08/04/2015ANAHEIM CIN COUNCIL REGULAR AND
REGULAR AJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2015
The regular meeting of August 4, 2015 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:00
P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of August 4, 2015 was called to order
at 4:02 P.M. in the chambers of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard.
The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on July 31, 2015.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Jordan Brandman, Lucille Kring, and
James Vanderbilt. Council Member Murray joined the dais at 4:18 P.M.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Paul Emery, City Attorney Michael Houston and City Clerk
Linda Andal.
WORKSHOP — PARKING PERMITS
Public Works Director Natalie Meeks stated that per Council's request, the presentation on
permit parking would cover a historical perspective, various parking issues, and information
about other municipalities' response to parking problems, as well as how to handle requests
from multi -family neighborhoods.
Parking Issues: The complaints the department had received were as follows:
• No street parking near home;
• Strangers parking in neighborhood with no sense of ownership for the community;
• Trash cans moved and often not picked up;
• Illegal activities;
• Driveways often blocked;
• Confrontations resulting from any of the above issues;
• Inconsistent with Anaheim's Hi Neighbor policy, and
• Why does the city allow so many apartments, why doesn't the city control this problem, and
why does the city approve buildings with so little parking?
Solutions Currently Offered: Staff met with the neighborhood residents requesting assistance
and offered them the following options:
• 72 hour parking ordinance, an option that was difficult to enforce and generally not viable
for neighborhoods as vehicles were often gone by the time 72 hours passed.
• Time Limited Parking with 2 hour parking working well during the day, no overnight parking
(including residents), and permit parking on a 24 hour/7 day a week basis, or from midnight
to 6 A.M.
Permit Parking History: Ms. Meeks reported the first parking district was established in 1980
as a result of the Anaheim Convention Center, when parking spillover occurred after the
Convention Center began charging for parking. The issue then moved to various areas around
the Resort with visitors parking in neighborhoods when visiting Disneyland. She added, the
permit process grew but had some problems with duplication of permits (hang tags at this time)
with a black market selling the hang tags. In 2004, a moratorium was placed on permit parking
to study the issue and come up with better options and for those few years, there were no
additional permit parking areas.
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 2 of 27
In 2007, staff implemented the new permit parking program that limited the number of permits to
three per household, changed from hang tags to stickers to reduce counterfeiting, and
implemented a $60 fee for a 2 year permit. Staff was later asked to revisit that fee to see if the
cost could be reduced and in 2010, the fee was reduced to $30, which only covered staff time
for issuing the permits. Mayor Tait asked if there had been a rise in applications as a result of
the reduced fee with Ms. Meeks responding that the cost of the permits did not appear to affect
requests. The process at that time included two steps, the first was to create a parking district.
This step allowed staff to look at the issue holistically, with each street voting on whether they
wanted to implement the permit parking; i.e. the second step in the process. There were also
certain approval rates that had to be met, including requiring a 30 percent response rate with a
2/3 support of the neighborhood to implement permits.
In 2015, staff revised the approval rate, as they felt it was too easy to have a small group in a
neighborhood implement permit parking when the majority did not want it. As a result of a
successful 12 month test program, those rates were changed to 75 percent of total homes and if
someone did not vote, it was counted as a no vote rather than not counting it at all. Further, the
permits were assigned to specific vehicles to help staff control management of this program.
Comparison to Other Cities: Ms. Meeks reported staff researched 38 different cities, similar in
size, age, and dynamics (i.e., densities). She added, staff also looked at every other Orange
County city to see what they were doing, particularly North Orange County, an area with the
same concerns as Anaheim. The survey showed that 65 percent of cities had permit parking
programs similar to Anaheim's, 25 percent had no overnight parking citywide but if someone
wished to park on a street at night, a permit was needed and programs were available to get
such a permit. Garden Grove, Downey, and Westminster issued no parking permits; however
they did receive multiple requests from their residents. In cities with permit parking programs,
Long Beach and Orange had a fee for a parking study and full cost recovery. Some offered free
permits, some charged high permit fees for more than one or two per house, and some used
hang tags rather than stickers. She added, some cities also required 67 to 75 percent support
rate via a petition rather than a survey or vote. She noted in Anaheim's process, the city mailed
a ballot to ensure the correct resident was voting and that the city received one vote per each
household. In general, she remarked, most of the programs were similar to Anaheim's.
