-turn lanes and the third left-turn would
alleviate that situation.
Mr. Bose detailed the projects relating to the 91 Freeway. He explained that OCTA and Riverside
County Transportation Commission had adopted an SR 91 implementation plan which identified
some projects to be implemented in the short term (within the next five years) and also some mid-
term improvements (6-10 year horizon.) In the short term they proposed an eastbound auxiliary
lane running from the 241 to the 71, allowing for traffic northbound on the toll road causing a queue
when merging onto the 91 and backing up traffic on the connector from the toll road to the 91. This
would provide an additional lane to allow that merging to occur on the 91 without having to go into
the current existing lanes and would result in significant improvement in operation and safety. The
next project planned was to replace the Green River overcrossing and upgrade the interchange at
that location. In the 6-10 year horizon, projects included adding a fifth general purpose lane from
the 71 to Pearce Street out in Riverside County; an auxiliary lane planned between the 55 and
Tustin Avenue in the westbound direction; Fairmont interchange to and from the north on SR 91;
eastbound and westbound widening adding a fifth general purpose lane from the 55 to the 241 and
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 21
also a fifth general purpose lane in both directions from the 241 to the 71; upgrading of the 91/71
interchange, westbound collector road - a short segment from the 15 to Main Street and lastly
adding either a second vehicle lane or a sixth general purpose lane from the 71 to Pearce Street.
Dan Miller concluded by stating the Mounting Park project had been filed in June, 2004 and had
received unanimous approval by the Planning Commission. After a year of negotiations, the
Orange Unified School District also approved a mitigation agreement in December 2004. The
OUSD held numerous community meetings, public workshops and two public hearings on the
school issue and the agreement was approved with no public opposition and approved
unanimously by the school board. That agreement, he reported, provided over $50 million in
capital facility money which was about $30 million more than required by state law in terms of
paying fees.
He pointed out the Irvine Company had agreed to contribute to the City $1.1 million for the City to
work with Canyon High School and the school district to upgrade the recreational facilities in terms
of lighted fields and other improvements. All the technical studies, exhibits and tables had been
available to the community for an extensive public review period, thirty community meetings were
held and issues were heard and addressed. From that very extensive community outreach effort,
it was determined the community wanted to maintain the community character, to maximize public
benefits, to mitigate traffic and schools and to provide accessible trails that the public would have
the right to access either on bike, horse or by walking to get back into the wilderness area. Mr.
Miller believed this project provided for those concerns. He stated the Irvine Company had
planned for this project for twenty years, agreed with the findings of the staff report including the
over 85 conditions of approval and the 80 required measures of the mitigation monitoring plan.
Todd Emmitt, speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, supported additional
housing stock in the City. He remarked that recent surveys conducted by Orange County Business
Council and surveys of 400 Chamber members identified adequate supply of housing for the
workforce as the most critical economic development issue confronting Orange County business
today and he believed this project would help ease all levels of housing in Anaheim, help alleviate
the undersupplied housing market and help stabilize a fast appreciating housing market. The
project would also allow current residents to upgrade to newly constructed housing, open more
housing at a broad range of pricing levels and help generate spending and tax dollars for local
economy. The local business community surrounding Mountain Park such as the Festival
Shopping Center would benefit from the patronage of 2,500 households and Mr. Emmitt stated the
Chamber was in full support of the project.
Steve Cable, Anaheim Hills resident for 12 years spoke in favor of the project for the following
reason. He was aware of the traffic concerns with the addition of 2,500 residents, however, was
confident the conditions of approval and proposed mitigations would be more than adequate to
take care of the problem. Additionally, the $50 million the Irvine Company would provide to the
Orange Unified School District would help the issues raised for the middle school and high school.
Mr. Cable stated he had walked the Ralph's shopping center and spoke to 70 small business
owners and could not find one that was opposed to the new community. Relating his personal
experience with the Irvine Company, Mr. Cable stated there were good stewards of the land they
developed, good citizens to the communities in which they do business and always do more than
was asked of them.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 22
Michael Perrella, resident of Anaheim Hills, spoke in support of the project citing the open space,
parks and recreational amenities proposed, a new elementary school and the protection of almost
90 percent of the mountain as open space.
