APFA-2007-004RESOLUTION NO. APFA 2007- 004
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO
EXCEED $270,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF ITS LEASE REVENUE BONDS (ANAHEIM PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT) TO REFINANCE CERTAIN
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND PROVIDING
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
SAID REFUNDING BONDS, AND UTHER MATTERS
RELATING THERETO
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") has been
established pursuant to Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of
California (the "Act"), by the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of
January 28, 1992, between the City of Anaheim, California (the "City") and the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency for the purpose, among others, of assisting in providing financing for
public capital improvements under the Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of February 1, 1997 (the
"Original Indenture"), by and between the Authority and BNY Western Trust Company, as trustee,
the Authority issued its Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Public Improvements Project} in three
series, consisting of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority Senior Lease Revenue Bonds
(Anaheim Public Improvements Project), 1997 Series A (the "Series A Bonds"), the Anaheim
Public Financing Authority Senior (Taxable) Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Public
Improvements Project), 1997 Series B (the "Series B Bonds") and the Anaheim Public Financing
Authority Subordinate Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Public Improvements Project), 1997 Series
C (the "Series C Bonds") to finance the expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center, construction
of a public parking facility and certain other infrastructure improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Authority is authorized pursuant to the Original Indenture and
Section 53583 of the Government Code of the State of California to issue bonds for the purpose of
refunding all or a portion of the Authority's Series A Bonds, the Series B Bonds and the Series C
Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined to authorize and issue one or more
series of bonds (the "Refunding Bonds") designated as its Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Public
Improvements Project) on the terms and conditions set forth in the Original Indenture, as amended
and supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture of Trust (the "First Supplemental
Indenture"), by and between the Authority and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as
trustee (the "Trustee") (such Original Indenture, as amended and supplemented by the First
Supplemental Indenture, being referred to herein as the "Indenture"), to refund all or a portion of
the Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Refunding Bonds are to be payable from, and secured by a pledge
of and lien on, the Lease Payments (capitalized terms used but undefined in this Resolution shall
have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Original Indenture) paid by the City pursuant to the Lease
Agreement and the other funds pledged therefor pursuant to the Indenture; and
OHS West :260210225.1
WHEREAS, there is on file with the Secretary of the Authority (the "Secretary")
the following:
(1) A proposed form of the First Supplemental Indenture; and
(2) A proposed form of a Purchase Contract (the "Purchase Contract") for the
Refunding Bonds to be entered into by the Authority, the City and UBS
Securities LLC, as representative for the underwriters of the Refunding
Bonds; and
(3) A proposed form of Preliminary Official Statement (the "Preliminary
Official Statement") to be used in connection with the offering of the
Refunding Bonds; and
(4} A proposed form of Escrow Agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") to be
entered into by the Authority and the .Trustee in connection with the
refunding of all or a portion of the Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the Board of
Directors of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority, as follows:
Section 1. The issuance of the Refunding Bonds in the aggregate principal amount
of not to exceed $270,000,000 on the terms and conditions set forth herein and in, and subject to the
limitations specified in, the Indenture is hereby authorized and approved.
The Refunding Bonds shall be designated the "Anaheim Public Financing Authority
Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Public Improvements Project)" with such further designation as
shall be necessary to identify any separate series of the Refunding Bonds.
The Refunding Bonds shall not constitute a general obligation of the Authority or a
charge against the general assets of the Authority but shall be payable solely from, and secured
solely by, the Lease Payments paid by the City under the Lease Agreement and the other funds
pledged therefor pursuant to the Indenture. The Refunding Bonds shall not constitute an obligation
of any member of the Authority.
The Refunding Bonds will be issued from time to time in such series, in such
aggregate principal amount or amounts (subject to the limitations contained in the first sentence of
this Section 1), will be dated such date or dates, will bear interest at such rate or rates (which
interest on any series of the Refunding Bonds may be fixed or variable and tax-exempt or taxable
for federal income tax purposes), will be subject to redemption, including redemption from
mandatory sinking fund payments, will be issued in the form, and will be as otherwise provided in
the First Supplemental Indenture executed and delivered pursuant to Section 2 hereof; provided,
that, the stated interest rate on any Refunding Bond shall not exceed 8 1/2% per annum and the
final maturity of the Refunding Bonds shall not extend beyond March 1, 2037.
2
OHS West :260210225 .2
The proceeds of the sale of each series of the Refunding Bonds, including any
accrued interest and premium, will be applied simultaneously with the delivery of such Refunding
Bonds as provided in the First Supplemental Indenture.
Section 2. The form, terms and provisions of the First Supplemental Indenture in
substantially the form on file with the Secretary are hereby approved, and each member of the
Board of Directors of the Authority, the Executive Director of the Authority and the Finance
Director of the City (each hereinafter referred to as an "Authorized Officer"), acting alone, is hereby
authorized and empowered to execute and deliver the First Supplemental Indenture. The
Authorized Officer executing the First Supplemental Indenture may approve any changes,
insertions or deletions therein from the form presented to this meeting, with the approval of counsel
to the Authority, such approval of counsel to the Authority to be conclusively evidenced by such
Authorized Officer's execution and delivery of the First Supplemental Indenture.
The Refunding Bonds may be issued as a single series or as several series, as
determined by an Authorized Officer, and each Authorized Officer, acting alone, is hereby
authorized and empowered to execute and deliver to the Trustee any supplement or amendment to
the Indenture necessary in connection with the issuance from time to time of the Refunding Bonds
in two or more series and to determine the specific terms and conditions of each such series, subject
to the limitations on the Refunding Bonds contained in this Resolution and in the Indenture.
Section 3. The form, terms and provisions of the Purchase Contract in substantially
the form on file with the Secretary are hereby approved, and each Authorized Officer acting alone,
is hereby authorized and empowered to execute and deliver a Purchase Contract for each separate
delivery of a series of Refunding Bonds, which maybe made from time to time with such changes,
insertions or deletions therein from the form presented to this meeting, with the approval of counsel
to the Authority, such approval of counsel to the Authority to be conclusively evidenced by such
Authorized Officer's execution and delivery of the Purchase Contract or Purchase Contracts.
The Authorized Officer executing a Purchase Contract on behalf of the Authority is
hereby authorized and empowered to determine the price to be paid for the Refunding Bonds
pursuant to each Purchase Contract; provided, that, such price shall not be less than 95% of the
aggregate principal amount of the current interest Refunding Bonds purchased.
Section 4. The form, terms and provisions of the Escrow Agreement in
substantially the form on file with the Secretary are hereby approved, and each Authorized Officer
acting alone, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute and deliver the Escrow Agreement
with such changes, insertions or deletions therein from the form presented to this meeting, with the
approval of counsel to the Authority, such approval of counsel to the Authority to be conclusively
evidenced by such Authorized Officer's execution and delivery of the Escrow Agreement.
3
OHS West:260210225.2
Section 5. Each Authorized Officer, acting alone, is hereby authorized and
empowered to: (i) prepare, or cause to be prepared, one or more Preliminary Official Statements in
substantially the form on file with the Secretary, with such changes, insertions or deletions therein
from the form presented to this meeting, with the approval of counsel of the Authority, such
approval of counsel to the Authority to be conclusively evidenced by the Authorized Officer's
execution and delivery of the Official Statement defined below; and (ii) to prepare, or cause to be
prepared, one or more final official statements in connection with the several series of Refunding
Bonds (collectively, the "Official Statement") substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official
Statement with such changes, insertions or deletions therein as may be necessary to cause the same
to carry out the intent of this Resolution and as are approved by counsel to the Authority, such
approval to be conclusively evidenced by such Authorized Officer's execution and delivery thereof.
Each Authorized Officer, acting alone, is hereby authorized and empowered to deliver the
Preliminary Official Statement to the underwriters for the Refunding Bonds, and to execute and
deliver the Official Statement to the underwriters for the Refunding Bonds.
Section 6. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Authority, and each of them, acting alone, is hereby authorized and directed to execute, by manual
or facsimile signature, each series of the Refunding Bonds, and the Secretary or an Assistant
Secretary of the Authority, and each of them, acting alone, is hereby authorized and directed to
attest, by manual or facsimile signature, thereto, in the name and on behalf of the Authority, in
accordance with the Indenture and in the form set forth in the First Supplemental Indenture.
Section 7. The Refunding Bonds of each series, when executed as provided in
Section 6 hereof, shall be delivered to the Trustee for authentication by the Trustee. The Trustee is
hereby requested and directed to authenticate and register the Refunding Bonds so delivered by
executing the appropriate Certificate of Authentication appearing thereon, and to deliver such
Refunding Bonds, when duly executed, authenticated and registered, to the purchasers thereof in
accordance with written instructions executed on behalf of the Authority by any Authorized Officer,
which instructions said Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name of
and on behalf of the Authority, to execute and to deliver to the Trustee. Such instructions shall
provide for the delivery of such Refunding Bonds to the purchaser thereof upon payment of the
purchase price therefor.
Section 8. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is hereby appointed as bond counsel
for the Refunding Bonds, Kutak Rock LLP is hereby appointed as disclosure counsel to the
Authority and Public Financial Management, Inc. is hereby appointed as financial advisor to the
Authority in connection with the issuance of the Refunding Bonds. UBS Securities LLC is hereby
appointed as the senior managing underwriter for the Refunding Bonds. Each Authorized Officer is
hereby authorized and directed to approve any co-managing underwriter for the Refunding Bonds.
Section 9. Each Authorized Officer, acting alone, is hereby authorized and
empowered to obtain credit-enhancement for the Refunding Bonds in the form of municipal bond
insurance and/or a debt service reserve fund surety bond on such terms and conditions, and at such
prices as shall be approved by an Authorized Officer; provided, however, that all costs of such
credit-enhancement and/or debt service reserve fund surety bond shall be paid out of the proceeds
of the sale of the Refunding Bonds or shall be paid from Lease Payments paid by the City.
4
OHS West:260210225.2
Section 10. In making any determination with respect to the Refunding Bonds, the
Indenture, the Purchase Contract or the Escrow Agreement, or in taking any other action required or
authorized to be taken pursuant to this Resolution, each Authorized Officer shall be subject to the
provisions of this Resolution.
Section 11. Each Authorized Officer, acting alone, is hereby authorized and
empowered to certify on behalf of the Authority that the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Official Statement is deemed final as of its respective date, within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Section 12. All actions heretofore taken by the members of the Board of Directors,
the officers and the agents of the Authority with respect to the issuance and sale of the Refunding
Bonds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the members of the Board of Directors, the
officers of the Authority and their authorized deputies and agents are hereby authorized and
directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all
certificates and other documents, including without limitation any continuing disclosure agreement
required by the Rule, and one or more tax certificates or agreements with respect to the Refunding
Bonds, in addition to those enumerated herein, including the preparation and distribution of any
offering material, which they or counsel to the Authority may deem necessary or advisable in order
to consummate the issuance, sale and delivery of the Refunding Bonds and otherwise to effectuate
the purposes of this Resolution.
Section 13. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority this ~h day of April, 2007, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Chairman Pringle, Authority Members Hernandez, Sidhu, Galloway, Kring
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ANAHE ~UBLIC FINA AUTHORITY
By
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD DIRECTORS
OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY
ATTEST•
S RETARY OF THE O RD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE A AHEIM PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY
5
OAS West:260210225.2
ORDINANCE NO. 6 0 6 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING (RECLASSIFICATION NO.
2007-00192).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES FIND THAT:
WHEREAS, following a duly noticed public hearing held on May 30, 2007,
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Anaheim
Planning Commission did adopt its Resolution No. PC2007-54 determining that a change or
changes in the zone or zones hereinafter mentioned and described should be made to reclassify
the subject property, as described below, into the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the subject property has requested that the City finalize
reclassification of the subject property from the C-G (General Commercial) Zone to the RM-3
(Multiple-Family Residential) Zone of the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, certain terms and conditions were made as conditions precedent to
the making of a change or changes of said zone or zones, which conditions have been complied
with.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be,
and the same is hereby, amended by rezoning and reclassifying the subject property situated in
the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows, to wit:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH,
RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 IS SHOWN ON
A MAP FILED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 27 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
DISTANCE THEREON 553.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH
THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 189.00 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE
ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER 161.00 FEET, THENCE EASTERLY
PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE 109.00 FEET, MORE OR
LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE 161.00 FEET,
THENCE WESTERLY 109.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ON A LINE
PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
into the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone of the City of Anaheim.
SECTION 2.
The City Zoning Map shall be, and the same is hereby, amended and the above-
described property shall be excluded from the zone in which it is now situated and incorporated
in and made a part of the zone or zones as above set forth, and said City Zoning Map, as
amended, is hereby adopted and the Planning Department is hereby directed to prepare a
sectional zoning map to be added to the City Zoning Map showing the changes hereby approved
and adopted.
SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the
same to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in said City, and thirty (30) days from
and after its final passage, it shall take effect and be in full force.
2
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the Zth day of ALCn7G~r 2007, and
thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 stday of
August , 2007, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Hernandez, Sidhu, Galloway, Kring
NOES: ~~
ABSENT: NOS
ABSTAIN: NONE
CITY OF A EIM
By
MAYOR OF THE CI O NAHEIM
ATTEST:
CIT ERK OF THE F ANAHEIM
65 833.v 1/MGordon
3
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2007
The regular meeting of August 21, 2007 was called to order at 3:10 P.M. by Mayor Pringle.
A copy of the agenda for the Anaheim City Council meeting was posted on August 17, 2007 on the
kiosk outside City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle and Council Members: Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez, Lucille
Kring and Harry Sidhu.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Linda
Nguyen
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
WORKSHOP -AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING COMMISSION
Joel Fick, Deputy City Manager, updating Counci! on the Affordable Housing Strategic Pian,
explained it had been first approved in August of 2005 and established as a priority, a numerical
goal, for new affordable family rental housing units of 1,328 units over a four year period. The goal
also included enhancement of zoning and building practices for development of affordable housing
with an annual status review each August by Council. Since approval of the plan, he reported,
staff had been providing quarterly progress reports to Council to keep them informed and today's
workshop would provide the second annual review since the plan approval. He emphasized the
plan exceeded state-mandated housing goals and the requirements of Anaheim's Redevelopment
Plan. Since the plan approval, he added, 30 percent of the redevelopment tax increment had been
formally committed to provide housing for low and very low income households and in addition,
staff resources and funding had been focused on the construction of new rental units as compared
with construction of ownership units or the rehabbing of existing units.
Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, reported on the production end of the strategic
plan. She pointed out with sites under construction as well as sites controlled by the Agency, the
City was projected to not only meet those goals but also exceed them in the future. Projects
currently underway (either under construction or having a developer selected for the site) totaled
635 units, 358 of which were low and very low and 277 which were moderate. Of those 635 units,
589 were anticipated to be completed by the end of 2008. Ms. Stipkovich provided details on
those projects: Vinyard on Vine Street by Mercy Housing contained 60 units, a 100 percent
affordable, tax credit project on a Housing Authority 55-year ground lease requirement for
affordability which then reverted to the Housing Authority at the end of 55 years. Elm Street project
had 52 units under construction, a 100 percent affordable, tax credit project with a land subsidy
and an environmental remediation subsidy. Elm Street would be 100 percent affordable for 55
years and would also revert to Housing Authority at the end of that period. The next project was
called Broadway Village, and was not subsidized by the Department, but would create 46
affordable units developed by Global Premier. This was a tax credit project, with the Department
providing technical assistance and application of the density bonus program. Monarch Pointe
August 21, 2007 -Page 2
contained 63 units, 100 percent affordable and developed by Jamboree Housing, for low and very
low incomes with a long term ground lease by Housing Authority to be completed in late 2008.
Diamond Street, was another Jamboree Housing project, with 25 units of a 100 percent low and
very low, special needs project, with a City ground lease as well as project-based Section 8
assistance. She remarked this was astate-funded housing subsidy program that should begin
construction at the end of this year with an anticipated completion date close to the end of 2008.
Staff was finalizing negotiations with a 3`d Jamboree project called Glen Oaks which was a 60 unit
affordable housing project on a ground lease. She indicated Glen Oaks was applying for tax
credits and the disposition and development agreement should come to Council in September.
Another site owned by the Agency was the Lincoln Inn, purchased in April 2006 for future
development of affordable housing. The motel was being phased out and the site would be
cleared for construction and staff was currently under negotiations to develop the site as a 100
percent affordable multi-family project with approximately 52 units. Lastly, she indicated the CIM
project was well under way, available in the moderate income category of 277 units, anticipated to
be open in January. She noted Broadway Arms had been open for six months and the other three
developments would be completed by the beginning of next year.
Community Development Department had issued Request for Proposal (RFP's) for the Chalk Site
and the Manchester/Orangewood sites with ten proposals received for Manchester and 15 for the
Chalk site. The proposals, she explained, were being reviewed by staff with a panel of experts and
consultants in the field to select the top four or five developers in each category to be interviewed
with a recommendation to be made to Council in the future. Mayor Pringle asked what the
selection criteria included and Ms. Stipkovich stated the criteria included how much of the project
was affordable, how efficient it was, what subsidies were requested, and certain design
requirements as well as the track record and experience of the developer. He asked if the criteria
maximized the number of units or was that one of the myriad of issues being considered; Ms.
Stipkovich responded that it was a mix of not just the density but what the cost per unit would be
regarding any potential subsidy. She expected to bring the results to Council in the fall. Mayor
Pringle stated it was important to hear from each Council perspective as to what their priorities
would be as they may differ between council members. Mr. Joel Fick, Deputy City Manager,
remarked there were a variety of factors or strengths in the various proposals all of which would be
identified for Council. Both Council Member Sidhu and Mayor Pringle remarked on the community
concerns on the Chalk site such as density, configuration, setbacks and recreational areas, asking
for staff's feedback/ recommendations on these issues as well.
Ms. Stipkovich addressed future sites owned by the Agency: the first was a lumber yard purchased
from the owner and leased back to them while a new yard was constructed in Riverside and was
located at Santa Ana Street at Philadelphia and Olive. She expected this project to go out for an
RFP in 2009. Another site south of South Street near Dakota adjacent to the railroad tracks was
an industrial property with tenants and the Agency was looking at relocating the tenants and hoped
to go out with an RFP for this site next year. The Agency was also working with Midway Mobile
Home Park to trade Agency-owned property near their site to complete an adjacent Agency-owned
parcel in order to develop an efficient project. Another site, she remarked, was on Atchison Street
and staff had been negotiating with a property owner for some time to either acquire the property
or have the owner develop it with residential in order to have a total of eight acres to quickly go out
for an RFP. The final site she stated was on Lincoln and staff was negotiating with Clean City
regarding the possibility of having Clean City do a project including buying the Agency's property if
the project would meet affordable housing goals. She added Clean City was working on submitting
a proposal to the City.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, updated Council on four directives outlined in the
August 21, 2007 -Page 3
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan that her Department had been addressing. She commented
that the goal in dealing with land use issues was addressed with policies and strategies that would
have real results and that staff had worked with stakeholders to come up with strategies to
positively effect the production of affordable housing. She stated major revisions to the density
bonus was completed and provided applicants with tiered incentives to create affordable rental
housing. She noted the density bonus ordinance was used for Broadway Village and for the
Diamond Street project and additional refinements had now been identified which would make the
ordinance more effective with staff planning to present those refinements to the Planning
Commission and Council this fall.
As originally drafted, the strategic plan called for an ordinance that would facilitate the conversion
of long-term stay motel units into a form of permanent affordable rental housing. Ms. Vander
Dussen remarked it had been more challenging than anticipated and Council had amended their
action to encourage staff to work with motel owners who might be interested in converting their
properties to residential use, however, no interest had been expressed so far. The entitlement and
plan review process for affordable housing developments had been expedited to shave up to three
weeks from processing time frames and Ms. Vander Dussen commented that Broadway Village,
Elm Street, Diamond and Crescent Street projects, as well as the Vineyard project took advantage
of the process. She pointed out that staff continued to look for ways to streamline processes.
Related to the affordable housing overlay zone, she remarked it was to encourage development of
affordable rental units on properties presently not designated for residential development, such as
underutilized commercial properties or transitional industrial areas. In cases where land values of
the properties included within the overlay zone were not conducive to affordable rental housing
projects, or where the developer was proposing to provide units for sale versus for rent, she stated
staff intended to explore the creation of an affordable housing fee that would be paid in lieu of
providing rental housing units on site and had met with several developers to define appropriate
terms and incentives which could be included in the overlay zone. In addition, staff had identified
several potential affordable housing opportunity sites, over 100 acres, and had done a preliminary
infrastructure analysis to look at the potential traffic and sewer impacts associated with the
introduction of this higher density residential development and determined that a mitigated
negative declaration would need to be prepared as well as a complete infrastructure analysis to
define the appropriate mitigation. Seventy thousand dollars was now included in the budget for
this fiscal year and staff anticipated completing this work in early 2008.
Mayor Pringle commented that Anaheim had taken a unique step in extending the life of the
Redevelopment Project Area to put 30 percent (ten percent more than the state mandate of 20
percent of redevelopment property tax into low or very low housing programs). He indicated at the
beginning of the process staff was not sure that the goal of 1,328 units could be developed within a
four-year period and thanked them for their commitment and focus in maximizing the dollars
available and for exceeding the targeted goal in doing so. He recognized the efforts it took to meet
those goals.
Council Member Galloway also thanked staff for the progress made and remarked that affordable
housing advocates in the audience had commended their efforts as well. She then asked if the
affordable housing overlay was the same issue being considered prior to adoption of the AHSP;
Ms. Vander Dussen remarked this had been discussed prior to adoption of the plan and since
funding was now available for the environmental work to insure those sites could accommodate
residential, the City was now moving forward. Also in answer to Council Member Galloway's
question on meeting future state affordable housing numbers, Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the
Department was on target with housing element goals for the current cycle and the overlay zone
was not needed to meet those goals but it could be one of the programs that would be carried
August 21, 2007 -Page 4
forward into the Housing Element in terms of meeting new numbers for the coming reporting cycle.
Council Member Kring asked what the status was for the Economy Motel for which Reverend
Gaston and his organization had expressed an interest in converting to residential. Ms. Vander
Dussen reported Reverend Gaston would like to convert the Economy Motel into special housing
needs and was working on getting funding and project-based Section 8 assistance. She indicated
staff was analyzing whether the numbers would work out and what rents could actually be
authorized through the Section 8 program and were in discussions regarding the potential project.
Council Member Galloway. asked if the CIM moderate affordable housing was deed restricted; Ms.
Stipkovich stated it was not because moderate affordable rents were actually market rate rents.
She pointed out to be deed restricted the City would have to subsidize the rents which was not an
efficient use of affordable housing monies.
Mayor Pringle remarked that Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director for California Housing Policy
Development would be in town next week to discuss housing mandated numbers and challenges
in meeting those numbers. He added Secretary Dale Bonner, Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency would also be in Anaheim next week meeting with staff to learn about the tools
Anaheim had used to maximize the development of affordable housing as well as that of broader
housing stock, remarking Anaheim was now receiving recognition due to the fine efforts of its staff.
Council Member Hernandez asked how many people could be accommodated in meeting the
City's affordable housing goal; Ms. Stipkovich remarked she could guess approximately 5,000, but
would provide a more accurate figure at a later date.
Ms. Vander Dussen addressed Council Member Galloway's interest in setting up a housing trust
similar to that of Santa Clara County which was run as a nonprofit public benefit corporation and
established by Silicon Valley business leaders who were concerned that housing costs were
impacting the recruiting and retaining of employees. She explained it was funded entirely through
voluntary contributions by private employers, foundations, government agencies and even some
private citizens and was one of three such trusts in the nation. It invested in the construction of
multi-family rental housing units, homeless needs and also funded first time homebuyers programs
and to date, had invested $26 million towards affordable housing in the Santa Clarita region. She
added if Council was interested in pursuing this, staff would research and report back on an
appropriate way to set up such a trust. She indicated the Chamber of Commerce had created a
housing committee and she envisioned working with them as well to bring the business interests to
the table.
Council Member Kring reported Wells Fargo was trying to raise $10 million for a housing trust,
having already raised $5 million, although their mission was broader in looking at affordable
housing in the county.
Council Member Galloway remarked she believed a collaboration between business and the City
was an excellent way to address the needs of affordable housing and would appreciate having
Council participate in forming an affordable housing commission with the concept of having a trust
develop from that collaboration. Mayor Pringle questioned what the City's role would be other than
encouraging such a voluntary effort. Council Member Galloway pointed to staff's success in
developing affordable housing and saw a partnership with voluntary donations coming from
businesses to improve the quality of life in Anaheim. Mayor Pringle asked if Lennar had developed
a trust through a percentage of each sale of a unit going into it to support future homebuyers. Ms.
Vander Dussen responded that it was her understanding that Lennar had established a program
August 21, 2007 -Page 5
but that it was nationwide and not restricted to the community in which the units were located.
Council Member Galloway added that she had spoken to Lennar and was told the funds were in a
national program and Lennar selected the type of program to use.
Mayor Pringle asked if additional information on the housing trust could be provided, including
hearing what the Chamber was involved in and what other businesses may or may not be
interested in doing in Anaheim and having some of these options on a future agenda for
discussion. Council Member Sidhu recommended using the Anaheim Housing Commission to
consider this matter rather than establishing a separate affordable housing commission. Mayor
Pringle concurred and remarked that he also worried about acity-based commission that would be
aback door to getting an inclusionary zoning requirement or an in lieu fee requirement for
developers to be able to build housing into Anaheim as he was more interested in voluntary
contributions.