For cities that had restricted overnight parking, they either granted exemptions to certain streets
or neighborhoods or offered overnight parking permits. Most of those ordinances, Ms. Meeks
remarked, had been adopted decades ago, some as early as the 1920's and 1930's, most in the
1950 to 1970 time period. Staff believed this was not a viable alternative for an already
developed city.
Anaheim's Current Parking Permit Prouram: Anaheim currently had 39 different parking
districts, with about 3,000 properties involved. Those on the east end were few and most were
located on the west end of the city and near generators, such as hospitals, schools, parks,
churches, and businesses. She reported, in 2007 there was a significant increase because of
the three year moratorium and in 2015, it continued to grow exponentially. She added the
neighborhoods that used permits gave positive feedback to the city. She also pointed out the
city did not recover its costs for this program to ensure it was available to all neighborhoods, not
just those that could afford it. She provided the process took approximately 100 staff hours. In
general, staff believed the program was working well and the neighborhoods participating were
satisfied.
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 3 of 27
Potential Strearnlining Strategies: n an effort to reduce the number of petitions, Ms. Meeks
recommended increasing the petition signatures from five to ten to get more buy -in from
neighbors before the process began. In addition, a parking study to confirm a problem existed
could be implemented, adding that Long Beach and Orange required a parking count to
determine if the street was 74 percent fully parked on multiple days in a row. A study would
range from $600 to $700 to allow for a few days of parking counts to verify any parking issue.
Staff also wished to reduce the number of surveys now required, as the two-step process was
not customer -friendly. With this, it was recommended to use a request from one street, rather
than creating a permit parking district, and going with a single vote. Another recommendation
was to increase the number of permits allowed per household from three to five, as streets that
now had permit parking generally had plenty of parking available. For guest parking, Ms. Meeks
noted the recommendation was to increase those from 60 per year to 100 per year to allow
residents to have events during the year. In addition, staff was recommending a one transfer
per year at $15 rather than unlimited transfers and if a resident moved, the permit must be
canceled.
Multi -Family Neighborhood Requests: Ms. Meeks reported the city was starting to get
requests from multi -family neighborhoods.
Surveying other cities, staff found that 1/3 of the cities allowed permit parking in multi -family
areas, some limited it to duplexes or 4-plexes but the reality was there was not enough street
parking to accommodate residents and the issue was not resolved. A resident may have a
permit but still have no place to park, but at least the apartment residents from the next block
over were not parking in the neighborhood. In Brea, the number of permits issued varied based
on assigned spaces versus registered vehicles at that address. In Orange, a duplex could get
four permits per unit, in Santa Ana, only one permit per unit was given, and in Alhambra and
Glendale, one permit per registered vehicle was provided. She noted that in a number of other
cities, permits were given for vehicles minus the assigned spaces, providing the following
example - if there were four registered vehicles at one address and a garage that parked two,
two permits were then issued. She added the majority of cities used that format.
Multi -Family Permit Recommendations: Ms. Meeks pointed out that there were more units
than street spaces in multi -family areas and that giving one permit to everyone would not
guarantee a parking space.
As staff begins considering permit parking in multi -family neighborhoods, she recommended the
following options be considered: a limit of two resident permits per unit and 25 guest permits
per year, per unit and the parking criteria would require 75 percent of the street polled for three
days to qualify for permit parking, requiring the owner to implement permit parking rather than
tenants. In the case of an absentee landowner who would not vote, the tenant's vote would
then be accepted.