Michael Brown, resident of Anaheim Hills, spoke in favor of the project pointing to the revenue it
would bring to the community, the economic value the City would gain, and the monies set aside to
improve school facilities, road and freeway improvements as well as funds for fire, police and other
public services. He believed the project would increase industry, create more opportunities for the
community and the children, and would give the City of Anaheim more visibility and more
recognition on a bigger scale.
Christine Thaulman, Building Industry of Orange County, stated the Irvine Company had
developed an extraordinary plan that set aside a significant amount of open space and as a
building trade association; she supported the development to increase housing stock which was
paramount to the economic vitality and sustainability of Anaheim.
Gerard Miller, resident of Anaheim Hills, supported the project for the interconnectivity to the
surrounding natural environment.
Patrick Pepper, chairman of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, spoke on behalf of the board of
directors in support of Mountain Park project. He remarked that the Coalition had been involved
for over 15 years in the development of the Mountain Park, working to defeat the jail effort
proposed by the County, including law suits against the state that prevented the county from
circumventing Proposition 13 to obtain funding. At the same time, the Irvine Company, he
remarked, had proposed 10,000 homes for development and working with them, that had been
reduced down to approximately 8,000 homes approved in 1991 and tonight he was hopeful the
final chapter would allow development of 2,500 homes. During the EIR process, the Citizens
Coalition had sponsored community meetings, and provided a forum for area residents to provide
feedback and input to not only the Irvine Company but to representatives from Orange Unified
School District. He commented that the existing three ranches in Anaheim Hills constituted 5,500
homes, and that Irvine Company had given up development rights for that same amount of homes
pointing out in today's increasing land and housing values, that was an incredible story and more
importantly, this project was now consistent with Anaheim General Plan. Mr. Pepper indicated that
Development would always have impacts to surrounding areas, neighbors would always mourn the
loss of vacant land space next to them, and traffic impacts occurred, however, with this
development came mitigation measures and funds to address and relieve some of the traffic
impacts earlier than what would have been available without the project. He pointed out that with
or without development, traffic on the 91 freeway would continue to worsen with the rapid
expansion of housing in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Overall, he stated, the Mountain
Park development would be a good addition to the community with a new fire station provided in
the eastern section of the City, a new elementary school, improvements to other area schools, a
new community park and the majority of the proposed development gate.
James Robert Reade, supported the project as being appropriate for Anaheim but also asked
Council to keep in mind the need for affordable housing.
Alma Ramirez spoke of the need for ethical developers.
Cary Sontag, Anaheim hills resident, spoke against the project for its lack of affordable housing
and the traffic improvements on Weir Canyon Road relating to the grade steepness.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 23
Mitchell Abbott, attorney for Richards Watson & Gershon, spoke on behalf of the City of Yorba
Linda. He stated the City of Yorba Linda's objections to the proceedings related to inadequacies
and deficiencies in the environmental impact report and those primarily in the area of traffic and
circulation and presented a letter detailing those concerns. He believed Anaheim was required to
take into consideration the general plan of adjacent governmental agencies and believed the
Mountain Gate project was inconsistent with the City of Yorba Linda's circulation element and its
general plan. The thrust of the Yorba Linda's objection was that in order not to impose undesirable
traffic burdens on the City of Anaheim, the project dumped those impacts on the City of Yorba
Linda. He pointed out the Anaheim EIR acknowledged that the gating that had been discussed
and would serve to reduce traffic in Mountain Park inside the development by diverting the traffic to
the Weir Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue intersection and on Weir Canyon Road south of the
intersection between La Palma Avenue and SR 91 was inconsistent with the goals and policies of
the Yorba Linda general plan circulation element. He noted Yorba Linda submitted comments to
Anaheim as part of the EIR process and Anaheim responded and acknowledged that Yorba
Linda's proposed alternative, the un-gated community alternative, would reduce traffic at the Weir
Canyon Road/La Palma Avenue intersection and on Weir Canyon Road south of the intersection
between La Palma Avenue and SR 91. He also stated the EIR was inconsistent in terms of its
treatment of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways as a means of accommodating
traffic generated by the project as it offered contradictory responses. The EIR stated the City was
committed to the gradual build-out of the MPAH, and later stated implementation of these
improvements would only encourage more traffic diversion from SR 91 on the Santa Ana Canyon
Road in Anaheim. Mr. Abbott emphasized the purpose of CEQA related to considering mitigation
measures for impacts and asked the Council to defer action on the Mountain Park project. He
asked the consideration of the Circulation Transportation Element of this plan be reopened and to
work with the City of Yorba Linda and try to solve some of these problems.