At 3:50 P.M., Mayor Pringle recessed to closed session to consider the following items:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: Approximately 50.29 acres generally northerly of Angel Stadium of Anaheim in
the Platinum Triangle Stadium District, 2000 Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, California
Agency negotiator: Dave Morgan, Joel Fick
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and Archstone-Smith Operating Trust
Under negotiation: price and terms
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of
Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: Walt Disney World Co. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 070001210 and 070001293.
At 5:07 P.M., Council returned from closed session and the meeting was reconvened.
INVOCATION: Pastor Ken Anderson, Grace Lutheran Church
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Sidhu
ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date):
Recognizing Gauer Elementary School on its 50th Anniversary.
Jenna Hill, 2"d grade teacher at Gauer School, thanked Council for the recognition and invited the
community to its celebration assembly on September 10tH
Proclaiming September 2007, as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.
At 5:18 P.M., Mayor Pringle convened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim
Housing Authority for a joint public comment session.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: At the request of staff, Item No. 52 on the City
Council agenda was continued to September 25, 2007.
August 21, 2007 -Page 6
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all items except public hearings):
James Robert Reade commented on alleged criminal violations of certain police personnel.
Fernando Negrete, Anaheim Firefighters' Association, clarified comments made by a Central Labor
Council representative on August 7, 2007.
Valda Henderson, resident, requested Item 14 be set aside for further discussion and wondered
why afull-time ICE agent was not being considered in Anaheim.
Harold Bascomb, Former Chief of Police, opposed the City going back on its word to keep
residential out of the resort area.
Doug Maggione, Orange County IBEW, remarked housing affordability was a significant problem in
Orange County and believed adopting prevailing wages was one of the solutions for a health
community.
Donna Holt, resident, urged Council put the referendum on the ballot to let the democratic process
work.
Carol H., promoted the Mayor's Prayer breakfast which would be held on Tuesday, October 7th at
the convention center at 7:00 a.m. with Lynn Swan as the keynote speaker
Bob Ball, resident, addressed his comments to Council Member Kring, urging her to rescind her
prior vote.
Jose Perez, Dale McIntosh Center, strongly supported the decision to mix residential use in the
resort area.
Graham D., cab driver with Yellow Cab Company of Orange County, asked for Council's
assistance related to a taxi stand on Convention Way and a citation he had received. Mayor
Pringle referred this gentleman to the Police Chief and other members of staff who would
investigate the problem and provide Council with a report.
Carol Reinbolt, resident, supported affordable housing and property rights for Anaheim citizens
discussing the impacts lack of housing had on education.
Alda Deseino, Local 681, commended Council's action on the zoning overlay which increased
housing opportunities in the resort area and clarified that previous statements made by the Orange
County Labor Council representative did not include the viewpoint of members of Local 681.
Ken Maylong, resident, asked if developers in the Platinum Triangle were held to the same
standard of providing a percentage of affordable housing in their development.
Brian Suttle, Ironworkers Local 416, strongly opposed affordable housing in the resort area
indicating this issue was impacting construction unions from providing quality, safe structures in the
City.
Eric Anderson, resident, stated the Planning Commission had vetoed the SunCal proposal and the
citizens of Anaheim made their will known by qualifying a referendum for the ballot, urging Council
either rescind their vote or set the matter for a vote.
August 21, 2007 -Page 7
Gail Anderson, resident, opposed the continuing divisive rhetoric, stating Council's responsibility
was to the City's financial future not to the interests of a developer.
Alan Baldwin, Community Housing, supported affordable housing in the resort and presented
invitations to Council related to a September 27`h luncheon honoring Amin David.
Carl Ridala, resident, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 582, spoke with pride of his union's
contributions to Anaheim and Orange County.
Cynthia Ward, resident, stated the community was asking for a date for an election and deserved
the right to be heard no matter which side they supported.
Reid Royalty, Orange County Taxpayers Association, helped write and co-signed the ballot
argument to extend the transient occupancy tax in the City and felt housing in the resort would be a
breach of faith to those businesses that relied on the City's past statements.
Steve Goodyear, resident, urged Council set an election date and trust the community to make the
right decision on whether or not housing should be part of the resort.
Armeda Olivia, resident, asked for an election and recommended both issues be placed on the
ballot to save taxpayers' money.
Vic Darcy, resident, urged Council to let the community vote.
David Dirienzo, president of Urban West, spoke of private property rights and the impacts of an
initiative which would cause every property owner in the resort area to seek approval for any
change of use by ballot.
Margaret Debby, resident, recommended the parcel in question be removed from the resort district
and placed in the Platinum Triangle which might stop the divisive behaviors or if not, allow the
community to vote on a decision.
Richard Lucero, resident, asked that Council rescind their vote on rezoning or set a date for the
electors to decide. .
Kathleen Hemsworth, resident, strongly opposed housing in the resort and asked that the matter
be set for a public vote.
Stan Powloski, resident, urged Council to repeal their decision or set a date for a vote on the issue.
Larry Mezza, resident and Disneyland employee, urged Council to put this issue to a vote of the
people.
Jim Adams, representing LA/OC Building Trades, stated their position had not changed and they
opposed any zoning change in the resort and urged the matter be scheduled for a vote.
Margaret Pascoe, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, asked Council to overturn their earlier
decision or to put the issue on the ballot.
Carol Guerensen, resident, strongly opposed the zoning change in the resort and referenced
campaign financing. Mayor Pringle remarked the City's website contained campaign reports filed
by council members and other City officials and was available to the public for their information.
August 21, 2007 -Page 8
Virginia Zlaket, resident, urged Council to rescind their vote or place the issue on the ballot.
Connie Rodriguez, resident, spoke of the need for affordable housing and asked Council to place
the issue on the ballot.
David Lawhorn, resident, opposed the rezoning change, asking Council to rescind their previous
decision.
Unidentified woman stated if the referendum was placed on the ballot, the swaying tactics would
bring out the worst on both sides, and asked Council to rescind their vote and halt the process.
`~ Patrick Pepper, resident, felt it was time for the citizens to have a voice on this issue.
Jeremy Reingold, resident, spoke in support of the rezoning, asking Council to not be intimidated.
Diane Singer, resident, spoke in support of the rezoning and asked that the citizens be allowed to
decide.
Frank Elfend, SunCal Companies, commented on the advertising tactics by SOAR and Disney
Corporation pointing out they had been urging the referendum be on the ballot for some time.
Brian Freeman, resident, member of Local 495, spoke in support of Disney Corporation stating
they had been good neighbors to the Anaheim community for 50 years.
Unindentified gentleman spoke in opposition to SunCal and supported the SOAR effort.
Shirley McCracken, resident and former council member, stated It took determination and
commitment on the part of civic and business leaders to make the resort an outstanding tourist
venue which continued to grow today and the property owners in the resort had been part of that
development with their investment and planning depending on the resort plan as originally
intended. She asked that the issues be separated, the Anaheim Resort Plan be maintained and
affordable housing be developed adjacent to the area rather than in it.
Todd Ament, Chamber of Commerce, stated the SOAR Coalition which had led the effort to place
the referendum on the ballot, indicated their goal had not changed and asked Council to not delay
and establish a voting date.
Jamila Chakree, resident, supported the zoning change and asked that the issue be placed on the
ballot.
Joseph Singh, resident, asked that locations for affordable housing be determined.
Lorena Moreno, resident, supported the City's effort to increase housing opportunities for working
families.
Pedro Hernandez, resident, supported the effort for more affordable housing and for the placement
of this matter on a ballot.
Martin Lopez, resident, thanked Council for approving affordable housing and asked that the issue
be placed on the ballot.
Nate Urdeski, resident, urged the referendum and the initiative be placed on the ballot.
August 21, 2007 -Page 9
Amin David, resident, urged this matter be placed on the ballot.
Bob Modica stated Disney had been important to the growth of the city of Anaheim.
Brent Gannon, resident, recommended Council rescind their vote or place the matter on the ballot.
Rachel Carnejo, resident, supported the original intent of the resort area stating it had been
sectioned off to improve Anaheim and create revenues to keep it thriving.
At 7:05 P.M., Council adjourned the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority to take action
on the Referendum, Item No. 54. (Refer to Item No. 54 for details). At 7:50 P.M., the
Redevelopment Agency agenda was considered followed by a Joint Redevelopment Agency/City
Council public hearing.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING:
5. This is a joint public hearing to consider a Disposition and Development Agreement with
4758 Trucor, Inc. for the Lemon and Water Phase III Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-140 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Disposition and Development Agreement with Trucor, Inc.,
the Basic Concept Plan, and making certain findings in connection therewith.
Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, reported the Lemon and Water Phase III
project continued the restoration of historically significant single family homes that would have
been demolished but were relocated to Agency-owned land. Ten homes were moved onto five
parcels and under the terms of the proposed disposition and development agreement with Trucor,
Inc., the Agency would sell the homes and the land and the developer would restore them for sale
at market rate prices.
She indicated the fair reuse value of the site was determined to be $554,000; however the
developer's purchase price would be $551,169 based on various conditions placed on the
developer to restore all of the ten structures in accordance with a concept plan that was also
approved. The cost to the Agency for this project, she explained, was for acquisition and
relocation of all the units for a total of $830,000. She added with the land sale proceeds and tax
increment, the Agency would receive $779,000 resulting in a net loss of about $51,000. She also
commented there was a provision in the agreement that if the developer received more than
$3,597,000 for all properties sold, the City would participate in any of those proceeds above that
level with a 50/50 split so there was a chance to receive additional revenues.
Mayor Pringle opened the hearing and receiving no testimony, closed the hearing.
Council Member Kring moved to approve Resolution No. 2007-140 of the City of Anaheim
approving a Disposition and Development Agreement with Trucor, Inc., the Basic Concept Plan
and making certain findings, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5;
Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion
Carried.
CONSENT: Council Member Kring removed Item No. 14 from the consent calendar for further
discussion, Mayor Pringle removed Item No. 20 and Council Member Hernandez removed Item
August 21, 2007 -Page 10
No. 22. Council Member Sidhu moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions
and to adopt the balance of the consent calendar in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each council member and as listed on the balance of the Consent
Calendar, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
8. Receive and file minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of June 27, 2007
B105 and the Public Utilities Board meeting of July 5, 2007.
9. Receive and file the Investment Portfolio Report for July 2007.
D117
10. Receive and file the Annual Consolidated Detail and Allocation Report for the Supplemental
D117 Law Enforcement Services Fund.
11. Review the need for continuing the local emergency heretofore proclaimed by the Director
D175 of Emergency Services as ratified by previous action of the City Council concerning land
movement and property damage in the vicinity of 357, 365 and 373 Ramsgate Drive and
the Hidden Grove Lane/Fox Glen Drive area in the City of Anaheim, and, by motion,
determine that the need for continuing the local emergency exists.
12. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Cingular (AT&T's
4759 wireless company) to activate the non-emergency 311 mobile phone service within
Anaheim, allowing businesses and residents who utilize Cingular's services the ability to
access municipal services through one abbreviated number using their mobile phone.
13. Approve the response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report entitled "Assembly Bill 939
D175 Waste Diversion: Are We Finally Making Progress?" and forward the responses to the
Presiding Judge of Orange County Court and the Orange County Grand Jury.
15. Approve and adopt the Relocation Plan for the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project (Humor
D175 Drive to Jean Street).
16. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the amount of
4760 $2,799,950, for Underground District No. 54 (Katella/Lewis) and approve and authorize the
Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
17. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Elite Bobcat Services, Inc., in the
4761 amount of $179,420, for the Harbor Boulevard Improvements and approve and authorize
the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
18. Approve the Acquisition Agreement with Fernando S. Vega, in the acquisition payment
4762 amount of $550,000, for the purchase of real property located at 2181 West Midwood Lane
for the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project (ACQ2005-00238).
19. Approve an agreement with Geomatrix Consultants to perform National Pollutant Discharge
4763 Elimination System Permit compliance inspection services.
21. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute an Assignment and Assumption of
4764 Lease and Lessor's Consent with Ford Leasing Development Company and Frank
Busalacchi Sr., Grethe Busalacchi, and Frank Busalacchi Jr. for the relocation of McPeek's
Dodge.
August 21, 2007 -Page 11
23. Approve an agreement with the Anaheim City School District for scheduling of facilities.
4765
24. Accept the proposal from Mike Nelson's Orange County Tennis Academy, Inc. and approve
4766 the Lease Agreement for operation of the Anaheim Tennis Center for a period of 20 years
with two five-year options for renewal.