She ended the presentation remarking there was no perfect answer but believed the process
was working for the neighborhoods and received positive feedback from residents using the
parking program. Ms. Meeks added staff would like to bring back the recommendations for the
parking permit program at a future Council date with any input received from Council as a result
of this presentation.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring suggested diagonal parking be considered if viable on wider streets, was
supportive of the parking study and corresponding fee, promoting the use of driveways for
parking, and possibly finding a way to require garages be used for parking, not storage. Council
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 4 of 27
Member Vanderbilt asked if streets with perpendicular parking had to wheel their trash
receptacles across the street for pickup with Ms. Meeks responding that was not the case. She
added that where diagonal parking was used, parking spaces were added, but that it was not
feasible in most neighborhoods and staff had also tried one directional parking in multi -family
areas, with dumpsters available in the alley for residents. He suggested there might be a waiver
of the permit for the first year, if the parking study was successful as a way to equalize the cost
of the study with Ms. Meeks concurring, remarking the study was a policy issue as she wanted
to make sure everyone had the same opportunity and benefit. Mayor Tait recommended
recovering more of the city's costs; otherwise the program was being subsidized by the rest of
the taxpayers. He added that as the program grew, a two-tiered program could be considered,
and he also supported no overnight parking as that allowed visitors to come and leave, adding it
might be less expensive to have an overnight ban.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
Addressing Item No. 1 on the closed session agenda, William Fitzgerald claimed the lawsuit
was due to discrimination on behalf of the city.
At 4:41 P.M., Mayor Tait recessed to closed session for consideration of the following item.
CLOSED SESSION:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code)
Name of Case: Cristina Talley v. City of Anaheim, Case No. 30-2014-00751921-CU-
OE-CJC
City Council returned from closed session at 5:16 P.M. and the Mayor reconvened the meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor Hector De Guzman, Life Christian Fellowship Orange County
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member James Vanderbilt
PRESENTATION: Recognizing Mama Cozza's on their 50th Anniversary
Mr. Cozza accepted the recognition, commenting the family was appreciative of the community
connection and support it enjoyed in the city.
ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date):
Proclaiming August 12, 2015, as International Youth Day
Jackie Perez, accepted the proclamation on behalf of Project Say, stating it was her honor to
represent the Community Services Department and their youth development program.
At 5:23 P.M., the Anaheim Housing Authority was called to order in joint session with the
Anaheim City Council.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 5 of 27
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearing); Prior to receipt of public
comments, a brief decorum statement was provided by City Clerk, Linda Andal.
Cecil Jordan Corcoran, Outreach Homeless Ministries, offered a reading from the Gospel.
William Fitzgerald stated Anaheim should have a minimum wage of $15 an hour and discussed
his reasoning behind that statement.
Mayor Tait remarked as the audience held a number of youths in the GOALS program; this was
an opportunity to give them a civics lesson about a speaker's statement. He explained a
speaker in a public forum was able to make untrue statements using inappropriate language
and could do so because of the right to freedom of speech that America offered.
Jeff Snow, Regional Leadership Council of Special Olympics, thanked Anaheim for participating
in the Host Town Program for the Special Olympics World Games, and hosting the Senegal and
Canadian participants. He added the World Games LA had 165 nations participating with 6,500
intellectually disabled athletes joyful over their inclusion in the event. Mayor Tait recommended
the video for the event hosted by Project Say welcoming the Senegal and Canadian athletes be
presented at the next Council meeting.
Lou Noble urged the city and the community to come up with a solution for a safe place for the
homeless, remarking he had been trying to work with the faith -based organizations for overnight
sites in various locations citywide.
R. Joshua Collins, Homeless Advocate for Christ, wanted to be included on homeless
discussions and urged churches to offer their parking lots for the homeless to stay overnight.
Angelica Ramirez, Maple Street resident, reported that seven years ago, a halfway house was
located at 1350 Maple Street for recovering drug addicts or the mentally unstable, remarking the
discomfort and threats this home had caused her and her neighbors were countless. She
provided incidents that she witnessed and asked for the city's help to restore the safety and
security of the neighborhood. Mayor Tait explained there were nuisance laws to handle such
problems and requested the City Manager provide Council with options to address this problem.
Melissa Avila, Maple Street resident, explained her fear of just being outside with her 2 -year old
child as a result of the halfway house; a neighborhood she has lived in for over 20 years.
Council Member Murray asked staff to look into whether the home was violating any Health and
Safety Codes, and if so, directed staff to look into options to pull the business license.