Mayor Pringle thanked Mr. Abbott for his comments. He stated that as far back as eight weeks
ago, a discussion took place, and the Mayor had asked members of the Yorba Linda City Council
to clearly articulate what their traffic concerns were and received no response. He further stated
that over the last five weeks he had sought to have a meeting with members of the Yorba Linda
City Council to understand what their concerns were. Mayor Pringle remarked that he had heard
Yorba Linda was concerned about trying to have the Irvine Company widen more roads throughout
Anaheim Hills as well as potentially into the City of Yorba Linda, but in every case, the issue of
gating the Mountain Park development was mentioned. The Mayor pointed out that all of Mountain
Park was located on the southside of the 91 Freeway, a relative distance from the City of Yorba
Linda. He also pointed out the Gypsum Canyon Master Plan component from the MPAH was
removed a long time ago and at that point, Yorba Linda had not objected to its removal. In terms
of the Mountain Park community being gated and the fact that Yorba Linda residents may want,
according to their City Council members, access thru private neighborhoods in Anaheim so they
could use those as short cuts to freeways, was not in the Mayor's opinion, a high priority. Mayor
Pringle commented he was open to a better argument on that issue but each time he had inquired
if the gated component of the project was the number one issue, he had been told no. The Mayor
reflected he was concerned about traffic mitigation and that a traffic study had been performed and
reviewed by Anaheim staff and that the Irvine Company had contributed a fair share towards traffic
improvements related to this project and he had never seen a traffic study from Yorba Linda that
showed any additional improvements necessary to address traffic impacts. Mayor Pringle thanked
Mr. Abbott for the letter, indicating he had read a number of letters from the City of Yorba Linda
and followed them up with telephone calls to ask for an explanation of the issues and had not
received clarifying responses as to what those issues were. He thanked Mr. Abbott for his
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 24
presentation on behalf of the neighboring city, indicating that all five members of Anaheim Council
were interested in hearing their concerns.
Scott Darrell, director of Kennedy Commission, offered comments on the issue of affordable
housing. He thanked Council for adopting the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan but believed the
Mountain Park project as well as the previous Platinum Triangle projects represented lost
opportunities for the provision of affordable housing units. He remarked that the four or five new
construction affordable sites developed in Anaheim for seniors or families with special needs had
become community assets and were the best owned, maintained and constructed properties in
their neighborhoods. He pointed to similar occurrences in the City of Irvine and stated the Irvine
Chief of Police had studied crime statistics in that city and found that crime was no higher in multi-
family affordable deed-restricted units than of any other housing units in the city. He noted that
studies had shown in Orange County as well as statewide that deed-restricted well managed
affordable housing sites actually increased the value of properties in their neighborhoods. He
remarked that the Kennedy Commission did not oppose the Mountain Park project but wanted to
see affordable housing be developed to make sure the entire spectrum of affordability was served.
Keith Nagayama, attorney with Public Law Center, representing very low, low and extremely low
income residents in the City of Anaheim who also work in the City reiterated Mr. Darrell's
comments. He believed the County as well as the City was in an affordable housing crisis and with
the loss of the Imperial Terrace apartment complex, 40 project-based Section 8 housing units
would be lost. He stated the Irvine Company had the ability to build affordable housing and they
had provided for many in Irvine and remarked that redevelopment law was a separate obligation
from the city's obligation under the Housing Element.
