2007/10/23ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF
OCTOBER 23, 2007
The regular meeting of October 9, 2007 was called to order by Mayor Pringle at 3:08 P.M. in the
Chambers of Anaheim City Hall located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard
A copy of the agenda for the Anaheim City Council meeting was posted on October 19, 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 Wood, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Linda
Nguyen
CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION WORKSHOP:
Greg Smith, Convention, Sports and Entertainment department, explained in detail the history of
the Convention Center which began after Disney opened in 1955 and had enjoyed successful
tourist seasons. During the off season, tourism dropped, hotels emptied and hoteliers approached
the City on building a convention center to draw more visitors into town during non-peak times. In
1967, an arena and one 100,000 square foot exhibit hall were built, and subsequently expanded in
1972, 1983, and 1990. The last expansion was completed in 2001 which revamped the
Convention Center with a total of 813,000 square feet in four exhibit halls and remodeled meeting
rooms, all within one large facility with a quarter mile lobby across the front of the exhibit halls.
Charles Ahlers, Anaheim/Orange County Business and Visitors Bureau, discussed the current
successes of the Convention Center and the trade show growth that had occurred over the years.
He remarked there were a large number of medical organizations that had already outgrown the
facility; organizations such as the Cardiologists Association in Anaheim in 2002 to host 1,100
sessions over a four day period, with the Convention Center only able accommodate half of them.
He explained that shows such as NAM, Kraft and the Hobby Association represented 20 percent of
Anaheim's business and they had put the City on notice that continued business may be short-
lived. Their comments reflected a desire to host the convention under one roof, such as Chicago
and Orlando who could better accommodate those organizations, rather than spread out in other
cities.
Since the 1998/99 expansion, corporate America began to book the facility and enjoyed success.
Their bookings were more short term and to accommodate them, the Center had to have space
and dates available. He added the Center turned down 900 opportunities for the Convention
Center because of dates or lack of meeting space and currently the Center could not
accommodate two groups at a time. He emphasized Anaheim had more of everything that a trade
show or association needed to assure good attendance and more space would insure more
bookings.
Todd Voth, HOK, indicated that about a year ago, his firm had embarked on a physical study on
how to expand the Convention Center. He stated there was a huge potential for convention
bookings in the medical and corporate field and an expansion that would accommodate at least
another 100,000 square feet of exhibit hall, maximize the meeting area and create flexible space
configuration would allow the City to do both. One of the possible locations was the area where
the parking garage was located, another goal would be to replace and add additional parking with
connection to the existing facility. He provided drawings of the proposed expansion, both of the
October 23, 2007 -Page 2
convention exhibit halls and meeting rooms and location and size of a new parking structure.
Specific details as to the number of square feet added per floor and exhibit hall and meeting room
configuration were provided.
Mr. Voth had worked with cost consultants and the pricing documents provided to Council would
be good until the end of December, 2008. There were two categories, construction costs and soft
costs. With the 390,000 square feet of exhibit or meeting space, construction costs reflected $406
per square foot or $158,673,000. The soft costs associated with that were $62,675,000, which
included furniture, fixtures, equipment, design fees and permitting fees. The total construction and
soft cost for exhibit and meeting levels reflected $221 million. He indicated for parking levels which
totaled 434,000 square feet, the cost was $132 per square foot or $57.5 million in construction
dollars and the soft costs were $32 per square foot or $14 million for a total parking structure cost
of $71.5 million. Site work costs associated with that project figured in at $11.3 million. He
remarked for 825,000 square foot of new building space at an aggregate cost of $368.75 per
square feet plus the soft costs, reflected a total project cost of $304 million dollars.
John Kaatz, CS&L, remarked his firm assessed the proposed expansion from an independent
market review perspective. Past customers were surveyed as well as customers that Anaheim
could not accommodate and competitive destinations and comparable markets were considered.
He reported competitors had in the past and would continue in the future to invest in their product
and Los Angeles, Denver and Las Vegas had a variety of projects in planning or development
stages to attract more dollars. To maintain market share over the next 20 years, Anaheim would
need to continue to grow. He indicated Chicago had almost 2.6 million square feet of exhibit space
with Anaheim at 813,000 square feet of which 600,000+ square feet were contiguous. He pointed
out Anaheim's existing meeting space operated at a high occupancy rate other than Hall E, which
was the last to lease up. He added Hall E was very critical to the large trade shows such as NAM
and Cannon Communications. Anaheim, he emphasized, offered a competitive low amount of
meeting space and that was seen as one of the challenges in maintaining its position in the
industry.
Mayor Pringle asked how many times a hall had been used to configure into temporary meeting
space; Mr. Smith responded once or twice a year as it was a poor usage of that space due to poor
lighting and no sound insulation. Mayor Pringle asked about the option of making Hall E more
flexible with movable walls to create meeting rooms. Mr. Kaatz replied they had gone through a
detailed analysis of making Hall E swing space where it could be exhibit hall space and be
transformed into meeting room space and that opportunity had been priced out as well. The
disadvantage to that option, he pointed out, was there was no net increase in space. Mayor
Pringle inquired how many conventions over the last year had used the Marriott or Hilton meeting
room spaces and the response was that at least 20 times a year outside meeting rooms had been
used. Greg Smith remarked that leaving the exhibit hall area to go elsewhere for a meeting might
lose that attendee for the rest of the day in that exhibit hall and that was where the money was
made for the associations. Mr. Kaatz explained the expansion proposal outlined showed flexible
meeting space. The conversion of existing space into multi-purpose meeting space was not the
ideal, he commented as individual rooms needed individual climate, lighting and sound controls
and putting up movable walls to accommodate that could be difficult. Currently Anaheim had 11
percent of its total measured in meeting space, the lowest in the industry. That was important
because markets at the top of this list such as San Francisco, Boston, Phoenix, San Antonio and
San Diego were looking at expansion and these markets were very successful in the medical
industry whose business Anaheim had lost. He indicated with. Anaheim's existing space, it could
accommodate the mid-70 percent in terms of demand that wanted to come to Anaheim. It was his
opinion that Anaheim should not lose any more than 10 percent of its market share for any given
reason. He added based on the survey, meeting planners still considered Anaheim a desirable
destination, at a 64 percent positive response rate which was high. He explained markets as
strong as Las Vegas generated response rates in the low 70 percent and the reason Anaheim was
October 23, 2007 -Page 3
not getting some of the business tended to relate to the fact Anaheim was not a central location
with no members located in this coastal market. Mayor Pringle asked how the survey question was
worded to get this type of positive response rate. Mr. Kaatz responded the question was asked
assuming Anaheim had all the meeting space, exhibit space, ballroom space and hotel inventory,
could we get your business?