Patricia Osorio, Maple Street resident, explained she had also been frightened and unable to
get into her garage when an individual from the halfway home stood outside her garage.
Fred Rocha, Maple Street resident, remarked one incident involved a playhouse in his front yard
and a woman from the halfway house was offering his grandchildren devil juice because she
said they needed it. He added the grandchildren were frightened and there was only so much
the police could do, when called.
Gavin Padilla, Maple Street resident, described an incident where an individual walked in the
front door of his home, emphasizing that the safety of the neighborhood was a real issue. He
added some individuals were out on their bicycles at 2 or 3 AM, conducting what appeared to be
drug deals. Mayor Tait remarked that this was not unique to Anaheim, asking the City Manager
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 6 of 27
review what other cities were doing to mitigate impacts of halfway homes in neighborhoods,
pointing out when so many neighbors showed up, there was a serious problem on that street.
Dave Wilk remarked GOALS had been around for two decades in partnership with the city and
had served 30,000 youths in Anaheim. He added the journey continued with a new chapter, the
opening of a charter elementary school. He requested Council table the item on the agenda this
evening to allow for further discussion of the contract with city leaders.
Barbara Shull, Fair Housing Foundation, stated this evening she and Julia Moore would speak
on behalf of the Foundation. Malcom Bennett of the Apartment Association of Southern
California Cities was stuck on the freeway, and asked her to report that the Apartment
Association board voted to continue to support Mr. Bennett's support of the Fair Housing
Foundation. Ms. Shull stated Nicholas Dunlap had submitted a letter to the Apartment
Association of Southern California Cities, stating he was upset over Mr. Bennett's support of the
Fair Housing Foundation and asked that a $5,000 donation be returned to him because of Mr.
Bennett's actions. In an earlier email to Council, Ms. Shull tried to address some of the
comments and allegations raised by the Apartment Association of Orange County and the
Orange County Fair Housing Council, and along with that was a letter from the City of Irvine
disclaiming that the Fair Housing Foundation had advised them an office would be opened in
Fullerton or Irvine. The statement Ms. Shull actually made to Irvine was that her agency was
going to open up a second office in Orange County. She added with Anaheim on board as the
largest contractor, she would open an office in the city within six months.
Julia Moore, Chair of the Fair Housing Foundation board, stated she was also the executive
director of Community Housing Management Services which managed and owned low income
houses, a non-profit agency. She had been working with the Fair Housing Foundation for about
seven years and spoke in support of their organization.
Denise Cato, Fair Housing Council of Orange County, thanked Council for continuing this item
in order to review new and previous information provided. She explained that if the Fair
Housing Council did not receive this grant, the organization would no longer be able to assist
the residents of Anaheim. She acknowledged the RFP response did not address all of the
services the Fair Housing Council had provided and offered the following; they had been
aggressive in promoting education and awareness in the community, had addressed and helped
the public during the housing crisis by helping thousands of residents who struggled to
understand the English language and needed help reviewing lease documents and information
provided by landlords, as well as helped those on the verge of being evicted. She added the
most important point was that the information and expertise provided was invaluable and her
agency's references were strong and came from a number of federal, state, county and city
agencies, along with tenant rights groups and stakeholders. She emphasized that education
and information was more powerful than litigation and was a testament of the Fair Housing
Council's efforts to the community.
Oscar Rodriguez, resident and Fair Housing Council chair, remarked that the Fair Housing
Council recently celebrated 50 years of service and a long-term relationship with the city of
Anaheim that had been working well. He added that changing the dynamics did not make sense
and urged Council to reconsider the CDBG award in favor of the Fair Housing Council of
Orange County.
Lou Penrose, Apartment Association of Orange County, spoke on behalf of the Fair Housing
Council of Orange County requesting the city reconsider retaining their services. He was of the
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 7 of 27
opinion the selection process was flawed and that stakeholders such as L'Abri Management,
California Apartment Association and many other property managers and owners who provided
housing, participated in programs, and had contacted him on this matter, should not have been
left out of the process.
