2007/04/24ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING OF
APRIL 24, 2007
The special meeting was called to order at 2:40 P.M. on April 24, 2007 by Mayor Pringle, for
purpose of the Transit Programs Workshop.
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
WORKSHOP -TRANSIT PROGRAMS DISCUSSION:
Existing Services and Stations
Shohreh Dupuis, Transit Manager, updated Council on current transit programs, reporting
Anaheim was now served by two Metrolink lines called the Orange County line and the Inland
Empire Orange County line as well as by Amtrak train services. The Orange County line began
in Oceanside and terminated at the Anaheim Station located in the parking lot of Angel Stadium
with 19 trains servicing that station per day. The Inland Empire line began in San Bernardino and
traveled to Anaheim Canyon Station at Tustin and La Palma, going as far south as Oceanside
with 12 trains per day. She indicated 22 Amtrak trains also traveled the same corridor as the
Orange County line and stopped at the Stadium Station and pointed out that in 2009, Orange
County Transit Authority (OCTA) planned to run 30-minute services from 5:00 A.M. to midnight
on the Orange County line. Mayor Pringle inquired if the number of trains would be increased as
well; Ms. Dupuis commented there were 19 trains now during peak periods and with the
increased travel times, 34 trains would be in operation. With the additional 22 Amtrak trains, the
numbers of trains passing through the Stadium/ARTIC station would be 56.
Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC)
Ms. Dupuis reported that last year, OCTA had purchased a 13.5 acre site on Douglas Road
south of Katella Avenue, known as the Katella Yard and the City also owned the 2.2 acre lot
south of the track known as the Bone Yard. Since the purchase of the facility, she stated the
Department had been working with OCTA developing a project cost report for ARTIC with the
goal of identifying what ARTIC should be, what transportation modes and services it should serve
and how much acreage would be needed for those modes. She added staff would also
recommend a phasing plan over the next 10 years, looking at how ARTIC should be developed
and exploring public/private partnerships. The goal was to bring that project concept to the OCTA
board for adoption later in May and after that develop a project definition report by September
that could be released to private and public agencies and see if there was any interest in builders
joining in on development of this site. She added staff was also working with lobbyists to pursue
state and federal grants to fund the ARTIC project.
April 24, 2007 -Page 2
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
Ms. Dupuis indicated it was important to understand Anaheim currently had a significant number
of transit services with nine OCTA bus routes serving the east/west corridors and 13 other routes
serving the north/south corridors. In addition, Anaheim's transit stations were connected to major
activity centers by a station link route, specific routes that took riders from the MetroLink stations
to major employment sites in the City. Two express routes also connected Anaheim to Irvine and
Laguna Hills and three express routes connected Anaheim to the Inland Empire and Diamond
Bar. In addition, the Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) operated by Anaheim Transportation
Network as a franchise to the City provided 13 feeder routes to take riders in the Anaheim Resort
to Disneyland. She added last year the annual ridership was about 6.5 million. Mayor Pringle
pointed out ART was not a transit system recognized by the federal government and as such was
not eligible for federal funding. Ms. Dupuis added that through the efforts of OCTA, staff and the
Mayor, recognition had now been received from the Federal Transportation Authority and ART
would be a recipient of federal funds of approximately $500 - $600,000.
TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
Ms. Dupuis reported Council had awarded a contract to IBI Consulting last December to create a
Transit Master Plan for the City. IBI would determine areas that were not served or were
underserved, come up with an evaluation of the different types of transit strategies to consider for
the future and fold that into a transit master plan. She commented this was the first time local
governments were getting involved in transit planning and was a result of OCTA turning this task
back to cities by providing $100,000 to every city in Orange County to figure out how they wanted
to implement transit services in their cities. She reported that last December Anaheim was
awarded $100,000 to start the planning process and then supplemented those funds with
additional gas tax funds and Redevelopment Agency funds to start the "Go Local" or transit
master planning process. This process specifically looked at not only feeder routes, which
extended the reach of the MetroLink services, but at those supplemental funds allowed for a
citywide study and how it could be better served via transit. After identifying what transit projects
Anaheim wished to implement in the future, the City could then compete for up to $26.4 million in
OCTA funds and with the renewal of Measure M, compete for $1 billion dollars to be awarded to
those most promising transit projects.
The specific interests of Council had been identified through interviews with all agreeing the
ARTIC and Canyon Stations should be linked via transit. In addition, there should be
connections between downtown Anaheim, the Platinum Triangle, the Disney Resort Area, Honda
Center and the Angel Stadium. A number of other interests had been identified by Council as
well and the first stakeholder's workshop voiced similar concerns to connect the stations and
MetroLink services to major activity centers in Orange and south county.
Steve Shibola, IBI Consulting Group, indicated stakeholder workshops, backed up by
demographic and ridership market analysis, pointed to a need for a transit system that would play
a more important role in the lives of Anaheim's residents, workers and visitors. The system
should connect important activity centers and to do so with systems that were high quality,
reliable, safe and easy to access. He discussed in detail the various technologies and modes
available to fill transit needs and how those options could be utilized in Anaheim.
April 24, 2007 -Page 3
Preliminary Concepts
Mr. Shibola announced preliminary concepts had been identified all of which relied upon the
backbone of existing and future services not the least of which was the MetroLink 30-minute
service as well as the Inland Empire and Bus Rapid Transit lines which OCTA would be
implementing. The first concept would be an east/west connection from ARTIC to the Resort
Area with two potential routes. The second would connect ARTIC to the downtown area and the
third concept was a blend of the first two, an all points circulator. Connecting the Stadium Station
to the Anaheim Canyon station would most likely utilize a fixed guideway system due to the
length of the corridor and Mr. Shibola explained several possible routes and concepts.
Another concept was the need for better connections to bring workers particularly from west and
north Anaheim to the resort area. He added IBI was looking at ways to supplement that grid by
running on streets OCTA did not use in hours that made sense for resort shifts. Making easy
access to Orange County beaches, South Coast Plaza and other attractions would be considered
as well, stated Mr. Shibola, but would most likely be implemented by privately-operated services.
The concept for development of Anaheim Canyon station would contain double tracks and
double platforms with additional parking. Mr. Shibola added this station was mostly a destination
station going to places of work and a huge parking structure was not necessary. The concept
also provided a transit plaza to integrate with the development of the Pacific Center and
expanded bus bays.