He indicated if Anaheim were to undertake some of the expansion parameters proposed, the
exhibit and meeting spaces would expand with the first level of construction and adding the second
level the ratio of meeting to exhibit space would increase to 27 percent and would accommodate
the medical association trade shows as well as NAM and the other growing trade shows now
booked at the Convention Center. With this expansion, more hotel rooms would be needed and he
stated that expanding hotel property to serve the Convention Center would support the larger trade
shows.
Regarding the economic impact, Mr. Kaatz emphasized it was not an option to stay still. The
current success could not be guaranteed and the City was at a crossroads to either get back into
the business or continue to go after lower-rated businesses. He discussed in generalities the
various funding options from an increase in hotel tax revenues, a prepared food and beverage tax
or admission or excise taxes, or a community facility district overlay spread to communities such as
Garden Grove.
Greg Smith ended the presentation with the following recommendations: to look into pursuing the
establishment of a new community facilities district (CFD) to include hotels outside the Anaheim
taxing limits with a $4 per room night assessment. Mayor Pringle felt this option was not allowed
under state law. After lengthy discussion on this issue, Mr. Smith responded that a possible
business improvement district rather than a CFD could be considered. The next step would be to
study the possibility of increasing the transient occupancy tax limit, and to look at working
something out with Orange County, such as rental car taxes.
City Manager Dave Morgan stated the $304 million dollar project would produce a debt service of
$20-25 million a year and the challenge would be to provide for that funding annually. He added in
this county, Anaheim had solely carried debt on its shoulders even though the benefits were
distributed countywide and in the past the bordering cities and the County had always taken a pass
on participating in the debt. He also added that the ability to raise transient occupancy tax (TOT}
would be difficult as well.
Mr. Smith stated another step to take would be to pursue apublic/private partnership for hotel
development on the Convention Center block with some minimum criteria which he outlined for
Council.
Mayor Pringle remarked that he did not believe the only way to address the need for meeting
space was to build two new halls with one floor dedicated to exhibit space and one dedicated to
meeting space. He also did not feel the connectivity issue had been addressed entirely. He was
interested in hearing the costs related to transforming Hall E and would like to hear from the hotels
on whether relying on them for meeting spaces was a benefit to them. He suggested talking to all
neighbors, not just the Hilton and Marriott to determine what was important in their future plans and
to see if the City could address compatibility with our plans. He believed a fuller assessment as to
Anaheim's future needs should be conducted with the idea if Hall E were permanently converted to
meeting space, Anaheim would move up on the comparison chart in terms of meeting rooms
available. He would also like to see one or two levels of parking on the existing parking structure,
one floor of meeting space or hall on top and leaving some capacity so that there could be some
hotel connection on top of that structure. He would also feel comfortable about contemplating
something on the back side of the Convention Center as well.
October 23, 2007 -Page 4
Council Member Sidhu had similar concerns asking for more detail on meeting room demands. He
would also like more information on converting Hall E to be used more efficiently and agreed that
the connection with the Marriott, Hilton and other neighboring properties in the planning stages for
future hotels was important, adding that working out a partnership with those hotels for meeting
rooms could be considered. Rather than adding or increasing any taxes, he suggested looking at
the assessment district, the two parking levels with meeting rooms on the third level and looking at
partnering with the private sector for funding. He asked for details on the revenue stream versus
the debt service which was paying for the more recent modifications to the center. He also
suggested a Request for Proposal (RFP) be sent, outlining the City's requirements in terms of
heights and numbers of parking spaces, to see what the private sector could come up with in
partnership with the City.
Greg Smith responded a formal study on the return of past investments could be done as well as
other benefits indirectly impacting the community as well.
Council Member Kring commented that it was her experience the medical profession met
elsewhere because there was not enough space in Anaheim for such large conferences. She was
supportive of expanding the Center so as not to lose existing tradeshows and to accommodate
larger ones although she was concerned with the estimated cost. Her preference was for a hotel
above the Convention Center and with the development of the GardenWalk, she believed Anaheim
would be considered a resort destination.
Council Member Hernandez understood the need for expansion but was uncomfortable with the
cost and unsure how the funding could be accomplished. He indicated he could be convinced and
was in support of the expansion but would like to see other scenarios which might work.
Mayor Pringle suggested determining what would bring the greatest value to the City and to also
see other plans from converting Hall E, to partnership agreements with neighboring hotels and
building connectors to those hotels. In addition to that, he would like more information on building
on the top of a parking structure or going with Requests for Proposals on the Convention Center
Parking Lot A or for any business that would be willing to build a parking structure while retaining
the revenue rights. Related to cost, he would consider looking within the resort with an
assessment district and getting resort businesses approval.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
CLOSED SESSION:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: approximate 4 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road
and Serrano Avenue, Anaheim, California
Agency negotiator: Terry Lowe
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and AquaDuks, Inc.
Under negotiation: terms
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of
Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
October 23, 2007 -Page 5
Name of case: Munoz v. Ruiz, et al., United States District Court, Case No. SACV 05-
1053 AHS.
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of
Section 54956.9 of the Government Code)
Name of case: Raiszadeh and Mahammadi v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 050000072 (and related actions and cross actions).
Council returned from closed session at 5:21 P.M.
Invocation: Rev. Dr. Victor Chayasirisobhon, First Southern Baptist Church
Flap Salute: Council Member Sidhu
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Proclaiming October 21 - 27, 2007, as National Save for Retirement Week.
Proclaiming November 6, 2007, as Veterans Day Commemorative Celebration
in Anaheim.
Proclaiming November 5 - 16, 2007, as Employees' Charities Weeks in
Anaheim.
Recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Ebell Club
Proclaiming October 2007 as National Dlsablity Employee Awareness Month
Ms. Terrell accepted recognition on behalf of the Ebell Club of Anaheim for 100 years of serving
the city.
Thanking Council for recognizing Veteran's Day, Don Baldwin invited the community to attend a
commemorative ceremony celebrating all veterans on November 6th mid-morning at the downtown
community center.
City Treasurer Henry Stern thanked Council for recognizing National Save for Retirement Week
and Employees' Charities Week in Anaheim. He informed Council he was designated as
chairperson the Employee's Charities Week and was seeking to raise funds for various charities in
Orange County.
At 5:26 P.M., Mayor Pringle called order the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Housing
Authority (in joint session with the Anaheim City Council).
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: An addition to the staff report recommendations for
Item No's. 17 and 18 had been provided to Council authorizing execution of amendments over the
next five years. Regarding public hearing Item No. 44, the applicant requested continuation of the
meeting to November 6, 2007.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all items except public hearings):
Ronald Levi, resident, proposed a resolution for debate concerning impeachment of President
George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
George, resident, offered a statement in support of affordable housing.