Laurel Dial, Consenys Property Management, stated her organization had been managing
apartments and had worked amicably with the Fair Housing Council for years, taken advantage
of their education courses, and appreciated the fact they were located nearby. She stated the
Fair Housing Foundation did not enjoy the easy working relationship the Fair Housing Council
had with Anaheim property owners and could see no reason to end this mutually beneficial
relationship. She urged a no vote on Item 24.
Jeremy Fitzl, L'Abri Management, stated his organization had worked closely with the Fair
Housing Council, adding that over 250 managers went through their educational system. L'Abri
staff believed they offered better educational services, were better funded, and had more open
lines of communication. Having worked with both housing service providers, he stated L'Abri
Management could provide better services to the residents in Anaheim through the Fair Housing
Council's business practices.
Nicholas Dunlap, Apartment Association of Orange County, represented over 8,000 apartment
units in Anaheim, remarked that for seven years, the Association established a valuable working
relationship with the Fair Housing Council (FHC). He added the FHC had provided credits that
were important not only for property owners and managers but also for licensed realtors. He
emphasized the Apartment Association had been vocal about the contract change and believed
it was in the best interest of the residents to continue the partnership with the FHC to help
combat the housing crisis in real time.
Dwayne Tiegs spoke in opposition to Item No. 24, stating the FHC had represented themselves
in a positive manner, offering professional education and guidance for those in the housing
industry and he was personally thankful for the understanding that education gave him. He
suggested as an alternative to have the Fair Housing Foundation, possibly through a
subcontract with the Fair Housing Council, help alleviate the workload and give the city an
opportunity to review their performance.
Khoi Phan, Fair Housing Council of Orange County, emphasized the FHC provided counseling
services, discriminatory defense, mediation services, foreclosure assistance, homeless
prevention services, and outreach education for the entire community. He added it had been a
valuable professional housing services agency for more than 50 years and their experience and
professionalism made them a valuable entity in addressing housing issues in the county and
their location in the heart of Anaheim made them especially convenient for seniors and low
income residents who had transportation difficulties.
Connie Jyles spoke in support of the Fair Housing Council, offering her personal interaction with
the agency.
Alan Dauger, apartment operator and tenant in Orange County since 1971, spoke in support of
the FHC, remarking the communication between property owners and tenants had been fair and
amicable. He would be reluctant to have the 500 units he managed in Anaheim dealing with the
Foundation rather than the Fair Housing Council.
Jennifer Berry, small property manager in Orange County, shared her personal experiences
with the Fair Housing Foundation who did not deal with her fairly over a complaint the
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 8 of 27
Foundation received, to the point she felt discriminated against with no opportunity to address
that complaint. Having completed four FHC seminars in the last three years, she believed she
had an understanding of the housing laws and had been treated unfairly by the Foundation in
this matter.
Elaine Vaughn stated she lived on James Way in the Westmont area of Anaheim. She
indicated that recently five homes had become vacation rentals, and more might be pending
licensing from the city. She objected to the number of vacation rentals on her street, indicating
there were 12 homes in the cul-de-sac, eight were owned by people of retirement age. Mayor
Tait requested the City Manager look into this issue, specifically the ability to house 21 people
overnight.
Elizabeth Alexander, James Place resident, explained vacation homes on her street were
renting to too many people at a time and too many cars traveling too fast in this small
neighborhood. She requested the city help limit vacation rental permits and stop the conversion
of the neighborhood into a commercial area.
Brittney Kaminski, Greenwood and McKenzie Property Management, explained she attended
classes with the Fair Housing Council of OC, and was here in support of that organization,
adding that the education she received had benefited her as a property manager.
Nancy Ahlswede, retired director of Apartment Association of California Southern Cities and
former president of the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, remarked she was an advocate
for fair housing. She pointed out she had worked with the Long Beach Housing Foundation, and
found the education was lacking and accuracy issues occurred. She urged the city to vote in
fair of the Fair Housing Council and support inclusionary practices.
Victoria Michaels, resident, announced Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute would be
providing a public discussion on climate change at Servite High School Auditorium on August
20th. He would explore the science behind climate change decisions nationally, regionally and
locally. Ms. Michaels also disclosed the event would benefit CATER, a nonprofit focused on
transparency and accountability in government.