Ms. Dupuis remarked that after receiving feedback from Council on the proposed concepts, the
next step would be to refine and share them with stakeholders in June and come back with a
second workshop in July or August with a final set of concepts and a master plan to seek
adoption of the final report in September. Once that was adopted, she stated staff would be
seeking letters of support from major stakeholders which was a necessary part of the element to
apply for additional funding from OCTA and if applications were approved, some of these
projects would go forward into implementation.
Council Member Sidhu asked if there were any estimated costs for some of the concepts which
would help him in the decision-making. Ms. Dupuis replied at this point no specific technology
was being recommended and that it was more of a high level planning study. She added once
the most promising transit corridors were identified, the next phase would be getting into
preliminary engineering and environmental analysis, with a comprehensive alternative analysis to
look at all the technologies and have the specific station locations and costs to share before
determining what technology would make sense. Council Member Sidhu asked if there were any
budget figures identified over the next 15 years. Mayor Pringle responded the challenge was to
compete for Measure M funds by coming up with ridership models serving the community and
then moving forward and competing for those funds. He also indicated three would be an
opportunity to get private investors involved.
Council Member Sidhu supported the ARTIC to Resort and Resort to Downtown concept.
Council Member Galloway asked what collaborations Anaheim had with other Orange County
cities and Ms. Dupuis responded Anaheim was working with Villa Park and the city of Orange.
For Villa Park, a comprehensive survey had been sent to every resident and staff was scheduling
a stakeholder's workshop with the Orange Chamber of Commerce to get their feedback on how
transit should service their city. She added one of the concepts shown to Council earlier would
connect the Orange station to major activity centers in Anaheim. She explained other cities had
been contacted to see if there was any interest in collaborating and had received no responses.
April 24, 2007 -Page 4
Mayor Pringle indicated there were a variety of transit modes in connecting ARTIC to the resort
and he would be more supportive of elevated connectors between ARTIC and the Convention
Center but he was also concerned about what would be used in the downtown area, stating he
would be cautious of using one universal mode for this route. Council Member Kring would like
to see something more creative and innovative such as the trolleys used in San Francisco.
Council Member Hernandez remarked Anaheim was fortunate to have such variety of modes
available and he believed as the study progressed, those modes would be evaluated and a
determination would be made as to what the best use would be for different areas in the city.
Mayor Pringle received consensus from the Council to continue to pursue connectors in those
four areas discussed: the resort area, downtown, the Canyon station and the Orange station and
possibly from Fullerton into the downtown. There was also consensus about connectivity to
beach areas and shopping centers. He indicated Huntington Beach had made public a
discussion on using old rail line or Beach Boulevard to create a connection from the beach area
possibly to ARTIC and that many communities had picked Anaheim as a destination
Council Member Sidhu asked if the thought process between OCTA and the cities was to have
three hubs. Ms. Dupuis remarked the two major elements which set ARTIC apart was the high
speed train system proposed to operate in Orange County and terminate at the ARTIC station
and to also provide a direct service to Los Angeles in 20 minutes. She commented the cities of
Orange and Tustin located between Anaheim and Irvine had publicly opposed that connection
going through their cities which meant it would be impossible to get that system to Santa Ana or
the Irvine station. Another connection staff was working on was with the city of Ontario and also
the California Nevada Commission to connect between Anaheim to Ontario, via a high speed
ground transportation system, with the potential to connect to Las Vegas. In addition the bus
rapid transit lines along Katella and Harbor and a 28 mile route along State College would all
terminate at ARTIC as well. With those scenarios, ARTIC was seen as the major transportation
hub. Council Member Sidhu particular supported this concept as it creating new jobs and
brought Anaheim within easy access for visitors.
Mayor Pringle also received consensus from the Council regarding the Canyon Station concepts.
He remarked Anaheim was the only Orange County city with two metro link service stations and
their were opportunities for growth to that area.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: NONE
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: NONE
CLOSED SESSION
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.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: Joshua Rich v. City of Anaheim, et al., United States District Court Case
No. CV05-8393AG (PJWx).
April 24, 2007 -Page 5
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: Raiszadeh and Mahammadi v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 050000072.
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball, L.P., Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 050001902 (4tn Appellate District No. G037202).
Invocation: Pastor Bill White, Anaheim Baptist Temple
Flag Salute: Council Member Sidhu
Presentations: Recognizing Carolyn-Ann Alba for winning the Bronze Medal in the Novice
Ladies Division at the 2007 U.S. National Figure Skating Championships
Coach Wendy Berg explained the process that led up to competition in the senior national figure
skating events introducing Carolyn-Ann Alba, who had won. the Bronze Medal over 500 other
participants. Ms. Berg expressed her appreciation to Council for their recognition.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving will present Anaheim Police Officers with their
annual Driving Under the Influence Deuce Awards
Vicky Masea of MADD recognized the following police officers for their efforts in insuring safe
streets in Anaheim: Gonzalo Perez, William Seguras, Glen Morimoto, John Roman and Matt
Sutter.
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Proclaiming May 2007 as Water Awareness Month
Mariann Long of the Public Utilities Department, thanked Council for recognition of Water
Awareness Month and announced the various activities and events occurring during the month to
bring about awareness of water use and conservation to the community.
Recognizing the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) Administrators of
the Year, Classified Employees of the Year and Teachers of the Year
Blake Chisolm, OUSD Community Development Coordinator, thanked Council for the recognition
certificates announcing those three selected employees would be revealed and honored at a
special event to be held on May Stn
Recognizing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce 2007 Business Links
Honorees
Margaret Pashko, Chamber of Commerce, announced three important Anaheim business
members who would be recognized in May for their investment and commitment to the City of
Anaheim: Tim Ryan, CEO of Honda Center, Bill Stone, Excel Realty/Anaheim GardenWalk and
Kaiser Permanente.
April 24, 2007 -Page 6
At 5:34 P.M., Mayor Pringle called to order the Public Financing Authority for a joint Authority/
Council public comment session.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO ANY OF THE AGENDAS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (ALL MATTERS EXCEPT PUBLIC HEARINGS):
Lynn Manuel, resident, asked for Council's guidance related to an assault and threats her daughter
experienced at Anaheim Union High School. Mayor Pringle referred Mrs. Manuel to Police Chief
John Welter for assistance.
Dan De Meyer, resident, requested Council's assistance related to neighborhood parking impacts
at the corner of Brookhurst and Katella which he believed was caused by an Islamic Center
operating at full capacity with inadequate parking; Mayor Pringle also referred Mr. De Meyer to
Chief Welter.
Kirk Brenner, resident, added to the previous speaker's comments stating residential driveways
and fire hydrants were blocked and asked to have that area patrolled on Friday afternoons or to
request the Islamic Center to provide adequate parking for its patrons.