25. Approve a License Agreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, allowing access to the
1572.E Pacific Bell Telephone Company parking lot located at 200 N. Lemon Avenue for patrons
attending City of Anaheim sponsored events held at the Pearson Park Amphitheatre.
26. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Master Load
D182 Curtailment Agreement and the Master Fuel and Operating Cost Reimbursement for Back-
Up Generation Agreement and authorize, as approved by the Anaheim City Attorney, any
subsequent de minimus changes to the Agreements that do not substantially change the
terms and conditions.
27. Authorize and accept the termination of the existing 1975 Master Fringe Agreement with
4767 Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and approve and authorize the Public Utilities
General Manager to execute the new Master Fringe Service Agreement with SCE for fringe
account services.
28. Approve the 2008 Health and Welfare Plan Rates and authorize the Human Resources
D154 Director to execute all required provider agreements on behalf of the City.
29. RESOLUTION NO.. 2007-141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154.2 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal
Employees Association, Clerical and General Units and the City of Anaheim.
D154.3 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-142 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Police
Association and the City of Anaheim.
D154.5 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-143 A 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.
30. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-144 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154.5 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47 and the City of Anaheim (Articles 48 and 52).
31. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154.5 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47 and the City of Anaheim (Safety Boot
Allowance).
32. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-146 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154 CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2000R-123 which established rates of
compensation for job classifications designated as Administrative Management.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-147 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
August 21, 2007 -Page 12
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2000R-124 which established rates of
compensation for job classifications designated as Middle Management.
33. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-148 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P124 CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution 2007R-087, nunc pro tunc, relating to the
vacation of two public utility easements located at 800 N. Brookhurst Avenue
(Abandonment No. ABA 2007-00154).
34. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-149 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P109 CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the sale of certain city owned property located on the south
side of Glencrest Avenue, between Magnolia Street and Cambria Street (APN 071-295-19)
(Abandonment No. ABA 2006-00134).
35. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P124 CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
property interests therein (City Deed Nos. 11066-11071).
36. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-151 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a public utility easement located at 322 East Julianna Street
pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary
Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA 2005-00104}.
37. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-152 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a public utility easement located at 366 Peralta Hills Road
pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary
Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA 2006-00136).
38. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating two public utility easements located at 2100 South Lewis
Street pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary
Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA2007-00152).
39. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating three public utility easements located at 401 Carl Karcher
Way pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary
Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA 2007-00157).
40. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a portion of Catalpa Avenue pursuant to California Streets
and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA
2007-00159).
41. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-156 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a drainage easement located within Assessor Parcel Number
085-581-38 pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 8330 et seq.-
Summary Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA 2007-00160).
42. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-157 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating two public utility easements located at 101 S. Euclid Avenue
pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary
Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA 2007-00161).
August 21, 2007 -Page 13
43. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-158 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a portion of South Illinois Street pursuant to California Streets
and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA
2007-00163).
44. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating a portion of Catalpa Avenue pursuant to California Streets
and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. -Summary Vacation (Abandonment No. ABA
2007-00164).
45. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-160 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
3478 CITY OF ANAHEIM, approving the Gas Supply Agreement between the City of Anaheim
3503 and the Southern California Public Power Authority, authorizing specified city officials to
execute and deliver the Gas Supply Agreement, and approving the participation of the City
of Anaheim in the activities and programs reflected therein pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Gas Supply Agreement.
46. ORDINANCE NO. 6068 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
M142 amending various subsections of 14.32.450 of Chapter 14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to permit parking (Introduced at the Council meeting of August 7,
2007, Item #13).
47. ORDINANCE NO. 6069 (ADOPTION) AN 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. 2007-00192; 1745 South Easy Way) (Introduced at
the Council meeting of August 7, 2007, Item #14).
48. ORDINANCE NO. 6070 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
M142 approving the amendment to Title 10, Chapter 10.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
adopting Sanitary Sewer Impact and Improvement Fees for new and expanded
developments within the Central Anaheim area (Introduced at the Council public hearing of
August 7, 2007, Item #22).
49. ORDINANCE NO. 6071 (ADOPTION) AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
T104 OF ANAHEIM fixing and levying a property tax on the full cash value of all property within
the corporate limits of the City of Anaheim for the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 and declaring the
urgency therefor and that this ordinance shall take immediate effect.
A copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance is available for review in the Office of the
City Clerk.
50. ORDINANCE NO. 6072 (INTRODUCTION) AN 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. 2007-00206, 2121 South Manchester Avenue).
51. Approve minutes of the Council meetings held July 31, 2007 and August 7, 2007.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
14. Approve the response to Recommendation R-3 of the Orange County Grand Jury Report
D160 entitled, "ICE in Orange County," and authorize the Mayor and Chief of Police to execute
August 21, 2007 -Page 14
the letter and forward the response to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Court and
Orange County Grand Jury.
Police Chief John Welter stated the report by the Grand Jury related to ICE operations in Orange
County and recommended Anaheim follow the example of the Orange County Sheriff's Department
to either come up with an agreement with ICE as to having them present in the jail on a regular
basis and/or train City personnel to act as ICE agents and screen people coming into the jail.
Chief Welter stated when he had looked at the report and saw the recommendation; he did not feel
it was necessary to change the existing procedures. Currently, he stated, ICE officials come into
the jail and reviewed prisoners and they decided how often and when they wanted to do so. Since
all of Anaheim's prisoners who were eventually booked at the County jail, were reviewed by ICE
officials, Chief Welter did not see a need for a formal agreement with ICE and dictate to them how
they should or should not operate within Anaheim's jail. Mayor Pringle asked if the Chief was
satisfied with the amount of service received and whether he felt Costa Mesa had a real need for a
full-time ICE officer. Chief Welter responded that he was satisfied and pointed out the Mayor of
Costa Mesa was also an employee of Orange County Sheriff's office and may have, for that
reason, chosen to have his jail personnel trained.
Council Member Sidhu remarked that the grand jury might not have been aware that an ICE agent
had been coming to Anaheim on a part-time basis for over 10 years and moved to approve Item
No. 14, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
20. Approve the Workforce Investment Board's recommended selection of training agencies for
D155 delivery of occupational skills training to participate under the Workforce Investment Act
and other certain funding sources through June 30, 2008 (continued from the Council
meeting of July 31, 2007, Item #11).
Mayor Pringle remarked that he taught at UC Irvine and asked the City Attorney if there was a
conflict of interest in that regard. Mr. White responded that under the Political Reform Act, salary
from a nonprofit agency such as UC Irvine was not regarded as income and therefore no conflict of
interest existed.
Council Member Hernandez asked if he, as a member of the Anaheim Memorial Hospital Board,
had a conflict of interest and Mr. White responded that since Council Member Hernandez received
no remuneration for sitting on the board, there was no conflict in being associated with the hospital.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve Item No. 20, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll
call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu.
Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
22. Approve a request for a fee waiver by the Orange County Symphony to utilize Pearson
D150 Park Theater for a performance on September 30, 2007.
Council Member Hernandez asked what the criteria were for determining whether fee waivers were
appropriate. Mr. Terry Lowe, Director of Community Services Department, remarked there were
not many requests for fee waivers since Pearson Park had few dates available when it was not
being used. He indicated the criterion involved whether there was some public benefit and if a
service was being provided; the Department would then recommend a fee waiver to Council.
August 21, 2007 -Page 15
Council Member Sidhu commented that this action would generate more artistic or cultural events
and he would support it. Council Member Kring remarked the event would take place on
September 30th and an audience of 500-700 was anticipated with a number of free tickets being
donated and moved to approve Item No. 22, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Mayor Pringle
remarked this was a unique occasion and while he normally felt fees should be paid to cover the
cost of services, he would support this organization using the park on an off day. Council Member
Hernandez stated he had personal reservations relating to some of the members and asked if
there was any audit required when waivers were granted. Mr. Lowe indicated an audit was not
required as the department was familiar with the Orange County Symphony and was careful on the
types of events occurring at Pearson Park.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu.
Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
52. ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
M142 ANAHEIM adding new Chapter 8.10 to Title 8 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
barking dog violations. (Continued from the meetings of April 17, 2007, Item #51 and May
15, 2007, Item #27).
At the request of staff, this item was continued fo September 25, 2007.
53. Appoint one resident and one stakeholder to the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee
8105 (continued from the Council meeting of August 31, 2007, Item #25).
Mayor Pringle Appointments:
Resident: Stakeholder:
Council Member Hernandez Appointments:
Resident: Stakeholder: Bill Chrisner
Council Member Galloway Appointments:
Resident: Joseph Singh Stakeholder: Caesar Covarrubias
Council Member Kring Appointments:
Resident: John Rodenbour Stakeholder: Ken Ryan
Council Member Sidhu Appointments:
Resident: Stakeholder:
Council Member Hernandez offered the name of Bill Chrisner for Housing Element Ad Hoc
committee member, Council Member Galloway offered Joseph Singh and Caesar Covarrubias and
Council Member Kring asked that John Rodenbour and Ken Ryan be appointed. Council Member
Kring moved to approve the above appointments and continue the remaining appointments to
September 11, 2007, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor
Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
The first scheduled meeting for the ad hoc meeting was September 13, 2007.
August 21, 2007 -Page 16
54. Referendum Petition concerning General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448.
C410
Reconsideration of General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 relating to approval of
amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to authorize awholly-residential
development, fifteen percent of which must be composed of rental units affordable to low or
very-low income households, on a designated 26.7-acre site in the Anaheim Resort,
possible adoption of one of the following alternative resolutions and approve an increase to
the City Clerk's FY 06/07 budget by $70,797.80 (continued from the Council meetings of
July 17, 2007, Item #50 and July 31, Item #26).
MOTION: Increase the City Clerk's FY 06/07 budget by $70,797.80.
A. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, repealing Anaheim City Council
Resolution No. 2007-053 which approved General Plan Amendment No. 2006-
00448 relating to the land use element of the Anaheim General Plan;
OR
B. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of a referendum
measure to the electors of said City at the general municipal election to be held
November 4, 2008;
OR
C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-161 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding
of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, for the
submission to the voters of the City of Anaheim of a referendum measure relating to
Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 2007-053 approving Anaheim General Plan
Amendment No. 2006-00448; and requesting the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Orange to consolidate said election with the statewide primary election to
be held on that same date pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code of the
State of California;
OR
D. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding
of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, February 5, 2008, for the
submission to the voters of the City of Anaheim of a referendum measure relating to
Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 2007-053 approving Anaheim General Plan
Amendment No. 2006-00448; and requesting the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Orange to consolidate said election with the statewide primary election to
be held on that same date pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code of the
State of California;
OR
E. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of the holding
of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, 200_, for
the submission to the voters of the City of Anaheim of a referendum measure
August 21, 2007 -Page 17
relating to Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 2007-053 approving Anaheim
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448.
In the event the City Council adopts Resolution B, C, D or E above, it is recommended that
the City Council also adopt the following two additional resolutions relating to authorizing
ballot arguments, preparation of an impartial analysis by the City Attorney, and rebuttal
arguments for said election.
F. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, setting priorities for filing written arguments
regarding a referendum measure to be submitted to the electors of the City at the
(special) (general) municipal election to be held in said City on June 3, 2008, and
directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of such referendum
measure.
G. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-163 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for a referendum measure submitted to the electors of the city at the
{general) (special) municipal election to be held in said city on June 3, 2008.
Council Member Galloway stated clear messages had been sent to this Council and she wished to
be responsive to those messages and intended to do so this evening. She indicated she had been
consistent in her message throughout the year and for her this project had not changed and she
did not feel it would ruin the resort district's economy. She stated she was not afraid to take the
lead on affordable housing and to stand up for the needs of the working families and that she
would be responsive to her constituency by voting to place this referendum on the ballot. She
asked that the initiative be included on the same ballot as the referendum as it made fiscal sense
to do so.
Council Member Kring remarked these issues had been very difficult for her, however, she would
also support putting this matter on the ballot, even though this type of ballot box zoning could send
a message to developers that approved projects could be subject to an election. She indicated
she had hoped a compromise could have been reached earlier and that a project would have been
proposed which would have met with approval by all. She requested the SOAR initiative be placed
on the ballot along with the referendum and asked the Coalition to present the petitions to the City
Clerk to allow that to happen.
Council Member Sidhu remarked Council had heard testimony from both sides for the last three
months. He related his concern that by giving one developer and opportunity to build residential in
the resort, other resort property owners, to be fair, should be allowed the same opportunity and
that was the reason he had opposed the zoning change. He emphasized if the referendum was
going to the voters, he wanted it done now and did not want to wait for the initiative and moved to
have the referendum placed on the ballot for June 3, 2008 by approving Item 54 C, Resolution of
the City of Anaheim, calling and giving notice of the holding of a special municipal election to be
held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 for the submission to the voters of Anaheim of a referendum
approving General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448; and requesting the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Orange to consolidate said election with the statewide primary election to be held on
that same date pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code of the State of California,
seconded by Mayor Pringle.