Hillary Sontag, resident, was ambivalent about the Mountain Park development but was opposed
to the 25,000 cars traveling down the Weir Canyon road extension which would connect Weir
Canyon to the toll road. She commented she lived right underneath the projected toll road and she
and her neighbors would face increased traffic, noise, dirt, pollution and less safety and security
due to the Mountain Park development. She pointed out the project would be of benefit to the City
of Anaheim as a whole, but asked what could be done to lessen the impacts to her and her
neighbors. She commented this was a neighborhood, not just a corridor and asked if something
could be done to look into lessening the impact.
Phil Roche, Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association, and a resident of Anaheim Hills for
36 years, spoke in opposition to the Mountain Park Project. He cited the lack of affordable housing
and severe traffic concerns remarking the addition of 7,500 cars from the new development would
add to the congestion on the freeways and the local surface streets. He urged delay of the project
until the improvements on the 91 Freeway were completed.
Gary Murray, resident of Anaheim Hills for 18 years, indicated the East Hills Homeowners
Association members were concerned about what would happen to their neighborhood when the
project was developed. He cited overpopulation, decrease in home values as the overpopulation
and traffic would make Anaheim a less desirable area. He pointed to new developments proposed
for the City of Orange with 1,400 to 4,000 new residents who would use Anaheim Hills commercial
area and streets, worsening the impact to its residents.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 25
Dan Miller responded to previous comments stated the Mountain Park project addressed a variety
of economic levels for people wishing to purchase homes. Through past experience, he believed
50 percent of those purchasing in the new development would come from Anaheim and this project
would provide additional inventory to existing residents creating opportunities for resale of older
homes. Addressing the City of Yorba Linda's concerns, Mr. Miller indicated he had been interim
City Manager in Yorba Linda for two years and he felt there had been good meetings where issues
were publicly discussed and was surprised at the letter received. He believed there was
miscommunication between Yorba Linda staff and their Council. He stated much debate had been
heard of the project in terms of its impact and the demands on more housing and less traffic and
that the Irvine Company believed they had a balanced project that would be an asset to Anaheim.
He pointed out the Irvine Company had been around for 100 years and were concerned about the
communities, becoming involved and invested in each community in which they have invested.
Council Member Galloway remarked that at her first meeting with the Irvine Company to
understand the Mountain Park project, she had told Mr. Miller that the Irvine Company reputation
preceded him. She pointed to their reputation of excellence in building communities, that when
they come in to build, the company cares completely about the community and the issues that
matter to that community. She also stated the Irvine Company was second to none in addressing
affordable housing and were very specific in addressing mitigation issues. She asked how the
affordability component of the project was addressed.
Mr. Miller replied in Irvine, the developer had the flexibility to build affordable housing where it
made sense the most, near services, near transportation corridors and near land that was not as
expensive as trying to build in hillside areas or areas that would be gated. In the Mountain Park
development, the hillside topography, the gated community, the homeowner association fees, and
the community facility district fees made it very difficult to build affordable units. In this project, the
Irvine Company would work with the City and did have in the conditions of approval that units
would be made available for the down payment assistance program to allow first time home buyers
and others to get into this community. He noted Irvine Company had agreed to have 80 to 100
homes available to first time home buyers.
Council Member Galloway indicated there was a quote in the newspaper today that a certain
Council Member felt the Irvine Company was addressing the affordability component by having
homes that were under the median price and asked for clarification on that quote. Mr. Miller
replied that in today's market, the price range would be in the mid $300,000 all the way up to $1.5
million and therefore other than the low or very low income, everyone in the housing market would
have a chance to be part of the project.
Council Member Galloway asked if rentals had been considered and Mr. Miller responded that the
nature of the cost of the infrastructure, the gated community aspect and the homeowner's
association fees were not conducive to offering rentals and had not been considered for the
Mountain Park project.