Jimmy Gaston, Feedback Foundation, asked for the City's continued support for his organization.
He stated that last year his organization had delivered over 174,000 meals to 92 seniors and 200
homebound elders in the City. He added Feedback Foundation was merging with Senior Meals
and Services and this new organization, Community Senior Serve, would meet future challenges
with a new commitment to serve the community.
The Executive Director of Access California Services, a family resource center, announced her
agency had been recommended to receive $25,000 from CDBG funds, and asked Council to
reconsider their funding request as the agency had increased their services and were turning away
children from after school programs due to lack of funding.
Lahoma Snyder, Council on Aging, explained that her agency visited residential and skilled nursing
facilities to monitor care and thanked Council for considering their funding request. Mayor Pringle
pointed out the CDBG block grant funding had not yet been enacted upon by Council.
Mayor Pringle requested Item No.'s 22 and 23 be heard concurrently with Item No's. 1 and 2
of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority as they were related matters requiring action by
both governmental bodies and were therefore considered prior to the Council Consent
Calendar.
22. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the form of an Installment Purchase Agreement, an Official
Statement, a Continuing Disclosure Agreement and a Bond Purchase Agreement
concerning the acquisition of certain improvement to the Sanitary Sewer Collection System
of the City and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof; and approving the issuance
by the Anaheim Public Financing Authority of not to exceed $55,000,000 aggregate
principal amount of Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2007. (Related to Public Financing
Authority Item No. 2}.
April 24, 2007 -Page 7
William Sweeney, Finance Director, reported, the Series 2007 bonds were the first in a series to be
issued to finance the construction of $102 million citywide sewer improvements and would
generate approximately $45 million for Phase 1 related projects. He emphasized the bonds were
long-lived assets with a long debt service and would be paid through adjusted sewer fees of about
$3 million per year. Mayor Pringle commented a presentation on the various sewer improvement
projects was made when Council had taken action to move forward with a sewer fee increase
which was the foundation for repayment of this debt.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve Resolution No. 2007-050 of the City of Anaheim
approving the form of an Installment Purchase Agreement, an Official Statement, a Continuing
Disclosure Agreement and a Bond Purchase Agreement concerning the acquisition of certain
improvement to the Sanitary Sewer Collection System and authorizing the execution and delivery
thereof, and approving the issuance by the Anaheim Public Financing Authority of not to exceed
$55,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2007, seconded by
Council Member Kring. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway,
Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
23. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving, authorizing and directing the execution of certain
documents relating to the refunding of bonds issued by the Anaheim Public Financing
Authority and other matters relating thereto. (Related to Public Financing Authority Item No.
3).
Mayor Pringle pointed out that he, along with City Manager Dave Morgan, were in San Francisco
on April 23~d to make presentations to three rating agencies and two bond insurance agencies in
preparation for Item No's 3 and 23.
Mr. Sweeney reported Item No's 3 and 23 represented a refinancing of revenue bonds issued 10
years ago to take advantage of low interest rates. Mayor Pringle pointed out in 1994 with the
establishment of the Anaheim Resort; the City in cooperation with other business parties took on
$510 million obligation to make public improvements to the resort area. Last November, the Public
Financing Authority and Council directed staff to move forward with refinancing a portion of that
debt ($270 million). He added 20 percent of the City's bed tax would go toward repayment of this
debt and monies saved in interest payments ($12 million) would help secure and pay down that
debt obligation scheduled to be repaid by 2037.
Council Member Hernandez moved to approve Resolution No. 2007-051 of the City of Anaheim
approving, authorizing and directing the execution of certain documents relating to the refunding of
bonds issued by the Anaheim Public Financing Authority and other matters relating thereto,
seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Pringle requested Item No.'s 2 and 3 be heard and acted upon
concurrently with Item No's. 22 and 23 and removed Item No. 21 from the consent calendar for
further discussion. Council Member Sidhu removed item No's. 7 and 11 for discussion and Council
Member Galloway pulled Item No. 14. Council Member Hernandez waived reading in full of all
ordinances and resolutions and to approve the balance of the consent calendar in accordance with
the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on
the balanced of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll Call vote: Ayes -
April 24, 2007 -Page 8
5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion
Carried
4. Receive and file minutes of the Library Board meeting of March 12, 2007, Budget Advisory
Commission meeting of November 15, 2006, and Workforce Investment Board of
December 14, 2006.
5. Approve the Investment Portfolio Report for March 2007.
6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, California Professional Engineering,
Inc., in the amount of $484,553.75 for the Lincoln Avenue Traffic Signal Improvement
project from west City limits to Brookhurst Street.
8. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Vasilj, Inc., in the amount of
$478,364.08 for the Citywide Sanitary Sewer Improvement project, along Katella Avenue
from Gilbert Street to east of Jean Street, approve and authorize the Finance Director to
execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions and increase the
Department of Public Works' appropriation by $768,718 for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
9. Accept the proposal and execute an agreement with Multimedia Integrated Technology, Inc.
(dba Integrated Technology), in an amount not to exceed $1,730,668 for the upgrade of the
city's Nortel telephone systems and authorize the Information Systems Manager to execute
annual, optional maintenance agreements in accordance with Request for Proposal #
6886.
10. Accept the tow bid of Fullmer Contract, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $191,808 for
Allsteel modular systems. furniture for the Finance Department, in accordance with Bid
#6924.
12. Accept the low bid of FS Construction, in an amount not to exceed $371,520 for concrete
repair and/or replacement as needed for atwo-year period with two one-year renewal
options and authorize the Purchasing agent to exercise renewals in accordance with Bid
#6908.
13. Approve the Third Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Anaheim Tennis Center, Inc.
for operation of the Anaheim Tennis Center for an extended period of four months.
15. Waive the sealed bid and advertising requirements of Council Policy 306 and approve and
authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an agreement with Equifax
Information Services LLC, for credit and California Utility Exchange services.
16. Reaffirm an agreement and ratify payments to, J.J. Mac Intyre Co., Inc., to provide
delinquent closing bill collection services and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager
to execute agreement documents.
17. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
properties or interests therein. (City Deed Nos.11029, 11030 & 10939).
April 24, 2007 -Page 9
18. ORDINANCE NO. 6054 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
amending Chapter 1.20 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Civil Citations.
(Introduced at the meeting of April 17, 2007, Item #50)
19. ORDINANCE NO. 6055 (ADOPTION) 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. 2006-00187). (Introduced at the meeting of April 17, 2007,
Item #52).