October 23, 2007 -Page 6
Carol Wells, Lincoln Inn resident, stated the goal of the Lincoln Inn project was not designed to
provide relocation assistance and benefits justly and explained in detail the problems she had
faced. She requested Council's assistance in providing comfortable, affordable long-term
conditions. Mayor Pringle requested the Community Development Director provide information to
Council on the various relocation programs and options available to the residents of Lincoln Inn.
Reid Royalty, Orange County Taxpayers Association, remarked that the voting residents of
Anaheim had clearly stated the resort district should be dedicated to commercial and entertainment
uses and if there was any doubt, the SOAR initiative should be placed on the ballot.
Cynthia Ward, resident, urged the SOAR initiative be placed on the ballot.
Eric Altman, Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development, stated other
destination resorts were finding ways to balance jobs and housing, and that it made more sense to
concentrate housing in the more densely developed areas such as the resort. He recommended
Council study this issue thoroughly, completely and impartially.
Alda Deseino, Local 681, requested Council study the SOAR initiative and its effects on the City's
ability to meet housing needs of all income levels.
Sharif Aboud, Council on American Islamic Relations, recommended Council conduct a complete
and impartial study before placing the SOAR initiative on the ballot.
Gloria Mejai, resident, recommended Council put the SOAR initiative on the ballot and move
forward.
Carol Reingold, resident, recommended Council study the impacts of the SOAR initiative and make
sure all the facts were available to enable voters to make the right decision.
Gail Anderson, resident, asked that the SOAR initiative be placed on the ballot remarking that the
Anaheim Resort District was American's fastest growing market for hotels and tourism and had
given so much back to the city in terms of monies, creation of jobs, beautification of streets and
neighborhoods and a vitality to the City of Anaheim.
Eric Anderson, resident, wondered if Council Member Kring's vote on this matter was a conflict of
interest as it related to her letter of intent to open a wine bar in the Gardenwalk district, near the
SunCal development. Council Member Kring reported that the Fair Political Practices Commission
had determined there was no conflict of interest which was the reason she continued to vote on
this issue.
Carolyn Yellis, resident, requested the voters be allowed to consider the SOAR initiative.
Bill La Marr, resident, urged Council to listen to the voters who had signed the SOAR initiative and
act tonight to preserve the Anaheim Resort District.
Julio Perez, resident, hoped Council would do a full study on the impacts of the SOAR initiative
and how it would affect traffic, economics, and housing.
Margaret Pascoe, spoke on behalf of SOAR supporters to preserve the resort district, stating the
business community looked forward to getting the initiative on the ballot and let the voters be
heard.
October 23, 2007 -Page 7
Frances Noteboom, resident, spoke of her background as an Irish emigre and the success she had
found in Anaheim. She requested Council place the SOAR initiative on the ballot.
Albert Bermudez announced he had initially signed the SOAR initiative and then had signed the
rescission card when he understood the facts, and asked Council to put it on the ballot for the
voters.
Paul Flannigan, Committee for Living Wage, recommended Council study the SOAR initiative
before placing it on the ballot.
Jimmy Kennedy, resident, commented on inappropriate statements made during public comments,
and urged Council to place the SOAR initiative on the ballot.
A gentleman stated Anaheim had provided more affordable housing units than any other Orange
County city and had a strategic plan in place to build more and while advocates for building in the
resort district focused on the dire need for low income housing, Anaheim continued to address that
issue.
Patrick Pepper, resident, compared tax dollars derived from the resort district to those received
from a residential area, and urged Council to place the SOAR initiative on the ballot.
Russell Maitland, esort worker, pointed out resort workers generated revenues for the businesses
in the resort and those businesses in turn should take care of the resort by a paying a living wage
or assisting with housing.
Amin David, resident, asked Council to have staff prepare a report and fully explain what was
contained in the SOAR initiative.
Martin Lopez, resident, stated there were 100 resort workers present in the audience in support of
affordable housing for working families.
Steve Goodyear, resident, spoke on the confusion surrounding the issues being debated and the
impacts on the community and spoke of his interest in a possible recall.
Juliet Morassa, resident, emphasized the resort workers were fighting to be able to live in Anaheim
and moving to another location was not a viable option for most.
Diane Singer, Committee to Defend and Protect Anaheim, hoped Disney paid prevailing wages
and gave preference for jobs to Anaheim residents and to create vocational training programs for
Anaheim youths. She added the residents deserved the right to vote on this issue.
Nathan Urdesky, resident, urged the initiative be placed on the ballot and residents resolve the
issues at the voting booth.
Mr. Allen, resident, requested the initiative be placed on the ballot.
Caesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission, stated the SOAR initiative would have an effect on the
planning policies for Anaheim and urged Council to study those impacts.
Paul Kott, resident, remarked there were two cities in the county with lower cost housing than
Anaheim, Buena Park and Stanton; all the others were higher. He asked Council to place the
initiative on the ballot.
October 23, 2007 -Page 8
Brian Freeman, resident, stated the SOAR initiative qualified for the ballot and the Orange County
Registrar had stopped counting when the correct number of signatures was met to qualify the
initiative for the ballot.
At 7:14 P.M., Mayor Pringle recessed Council session to consider the Redevelopment Agency
Agenda and the Housing Authority agenda, reconvening Council session at 7:17 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Council Member Galloway removed Item No's. 22 and
24 for further discussion, Council Member Kring removed Item No. 27, and Council Member Sidhu
removed Item No. 30. Council Member Hernandez 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 Consent
Calendar, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
MOTION: H/S Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the consent
calendar.
7. Receive and file minutes of the Library Board meeting held June 11, 2007; Workforce
B105 Investment Board meeting held June 14, 2007; Golf Commission meetings held July 26,
2007 and August 23, 2007; Parks and Recreation Commission meeting held August 22,
2007; and minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held September 6, 2007.
8. Receive and file the Investment Portfolio Report for September 2007.
D117
9. Review the need for continuing the local emergency heretofore proclaimed by the Director
B175 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.
10. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent
B180 to issue a purchase order to CDCE Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $122,565.63,
.for the purchase and installation of wireless modems in the Police Department laptop
computers.
11. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing
B180 Agent to issue a purchase order to Virco, in the amount of $221,726.87 (including tax and
freight), for 2,000 meeting room chairs and four chair hand trucks for the Convention
Center.
12. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and ratify the expedited purchase of
6180 various equipment required for the opening of the Muzeo complex.
13. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and ratify purchases totaling
B180 $64,502.42, for an electronic self ticketing system for the new Anaheim Muzeo.
14. Accept the low bid of Merrimac Energy Group, in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000, for
6180 the purchase of bio-diesel fuel for Public Works, as needed, for a period of up to 15 months
in accordance with Bid #6994.