Council Member Hernandez asked the City Attorney what would be the latest day for Council to
vote to put this matter on either the February, June or November ballots. Mr. White responded it
August 21, 2007 -Page 18
was 88 days prior to an election and for the February 5th election, the last date to set it would be
November 8, 2007, for June 3, 2008, the last date to set it would be March 7, 2008 and for
November 4, 2008, the last date would be August 8, 2008. Council Member Hernandez pointed
out that whether or not Council took action this evening, there was still plenty of time to ensure the
referendum gets on a ballot. .
Mayor Pringle stated he would support Council taking any action tonight, whether it was to repeal
the earlier decision or to set the referendum for ballot on any one of the dates suggested with the
idea of moving forward from this point on. He clarified an earlier comment on the number of
signatures that had been verified for the referendum, explaining there had been an agreement
between the City Clerk and the Orange County Registrar to verify signatures up to 1,000 more than
was required to put the referendum on the ballot rather than to verify all 21,000 signatures. He
commented on some of the important points about the resort district and the financial plan for the
area as well as tax revenues generated from hotel development. He mentioned the affordable
housing update which was presented to Council prior to the regular agenda stating Anaheim was
doing more for the advancement of affordable housing than any other Orange County city.
Council Member Galloway asked if there was a deadline for the initiative to make it on the ballot.
Mr. White indicated the first step would be to refer the signatures to the Registrar of Voters and if
there were at least 15 percent of registered voters signing the petition, Council would be required
to set the election between 88 and 103 days after the counting results. She asked if there could be
a motion made to place the referendum on the ballot and guarantee the initiative could be placed
on the same ballot once it was received. Mr. White responded Council could agree to set the
referendum for an election this evening and defer deciding which election date, requiring staff to
bring it back at the latest time for the November 2008 election or if there was another ballot
measure that came before Council at an earlier date, the resolution setting the referendum date
could be determined at the same time.
Council Member Galloway proposed a substitute motion setting the referendum for an election,
with the date of the election to be determined later with staff bringing back the resolutions calling
for the election in conjunction with setting it for November 2008 or earlier if there was another ballot
measure qualified to be set for an election. With no second, the substitute motion failed.
Mayor Pringle asked what the cost would be to place the referendum on the November ballot; Mr.
White responded it would be approximately $4,000 to $8,000, as reflected in the staff report.
The roll call vote for Council Member Sidhu's motion to put the referendum on the June ballot was:
Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes -1:
Council Member Galloway. Motion carried
Council Member Sidhu also moved to approve Item 54F, Resolution No. 2007-162 setting priorities
for filing written arguments regarding a referendum measure to be submitted to the electors of the
City at the special municipal election to be held in said City on June 3, 2008, and directing the City
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of such referendum measure; and 54G, Resolution No.
2007-163 providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for a referendum measure submitted to the
electors of the city at the special municipal election to be held on June 3, 2008, seconded by
Council Member Kring. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Hernandez,
Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 1: Council Member Galloway. Motion Carried.
August 21, 2007 -Page 19
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
55. This is a public hearing to consider Resolutions relating to permit parking fees and
D106 penalties.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing permit parking fees (Anaheim Municipal Code Section
14.32.450).
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-165 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 93R-153 to revise civil penalties for violations
of section 14.32.450 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Permit Parking).
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported two resolutions were before Council for
consideration which would establish fees for residential parking permits consistent with Council's
adoption of the residential parking permit program and ordinance approved this August. The
permits would be on a full cost recovery basis for both guest and resident parking permits. She
added staff also recommended the penalty for parking illegally in a permit parking area be
increased from $32 to $60 and indicated an automated processing system was being considered
and staff expected to return within the next year trying to adjust these fees based on the new
process which should reduce these costs.
Council Member Galloway questioned the increase for penalties which would go from $32 to $60
and asked for clarification; Ms. Meeks indicated the penalty was for parking in a permit parking
area without a permit and had increased to allow for full cost recovery, which Mayor Pringle
pointed out included enforcement.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing for comments.
Valda Henderson stated she was a resident in one of the areas that would be presented to Council
for permit parking and while she did not feel the neighborhood should be penalized to pay for the
resolution of a problem it did not create, the residents were willing to accept the cost of the permits.
She suggested a progressive penalty fee increase be utilized as a more efficient method of
insuring violators understand the message.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing, stating he understood the
frustration of Ms. Henderson and her neighbors which was why the City was taking steps in
establishing a permit parking program but he was not interested in having a progressive penalty
increase at this time.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve Resolution 2007-164 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing permit parking fees (Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 14.32.450) and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2007-165 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 93R-153 to revise civil penalties
for violations of section 14.32.450 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Permit Parking, seconded by
Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway,
Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
August 21, 2007 -Page 20
56. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11
C250 VARIANCE NO. 2007-04725
OWNER: Euclid Shopping Center, LLC, 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92126
AGENT: Robert Gonzalez, 2820 East Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1660 West Katella Avenue -CVS Pharmacy: This 1.75 acre integrated
commercial retail center is located at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Katella
Avenue, with frontages of 1,272 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, and 605 feet on
the east side of Euclid Street.
Request waivers of (a) maximum aggregate area of wall signs (withdrawn) and (b)
maximum letter height to construct a wall sign for an existing CVS pharmacy.
ACTION TAKEN BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 11 (Concurred with staff)
Variance No. 2007-04725 denied (ZA2007-05}.
(Zoning Administrator meeting of July 5, 2007).
(Appealed by Agent, Robert Gonzalez).
MOTION: K/H CEQA Categorically Exempt -Class 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-166 of the City Council of the City of Anaheim approving
Variance No. 2007-04725
Mayor Pringle indicated he had a potential conflict of interest on this matter and requested Mayor
Pro Tem Hernandez continue with the hearing in his absence.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, stated the Zoning Administrator had denied a request to
construct a new wall sign at an existing CVS Pharmacy in July, 2007. She indicated the height of
the sign was larger than Code permitted and the Zoning Administrator cited the availability of two
free-standing signs for identification of this business as the basis for denial of the waiver. The
applicant then appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision which brought the matter before
Council.
The existing sign, she reported, had an overall height of four feet six inches and a maximum letter
height of 24 inches. While Code permitted a maximum letter height of 24 inches for signs on
buildings under four stories, the applicant requested a sign with an overall height of six feet nine
inches and a maximum letter height of 40 inches. She noted the CVS Pharmacy had identification
on two two-sided pole signs in the parking lot, one adjacent to Katella and the other adjacent to
Euclid and pointed out individual tenants within the center were also allowed to display wall signs
several of which were as large as the proposed CVS sign. Big Lots and Food for Less had
identification on both free-standing signs and wall signs which exceeded the permitted letter height
but were allowed before the code was amended to impose a letter height on these types of signs.
She noted in staff's opinion, the proposed sign was in scale with the building and appropriate for
this retail unit, fit the elevation and building design and would also allow CVS Pharmacy to have
identification similar to signs currently existing for two other tenants in this commercial center and
recommended the waiver be approved.
Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez opened the hearing for public comment.
The agent for CVS Pharmacy requested Council's approval stating the pharmacy was the largest
tenant in the center and should be permitted signage similar to other tenants in the center.
August 21, 2007 -Page 21
With no other comments offered, the hearing was closed.
Council Member Kring remarked that since the buildings were flush on the south side of the
parking structure and it was difficult to read smaller signs, she would support the increased
signage for CVS Pharmacy. Council Member Hernandez asked what percentage increase did the
proposed sign deviate from code; Ms. Vander Dussen indicated it was about 66 percent. He asked
if a precedent would be set for the remaining tenants in the center should the waiver be approved
and Ms. Vander Dussen responded that could be a concern, however, the other major tenants in
the center already had larger legally nonconforming signs than the Code allowed because they
were permitted prior to the code being amended.
Council Member Kring moved to support staff recommendation by approving the CEQA
categorically exempt Class II and to approve Resolution No. 2007-166 of the City of Anaheim
approving Variance No. 2007-0475, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Council Member
Hernandez asked if the code should be changed to accommodate larger signs in the future and
Ms. Vander Dussen indicated staff had been in agreement the City's sign standards should be
reviewed and would try to fit that into this year's work program. Council Member Sidhu
recommended any photographs submitted to prove a point be taken at the same distance for
comparison purposes.
Roll Call vote: Ayes - 4: Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0.
Absent due to potential conflict - 1: Mayor Pringle. Motion Carried.
57. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2006-00335
C330 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00446
AMENDMENT TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN
(MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT N0.2006-001621
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0.2007-00054
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.2006-00004
OWNER: Drew Singer, AMB Property Corporation, Pier 1 Bay 1, San Francisco, CA
94111
AGENT: New Urban West, INC., 1733 Ocean Ave, Suite 350, Santa Monica, CA 90401
LOCATION: 1969 South State College Boulevard: This property is a 17.5-acre site at
the southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard within the Gene
Autry District of The Platinum Triangle in the City of Anaheim. The site has a frontage of
approximately 1,210 feet on the south side of Gene Autry Way and 600 feet on the east
side of State College Boulevard.
Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-00335 -Request for certification of
Environmental Impact Report No. 335, including adoption of a Statement of Findings of
Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No.
143 for the Gene Autry Experience project. EIR No. 335 has been prepared to serve as
the primary environmental document for GPA2006-00446, CUP2006-05134,
SUBTTM17089, DAG2006-00004, ZCA2007-00054 and MIS2006-00162 and subsequent
actions related to implementation of the project. Implementation is intended to include, but
not be limited to, the approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement
plans, final site plans, and other related actions for the Gene Autry Experience project.
Future actions related to the Gene Autry Experience project that require additional
discretionary review will utilize this document for CEQA purposes to the extent possible,
consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00446 -Request to amend the Land Use Element of
August 21, 2007 -Page 22
the General Plan to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in The
Platinum Triangle by 699 dwelling units.
Miscellaneous Permit No. 2006-00162 -Request to amend The Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan to increase the maximum number of dwelling units in the Gene
Autry District from 1,000 to 1,699 and the total number of dwelling units in The Platinum
Triangle from 9,567 to 10,266.
Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00054 -Request to amend the Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use Overlay Zone to increase the maximum number of dwelling units in the Gene
Autry District from 1,000 to 1,699 and the total number of dwelling units in The Platinum
Triangle from 9,567 to 10,266.
Development Agreement No. 2006-00004 -Request to adopt a Development Agreement
between the City of Anaheim and AMB Property, L.P. and New Urban West Land, L.L.C.
for a mixed use development, consisting of 1208 residential units; 100,000 square feet of
office; and 50,000 square feet of commercial.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-00335 was certified, findings of fact and a
statement of overriding considerations in connection therewith were adopted, and
Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 143 was adopted, with Errata (PC2007-68) (Vote: 6-0,
Commissioner Flores absent).
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00446
(PC2007-69).
Recommended City Council approval of Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan (MIS2005-00162) (PC2007-70).
Recommended City Council approval of draft Ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment No.
2007-00054.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05134 granted (PC2007-71 ).
Recommended City Council approval Development Agreement No. 2006-00004 (PC2007-
72).
Tentative Tract Map No. 17089 approved.
(Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 2007).
(Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment Amendment (MIS2007-00212) approved
August 6, 2007.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM (i) certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-00335, (ii)
adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations in connection
therewith, (iii) adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 143, and (iv) adopting the water
supply assessment for the project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General
Plan designated as Amendment No. 2006-00446.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-169 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
(Miscellaneous Case No. 2006-00162).
ORDINANCE NO. 6073 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Subsection .020 of Section 18.20.040 of Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay
Zone.
August 21, 2007 -Page 23
ORDINANCE NO. 6074 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) approving Development Agreement No. 2006-00004 by and between the City of
Anaheim and AMB Property, L. P., (ii) making certain findings related thereto, and (iii)
authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City.
Planning Director Sheri Vander Dussen reported the Gene Autry Experience was a mixed use
development at the corner of State College and Gene Autry Way, currently developed with
industrial buildings and the Catch Restaurant. The project site was located south of the A-TOWN
Metro Project, north of the KB Homes condominium project and west of Angel Stadium and
complemented urban development underway in the Platinum Triangle. The project included up to
50,000 square feet of stores and restaurants that would line a park along Gene Autry Way and
provided an extension of the Market Street plan for A-Town Metro. She pointed out it was flanked
by a 100,000 square feet office building which could be up to 250 feet in height and a residential
building that could be up to 300 feet in height.