City Attorney Jack White indicated it would be appropriate to have staff respond to the comments
that were made, specifically concerning the adequacy of the environmental impact report and the
mitigation monitoring plan.
Shari Vander Dussen remarked staff continued to believe the EIR was adequate and that it did
adequately address the impacts of this project. She noted that alternatives were considered and
evaluated and that the project traffic did not result in any level of service at any intersection in
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 26
Yorba Linda that was inconsistent with the level of service in their general plan nor did it have any
other impact that staff was able to identify that would be inconsistent with their general plan. She
pointed out the statement of overriding considerations was only required because some of the
improvements were going to be controlled by Yorba Linda and they would determine when and
whether they would be built. Even though Anaheim had identified the fair share of funding from the
Irvine Company, Yorba Linda could not be compelled to commence those improvements so
Anaheim had to adopt a statement of overriding considerations.
The EIR, stated Ms. Vander Dussen, did not reveal the project had any adverse impacts, and in
fact, staff believed it had benefits that would extend beyond the Anaheim Hills area. The access to
the regional open space was going to be a huge benefit, the new fire station would benefit
surrounding areas and drivers on the 91 Freeway, the circulation improvements would also provide
traffic relief especially the new interchange with the 241 and for those reasons, staff continued to
believe the environmental impact report did adequately address the impacts of the proposed
project and the mitigation measures did appropriately mitigate all of the impacts.
Mayor Pringle asked Joel Fick to confirm that representations made to the City of Yorba Linda
relating to traffic issues were correct. Joel Fick, Deputy City Manager, affirmed staff participated in
several meetings with Yorba Linda that were felt to be very productive and in fact Yorba Linda staff
were representing those meetings as productive and the Yorba Linda city manager at one point in
July, proposed to Anaheim's city manager that a Memorandum of Understanding be entered into
between the two cities and identified a number of items on which the two staffs had met and
seemingly reached a mutual agreement on. He noted there had been several comments on how
puzzling the representation made tonight appeared to staff because the items identified in the
conclusion submitted by the attorney at tonight's meeting were different from the items that their
traffic engineer participated in at the meeting with staff. Mr. Fick confirmed the City Manager and
he had made offers to the Yorba Linda City Manager to meet on multiple occasions over the last
several weeks and they had not been available to meet.
Council Member Chavez stated it was mentioned earlier about a lost opportunity for affordable
units for low and very low on this particular project and that he and Mr. Miller had talked about this
some time ago during which Mr. Miller explained the dynamics of the project. Council Member
Chavez believed the Irvine Company made a good effort to provide affordability to the moderate
range and agreed to work with staff to insure many of those homes would be available to first time
home buyers - a program the City of Anaheim offered. He further remarked that Council ended up
with a program for affordable housing through the adoption of the strategic plan that would be very
beneficial for the City. Council Member Chavez indicated he was impressed with the Irvine
Company in providing the fire station, open space, traffic mitigation, funding for schools and he felt
they had covered every concern and mitigated most of them.
Council Member Sidhu believed this project would be the showpiece for Anaheim and would add to
the needed housing stock in Anaheim. He emphasized the Irvine Company built communities and
had addressed all of the concerns raised relating to traffic and schools.