15. Accept the low bid of Fisher Safety, in the amount of $125,895.10, for four portable
B180 chemical identification units for the Anaheim Police Department, Homeland Security Bureau
in accordance with Bid #7007.
October 23, 2007 -Page 9
16. Accept the bids of BoundTree Medical, LLC. and of R&S Northeast, LLC., in the amounts of
B180 $56,210 and $50,780 respectively ($106,990 total} for pharmaceuticals for Anaheim Police
Department Homeland Security Bureau in accordance with Bid #7008.
17. Approve an agreement with Jonathan Price Design for the design of the Anaheim
3367.8 Magazine, in an amount not to exceed $21,000.
18. Approve an agreement with Arnold Ontes Design to design graphic identity and
2996.C communication elements, in an amount not to exceed $60,000.
19. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Workforce Investment Act
4916.A Subrecipient Agreement with North Orange County Regional Occupational Program for
youth services programs through June 30, 2009.
20. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Elite Bobcat Services Inc., in the
4895 amount of $353,823.50, for the Ball Road street improvements and approve and authorize
the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
21. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, C.S. Legacy Construction, Inc., in the
4896 amount of $166,199, for the improvement of the Warner Basin Landscape and approve and
authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract
retentions.
23. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements (Escrow
4898 Instructions) with Ginger Root Commercial Properties LLC, dba Del Ray Estates, in the total
purchase amount of $50,000, for one mobile home located at 1949 South Manchester
Avenue, Space No. 1 for the Gene Autry Way (West)/l-5 Freeway HOV Interchange
Project.
25. Approve the Real Property Exchange Agreement and Right of Entry and Use Agreement
4900 with Hoang Minh Tran, Trustee, relating to vacant land on Canyon Rim Road for the Walnut
Canyon Reservoir Rehabilitation Project and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager
to execute the Right of Entry and Use Agreement and related documents.
26. Approve and authorize the Chief of Police to execute an agreement with the County of
3989.8 Orange to participate in the Federal Fiscal Year 2007 Justice Assistance Grant Program
and approve an increase in the Police Department FY 2007/08 appropriations by $79,195.
28. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute a Joint Trench
4902 Agreement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company, dba AT&T California, to facilitate joint
trench construction and cost sharing for work within Underground District No. 54
(Katella/Lewis).
29. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Planning and
4903 Development Agreement with Southern California Public Power Authority to facilitate
licensing and construction activities associated with the proposed peaking power facility
within the City.
31. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-184 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D185 CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing permit-eligible Parking District No. 1 (Anaheim Memorial
Area).
32. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D175 CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for fund for the Transportation Enhancement
October 23, 2007 -Page 10
(TE) Program under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act-
Legacy for Users for the Frontera Street/SR-91 Soundwall Landscape Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-186 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for fund for the Transportation Enhancement
(TE) Program under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act-
Legacy for Users for the Santa Ana Canyon Road Median Landscape between Quintana
Drive and Eucalyptus Drive Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for fund for the Transportation Enhancement
(TE) Program under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act-
Legacyfor Users for the Santa Ana Canyon Road Median Landscape between Quintana
Drive and Solomon Drive Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for fund for the Transportation Enhancement
(TE) Program under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act-
Legacy for Users for the Crescent Avenue Parkway Landscape Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-189 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for fund for the Transportation Enhancement
(TE) Program under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act-
Legacyfor Users for the Imperial Highway Median Landscape Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-190 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for fund for the Transportation Enhancement
(TE) Program under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act-
Legacyfor Users for the Santa Ana Canyon Road Median Landscape Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for the fund for the Transportation Development
Act (TDA) Program for the Crescent Class I Bikeway Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-192 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for the fund for the Transportation Development
Act (TDA) Program for the SR-91/SR-90 Bicycle Staging Area Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for the fund for the Transportation Development
Act (TDA) Program for the Ninth Street/Energy Field Pedestrian Signal Project.
33. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-194 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D175 CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two years
old (Public Works-Engineering).
34. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-195 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the records retention schedule for the Human Resources
Department.
35. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-196 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154 CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 92R-17 adopting personnel rules applicable
to employees in Management, Confidential and Non-Represented Part-Time employees.
October 23, 2007 -Page 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-197 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2002R-195 which adopted the Anaheim
Retirement Health Savings Plan.
36. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154.2 CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing rates of compensation for classifications assigned to the
Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Clerical Unit.
37. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-199 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154 CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution 2005R-110 which established rates of
compensation and pay policies for unrepresented event-related part-time job classifications.
38. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-200 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154.7 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Teamsters Union,
Local 952 and the City of Anaheim.
39. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-201 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
D154.1 CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal
Employees Association, General Employees and the City of Anaheim.
40. Approve minutes of the Council meeting held October 9, 2007.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
22. Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement of Tract No. 16545 with California Cove
4897 at Anaheim Hills LLC, relating to property located at 6740 - 6799 E. Avenida De Santiago.
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported the tract map addressed the lot split for the
development at the end of Avenida De Santiago. The tentative tract map was approved by Council
several years ago, she remarked, and the property had changed hands. The new developer was
working with staff on their grading plan related to the impermeable layer necessary for that site and
staff indicated it was in conformance and recommended approval. Council Member Galloway
asked why the final map had taken so long for approval. Ms. Meeks responded the property owner
who had filed the tentative map chose not to develop the property and it was on the market for
some time before it sold. She explained the new property owner had been working with staff since
the beginning of the year to get required geotechnical studies completed and had developed new
concepts on how to handle the impermeable layer. The developer had been working with the
City's on-call geologist to ensure those concepts were appropriate and the geotechnical reports
had also been reviewed by the geologist for the Geological Hazard Abatement District that
maintained the landslide area and the dewatering pumps in that area. Council Member Galloway
asked if staff had been working with the neighbors on this issue as well and Ms. Meeks replied
there had been a public hearing for the grading plan itself and staff had received input from the
neighbors and had also worked closely with their geotechnical firm.
Council Member Galloway moved to approve Item No. 22, seconded by Council Member
Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez,
Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
24. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements (Escrow
4899 Instructions) with Mary K. Smith, in the total purchase amount of $32,520, for one mobile
home unit located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 15 for the Gene Autry Way
(West)/l-5 Freeway HOV Interchange Project.
October 23, 2007 -Page 12
Natalie Meeks reported Item No. 24 was for acquisition of another one of the mobile homes within
the Gene Autry right-of-way, explaining the City had been acquiring mobile homes in that area for
some time. Because the City had been working on project funding, no steps had been taken to
force residents out and the City had been acquiring mobile homes when residents were ready to
move and had found other housing. In this particular case, the owner was ready to sell their
mobile home. Council Member Galloway asked if they had come to the City in this instance or if
the City had come to them. Ms. Meeks stated the City had made an offer on all the individually
owned mobile homes to buy them from their owners over two years ago and over that period of
time, the City had been buying the homes as those residents were ready to move. All had been
provided relocation benefits, moving expenses, rent differential if they were renters and cost
differentials if they were buying a new mobile home.