The proposed park would provide a gathering place for the entire Platinum Triangle and she
indicated a conceptual pedestrian bridge was proposed to connect the park to Angel Stadium via
the office building. On game days, the bridge would energize and connect activities in the Gene
Autry Experience while providing relief to pedestrian traffic. She emphasized construction of the
bridge was not a requirement of the project and would be subject to additional agreements with
the City and any affected property owners or tenants. The project included up to 1,208 residential
units proposed in flats, town homes and live/work units with maximum building heights ranging
from 150 to 300 feet. In addition, a small neighborhood park would be located at the interior of the
project site, intended to provide recreational space for neighbors in this development and the KB
Homes development. She indicated the project would be implemented through the proposed
development agreement which meant more detailed plans for each of the buildings will be
submitted for future Planning Commission review.
Ms. Vander Dussen reported the project required approval of a general plan amendment to
increase the number of residential units allows in the Gene Autry district from 1,000 to 1,699
which would increase the number of units allowed in the Platinum Triangle to 10,266, an increase
consistent with the general plan's goal for the Triangle. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was prepared to analyze the impacts of this increase which was certified by the Planning
Commission on July 9th and recommended for approval to Council. She noted Caltrans had
submitted letters on July 12th and August 17th requesting that the proposed expansion of the
Platinum Triangle for which a draft EIR was currently being circulated be incorporated into the
analysis for the Gene Autry Experience, however, staff believed the EIR prepared for this project
was adequate and no further analysis was required. In addition, a comment letter on behalf of
MBTY manufacturing, holder of a leasehold interest in property located within this project, was
submitted focused on the impacts of project phasing and land use compatibility on the continued
operation of MBTY's facility through the end of their lease agreement which would expire on
January of 2013, and also raising concerns regarding global warming. She stated staff had
reviewed the comment letter and believed the EIR analysis and associated mitigation measures
adequately addressed the potential land use compatibility issues between existing industrial uses
and future residential uses and that global warming issues were adequately addressed in a memo
submitted to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing asking the applicant to make a presentation.
Tom Zanic with New Urban West, Santa Ana, indicated his firm had developed the plan for the
site with City staff and with the assistance of Ken Ryan who also helped develop the Platinum
August 21, 2007 -Page 24
Triangle Master Plan and a world class architectural firm, and introduced Ken Ryan who would
provide details on the project.
Ken Ryan, KTTY Planning and Architectural firm, stated the mission statement for this project was
to provide a lifestyle that captured the best in urban living and a team of professional designers
and planners considered Anaheim and its unique characteristics to come up with a vision for a
synergy of uses, an inviting public realm space, porous connections in terms of vehicle and
pedestrian access and tapping into Anaheim's heritage and sustainable design details to create
this urban space. With the Platinum Triangle design elements already in place, the foundations
used to develop a framework for the plan consisted of iconic buildings, public realm, connections,
both private and public open spaces. He indicated a great urban park would be off Gene Autry
with a series of smaller open space elements. Residential towers of various architecture and
heights and a iconic office tower with a pedestrian bridge to connect to Angel Stadium. The retail
street would contain 50,000 square foot of retail and 1,200 units. He stated the overall master site
plan identified capacities, heights, numbers of units and also a mix of town homes, and live/work
flats. He emphasized the project planned for the future in how it connected to Angel Stadium and
Market Street. The Artisan Court road extension would occur over time when and if other property
owners moved forward with revitalization of their land holdings. He commented on the long-term
lease on one of the parcels, stating their phasing plan took that into account with parking,
setbacks and adjacent issues for this tenant to continue with their operations which expired in
2013. He pointed out the details of the three project phases which would allow the tenant to to
continue to use his property.
He talked about the conceptual bridge, remarking the applicant could not move forward with it
alone and would need the cooperation of the City, but had been included in the long term vision of
the property. He pointed out sustainable thinking had gone into the design plan with elements of
green design in the project, although the applicant was not going for lead certification but had
included components such as building orientation, the walking distance to not only the current
Amtrak station but to the proposed ARTIC station, which made this project responsible. He ended
his presentation stating the details would be important to the project and he believed the project
blended the best elements of great urban spaces consistent with the Platinum Triangle vision.
Doug Maggione, IBEW, speaking for LA/OC building trades, supported the project and invited the
developer/owner to meet with the construction and building trades and to give local contractors,
local apprentices and local workers a chance to work on this project.
Sunny Soltani, Aleshire and Wynder, LLP, spoke on behalf of MBTY Manufacturing, the nutritional
supplemental manufacturing plan holding a lease within the proposed project area. She stated
MBTY was not asking for the project to be denied but was requested Council defer approval of the
EIR until their areas of concern which were raised in a letter submitted to the City was addressed.
She believed the EIR was flawed and failed to include materials and relevant information to allow
informed decision making and informed public participation. She detailed some of the issues
relating to phasing and short term impacts of the construction which would interfere with delivery
truck and access to MTBY's properties, the failure to consider impacts of industrial uses on
occupants of properties in Phase 1 and 2 as well as global warming concerns. Another issue Ms.
Soltani addressed was the lack of identifying meaningful alternatives for the project site, ending
her presentation by asking Council to continue this matter to allow for informed decision making
under CEQA law.
Mayor Pringle closed the hearing and offered the applicant an opportunity to respond.
August 21, 2007 -Page 25
Mr. Tom Zanic indicated the applicant had used all reasonable methods to design this project
respecting City Codes and had modified the plan to accommodate phasing so as to not impact the
tenant leaseholder on the site and felt they had approached the project appropriately.
Mayor Pringle pointed out that currently MTBY had access to their property on the eastside of the
building through an alleyway only. With the development of the KB Homes p4roject, there would
be a street that would bring additional access on the southern part of the property lines and
Artisan Street would actually enhance access to the site. He also remarked that Phase I
development was the farthest from the tenant's property on the western edge and not likely to be
impacted by nearness to industrial uses and with a third of the proposed project being dedicated
to open green space where there was now none, the project addressed global warming
emissions.
Council Member Galloway asked why the applicant was not seeking lead certification. Mr. Ryan
responded that the applicant was not looking at receiving certification at a plaque level, but was
definitely using lead criteria in terms of the level of green space that was added. His office had
done an full leads preliminary analysis and believed the project was at a silver level and was more
interested in creating an urban space consistent with lead criteria. He added the Planning
Commission was also concerned with global warming issues and one of the steps on the record
was to sit down with the Public Works staff with their knowledge on being green and go through all
of the items suggested as being incorporated into the plan and get their feedback. He recognized
the site was a heat island, pointing out the building had been oriented to minimize east/west
exposure, there was more open space than what was required and he believed the project would
stand up in terms of what the City was looking for.
Mayor Pringle pointed out Ken Ryan had been initially hired by the City to provide urban design
standards for development in the Platinum Triangle and he felt much of the success of that area
related to his diligence and focus. He was supportive of the open space component and the fact it
was placed on the street rather than internalizing solely for the tenants or residents of Gene Autry.
He believed it would soften the entry point to Gene Autry and would complement the Lennar
project by creating diagonal parking on B Street which allowed vehicles to pull into store fronts
and creating a small town feel. The units, he added were a mix in terms of heights and styles,
with pedestrian movement that did not block this project off from the rest of the Triangle. He
stated he was excited about the project and felt it would address many of the negative
components that could be a traffic burden. He encouraged the applicant to build the park and
office building in Phase 1 and was supportive of a bridge going across the street asking staff to
see what it would take to make it work.
Council Member Kring complimented the applicant on the iconic office building and the idea of a
bridge taking pedestrians to the Stadium.
Council Member Hernandez asked how stadium parking would be addressed with the response
given there would probably be the ability to allow valet parking on game day and visitors could
have dinner before attending the game or stay and have coffee afterward. The environment
would be a combination of respite and activity combined in urban environment.
Council Member Sidhu asked if any of the issues raised by MBTY had been resolved and Mr.
Zanic stated they had been addressed pointing out the landlord operated millions of square feet of
industrial land nationwide and would respond to tenants' needs and fully intended to comply with
their lease agreement. He mentioned a list of the types of trucks used on the site had been
provided and Urban West had prepared a plan to show access and egress, with parking and
August 21, 2007 -Page 26
setbacks per City code. Mr. Zanic indicated the project had proceeded based on satisfying the
existing lease. Council Member Sidhu asked that the environmental issues be addressed as well.
Bill Halligan, environmental consultant for the City, reported a site assessment had been
completed for the entire property and no unique issues with the MBTY site had been identified
and all land use compatibility issues between residential and industrial had been addressed
throughout the EIR and in the mitigation measures. He added the Platinum Triangle was an
evolving area, transitioning from predominantly industrial to a true mixed use environment and
there were a number of mitigation measures dealing with former industrial sites as well as air
quality, noise and traffic. Council Member Sidhu asked if the project satisfied environmental
concerns and whether the City should proceed. Mr. Halligan stated he believed the EIR was
adequate to address MTBY's concerns. Specifically, he stated the phasing had been clearly
identified in the EIR and Phase 3, for analysis purposes, was anticipated to be developed
between 2010 and 2014, pointing out MTBY's lease expired in 2013. He added the phasing
respected their continued use of their property with access to parking and delivery trucks. The
site plan also maintained access to their site with condition of approval No. 68 requiring the
property owner maintain access to existing properties including the MBTY property during
construction and operation plus comply with existing agreements. With respect to alternatives,
Mr. Halligan explained CEQA did not require every conceivable alternative be analyzed, only that
developers look at a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the basic objectives of the project
while reducing the significant environmental effects. MTBY had never requested that an
alternative which maintained their property be analyzed in the EIR and they were sent the Notice
of Preparation, the Draft EIR had been circulated and the EIR analyzed potential land use and
compatibility impacts and determined there were none and that adequate mitigation measures
were included.
Council Member Sidhu indicated he was satisfied that concerns had been addressed and would
support the project and moved to approve the following: Resolution #2007-167 certifying the Final
EIR, Resolution #2007-168 approving an amendment to the Land Use Element, Resolution
#2007-169 approving an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, introduce
Ordinance 6073 amending Title 18 of Code related to Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone
and Ordinance 6074 approving a Development Agreement with AMB Property, LLP, seconded by
Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members:
Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
58. CEQA SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 332 (PREVIOUSLY
C410 CERTIFIED) AND ADDENDUM
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00445
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00060
AMENDMENT TO PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN (MIS2007-00202)
RECLASSIFICATION N0.2007-00207
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00001
OWNER: 2130 Dupont Company, 2130 East Dupont Drive, Anaheim, CA 92806 and
Japos INC., Wind-Dor INC., 2220 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806-3110
AGENT: Sheldon Group, 901 Dove Street, Suite 140, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 2210-2220 East Orangewood Avenue, 2130 8~ 2231 Dupont Drive:
Area A: Property encompasses approximately 820 acres located at the confluence of the
Interstate 5 Freeway and the SR-57 Freeway, in the City of Anaheim in Orange County,
California.
August 21, 2007 -Page 27
Area B: This rectangular-shaped, 3.8 acre property is located at the southeast and
southwest corner of Dupont Drive and Orangewood Avenue with a frontage of 362 feet on
the south side of Orangewood Avenue and frontages of 452 feet on the east side of East
Dupont Drive and 445 feet on the west side of West Dupont Drive.
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00445 -Request to amend the Land Use Element of
the General Plan to increase the maximum office and/or retail square footage permitted in
The Platinum Triangle and to remove the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in The Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use Overlay, Orangewood District.
Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00060 -Request to amend The Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Chapter 18.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code), to establish the
Orangewood District.
Miscellaneous Permit No. 2007-00202 -Request to amend The Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan to establish the Orangewood District.
Reclassification No. 2007-00207 -Request to rescind the Resolution of Intent to
reclassify the property to the O-H zone and request to reclassify properties from the I
(Industrial) zone to I (PTMU Overlay-Orangewood District} (Industrial, Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use Overlay -Orangewood District) zone for Area B.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05222 -Request to permit a building height over 100
feet up to 311 feet for a proposed 20-story office building and to permit the sales alcoholic
beverages in a proposed restaurant for Area B.
Development Agreement No. 2007-00001 -Request to adopt a Development Agreement
between the City of Anaheim and Steadfast Investment Properties, Japos Inc., and 2130
Dupont Co. for Area B.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended City Council approval of CEQA Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 332 (Previously-Certified) and Addendum (Vote: 5-0; Commissioners Flores and
Romero absent).
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00445
(PC2007-77).
Recommended City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00060.
Recommended City Council approval of Amendment to Platinum Triangle Master Land
Use Plan (MIS2007-00202) (PC2007-78).
Reclassification No. 2007-00207 granted, unconditionally (PC2007-79).
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05222 granted (PC2007-80).
Recommended City Council approval of Development Agreement No. 2007-00001, with
modifications to Condition No. 28 of Exhibit C-1, page 43 (PC2007-81).
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-170 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM finding and determining that the previously adopted Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 332 with the Third Addendum and Updated and Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Program 106A and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 145 are adequate
to serve as the required environmental documentation for the project actions.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General
Plan designated as Amendment No. 2006-00445.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-172 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
(Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00202).