20. ORDINANCE NO. 6056 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 and Chapter
18.114 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and amending Ordinance No. 5378, as previously
amended, accordingly (Amendment No. 7). (Introduced at the meeting of April 17, 2007,
Item #58).
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
7. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Mepco Services, Inc., in the amount of
$3,884,000 for the Energy Field project in Hermosa Village and approve authorize the
Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions and the
Director of Public Works to execute project-related documents.
Terry Lowe, Community Services Director, stated a number of positive improvements had already
taken place in Hermosa Village and with the award of this contract; the Energy Field project would
make a difference in the quality of life for the Hermosa Village community. Marcie Edwards, Public
Utilities General Manager, further explained under direction of Council and the City Manager to
leverage City assets, the creation of this park would provide several things: 1) recreational
opportunities for the community, 2) serve as a demonstration site for solar facilities with
educational kiosks, 3) contain significant use of synthetic turf as a water conservation measure
along with the use of California friendly native plants to promote use of less water and 4) other
water-saving demonstration opportunities. Mariann Long, Utilities Department, commented that
grant monies received from Metropolitan Water District and the offices of Congresswoman Loretta
Sanchez and Senator Diane Feinstein were instrumental in getting this project built.
Council Member Sidhu remarked he brought this to the attention of the community to let them
know City staff was committed to saving energy and providing recreation facilities to the residents
and moved to approve Item No. 7, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5;
Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion
Carried
11. Accept the low bid of Cardlock Fuels System, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $596,000
(including tax), for the as-needed purchase of gasoline and diesel fuels for the Public Works
Department, Fleet Services Division for a period of up to six months, in accordance with Bid
#6914.
Council Member Sidhu asked why the City was assigning $596,000 as the bid amount when the
actual bid fell short of that amount. Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works, responded there were
three 20,000 gallon tanks located at the Public Works facility not in compliance with current
regulations. This contract, he pointed out, would replace tanks used by most of the City's fleet
and would be using these tanks for fuel during construction. He added if the contractor was unable
April 24, 2007 -Page 10
to complete the work in the time expected, fueling would be done for a longer period of time with
an increased to the cost.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve Item No. 11, seconded by Council Member Galloway.
Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu.
Noes - 0. Motion Carried
14. Approve the FY 2007-2008 Annual Action Plan for federal Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership and Emergency Shelter Grant funds totaling
$7,465,558 to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and designate the
Executive Director of the Community Development Department as the certifying official
authorized to execute all documents related to the administration, management and
implementation of the CDBG, HOME &ESG Programs.
Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, reported Item 14 was staff's recommendation
along with the recommendation of the advisory board for three different programs funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. CDBG would receive $5.2 million. HOME would
receive $2.1 million and ESG Program would receive $236,000. Mayor Pringle remarked that
Council Member Hernandez was concerned with an over-saturation of documents related to
Council matters, however, he felt the budget for each of the programs should be presented in this
case. Council Member Galloway asked that budget breakdown on CDBG be provided. City
Manager Dave Morgan suggested this item be continued to May 8, 2007 and include the budget
documents as requested.
With no objection from Council, Mayor Pringle continued this item to May 8, 2007.
21. ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 10.08 of Title 10 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to domestic and industrial waste.
Mayor Pringle remarked he had read the report and was concerned about the level of mandates
being required by Anaheim businesses relating to the disposal of domestic and industrial waste.
He asked for a clarification on what was required under State law versus the level of mandates
imposed by the City, in particular, expressing concern with section 4.010.
With no objection from Council or staff, Item No. 21 was continued to meeting of May 8, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
24. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) AND
ADDENDUM
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2006-00448
AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0.92-2 (SPN2006-
00044
AGENT: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim, Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Property is approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and
east of Haster Street.
Request to amend the General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 to
provide the opportunity to develop wholly-residential projects that include rental housing
April 24, 2007 -Page 11
that is affordable to very-low and low-income families on designated properties within The
Anaheim Resort as follows:
GPA2006-00448 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to
modify "Note No. 2" of "Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of
the City" pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and to amend the Commercial
Recreation land use designation description.
SPN2006-00044 -Request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning
and Development Standards (Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code}.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Previously Certified CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum -
Recommended City Council Approval (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Buffa abstained and
Commissioner Flores absent).
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 -Denied (PC2007-13) (Vote: 5-0,
Commissioner Buffa abstained and Commissioner Flores absent).
Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 -Denied (PC2007-14)
(Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Buffa abstained and Commissioner Flores absent).
Public Re-hearing requested by SunCal Companies.
Option 1: Approve the Environmental Determination and the Amendments
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining that the previously adopted mitigated negative
declaration with addendum and updated and modified mitigation monitoring plan are
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for GPA No. 2006-00448
and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448, pertaining to
the Land Use Element.
ORDINANCE NO. 6058 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, amending Ordinance No. 5453, as previously amended,
and amending Zoning and Development Standards set forth in Chapter 18.116 of Title 18
of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Option 2: Deny the Amendments
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM denying General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448, pertaining to the Land
Use Element.
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM denying Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, to
amend Ordinance No. 5453, as previously amended, and Zoning and Development
Standards set forth in Chapter 18.116 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported this project was reviewed and denied by the
Planning Commission in January and two council members had subsequently requested a review
of that decision. On February 13, 2007, she explained, Council deadlocked 2:2 on a decision as to
whether or not to approve or deny the project with Council Member Kring electing not to participate
April 24, 2007 -Page 12
in the decision due to a perceived conflict of interest. On March 19th, the California Fair Political
Practices Commission issued an opinion that Council Member Kring did not have a conflict of
interest and would be able to participate in decisions, related to the subject property and on March
20th, Council voted to rehear this item.
She stated Item No. 24 was a request to allow wholly residential development within the Anaheim
Resort and was initiated by the City Council last August, in conjunction with the approval of
amendments to the General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan allowing hotel residences
(residential units) on the property. She added that prior to and at the August 22"d Council meeting,
SunCal Companies proposed additional changes to the amendment that would allow wholly
residential development on properties depicted near the southeast corner of Haster and Katella.