Council Member Galloway moved to approve Item No. 24, seconded by Council Member Kring.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu.
Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
27. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an agreement with
4901 the MUZEO Foundation, in an amount not to exceed $151,000 over a three year period, to
allow sponsorship and advertising by Anaheim Public Utilities at the Muzeo.
Council Member Kring complemented the Utilities Department for their sponsorship of the Muzeo
which would provide membership to all elementary and high school students that attend Anaheim
schools. Council Member Kring moved to approve Item No. 27, seconded by Council Member
Hernandez. Mayor Pringle believed this was an important step in the goal to raise $3 million in
three years for operational costs and with this gift from the Utilities Department; $2.2 million had
been raised so far by the Muzeo Foundation within a nine month period. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5;
Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion
Carried.
30. Certify that the proposed modifications of the City's Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations
D182 are statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource
Code, Section 21080(b)(8), in accordance with Title 14 of the California Administrative
Code, Section 15273(a).
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM modifying the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution
of electricity as adopted by Resolution No. 71-478 and most recently amended by
Resolution No. 2007-130.
Marcie Edwards, General Manager, reported the Utilities Department provided benefits to its
customers in the form of an electric rate advantage of roughly 20 to 40 percent when compared to
rates paid by the vast majority of other southern Californians. She emphasized the Department
had managed without any electric base rate adjustments for about 14 years. While cost
containment measures had been implemented, the Utilities Department had been impacted by
major changes in the California market as well as the legislative and regulatory environments.
These shifts had, she remarked, and would continue to put long-term cost pressure on the
Department that could not be covered under current rates.
Ms. Edwards explained the requested electric rates would be increased five percent this year and
five percent next year. By the end of 2008, these increases would equate to roughly $6 per month
for an average residential customer. Approval of this recommendation now, she commented,
would insure Public Utilities would be able to take further action to comply with State legislation
mandating the reduction of greenhouse gases and maintain AA- credit rating which saved
October 23, 2007 -Page 13
ratepayers through reduced interest expense and also continued to modernize and upgrade the
electrical system to insure customers continue to receive reliable electric service. She noted the
Anaheim Public Utilities Board analyzed this issue in depth, held public hearings and unanimously
supported this recommendation to the City Council.
Council Member Sidhu remarked that he felt this increase was too steep and would not support it.
Mayor Pringle remarked this rate increase was a step not taken lightly and had not been done in
14 years, even through the challenges of deregulation issues and the power shortages in 2000/01.
He emphasized one of the City's challenges was to buy the right type of power mandated by State
law, which meant in some cases the City would be buying more expensive power. Even though
the largest percentage of Anaheim's power portfolio came from long term smart investments in coal
burning plants in Utah, State law imposed carbon limitation requirements which would have an on-
going impact on the Department as well as to require renewable energy uses such as wind or
solar, which costs more. He explained Public Utilities staff had done everything possible to avoid
raising rates over the last ten years, but it was now necessary and he felt comfortable taking this
step to raise rates.
Council Member Hernandez understood the need to raise rates and would support this
recommendation and urged residents to ask for a summary document on why this rate increase
was long overdue.
Council Member Kring was also supportive of the rate increase, pointing out that Southern
California Edison was slated to have a 14 percent rate increase in January and Anaheim would still
be significantly lower than surrounding areas.
Council Member Galloway understood that for so long the Utility Department did everything they
could not to increase rates and was also supportive of taking this action.
Council Member Kring moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2007-183 OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM modifying the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electricity as
adopted by Resolution No. 71-478 and most recently amended by Resolution No. 2007-130;
seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council
Members: Galloway, Hernandez, and Kring. Noes - 1, Council Member Sidhu. Motion Carried.
41. INITIATIVE PETITION SUBMITTED BY "SAVE OUR ANAHEIM RESORT (SOAR)" to
C410 amend the Anaheim General Plan, Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Anaheim Zoning
Code relating to property within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan and Hotel Circle Specific Plan (collectively the "Anaheim Resort area"). The
Initiative would limit the land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the Anaheim
Resort area to only those
uses which were authorized as of March 19, 2007, and would provide further that
the boundaries of each of the aforesaid specific plans and the Anaheim Resort area would
be those boundaries in effect on March 19, 2007. Residential development would be
prohibited without environmental and economic analyses, City Council approval, and voter
approval at a city election except (i) residential uses integrated into full-service hotels
having at least 300 rooms would be permitted in limited areas of the Anaheim Resort as
provided in the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay in effect as of March 19, 2007, and (ii)
such uses as permitted by the Mobile Home Park Overlay in effect as of March 19, 2007.
Action by the City Council shall include adoption of one or more of the following alternative
ordinances or resolutions and shall include approval fo increase the City Clerk's fiscal year
2007/08 budget by $88,447.60:
October 23, 2007 -Page 14
A. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, adopting an initiative measure pursuant to
the provisions of Section 1303 of the Anaheim City Charter and Section 9214 of the
Elections Code of the State of California generally prohibiting residential
development within the Anaheim Resort without environmental and economic
analyses, City Council approval, and city voter approval at a city election.
or
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-202 A RESOLUTION OF THE CY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission to the qualified
electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure generally prohibiting residential
development within the Anaheim Resort without environmental and economic
analyses, City Council approval, and city voter approval at a city election, at the
special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, as called by City
Council Resolution No. 2007-161.
or
C. 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, , 2008, for the
submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim of an initiative measure
generally prohibiting residential development within the Anaheim. Resort without
environmental and economic analyses, City Council approval, and city voter
approval at a city election; (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).
In the event fhe City Council adopts Resolution 8 or C 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.
D. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-203 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, setting priorities for filing written arguments
regarding an initiative measure to be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of
Anaheim at the special municipal election to be held in said City on Tuesday, June
3, 2008, and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of such
initiative measure.
and
E. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-204 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for an initiative measure to be submitted to the qualified electors of the
City of Anaheim at the special municipal election to be held in said City on Tuesday,
June 3, 2008.
or
F. MOTION Directing the City staff to prepare a report pursuant to Section
9212 of the Elections Code on the effect of the proposed initiative measure and
specifying the subjects to be contained in said report.
Council Member Sidhu moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2007-202 OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim
an initiative measure generally prohibiting residential development within the Anaheim Resort
October 23, 2007 -Page 15
without environmental and economic analyses, City Council approval, and city voter approval at a
city election, at the special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, as called by
City Council Resolution No. 2007-161, seconded by Council Member Kring. Council Member Kring
remarked she had hoped a compromise from Disney and SunCal could have been worked out but
that she would accept the signatures gathered by SOAR to place this initiative on the ballot.