August 21, 2007 -Page 28
ORDINANCE NO. 6075 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
amending various sections of Chapter 18.20 relating to the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use
(PTMU) Overlay Zone and Table 40-A of Section 18.40.050 of Chapter 18.40 of Title 18 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
ORDINANCE NO. 6076 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(i) approving Development Agreement No. 2007-00001 by and between the City of
Anaheim and Steadfast Investment Properties, Inc., Japos, Inc., and 2130 Dupont
Company, (ii) making certain findings related thereto, and (iii) authorizing the Mayor to
execute said agreement for an on behalf of the City.
ORDINANCE N0.6077 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
zoning (Reclassification No. 2007-00207).
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-173 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2004-180 pertaining to Reclassification No. 2004-
0127.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported this application was a request to construct a
twenty story building located south of the Angel Stadium parking lot, south of the West Millennium
condominium project and the proposed Lennar A-Town Stadium project, and currently developed
with industrial buildings. The proposal was fora 311 foot high twenty-story office building
consisting of almost 600,000 square feet of office and 10,000 square feet of commercial. It also
included a six and one-half story above ground parking structure south of the building. She
pointed out this property was not within the mixed use district of the Platinum Triangle, therefore,
amendments to the City's planning documents were proposed to create the new Orangewood
District (a proposed office district) and its associated development standards and eliminate a
resolution of intent to apply the high intensity office zone to this property. The requested
amendments would increase the maximum square footage of office development in the Platinum
Triangle and delete the maximum floor area ratio.
Ms. Vander Dussen stated the submittal of this project caused staff to reassess plans for access
in the Platinum Triangle area and explained in detail the temporary and permanent changes that
were proposed, including relocating Street D and the storm drain easement easterly to align with
West DuPont Drive to accommodate a signalized street intersection at West DuPont. She
indicated concerns had been raised by the property owner to the west of the property regarding a
proposed six inch acquisition and the use of the existing six feet of landscaped right of way for a
new lane. She pointed out that most of the properties located along an arterial street within the
Platinum Triangle were going to be affected by right of way takes to provide the necessary
infrastructure for the Platinum Triangle, even if the Platinum Tower project were not proposed and
the property across the street at 2130 Orangewood would still be affected by the need to acquire
right-of-way to implement Platinum Triangle infrastructure improvements. She added the present
plan for the Platinum Triangle required 15 feet of right of way to be acquired adjacent to
Orangewood Avenue for street widening and if this property were to redevelop, the City would
require them to dedicate an additional four feet of right of way along West DuPont to comply with
the General Plan requirements for the street, not related to the proposed office tower. In addition,
she stated expansion of the Platinum Triangle was scheduled for hearings in the fall when the City
would be modifying boundaries and increasing intensity. If that was approved as proposed, it
would require an additional four feet of right of way for improvements along Orangewood bringing
the total required on Orangewood to 19 feet. She emphasized staff understood that the owner of
August 21, 2007 -Page 29
2130 Orangewood was concerned about the impacts of all these right of way acquisitions and
takes on their property so the width of the intersection was reduced from 55 feet to 53 feet and as
a result, acquisition of that property would no longer be required to facilitate the development of
the office tower. In addition, Ms. Vander Dussen noted, since the public hearing, staff had also
been able to eliminate the need to require the applicant to obtain easements on the property at
2130 for the relocation of utilities as the existing utilities would be relocated to Orangewood
Avenue and farther south on West DuPont in the public right of way. Despite all those changes,
she explained, the new intersection would still require additional right of way of 10 feet instead of
four feet along West DuPont, and staff continued to look for ways to further modify the intersection
so that the additional 10 feet of right of way would not need to be acquired.
She explained one alternative had been presented in the staff report that would have required
modifications to the West Millennium plan which would have been difficult since their project had
already been approved and they had no obligation to modify their plans. Another alternative had
since been developed which would modify the Platinum Triangle street standards to eliminate the
five foot parkway required on West DuPont roughly along the frontage of the property at 2130
Orangewood as well as the property to the south. This would reduce the amount of right of way
needed from 10 feet to five feet when the property was ultimately redeveloped. This change
meant that only one additional foot of right of way was required to implement the new intersection
and Council could initiate this amendment tonight and the amendment to the street section could
be completed with the expansion with the Platinum Triangle scheduled for Council consideration
this fall. She stated a condition of approval could be added to the development agreement for the
office project to require the street section to be amended prior to issue of building permits.
Council Member Sidhu asked for clarification on the acquisition for Orangewood; Ms. Meeks
replied there would be 19 feet taken either when the property at 2130 redeveloped or alternatively
when the City built the infrastructure for the Platinum Triangle. This 19 feet, she emphasized,
would be needed whether or not the tower was developed. The ten foot right of way on DuPont
was triggered because of the tower being developed and modifications to the intersection would
require an additional six feet to the original four feet, unless Council decided to reduce the
parkway, which would make it five feet. Ms. Meeks pointed out that signal would also support the
additional development the City was reviewing in the expansion of the Platinum Triangle in the
DuPont area.
Steve Sheldon, representing the applicant, Steadfast, stated the project was energy efficient and
environmentally sensitive, would be lead certified to the silver level and the developer had taken a
number of measures to be able to do that including placing photovoltaic panels on top of the
parking structure to provide 80 percent of energy necessary for parking structure. He added the
applicant had looked at the conditions of approval and supported all of them.
Mayor Pringle asked staff to clarify the wording for additional conditions of approval that would be
substituted for the Planning Commission conditions; Ms. Vander Dussen stated there would be a
condition that would indicate the street section would have to be amended before the applicant
obtained their building permits. Ms. Meeks indicated the requirement was to construct the street
and staff had modified the location where the street would be, however, she would check on the
specific wording.
Jeff Ferrano, the owner of the building on the west side of DuPont, stated he supported this
development believing it to be a good mix for this area, would complement his property which was
an industrial building, and would allow future development. His concern was with the realignment
of D Street and West DuPont, as the street shifted over to his property which ultimately reduced
August 21, 2007 -Page 30
his parkway. He believed the landscaped parkway was a benefit to his property which was
narrow, and if that property was developed in the future, he would have to deal with the
narrowness of the property. He asked the City to accommodate for this with some other type of
landscaping in the future, indicating the loss of landscaped parkway was important to them and he
did not feel that it was fair to have other projects impact his site.
Mayor Pringle closed the hearing and invited the applicant to respond.
Steve Sheldon asked that the condition staff proposed be tied to a certificate of occupancy versus
the building permits.
Regarding Mr. Ferrano's comments, Steadfast had met with him several times to discuss those
issues and he believed some of those suggestions offered could be addressed by staff
independent of the project being approved this evening. Ms. Vander Dussen stated staff would
rather not defer that point of tying the proposed condition to the building permits. She added if
Council initiated that change tonight, staff would immediately work on it and have it before the
Council in September when the Platinum Triangle boundary and intensity revisions would be
considered. Mr. Sheldon concurred as he would be pulling building permits in the spring of 2008.
Mayor Pringle asked what would happen if the project were approved tonight with the conditions
set by staff and modifications to the street proposal returned at a later date with a more relief to
the west side. Ms. Vander Dussen stated the current street alignment did not affect the
development of the office building at this point so the project could be approved with the
conditions and should a better alternative on modifying setbacks and street alignment of the two
roads be found it could be considered at a later date.
Mayor Pringle asked why there was not a straight and left hand turn arrow in the same lane as
opposed to a straight and a right turn arrow in the same lane on north to south movement and
similarly on the south to north movement of traffic. Ms. Meeks replied there was no straight
through combination lane because it would require split phasing of the signal so that one side
would be green first and then the other side would be green and it would lengthen the red time on
Orangewood and back up the arterials. Mayor Pringle pointed to the Howell and Katella
intersection where an office building had access onto Katella and had split phasing with north
moving traffic going first followed by south moving traffic. He pointed out there were other options
that could be explored so this project could move forward and he wanted to ensure staff continued
to explore other options.
Council Member Kring recommended moving this project forward and working with the property
owner of 2130 Orangewood to limit acquisition of his property for right of way purposes and since
2130 Orangewood was not considering developing their property now, staff had the alternative of
working with them at a later date.
Council Member Sidhu suggested the two property owners come up with a resolution and moved
to approve staffs recommendation for development of the office tower by approving Resolution
No. 2007-171 approving an amendment to the Land Use Element, Resolution 2007-172 approving
an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, introduction of Ordinance 6074
amending Chapter 18 of Municipal Code relating to Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay zone,
introduction of Ordinance No. 6076 approving a Development Agreement 2007-00001,
introduction of Ordinance No. 3077 amending the zoning map in the Municipal Code and
approving Resolution 2007-173 amending Resolution 2004-180 related to reclassification 2007-
August 21, 2007 -Page 31
00127, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions:
Council Communications:
Council Member Hernandez reported the deaths of several retired Anaheim employees.
Council Member Kring requested that her "No" vote on Item No. 46 be recorded as an affirmative
vote and spoke of her attendance at the Air Support Facility grand opening in Fullerton, the City's
new helicopter facility. She also commented on an Adopt-A-Battalion endeavor, agreeing to
partner with Council Member Hernandez and community stakeholders on this effort.
Council Member Sidhu encouraged community participation at the August 23, 2007 workshops
relative to the General Plan Housing Element and addressed the Leadership Award to the City
scheduled for Saturday, August 25, 2007 at the Convention Center.
Mayor Pringle reported on the issue of affordable housing and the progress the City had made in.
this field indicating the Housing Authority was recognized along with five other cities in the state
and had been awarded $1.5 million for down payment assistance. He noted Anaheim was the only
city in Orange County to be recognized emphasizing there was a real commitment by the City to
address affordable housing and utilizing tools that were available.
Adjournment:
At 10:55 P.M., the August 21, 2007 Council meeting was adjourned.
Respec y submitted,
Linda Nguyen, City rk
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 21, 2007
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00192
(1745 SOUTH EASY WAY)
ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 47
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance finalizing Reclassification No.
2007-00192.
DISCUSSION:
On August 7, 2007, Council introduced an ordinance to reclassify the property listed
above to accommodate a future 5-unit attached condominium development. The
proposed zoning is compatible with the existing residential neighborhoods and is within
the density limitations for the General Plan land use designation.
The ordinance requires a second reading, and if adopted tonight, will be effective on
September 20, 2007.
IMPACT ON BUDGET:
There is no impact to the General Fund.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheri Vander Dussen
Planning Director
Attachments:
1. City Council staff report (August 7, 2007)
2. City Council Ordinance
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 7, 2007
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00192
(1745 SOUTH EASY WAY)
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM #
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council introduce an ordinance finalizing Reclassification No. 2007-00192.
DISCUSSION:
On May 30, 2007, the Planning Commission approved the request to reclassify this
property from the General Commercial (C-G) zone to the Multiple-Family Residential
(RM-3) zone, consistent with the Corridor Residential designation for this site on the
General Plan Land Use Map.
The applicant has fulfilled the condition of approval associated with the reclassification.
Introduction and adoption of this ordinance would finalize the reclassification from the
General Commercial (C-G) zone to the Multiple-Family Residential (RM-3) zone.
IMPACT ON BUDGET:
There is no impact on the General Fund.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheri Vander Dussen
Planning Director
Attachments
1. Draft City Council Ordinance
2. Location Map
3. Aerial Map
4. Planning Commission Resolution
5. Planning Commission Staff Report
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING (RECLASSIFICATION NO.
2007-00192).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES FIND THAT:
WHEREAS, following a duly noticed public hearing held on May 30, 2007,
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Anaheim
Planning Commission did adopt its Resolution No. PC2007-54 determining that a change or
changes in the zone or zones hereinafter mentioned and described should be made to reclassify
the subject property, as described below, into the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the subject property has requested that the City finalize
reclassification of the subject property from the C-G (General Commercial) Zone to the RM-3
(Multiple-Family Residential) Zone of the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, certain terms and conditions were made as conditions precedent to
the making of a change or changes of said zone or zones, which conditions have been complied
with.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That the Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be,
and the same is hereby, amended by rezoning and reclassifying the subject property situated in
the County of Orange, State of California, described as follows, to wit:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH,
RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 IS SHOWN ON
A MAP FILED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 27 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
DISTANCE THEREON 553.00 FEET EASTERLY FROM THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH
THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 189.00 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT
BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE
ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER 161.00 FEET, THENCE EASTERLY
PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE 109.00 FEET, MORE OR
LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE 161.00 FEET,
THENCE WESTERLY 109.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ON A LINE
PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
into the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone of the City of Anaheim.
SECTION 2.