The subject property was currently developed with a retail center along Katella Avenue, two single
family homes and two mobile home parks with restaurants to the north, hotels and the I-5 freeway
to the northeast and east, multifamily residential units and a mobile home community to the south
and hotel and commercial uses, a residential development and a Disney employee parking lot to
the west. The proposed amendments would provide a land use option in addition to the uses
currently permitted with property owners choosing to develop hotels and other visitor service uses
according to the land use regulations currently in place or developing their properties according to
the proposed amendments. She explained the proposed amendments included the following
requirements for developing wholly residential uses: 1 } 15 percent of the units must be affordable
rental units to very low and low income households regardless of the availability of any City
subsidy; 2) before residential development could occur, the property owner must receive approval
of a new specific plan and demonstrate conformance with the areas current height, landscaping
and setback requirements; 3) infrastructure impacts could be no greater than those associated with
the subject properties permitted hotel or motel density which was 75 rooms per acre or 75 rooms
per parcel, whichever was greater. She also stated that while no formal application had yet been
received from SunCal, its representatives indicated a desire to develop about 1,500 units on the
subject properties pointing out their proposal would require processing a new specific plan, a tract
map, final site plans, an affordability agreement and removal of the mobile home park overlay zone
which would apply to the two mobile home parks. In addition, she explained, the removal of the
mobile home park overlay zone for any change in land use whether hotel or residential required the
preparation of a conversion impact report which analyzed current park tenants and addressed the
need for any relocation assistance. Furthermore,. Ms. Vander Dussen stated the developer would
also be required to submit detailed studies demonstrating that the proposed development would be
able to achieve environmental equivalency with the impacts of the density currently contemplated
under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. This meant additional mitigation may be required to
insure impacts due to proposed residential development would be no greater than the development
of the permitted hotel density. She ended her report indicating staff had provided two possible
actions for Council consideration: Option 1 would allow wholly residential development on the
designated properties under the terms outlined in the presentation. This option would be
consistent with general plan goals to provide quality housing opportunities, address the City's
diverse housing needs, and develop housing near job centers and transportation facilities and to
expand housing opportunities to all economic segments of the community. Option 1 also included
approval of the environmental determination for the proposed amendments which was the
addendum and the mitigated negative declaration. She remarked Walt Disney Company had
submitted letters and documentation questioning the validity of this environmental determination
and staff had reviewed the claims with the assistance of outside legal counsel, Rutan and Tucker,
and believed the proposed environmental determination was appropriate for the proposed
amendments. Option 2 would uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the amendment on the
basis that the Commission concluded the proposed amendments were contrary to the purpose and
April 24, 2007 - Page 13
intent of the Gen~ral Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to promote the development of
visitor-serving us sin the area.
Mayor Pringle as ed if this site were fully developed under the option for residential, what was the
allowable density; Ms. Vander Dussen replied that the ordinance was written to have a 1:1 ratio
and was 75 units er parcel or 75 units per acre whichever was greater, which translated to 2,000
possible hotel roo ms. She also explained the figure established the upper limit for the potential
residential develo ment which could occur on the site, but there were also provisions in the
ordinance that re uired the developer to demonstrate environmental equivalency. Mayor Pringle
questioned what they development parcels in the City were allowed in terms of density. Ms.
Vander Dussen r plied there was an area wide designation within the Platinum Triangle which
guaranteed a rig t of 100 units per acre but it was a collective use within 800 acres of the Platinum
Triangle or 400 m ixed use acres where 9,500 units could be built over 400 acres, which would
actually be less t an 100 units per acre. Council Member Galloway pointed out SunCal had
mentioned 1,500 nits, not 2,000, although no specific project had yet been submitted.
Council Member idhu asked how a 1:1 ratio could be allowed when hotel rooms generally
contained one or o people, and residences could house more and contain additional bathrooms
and a kitchen. M .Vander Dussen replied the upper limit was placed in the zoning ordinance but
she did not belie a 2,000 units would be the environmental equivalent to 2,000 hotel rooms based
on sewer and tra is modeling performed in other areas of the City. Mayor Pringle expressed
surprise that if O tion 1 was approved, the developer would have the ability to build to the highest
level of density.
Council Member alloway stated if Option 1 was approved, what would end up being built on the
property was the quivalency of what was currently acceptable for hotels. Ms. Vander Dussen
concurred, unles there were additional mitigation proposed such as school impacts.
Mayor Pringle as ed if a future developer came forward after Item No. 24 was approved and was
able to present a project with 2,000 small loft units, were there any restrictions in place to stop
Council from app oving the new development. Ms. Vander Dussen responded the applicant would
need to file a ne specific plan and it would basically have zoning standards that would apply just
to that deveoopm nt. The Planning Commission and the City Council would also have the
opportunity to re iew, approve, deny, or modify those standards so Council would have some
discretion as tot a type of project to be developed.
Council Member idhu asked if a 1,500 unit hotel owner wished to convert those units to
residences, woul the zoning regulations allow that conversion. Ms. Vander Dussen responded
she was aware o instances when the City allowed conversions of time shares but not of hotel
rooms to residen ial units. She added the zoning regulations before Council this evening contained
a provision that t is development only applied to the construction of new residential units.
Mayor Pringle
Frank Elfend, Elf
Council was a gE
Specific Plan. H
residential units I
would allow Sung
ned the public hearing and explained the process to be followed for speakers.
id & Associates representing SunCal Companies, stated the project before
eral plan amendment and zone change, an amendment to the Anaheim Resort
stated the residential overlay zone provided a 1:1 tradeoff from hotel to
at that no specific project would be approved on this date and action tonight
~I to return to Council at a later date with a detailed development plan.
April 24, 2007 -Page 14
He pointed out that Disney had supported residential development in the resort area on August 27,
2006 and pointed out the properties current use was both residential and mobile home parks. He
referenced the initiative process going on and the petition signatures being gathered by Disney and
the misinformation given to voters. He stated Disney's requirement during approval of the
California Adventure project to provide 500 affordable housing units had not been met and was
modified to reflect a $5 million in-lieu payment earmarked for use in the vicinity of the Resort. He
stated the payment was modified again to be paid by the taxpayers in the resort area as part of the
financing bond to be used in conjunction with the California Adventure project.
Michael Zischke addressed environmental issues, remarking a new letter received from Disney's
legal counsel sited an issue that had already been raised, AB 42, the Global Warming Solutions
Act. This new issue claimed SunCal should quantify greenhouse emissions from this project
because of AB 42. Mr. Zischke responded the legal test for a mitigated negative declaration with
addendum was whether or not there was new information and global climate change was not new
information. He added there was also no factual basis for the argument to evaluate climate
change because those technical agencies looking at global warming impacts reported there was
not enough information to determine how land uses impact climate. He added an
intergovernmental panel meeting on climate change in 2003 reported the scientific community
could not provide practical methodology for human-introduced effects on climate change.
Ann McClellan, Dale McIntosh Center, spoke in support of affordable housing especially for low
income and disabled persons. She spoke of her own personal challenges and the contributions to
society made by many disabled persons and urged Council's support of Option 1.