Council Member Galloway believed it was important to have the voices on both sides of this issue
be heard in a respectful manner. She added that twenty years ago, it was easier to find safe and
stable and permanent housing for the working people without any subsidies but the reality was it
was not possible in today's world. Council Member Hernandez stated he had made his mind up
when he was advised the initiative qualified for the ballot and would support this motion.
Mayor Pringle pointed out that every member of this Council had voted for Anaheim's General Plan
which called out zoning for residential homes. He noted Anaheim had 102,000 residential units
and of those more than 52,000 were apartments. That 52,000 figure did not include mobile home
units, condos or rental homes. He added Anaheim was one of the few cities in California being
recognized by the state for completely fulfilling the obligation to address long-term housing needs
by finding areas for affordable housing locations and taking action to move forward with an
aggressive affordable housing plan where over 1400 additional units are under development or
specific planning. He added these were tough issues and would be addressed when the SOAR
initiative was put before the voters.
Roll call vote: Ayes - 4: Mayor Pringle and Council Members: Kring, Hernandez and Galloway.
Noes - 1: Council Member Galloway. Motion Carried.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-203 OFTHE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, setting priorities for filing written arguments regarding an initiative
measure to be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim at the special municipal
election to be held in said City on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, and directing the City Attorney to
prepare an impartial analysis of such initiative measure and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
204 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for
an initiative measure to be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim at the special
municipal election to be held in said City on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, seconded by Council Member
Kring. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and
Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
42. This is a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution for issuance of bonds by the
D155 Anaheim Housing Authority for the Bel'Age Manor.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
approving the issuance of bonds by the Anaheim Housing Authority for the Bel'Age Manor.
Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Directed, remarked this public hearing was a
requirement under federal law when tax exempt financing for housing was being considered. Item
No. 42 had been reviewed by the Housing Authority on September 25~h with a resolution of intent to
issue bonds for this project which was an existing senior project that had some affordable units,
which would be expiring in 2020. By considering the possibility of the Housing Authority issuing
these tax exempt bonds, the developer would be willing to make the entire project affordable to low
and very low incomes and extend that expiration date for 99 years. Mayor Pringle asked if the
City was serving as the agent to refinance and by financing under tax exempt bonds, was there
any cost to the Housing Authority. Ms. Stipkovich replied the Housing Authority paid nothing for
the refinancing and would get a fee of 1/8 of one percent. This fee was to provide for the Authority
October 23, 2007 -Page 16
to monitor the project for as long as the bonds were outstanding and would get the same fee on an
annual basis. She added, this action would not approve the financing but was required because
the Agency was considering the issuance of tax exempt bonds.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and receiving no testimony, closed the hearing.
Council Member Kring moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2007-205 OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 approving the
issuance of bonds by the Anaheim Housing Authority for the Bel'Age Manor, seconded by Council
Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway,
Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
43. This is a public hearing to consider the financing for Republic Services, Inc. or its affiliates.
4911
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving, authorizing, and directing execution of a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, and approving
the issuance of revenue bonds by the Authority for the purpose of financing or refinancing
the acquisition, construction and improvement of certain facilities for the benefit of
Republic Services, Inc.
Bill Sweeney, Finance Director, explained this hearing was also required by federal tax law as
debt would be issued by California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) on behalf of Republic
Industries. The hearing was to allow the public to comment on the use of tax exempt bonds and
this was one of several hearing across the state related to this issue. He indicated there was a
total aggregate amount of $55 million of which approximately $13 million would be used for
Anaheim related projects. He indicated there were two recommendations before Council, the first
was to join the Joint Powers Agreement and the second was to then approve the issuance of
bonds in the aggregate amount and the net amount, which was a requirement of the federal tax
code. Dave Morgan reported this action would come back to the city as a lower overall customer
cost to residents through the use of tax exempt bonds so there was a reason for the City to
participate in this action.
Council Member Sidhu asked why the City would get involved in a private entity. Mr. Sweeney
responded under tax law code, a private entity was allowed to issue tax exempt debt because of
the public interest involved and the hearing was a requirement that the public have an opportunity
to speak for or against the use of tax exempt bonds.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and receiving no testimony, closed the hearing.
Council Member Sidhu moved to approve RESOLUTION No. 207-206 OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving, authorizing and directing execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, and approving the issuance of
revenue bonds by the Authority for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition,
construction and improvement of certain facilities for the benefit of Republic Services, Inc.,
seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members:
Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
44. Applicant requests continuance to November 6, 2007.
C410
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2007-00455
October 23, 2007 -Page 17
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00198
OWNER: La Vue LLC, 30622 La Vue Street, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
AGENT: Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh, 30622 La Vue Street, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
LOCATION: 1556 West Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 0.78-acre, having a
frontage of 130 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and is located 170 feet west of the
centerline of Bayless Street.
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00455 -Request to amend the land use element map
of the General Plan redesignating the property from the General Commercial designation
to the Low-Medium* Density Residential designation.
Reclassification No. 2007-00198 -Request reclassification of the subject property from
the T (Transition) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05200 -Request to construct a 14-unit attached
residential planned unit development with modification to development standards and
waiver of setback between buildings and improvement of private street.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17116 - To establish a 1-lot, 14-unit airspace attached
residential condominium subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CEQA Negative Declaration approved (Vote: 6-0; Commissioner Karaki absent).
Recommended City Council Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00455
(PC2007-89).
Reclassification No. 2007-00198 granted (PC2007-90).
Waiver of Code Requirement, approved, in part.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05200 granted, as amended (PC2007-91).
Tentative Tract Map No. 17116 approved.
(Planning Commission Meeting of August 6, 2007).
(Continued from the Council meeting of September 25, 2007, Item #35).
MOTION: CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007 00455, pertaining to the
Land Use Element.
ORDINANCE NO. (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. 2007-00198).
Item No. 44 confinued to November 6, 2007.
45. CEQA EIR NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED)
C330 FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00007
DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA 5 (MIS2007-00204)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17102
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0.2007-00003
OWNER: Irvine Land Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: John Sherwood, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center
Drive, Newport Beach, CA 90660
LOCATION: Property is approximately 291-acre portion of the Mountain Park Specific
Plan located east and southeast of the southern terminus of Gypsum Canyon Road, and
bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway.