Council Member Galloway indicated she was going to vote solely on the merits of the project and
its contributions to the community. She believed Mountain Park was a meritorious project going far
beyond what was expected for the community. She also stated she would hold Irvine Company
accountable for providing first time buyer assistance and asked that they hold tight to the starting
price of $350,000
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 27
Mayor Pringle offered comments. He wanted to ensure the community understood that 4,500 units
had been removed voluntarily from the original development plan because the Irvine Company was
making an investment in the future of the County in terms of preserving open space for the future
and because the company wanted to build the most environmentally sensitive project in this area
that was possible. He and his family had toured the canyon through the streams and sycamore
trees and the grasslands, had seen deer running through the meadow area and viewed the
spectacular red rock that could be seen from the 241. He emphasized the whole area was
impressive and for a very limited portion of the canyon to be developed by a private owner wanting
to set aside a majority of the property for the future was a huge commitment by the Irvine Company
and he did not want that fact to be lost. He pointed out the trail system to be developed and
publicly accessible from the Santa Ana River all the way to the Pacific Ocean talked about the
long-term future of the County and to the fact that the final development within the canyon was
environmentally sensitive. He pointed to the commitment of resources to public issues -the roads,
schools, recreational benefits that were a part of the project. He noted that Anaheim Hills had
been shortchanged in terms of parks and public uses by its first developers and he had established
a Mayor's Task Force on Youth Sports which listed more playfields, more park space and more
areas to recreate as priority needs and that the Irvine Company went beyond the obligation in
building those types of facilities to be available for the use of the Anaheim Hills residents. He
spoke of working with the Irvine Company as a board member of OCTA and chairman of the OCTA
long-term planning committee relating to transportation needs in Orange County and on the
Riverside/Orange County MIS panel relating that the Irvine Company participated in every one of
the meetings on future long-term planning as they had a broader focus than just Anaheim Hills.
They were very involved and the Mayor had asked them to share a commitment to insure that any
future funding on transportation of Orange County had the 91 Freeway as the number one priority
for transportation improvements. That level of commitment had given the Mayor confidence that
the Irvine Company was a trustworthy development firm and he believed it was a wise decision to
gate this area not just for the benefit of the new residents but because it meant that the cost and
on-going cost of services from this City and every single taxpayer in this City would be diminished if
not eliminated. He pointed out the Irvine Company was making the largest investment in the fire
service for the future than any other developer in the history of Anaheim, with a fire station being
built as part of this project, fire trucks and cost of manning services for the fire trucks being
provided, as well as police impact fees to address police safety in the new neighborhoods including
the on-going benefits and contributions that would be made by the new homeowners association.
He believed gating the neighborhoods to provide some degree of exclusivity was appropriate.
Without gates, Mayor Pringle noted the neighborhoods would become athrough-way to the
freeway as vehicles cut through the area both from Anaheim and Yorba Linda to relieve the
congestion problem.
With that, Mayor Pringle indicated Council Member Chavez moved to approve RESOLUTION NO.
2005-174, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE MOUNTAIN PARK DEVELOPMENT (MIS2005-
00120), seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. .
Council Member Hernandez moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2005-175 , A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CEQA FINDING: EIR NO.
331 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137, seconded by Council Member Galloway.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and
Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried.
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 23, 2005
Page 28
Council Member Galloway moved to approve RESOLUTION N0.2005-1 ~ RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 2005-00436, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle,
Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2005-177, A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. SPN
2005-00031 (Mountain Park Specific Plan, Amendment No. 1), seconded by Council Member
Chavez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez
and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions:
Regarding Rosen's Electrical Equipment Company, DTSC Docket No. I & SE - RAO 05/06 - 002,
City Attorney Jack White reported on this date, Council unanimously approved compliance with the
site remediation order in accordance with Anaheim's proportional share of liability issued by the
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Council Communications:
Referring to a recent traffic accident on Knoll Ranch Road, Council Member Sidhu requested the
Chief of Police prepare a report, which included safety measures, on the number of accidents in
the last five years occurring on Knoll Ranch Road in Anaheim Hills. In addition, Mayor Pringle
requested the Assistant City Manager have all departments include relative information relating to
the recent accident contained in the report.
The Mayor, referring to a recent news article, asked the Police Chief to report to Council at the next
meeting on apartment statistics, especially as it related to crime statistics, response times.
Mayor Pringle also requested Council Members provide names of individuals for membership on
the new Motel Families Task Force at the September 13th Council meeting, and asked for
suggestions from the housing community, the apartment community as well as affordable housing
advocates to address the nine issues presented by the Children and Families Commission (written
by the Orange County Partnership) as well as any other issues.
At 10:25 P.M., Mayor Pringle adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
Sheryll Schroeder, MMC
City Clerk