George, a resident, urged support of Option 1.
Lesley Davis, housing advocate, stated it was crucial for every city to do its part in providing
housing especially for those underserved and encouraged Council to do its part and approve the
general plan amendment including an affordable housing component.
Jose Perez, Dale McIntosh Center, spoke in support of increased housing opportunities for low
income families siting the deplorable housing conditions for many who earn low wages.
Pam Ellison, Project Hope School, spoke for increased housing opportunities for Anaheim, stating
Anaheim was falling behind in meeting affordable housing needs.
Alda Deseino, Local 681 president, supported increased housing opportunities for working families
in the resort district, stating there were 155 resort workers present in support of Option 1.
Laurie Cadenas, Vice President of Local 681, supported Option 1 commenting the resort workforce
contributed to its success and should be able to live where they worked.
Joseph Singh, resident, asked Council to give consideration to the challenges of low income wage
earners as they deliberated on this matter.
Diane Singer, resident, spoke of the diversity in Anaheim and the need to take care of all members
of the community, recommending support of the general plan amendment.
Bill Bloom, resident, spoke in support of Option 1 believing Disneyland would continue to be
profitable and as a service worker employer, Disney had an obligation to not oppose a developer's
right to bring in affordable housing to-this community.
April 24, 2007 -Page 15
Father Wilfredo of the Canterbury Episcopal Church in Garden Grove, asked Council to support
the general plan amendment, citing a responsibility to all Anaheim citizens.
Mr. Larson of Save Our Resort Employees (SORE) opposed the compromise promoted by Mayor
Pringle and Council Member Sidhu, urging Council to stand up to Disney and approve the general
plan amendment.
Judy Giacinto, Peace and Justice community, stating her organization had made affordable
housing their cause and was here to speak in support of the general plan amendment for that
reason.
Joanie Rios, resident, supported the general plan amendment remarking Anaheim had over 6,000
families in the Section 8 program with 8-10 family members living in one unit. She asked for a
balance between the market rate units scheduled for the Platinum Triangle and Mountain Park and
affordable housing.
Scott Springmeyer indicated the San Antonio Church in Anaheim Hills had adopted affordable
housing in Anaheim as a cause, having researched and recognized the need and urged Council's
approve of the general plan amendment. Mayor Pringle talked about Anaheim's Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan and its goals explaining he would like to discuss the plan with Mr.
Springmeyer at a future date.
Mick Lane, Disney employee, spoke in support of the general plan amendment stating one of his
most memorable moments was when his daughter had a room of her own.
Ross Romero, resident/ realtor and housing advocate, cited the need to support a project with an
affordable housing component.
Connie Rodriguez, resident, urged Council to vote in favor of affordable housing for her and other
resort area workers.
Cecelia Florence, resident, spoke in support of the general plan amendment, stating the Strategic
Housing Plan did not go far enough in addressing affordable housing needs in the City.
Mr. Rios, supported Option 1, explaining he shared a home in Anaheim with eight others holding
down a total of 13 jobs between them and he did not want to live in this manner for the rest of his
life.
Pedro Hernandez, resident, stated there were not enough affordable options to live in Anaheim
and that he spent 90 percent of what he made for one months rent and held multiple jobs in order
to make ends meet.
Martin Lopez, resident, remarked average hotel workers made less than $10/hour and could not
afford a decent place to live unless they held more than one job. He was supportive of putting
affordable housing in the resort area.
Amin David, resident, remarked he had been deeply moved by the testimony of people holding two
to three jobs just to pay for living quarters and urged Council's approval of Option 1.
April 24, 2007 -Page 16
Eileen McCarthy, Public Law Center, spoke in support of Option 1. She sited the lack of affordable
housing in the city and asked that Council require the developer to mitigate displacement of the
mobile home park residents should this project go forward. She added that no other cities in
Orange County had stepped up to the plate at the level Anaheim has, but she felt they could do
better and serve as a role model in that respect.
Eric Altman, OCCORD, spoke in support of Option 1 remarking his organization sought solutions to
the deepening crisis of the working poor. Approving the amendments tonight, he stated, would
provide an incentive for a developer to create market housing and at the same time provide a
portion as affordable housing units with no subsidies from the City.
Cynthia Mackotan, resident, asked Council to balance the competing interests of the workers, the
community, businesses and residents when deliberating on this matter. She believed if existing
housing already within the Resort District had been grandfathered in, there would be no need for a
general plan amendment and she urged support of Option 1.
Sharif Nadjir, Council on American Islamic relations, urged Council to increase housing
opportunities in Anaheim and spoke of his personal experiences which supported his feelings.
Scott Gerald, Director of Kennedy Commission, spoke of working closely with the city in putting
together the Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and looked forward to future meetings.
He believed the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and Disneyland had stepped in the way of
making sure there was high quality affordable housing solutions and urged support of Option 1.
After a brief recess, Mayor Pringle reconvened the public hearing.
Margaret Paskho, represented the business community, indicated it was their viewpoint that the
resort district was created by good, sound planning which resulted in a successful, visitor-friendly
tourist destination. Supporting denial of the general plan amendment, she stated tourism was the
most important economic driver for the City and it land use should be preserved for tourist related
businesses that would grow the local economy. She indicated that workforce housing was also a
priority of the business community and a task force and been established to address that need.
Craig Ferrell, resident and retired city employee, supported Option 2 and recommended the
developer look at other sites to construct affordable housing.
Lynn Spencer, business owner in Anaheim and resident, spoke in support of Option 2, stating
affordable housing should not be 100 percent the responsibility of Anaheim and surrounding
communities should participate as well.
Seferina Garcia stated he had been supporting affordable housing for many years but in this
instance he was in favor of denying the general plan amendment and keeping the City's bed and
sales taxes safe.
Margaret Patino, resident, supported Option 2, stating the subject property had been a safety
concern due to overcrowding, absentee landlords, subleasing and parking issues and high density
development would only cause more problems.
Reid Royalty, Orange County Taxpayers Association, urged denial of the general plan amendment
stating the voters in 1996 understood bonds were issued to improve resort related activities and
April 24, 2007 - Page 17
not to attract hous~ng. He stated that a change would be a breach of faith with Anaheim's voters
and taxpayers.
Frances Notaboo ,resident, stated one of the reasons Anaheim had prospered was due to
Disney Corporation's successes and that the tourist attractions must continue to change and
evolve to retain a d bring in more tourists dollars.
