Loading...
2007/08/21ANAHEIM 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 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