Final Site Plan No. 2007-00007 -Review and approval of a final site plan for
Development Area 5 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
Development Area Plan for Development Area 5 (MIS2007-00204) -Review and
approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Area 5 of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17102 - To establish 153 single-family detached lots, 8 Large-
Lots for a maximum of 617 single-family detached cluster units and 13 Large-Lots for a
October 23, 2007 -Page 18
maximum of 825 single-family attached units, a public water reservoir, three private parks
and associated streets and landscaping.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2007-00003 -Review and approval of a specimen
tree removal permit to remove 53 trees as part of the Mountain Park Master Specimen
Tree Removal Permit.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Previously approved EIR No. 331 and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2007-00003
approved; VOTE: 5-0 Commissioner Agarwal abstained and Chairman Buffa absent.
Final Site Plan No. 2007-00007, Development Area Plan-Area 5 and Tentative Tract Map
No. 17102, with added condition of approval all approved: VOTE: 3-1; Commissioner
Eastman voted no, Commissioners Agarwal and Karaki abstained, and Chairman Buffa
absent.
(Planning Commission meeting of August 20, 2007).
(Appealed by Dennis Troesh on behalf of RRM Properties, Ltd).
MOTION: PK EIR NO. 331.
MOTION: PK FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00007.
MOTION: PK DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN, AREA 5 (MIS2007-00204).
MOTION: PK TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17102.
MOTION: PK SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2007-00003.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported the Planning Commission had approved the
Irvine Company's request for plans to construct 1,595 homes, three private parks and a water
reservoir in Development Area 5 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan on August 20, 2007. This
approval, she explained, had been appealed by Dennis Troesh on behalf of RRM Properties, the
owner of an adjacent parcel.
Mr. Troesh stated the project failed to include a proper connection from Gypsum Canyon Road
through Mountain Park property into an adjoining 15-acre parcel owned by the appellant
(Robertson's parcel). He also contended the project's actions were inconsistent with the City's
General Plan, the Mountain Park Specific Plan, the City's zoning and subdivision ordinance and
the environmental review was inadequate as well and requested Council deny the project's actions
or grant them with a condition requiring Irvine Company to provide a roadway connection from
Gypsum Canyon Road through Development Area 5 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. He also
requested the developer grant easements for ingress and egress and underground utility purposes
for the benefit of his parcel.
Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the appellant had leased Development Area 5 for mining operations
until 2006. Prior to 1996, the mining operations had encroached into 15 acres of the adjacent
Cypress Canyon Specific Plan which resulted in a law suit between the mine operator and the
owner of the disturbed property. Part of their settlement agreement, she remarked, included the
acquisition of this 15 acre parcel by the mine operator and access to this parcel was provided by
planned roads in the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan. Subsequently, the State of California
purchased all of the property in that Cypress Canyon Specific Plan for open space uses except for
the Robertson's parcel and as a result of this purchase, an access easement was provided from
the Robertson's parcel to Coal Canyon Road and the 91 freeway interchange. This interchange
was then closed, however the Robertson's parcel retained the access easement. In 2004, she
explained, the portion of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan that was purchased by the state was
designated and rezoned for open space uses as part of Anaheim's general plan update while the
Robertson's parcel was zoned and designated for multiple family residential uses allowing the
same number of units that were permitted when the property was within the Cypress Canyon
Specific Plan. In 2005, Council approved the Mountain Park Specific Plan to allow for
development up to 2,500 homes in a gated community with private streets. This specific plan also
included a fire station, an elementary school, public and private parks and trails and open space in
October 23, 2007 -Page 19
seven development areas. In connection with the specific plan approval, Council had determined
that the environmental impact report prepared for the project was the appropriate environmental
documentation to implement the plan. The Irvine Company was required to submit more detailed
plans prior to beginning construction on the site and was now requesting approval of subdivision
plans as required under this specific plan. At the Planning Commission meeting, the appellant
requested that the project be conditioned to provide two stub roads, an ingress/egress and utility
easements to the Robertson's parcel. Ms. Vander Dussen stated staff could not identify a
reasonable relationship between the proposed Mountain Park Development and the requested
condition of approval nor legal justification to require the applicant to provide the requested
easements. The Robertson's parcel did not currently have access through the Mountain Park site,
she commented and neither the general plan nor the specific plan required a roadway connection
to the Robertson's parcel from Gypsum Canyon Road through the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
She added the Robertson's parcel was not landlocked and it had a legal access easement to the
former Coal Canyon Road and 91 freeway interchange, pointing out the Mountain Park
development did not effect this access easement. With no nexus identified which would have
required the requested road and easements, staff still worked with the Irvine Company on a design
that would not eliminate the possibility of future road and easement connections to the Robertson's
parcel. She pointed out the tentative map showed sewer, water and storm drain easements that
extended to the property line abutting the Robertson's parcels and that the private streets could be
extended in the future in the event the property owners reach an agreement. She ended her
presentation explaining staff had reviewed the project and found it was consistent with the General
Plan and the specific plan as well as any City requirements as well as the previously certified EIR
and recommended Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
Brian Austin, Irvine Community Development Company and project manager for Mountain Park,
remarked this was the third tentative map and his company was progressing with refining plans
and moving forward. He indicated he had worked with staff on this project for some time and was
in agreement with conditions imposed and was ready to move forward.
Ed Perez, EP Development representing RRM, announced he had presented details of 106 items
of communication between RRM and the Irvine Company at the Planning Commission meeting in
August. In his slide presentation to Council, showing the only access road left to RRM, he stated it
would be challenging to construct in the sensitive lands of the state park. He asked Council for
fairness indicating their options could be to deny the project, approve it subject to access
conditions or to continue the hearing on the tract map for 180 days to allow staff and the two
property owners to further study the feasibility of an access condition.
John Henning, Esq. representing RRM, remarked that the sewer, storm drain and water easements
had been granted access by Irvine Company and wondered why the road access could not be
granted as well. He believed there was a nexus or direct connection between the access condition
RRM requested and legitimate public purposes in allowing lot owners of the Robertson's parcel to
leave that development without having to travel several miles to go around the state park area. He
added this would not be a significant traffic impact on the Irvine Development which would be at
the most 100 individual residential units. A draft condition had been proposed and was part of the
packet of information provided to Council that the access easement be granted contingent on RRM
granting a reciprocal easement to Irvine company parcels and recording a covenant in their deed
that if an easement was granted it would not take effect unless and until RRM recorded a covenant
to pay fair share of the costs of all of the infrastructure that Irvine Company was building to bring
those things up to our parcel. He reiterated that RRM expected to pay in the millions of dollars for
their fair share and was willing to leave the interpretation of that figure up to the City or the courts.
He explained RRM believed if the tentative tract map was approved tonight without an access for
RRM through Gypsum Canyon Road, there would be no incentive for Irvine to do so in the future
October 23, 2007 -Page 20
and his client's property would be essentially landlocked. He added Council could continue this
matter while they review the dispute over the respective legal positions and allow the parties to
come to a resolution.
Rich Robertson, appellant, remarked his company had mined on that property for years through a
lease with the Irvine Company and when their specific plan was approved, he was still negotiating.