Virginia Zlaket, re ident and business owner, supported Option 2 remarking that as a
businesspersons a would do everything she could to protect and enhance the Resort District and
that the hospitalit and entertainment businesses had been assured the Resort District would
continue to expan and thrive.
Judith Serafini, PI ntation Mobile Home resident, spoke in favor of Option 2, emphasizing the
Resort District ge erated millions of dollars on five percent of the land which benefited the
community as a hole.
Stan Polaski, resi ent, expressed his concern over the numbers of housing stock being developed
and the changing character of the community when density was increased, siting parking, traffic,
lack of schools a d other services. He recommended a moratorium on building and asked Council
to consider Indust ial, commercial and retail developers and to not infringe or erode land
designated for re ort uses.
Donna Mason, re ident and employee of Disneyland, strongly opposed the general plan
amendment, stati g its approval would begin the weakening of the Resort District. She stated the
property as it was currently zoned was valued at $2 million per acre and should it be rezoned to
residential would ave a much higher value up to $5 million per acre here and she did not believe
the City should s bsidize the profits of a developer.
Lisa Astikian, Hilt n Anaheim, indicated the Resort District was conceived to extend the stay of
Anaheim visitors esulting in more revenue for local government, businesses and the community
and that plan wa still working. She added tourists had put the hotel industry on notice that they
must continue to row in order to retain their business and any undeveloped land within the resort
should be used f r future attractions, hotels, restaurants and other visitor related business. She
emphasized the ilton Anaheim strongly supported the Anaheim Resort District and opposed
current proposals that would allow incompatible uses.
Paul Kott, busine s owner and resident, opposed the zone change, citing the loss of $4.6 million in
future revenue o the site.
Elaine Proko, res~dent, spoke in opposition to the general plan amendment voicing her various
concerns.
Larry Lavin, resid nt, supported Option 2 to deny the amendment indicating low cost affordable
housing was alre dy in place on the subject property.
Ron Bengoshea, resident, favored Option 2 to deny the amendments, stating he was not pro
Disney, nor anti- ffordable housing but was concerned about what would be best for Anaheim and
its residents.
Patrick Pepper, hairman of Budget Advisory Commission, provided his comments as a concerned
citizen. He belie ed government was a business competing with surrounding cities for sales tax
dollars and bed t xes. As new housing stock was added, the cost of services increased and the
April 24, 2007 - P~ge 18
City would need avenue growth to support the new services; Mr. Pepper urged support of Option
2.
Barney Conway, r sident, opposed the general plan amendment stating he was against subsidized
housing and belie ed in the American dream of rising above your lot in life through education and
becoming the bes at what you do.
Rod Heart, Clario Hotel manager, supported Option 2, remarking it was vision which set aside the
Anaheim Resort istrict with five percent of the land generating undetermined amounts of revenue
for the city coffers and he hoped Council would continue that vision.
Chris Garrett, Laf
submitted a lengtl
general plan ame
was not authorize
voluntary non-par
the fact one mem
deprive anyone o
with the most not;
amendment. He
required by State
would allow SunC
pointed out there
spoke about envi
that Disney had r
Council that the r
from those submi
have considered
am and Watkins, representing Walt Disney World Company, had earlier
y letter to Council and staff on a number of issues, which he summarized. As
dments were legislative matters, not administrative, he believed the rehearing
I. He stated that SunCal's claim that it was deprived of a fair hearing due to the
cipation of one council member had no support in the law. He further stated that
per of Council, for whatever reason, elected not to participate in a hearing did not
a fair hearing. The firm submitted numerous testimony on the environmental
ble being there was no project description to go along with the general plan
Iso pointed out the addendum failed to account for additional density bonus
aw for any project with an additional affordable housing component. This bonus
~I to add 550 housing units on top of the permitted 2,000 units. He further
vere no impact analysis for the additional 550 units and that the zoning text only
~nmental equivalency and not infrastructure equivalency. He rebutted the claim
>t met its obligation to assist in providing low income housing and warned
solutions and ordinances before them had been changed in a significant way
red at the February 13th hearing, remarking the Planning Commission should
lose changes prior to Council taking action.
Charles Ahlers, range County Visitor and Convention Bureau, indicated his organization had
taken action agai st changing the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. With competition from Los
Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Las Vegas, he emphasized the resort must adapt, grow
and change with he competition to stay vibrant. He spoke of trade shows which had placed
Anaheim on noti a that without more development including hotels, restaurants and an expanded
convention cente , it would be difficult for these large trade shows to continue in Anaheim. He
added that over t e past 12 years the TOT had almost doubled to $80 million a year and there was
no logical reason to change this asset.
Bill O'Connell op osed the amendments stating a deal had been struck between the business
owners and the ity to establish a resort district and to tax themselves for the maintenance and
upkeep in that ar a. He indicated he would be opposed whether it was a manufacturing business
or residential dev lopment because the resort had been zoned for visitor serving uses only and
urged Council to eny the amendments.
Shirley MacCr~
the Resort Disi
determined to
and residents I
expanding the
center were a
hotel owners s
themselves by
en, resident and former council person, provided background on development of
. She stated the city faced a fiscal crisis in the early 90's. Disneyland was
irade its attractions with the California Adventure and the business community
an meeting with Disney officials on their new vision. The City looked at
nvention Center but after years of fiscal problems, the bonds for the expanded
Ilenge and she reported Disney stepped up and guaranteed those bonds and
ported an increase in bed taxes. She pointed out those businesses also taxed
ming a lighting and landscape district to add facilities to upgrade the exterior
April 24, 2007 - P~ge 19
image of Harbor oulevard and Katella Avenue and as a result, the entire city of Anaheim
benefited from re ort revenues and both the City along with Disney ought to be concerned about
any change that ould reduce the projected income in the future. She added the investors in the
Anaheim Resort and many of the involved residents and voters of Anaheim were asking Council to
allow no zoning c anges that would diminish the anticipated financial return.
Larry Slagel, chaff man of the Orange County Visitors and Convention Bureau, remarking he
represented 800 embers of the resort community and they had unanimously voted to oppose
these amendmen s. He added this property was a focal point, an entry off the 5 freeway which
already contained two hotels and residential would not be a compatible use on that site.
Bill Stone, Anaheim GardenWalk developer, stated while the loss of TOT was significant under
Option 1, the loss of sales tax would have an impact on the City as well. He indicated the amount
of sales tax produced from a leisure visitor versus a resident was an 8:1 ratio or better and he did
not want to see a economic engine that drove the rest of the city be minimized.
David Helen, resi ent, opposed the amendments stating it was not about affordable housing but
was a profit maker for the developer.