The City Zoning Map shall be, and the same is hereby, amended and the above-
described property shall be excluded from the zone in which it is now situated and incorporated
in and made a part of the zone or zones as above set forth, and said City Zoning Map, as
amended, is hereby adopted and the Planning Department is hereby directed to prepare a
sectional zoning map to be added to the City Zoning Map showing the changes hereby approved
and adopted.
SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the
same to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the Anaheim Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in said City, and thirty (30) days from
and after its final passage, it shall take effect and be in full force.
2
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the day of 2007, and
thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of
2007, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
65833.v1/MGordon
3
Item No. 10
~ ~
^ o! I I
~ ---- - --------------- I
~ ------~
>j ------------- ~_ J -
Z RM-4
RCL 68-69-85
VAR 4111
VAR 3470
NUTWOOD
APARTMENTS
28 UNITS RM-4
RCL 68-69-85 (1)
CUP 1366
HERITAGE VILLAGE
TOWNHOUSES
T 97 UNITS
'. 1 DU EACH
NCH
RS-2
1 DU EACH
~
W RS-2
W
~ TAMARA LANE
107'
D
O RCL 2007-00192
RCL 6566-36
RS-2
1 DU EACH
cuPZOO7-oslas -
~
CUP 1091 ~q
CUP 1076 ~
TTM 17116 Q
CH Z vacar,r W
.
C-G
RCL s5-66-14 CL s5-66-14 RCL 5 -60-72
CUP 724 CUP 724 CUP 1467
M-4
7 DU 7 DU 7 DU 7 DU 7 DU 7 DU 8 DU 8 DU
SUMAC LN
RM-4
7 DU 7 DU 8 DU 8 DU 7 DU 7 DU 8 DU 7 DU
RM-4
RCL 76-77-51
RCL 58-59-1 c-c c-c
CL 58-59-1 RCL 58-59-1 ~ ~
24 DU ADJ 0049 CAR DEALERSHIP ~ ~~
R AIL SHOPS ap coM
uo ~ d
J VU
CG ~ ~
RCL ss-so-7z RCL 7 -77-51
VAR 3590 - RCL -59-1
IT KATELLA P AZA °~ OFFICE HEALTH
S ALL COMM SHOPS ~ SPACES SERVICES
ANAHEIM CITY LIMITS KATELLA AVENUE
Reclassification No. 2007-00192
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05186
Tentative Tract Map No. 17115
Requested By: MEHDI M. EBRAHIMZADEH
1745 South Easy Way
Subject Property
Date: May 30, 2007
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 50
10278
R -4 AR 12 5 6 DU
8 DU 8 DU 6 DU 8 DU
Item No. 10
Date of Aerial Photo:
Julv 2005
Reclassification No. 2007-00192
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05186
Tentative Tract Map No. 17115
Requested By: MEHDI M. EBRAHIMZADEH
Subject Property
Date: May 30, 2007
Scale: 1 " = 200'
Q.S. No. 50
1745 South Easy Way
10278
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2007-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00192 BE GRANTED
(1745 SOUTH EASY WAY)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified petition for
Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as follows:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS
COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 IS SHOWN ON A
MAP FILED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 27 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER DISTANCE THEREON 553.00 FEET
EASTERLY FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE
WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER,
189.00 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER 161.00 FEET, THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL
WITH SAID SOUTH LINE 109.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF
THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE 161.00 FEET, THENCE
WESTERLY 109.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
SOUTH LINE THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of
Anaheim on May 30, 2007 at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law
and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures", to hear and
consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and
in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and
determine the following facts:
1. That the applicant proposes reclassification of subject property from the C-G (General
Commercial) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone, or less intense zone.
2. That the General Plan designates this property and the property to the south for Corridor
Residential land uses.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the
orderly and proper development of the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their
permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted
uses generally established throughout the community.
5. That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
CR\PC2007- -1- PC2007-
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the
declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby
approve the subject Petition for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to exclude the above-described property from the C-G (General Commercial) Zone and to
incorporate said described property into the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone upon the following
conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in
order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary title report shall be
furnished to the Planning Services Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and
containing a map of the property.
That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council
consideration, Condition No. 1,above-mentioned, shall be completed. The City Council may approve or
disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth
in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.140 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this
resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are
complied with within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
3. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2007-05186 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17115.
4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all
of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a
commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City
Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole
discretion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all
of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to
the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to
the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in
delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
-2- PC2007-
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
May 30, 2007. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in
the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on
May 30, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2007.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of ,
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2007-
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
May 30, 2007
Item No. 10
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00192 (Resolution)
10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05186 (Resolution)
10d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17115 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This 0.4-acre property is identified as 1745 South Easy Way. The property owner and
applicant is Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh representing La Vue LLC.
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following applications:
(a) Reclassification No. 2007-00192 - to reclassify the property from the General
Commercial (C-G) zone to the Multiple-Family Residential (RM-3) zone.
(b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05186 - to construct a 5-unit attached single-family
residential condominium complex under authority of Code Section Nos.
18.06.030.040.0402 (Dwellings -Single-Family Attached) and 18.06.160.
(c) Tentative Tract Map No. 17019 - to establish a 1-lot, 5-unit airspace attached
residential condominium subdivision.
RACKC~R(~l1Nl~~
(3) This property is currently vacant and is located within the General Commercial (C-G) zone.
The General Plan designates this property and the property to the south for Corridor
Residential land uses. Properties to the north and west are designated for Low Density
Residential land uses and properties to the east, across Easy Way, for Medium Density
Residential land uses.
PROPOSAL:
(4) The applicant is requesting reclassification of the property from the General Commercial
zone to the Multiple Family Residential zone in connection with a conditional use permit
and tentative tract map to construct a one lot, 5-unit attached single family residential
condominium subdivision. The site plan and tentative tract map indicate the following site
characteristics:
Development Standards Proposed Project RM-3 Zone Standards
Site Area 0.4 acres (17,580 s.f.) N/A
Number of Dwelling
Units/Density 5 dwelling units/12.5 d.u. per
acre 7 units maximum/18 d.u. per
acre
Avera e Land Area er Unit 3,516 s.f. 2,400 s.f. minimum
Lot Covera e 33.0% 45% maximum
Avg. Rec/Leisure Area per
DU g35 s.f. per unit (4,174 s.f. total) 350 s.f. per unit (2,100 s.f. total)
Case Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
SR RCL2007-00192eyt.doc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
May 30, 2007
Item No. 10
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10
pt
(5) The site plan and tentative map indicate the following setbacks:
Code-Required Building
Direction Proposed Building and and Landscaped Adjacent Zoning
Landscaped Setbacks Setbacks
RM-3
North (adjacent to
10 feet building (2-story)*
* 20 feet building (15 floor)
35 feet building (2nd floor)
RS-2
single-family home) 5 feet landscaped 10 feet landscaped
East adjacent to Easy 24 - 63 feet building 15 feet building RM-4
Way 6.5 feet landscaped* 15 feet landscaped
South adjacent to
10 feet building (2-story)* 10 feet building (1 floor)
15 feet building (2nd floor)
C-G
commercial building 5 feet landscaped
5 feet landscaped
West adjacent to single- 20 - 29 feet building (2-story)* 20 feet building (1nd floor)
35 feet building (2 floor)
RS-2
family home 20 - 29 feet landscaped 10 feet landscaped
Modification to standards is allowed in order to achieve good project design, privacy, livability, and
compatibility with surrounding uses.
(6) Vehicular access would be provided via one driveway from Easy Way. Decorative colored
and stamped concrete would be incorporated into the driveway entry and throughout the
circulation area in order to break up the paved surface. The site plan proposes a total of 13
parking spaces within the subdivision, with two (2) spaces within a garage for each unit
and three (3) uncovered spaces. Code requires a total of 13 parking spaces based on the
Page 2
Aerial view of vacant site
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
May 30, 2007
Item No. 10
requirement of three (3) spaces fora 3-bedroom unit (3 x 2 units = 6 spaces) and 2.25
spaces fora 2-bedroom unit (2.25 x 3 = 6.75).
(7) The floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) indicate 2-story units consisting of an attached two-
cargarage, living room, nook, kitchen, and powder room on the first floor. The second
floor would contain two or three bedrooms, two bathrooms, laundry room and a loft,
summarized as follows:
Living Area No. Of
Plan No. of Units Garage Area Bedrooms
Total
1,495 square feet
A 2 465 square feet 3 Bedrooms
1,960 square feet
1,439 square feet
B 2 455 square feet 2 Bedrooms
1,894 square feet
1,161 square feet
C 1 494 square feet 2 Bedrooms
1,655 square feet
(8) Elevation drawings show that the buildings would be a maximum of 25.5 feet, with a total
of two stories. Elevation drawings indicate a concrete the roof, stucco finished exterior
walls with the use of stone veneer, wood siding, shutters, and decorative corbels. Staff
has included a condition of approval requiring that final elevation plans be submitted for
staff review in order to review and approve colors, materials and details.
Elevation as seen from Easy Way
(9) The conceptual landscape plan indicates eight (8) 24 inch box size Pink Trumpet and
Cherokee trees, assorted shrubs and ground cover, and sod to be planted along Easy
Way. The private rear yards would be improved by each individual homeowner. Staff has
also included a condition of approval requiring a detailed landscape plan to ensure that the
plan incorporates a layered landscape theme.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
May 30, 2007
Item No. 10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(10) Staff has reviewed the proposal to construct a 5 unit attached single family residential
development. Staff prepared an Initial Study which is available for review in the Planning
Department, and the study concludes that there will be no significant environmental impacts;
therefore, staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved.
EVALUATION:
(11) The General Plan Land Use Element designates this property for Corridor Residential land
uses, with a density range of 0 to 13 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes a
reclassification of the property from the C-G zone to the RM-3 zone, to construct 5 attached
single family condominium dwelling units at a density of 12.5 dwelling units per acre in
compliance with the General Plan. The proposed development would be compatible with
the existing multiple-family residential development to the east, across Easy Way, and sited
in a manner which would mitigate any impacts to the adjacent single-family residential
homes to the north and west.
(12) Attached single family residences are permitted in the RM-3 zone subject to the approval of
a conditional use permit under authority of Code Section 18.06.160 pertaining to residential
planned unit developments. Modification to standards is allowed in order to achieve good
project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses, as outlined in
Code Section 18.06.160. The project varies from the Code with regard to building setbacks
and landscape setbacks as outlined in paragraph 6 above.
(13) Staff believes the proposed project is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses.
The deviations from code would achieve a good project designed to provide privacy to
residences around the project, and livability for residents within the project. The proposed
setbacks for the side of the proposed building abutting the single-family home to the north is
double the setback that would be required for a typical Single-family (RS-2) zoned property.
The rear setback proposed along the west property line is also double the setback that
would be required for a typical single-family zoned property. The proposed setback along
the south property line, abutting the commercial site complies with Code for the first story,
but a 5 foot deviation is required for the second story. Staff will require as part of the final
landscape plan that tall trees be planted in order provide an adequate buffer between the
two uses. The proposed landscape setback adjacent to Easy way complies with Code for
the northerly portion of the site, but a deviation is requested for the southerly portion in order
to accommodate a parking space. Staff will require as part of the final landscape plan
dense, layered landscaping in order adequately screen parking spaces and create the
appearance of a more substantial setback.
(14) The site is within an area of insufficient sewer capacity. The Public Works Department,
Development Services Division has indicated that the deficiency will be corrected by August
2007. The City is currently designing the sewer upgrade project which will be included in the
Katella Avenue Widening Project from Humor Street to Jean Street. Staff has included a
condition of approval that no building permits shall be issued for the project until the Katella
Avenue project has been awarded to a contractor. This timing is acceptable to the applicant,
based on their construction schedule.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
May 30, 2007
Item No. 10
(15) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. Staff has included conditions
of approval relating to landscape design and maintenance and review of detailed final
elevation plans to ensure that the details of the project reflect a quality project. Staff
recommends approval of the project.
FINDINGS:
(16) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit for a residential planned
unit development, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all
of the following conditions exist:
(a) The uses within the project are compatible;
(b) New buildings or structures related to the project are compatible with the scale,
mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area, provided
the existing buildings conform with the provisions of this title;
(c) Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate;
(d) The project is consistent with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City;
(e) The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular
area;
(f) The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area;
(g) The project complies with the General Plan and any applicable zoning or specific
plan; and
(h) The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will
not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim."
(17) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory
to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific
finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent
with the City's General Plan.
Further, the law requires that the Commission make any of the following findings when
denying or recommending denial of a tract map:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific
Plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
May 30, 2007
Item No. 10
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision."
RECOMMENDATION:
(18) Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions as indicated in
the attached resolutions including the findings and conditions contained therein:
(a) By motion, approve a Negative Declaration.
(b) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. 2007-00192.
(c) By resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05186.
(d) By motion, approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17115.
Page 6