Irvine gave them a contract, however, the wording was "we may give you access" which was not
acceptable to Mr. Robertson. He indicated the Irvine Company's position was if RRM voiced
concerns at the public hearing or appealed the project, they would no longer discuss the issue. He
remarked that should Council approve the access condition, RRM would have no problem catching
up to the Irvine Company in order to do the projects concurrently and not impact their
development. He added the Irvine Company was turning down $6 million for RRM's fair share of
the access, making his property landlocked and worth less in the future.
Sonya Greywall, resident, stated she was here at the last minute because she was unaware that
RRM had access granted through a state park and she was concerned that this sensitive park land
could have a road built through it. She had spoken to California State Park staff and Caltrans who
were unaware that access had been granted through this park. She requested this hearing be
continued to allow California State Park staff and the Department of Fish and Game staff to have
an opportunity to provide input.
Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing, with no other oral comments offered.
Rich Robertson stated the easement through the state park was given to RRM by the previous
owners, not by the State of California. He added he had talked to the state about the possibility of
using access through the park and was told of the challenges that would entail. He added the
State of California had purchased the parcels to close off the whole area so it could not be
disturbed by development.
Dan Miller, Irvine Company, remarked these issues were brought up at the Planning Commission
level and that this issue was one between two private property owners and should be left to the
private sector to .deal with. He added the Irvine Company was not preventing them access as
RRM had access today through the state park. He emphasized RRM wanted additional access
and added that the Mountain Park project went through years of public process, many community
meetings and public hearings and had spent a lot of time with staff and the community working on
creating this project. He noted what was reflected in the tract map was what this community
wanted to see developed and the tract map would not change that. He indicated the reason there
was no agreement with RRM was because Irvine had to have ultimate flexibility and they did not
know whaf was planned by RRM, what the EIR implications were, as well as issues such as
habitat, and access. Without knowing that information, the Irvine Company could not commit. He
stated when RRM goes through the City project process, and then the Irvine Company could weigh
in and have those discussions. He also stated the Irvine Company did not know what the fair
share would be years from know, nor what their plans were and could not commit to anything today
until RRM's plan was understood. He indicated Irvine Company was trying to be fair from the
standpoint of protecting their investment and interest and commitment to the community on this
project and this was a business deal between two private property owners and if there was a
business advantage for both parties, a deal could be made.
Council Member Hernandez asked for clarification from staff on the easement granted through the
state park. Ms. Meeks responded there was an access easement indicated on the map but she
had no information as to whether it was buildable since no application had been submitted. Ms.
Vander Dussen added she understood there was an easement to be able to build the road but
RRM had not submitted any work to determine the feasibility of it. Council Member Hernandez
asked if a project was submitted and the City found that the road was not buildable through state
October 23, 2007 -Page 21
park land, what would happen next. Jack White, City Attorney, responded whatever access RRM
had, they had it before the Mountain Park project was proposed and they would have it after the
Mountain Park property was developed. He indicated that even if access through the Mountain
Park property was given, that would not affect the access they have through the State Park. He
added RRM bought the property with that access, knowing what the access was and Council had
to deal with the issue of nexus which was incorporated as part of the record of tonight's meeting.
The issue, he stated, was whether the requirement that the Irvine Company dedicate these
easements to Robertson's was a result or was reasonably required as a result of the development
of the Irvine Company's property, not because it would be more convenient to Robertson or it may
even be their only access. The question was is there something inherent in the project the Irvine
Company was proposing in this subdivision that required this dedication. The City Attorney, Jack
White, stated it would not and the City's legal position was there was no nexus because the access
was not being affected by this development.
Council Member Galloway remarked that it was not fair to landlock the property owner and at the
very least, this matter should be continued to allow for an agreement between the two private
parties.
Mayor Pringle stated he was not interested in stepping between two private property owners and
force an agreement and wished this issue had been discussed at the time the project was
proposed. He added the Irvine Company had been working on this project for ten years or more,
the City had approved it and then moved to approve EIR No. 331, to approve Final Site Plan No.
2007-00007, to approve Development Area Plan, Area 5, to approve Tentative Tract Map No.
17102 and to approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2007-00003, seconded by Council
Member Kring.
Council Member Galloway offered a substitute motion to continue this matter for 180 days and with
no second offered, this substitute motion failed.
Council Member Kring indicated she would support the Planning Commission recommendation
and hoped RRM would go through the process for development of his site in the future and discuss
access with Irvine Company at that time.
Council Member Sidhu stated he would also support the Planning Commission's recommendation
and urged the two parties to continue to negotiation.
Council Member Hernandez remarked that per the City's legal staff's opinion, he would concur with
the motion to approve.
Roll Call vote: Ayes - 4: Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Kring, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes -
1: Council Member Galloway. Motion Carried
Report on Closed Session Actions: None
Council Communications:
Council Member Hernandez reported on his recent visit to Solano Beach related to a mag lev
provider, General Atomics.
Council Member Galloway toured the City's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) which was in
operation due to the Southern California wild fires. She was impressed with the technology,
experience and abilities demonstrated at the EOC and thanked staff for their dedication to public
safety.
October 23, 2007 -Page 22
Council Member Kring reported on the high cost of graffiti removal, stating CALTRANS spent over
$30 million last year dealing with that issue which left fewer funds available to maintain roads and
highways. She requested the City Attorney to communicate with District Attorney Tony
Rackauckas related to the creation of a community-based panel set up to adjudicate taggers and
making parents responsible for graffiti cleanup. She also announced receiving a letter from the
Committee to Defend and Protect Anaheim stating the Committee was going to collect signatures
to place the Anaheim Voter Empowerment Initiative (AVE) on the ballot and moved to rescind
Council's earlier direction to staff relating to the preparation of documents for placing the AVE
initiative on a City ballot, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor
Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried.
Council Member Sidhu sent his thoughts and prayers to families affected by the wildfires in
southern California.
Mayor Pringle remarked the Anaheim Fire Department was in the field monitoring and responding
immediately to problems and providing assistance to other areas as part of the fire network in
southern California.
Upcoming events included the ARTIC conference next Monday at the Honda Center. He
explained the City was soliciting private sector partners who may want to operate components of
ARTIC or develop shopping centers on the ground floor. He indicated over 250 parties had
registered for this important event. Anaheim was also hosting the next generation of emerging
business centers on November 15th to determine where Anaheim needs to position itself and
where businesses in Anaheim should be focused and how to expand high paying jobs in the City.
The Golden Guardian event scheduled for November 14th would find the largest concentration of
homeland security responders providing demonstrations on emergency response techniques.
Adjournment:
With the consent of Council, Mayor Pringle adjourned the October 23~d meeting at 9:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Nguyen, Cit rk