Todd Ament, Ana eim Chamber of Commerce, reported the Chamber had adopted the mission to
be the broker of c mmunity solutions to create economic prosperity for the greater Anaheim area,
pointing out that rotecting the resort, the key driver of Anaheim's economy, was in line with that
mission. He add d the SOAR coalition represented a broad range of city interests from large and
small businesses to non-profit agencies to past public officials and a cross section of city residents
with one thing in ommon - to protect and preserve a way of life in Anaheim made possible by the
success of the R sort District and the revenue it generated. He added enough signatures had
been collected to put the SOAR initiative on the ballot for Anaheim residents to determine this
issue for themsel es.
With no other puk~lic input, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing.
Frank Elfend, Su Cal, stated the proposed amendments would not stop the economic engine of
Disney. He point d to the tactics used by Disney regarding a conflict of interest claim against one
of the council me ber and detailed the false premises made by signature gatherers for the
initiative. He co mented the subject property was a good residential site on the periphery of the
resort, surrounde by other residential uses.
Michael Zischke ebutted impact equivalency and density bonus impacts. He stated the impact
equivalency requ rement being carried forward from the previous negative declaration answered all
of those issues r ised. He added there was a legal question on whether the density bonus
provision applied pointing out if it did, there was still the requirement on impact equivalency to
determine the nu ber of units to be built.
Mayor Pringle a:
considered by C~
the general plan
Plan and were tf•
February 13th. T
ordinance forma
submissions in c
ced the City Attorney if previously considered items were the same items
~uncil in February. Mr. White replied the items to be considered this evening was
amendment and Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific
same items heard by the Planning Commission earlier and the City Council on
ie only difference was the proposed actions were set forth in resolution and
that had been prepared since the last hearing plus adding voluminous
der to make the action as defensible as possible.
April 24, 2007 -Page 20
Council Member Galloway asked what staff's opinion was on the comment made by Disney that
the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was inadequate. Mr. White responded his
analysis was that a general plan and specific plan amendment were being considered not a
specific development project. If the amendment was approved, any proposed project would then
return to council for consideration. He added guidelines under CEQA would allow this to be done
through the use of an addendum and to support that was the fact the development project had an
impact equivalency. He believed the environmental documents and information provided in the
staff report adequately addressed environmental concerns. Council Member Galloway asked staff
to reply to Disney's objection that the Addendum did not adequately consider the land use impact
of the proposed project. Sheri Vander Dussen responded staff believed the mitigated negative
declaration with information in the addendum adequately addressed land use impacts. Council
Member Galloway requested clarification on the Focus Site Analysis which addressed fiscal
impacts of the subject property. Jonathan Borrego responded the conclusion from that fiscal report
was that the conversion of the site to residential could potentially lose $4.5 million in lost TOT
revenues. He added according to the analysis done at that time, the impacts to the LPMR (debt
portion of the bed tax} were viewed as minimal.
Council Member Kring asked how many mobile homes were located on the site; Mr. Borrego
responded there were 262 mobile home units combined within the two parks on the site and the
City was in the process of acquiring 63 of those mobile homes for the Gene Autry Way
improvements. She asked how much of the 26 acres on this site would the City be taking for the
Gene Autry project and Mr. Borrego indicated it was slightly less than 4 acres. Council Member
Kring remarked that whether a hotel or residences were constructed on this property, the mobile
home parks would be removed.
Council Member Hernandez pointed out the Focus Site Analysis indicated a hotel would not be
built on this property for many years and to ask a property owner to put that property on ice for 50
years was not reasonable. He believed approval of the amendments would be the first step in
turning this blighted property around.
Council Member Galloway thanked everyone who spoke with passion on both sides of the issue.
She indicated her decision would take into account a number of concerns: the fact there was no
hotel nor fiscal crisis facing the city, the fact there was a real housing crisis with 5,500 families on a
3-4 year waiting list for Section 8 rental assistance, and the substandard, overcrowded housing
near the Resort area. She supported Option 1 remarking that when housing was integrated into an
area and made a part of the community, it caused people to have hope, respect and dignity and to
rise up and aspire to a better life.
Council Member Kring remarked she had carefully considered this request and tried to balance
between two competing interests. She pointed out if the amendments were approved, Council
would have the time to put parameters on any project to be considered for development on the site
and she hoped the displaced mobile home owners would be considered for the affordable housing
component. She asked for clarification on housing subsidies; Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the
way the zoning was written, SunCal was obligated to provide 15 percent affordable housing
regardless of any City subsidies but that they could apply for State and Federal funds. She talked
about the success of Hermosa Village, the Jamboree groundbreaking and how Disney's $5 million
payment (in lieu of providing 500 affordable housing units) had been actually dispersed.
Council Member Sidhu commented the Resort District had been approved based on the
construction of future hotels to generate additional revenues. He added if those hotels were not
built in Anaheim, they would be built elsewhere and that Garden Grove had already built hotels in
April 24, 2007 -Page 21
competition with Anaheim. He believed it was Council's responsibility to protect its investment and
look at the long-term goal. Council Member Kring responded that Garden Grove gave free land
and other rebates to get their hotels built and that their anticipated revenues were not being
generated.
Mayor Pringle commented that a commitment had been made by the City to preserve the Resort
District and it was his responsibility as an elected official to insure the present and future stability of
the City. He added the property owner asked to be a part of the resort area because he felt there
was an opportunity for resort-related business. He pointed out that the Resort area paid from one-
third to one-half of all City services and argued against carving out some of this property to reduce
that revenue stream. He believed there were other similar parcels in the Resort that could pose
similar projects and that this argued to the future of the City and he was prepared to stand up for it.
Council Member Hernandez moved to approve a Resolution of the City Council finding and
determining that the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration with addendum and
updated and modified mitigation monitoring plan are adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for GPA No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim*
Resort Specific Plan and to approve a Resolution of the City Council approving General Plan
Amendment No. 2006-00448 pertaining to the Land Use Element and introducing Ordinance No
6058 approving Amendment #8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, seconded by
Council Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 3: Council Members Galloway, Hernandez and
Galloway. Noes - 2; Mayor Pringle and Council Member Sidhu. Motion Carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions:
City Attorney Jack White reported Council unanimously approved an indemnification agreement
relative to existing litigation with the Walt Disney Company.
Council Communications:
Council Member Kring expressed her appreciation to volunteers who had participated in the tree
planting event held on April 21St
Adjournment:
With no other business to consider, Mayor Pringle adjourned the April 24th meeting at 12:10 A.M.
Resp c~fully submitted,
~ Linda Nguyen, Cit Cle k