Howard Vaughn, West James Way, spoke to the issue of vacation rental homes in his
neighborhood, remarking the impacts were changing the quality of life for he and his wife and it
appeared existing enforcement was not able to regulate this permit. He pointed out the
homeowner was using a website with Disney's name to attract renters and he urged the city to
regulate businesses that were changing the nature of neighborhoods.
Francisca Diaz, West James Way, remarked that with so many vacation rental homes on her
street she no longer felt comfortable or secure in her neighborhood. Further, the traffic and
noise from vacationers caused her and her husband concern.
Retha Parker, West James Way, emphasized there were four vacation home rentals within a
half mile with three more homes going up for sale. She was concerned that because these
homes were fairly large, that more vacation rentals would occur. She urged Council to limit the
vacation homes in a neighborhood and determine how these permits affected long-term
residents.
Esther Hodge, resident of Park Avenue, complained that vacation rentals were causing traffic
problems, emphasizing her neighborhood planned to attend the next meeting in an effort to
promote safety in their community.
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 9 of 27
A resident remarked the problems that had been occurring in these neighborhoods were
upsetting to all and residents were losing their voices and the ability to have a say in their quality
of life. He urged Council to figure out a solution and take the initiative to ensure residents could
enjoy their homes and neighborhoods.
Steven Sarandis, West James Way, summarized the issues pointed out by his neighbors and
friends; i.e. the security and safety of families, privacy, noise and decreasing property values as
a result of having vacation rentals in a small residential area. He urged Council to look into their
concerns and bring about a positive solution.
Ted, speaking against the July 7th approval of a Disney agreement, stated the voters in 2016
would remember how this agreement had been approved on a 3/2 vote that impacted future
council members ability to raise taxes. He suggested a connection between Disney's Political
Action Committees contribution to council campaigns and votes in favor of Disney.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring pointed out that Disney Corporation did not contribute to her political
campaign through any of its Political Action Committees. Council Member Murray stated this
issue had been discussed at length on July 7th and she had discussed it on a one-to-one basis
with the speaker as well. She added the existing tax policy that had been in place 20 years and
resulted in Disney investing billions of dollars in the Resort and had nothing to do with campaign
contributions to city council candidates.
Cynthia Ward, CATER, remarked there had been an agreement with Disney in 1996 which
Mayor Tait voted for at the time and consideration was given by Disney in exchange for that
agreement. She detailed her understanding of the agreement, to which she stated was taken
out of context with the recent July 7 contract. She spoke about the bonds in the original
contract and expressed that the city could have had an extension on the agreement linked
specifically to those bonds and gained $10 million without a gate tax.
Greg Diamond, CATER, stated Ms. Ward was aware of the information about the 1996 Disney
agreement because she had made a public records request for the contract. He believed there
should have been public notice and a public discussion to provide input to an existing real
property agreement and that the public had an opportunity to weigh in on this matter.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS; None
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE; None
CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Vanderbilt removed Item Nos. 7, 10 and 24 from the
consent calendar for further discussion. Mayor Tait reported he would record an abstention on
Item Nos. 10 and 11 as his firm has worked for the County of Orange and RJ Noble this past
year. Council Member Brandman then moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions and to adopt the balance of the consent calendar as presented, in accordance with
reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each city council member and as listed
on the consent calendar, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kring. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5:
(Chairman Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt.) Noes — 0.
Motion Carried
2. Receive and file minutes of the Sister City Commission meeting of June 22, 2015, Public
8105 Utilities Board meeting of June 24, 2015, and Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting of May 27, 2015 and June 24, 2015.
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 10 of 27
D116 3. Approve a recognition to be presented at a later date recognizing Mark Wolffer, Anaheim
athlete and participant in the 2015 Special Olympics World Games.
AGR -9128 4. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Paulus Engineering, Inc., in the
amount of $814,997, for the Citywide Sanitary Sewer Improvement Program/Projects,
Group 5, on Rio Vista Street and Wagner Avenue and authorize the Finance Director to
execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
5. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Hot Line Construction, Inc., in the
AGR -9129 amount of $5,111,346, for the Direct Buried Cable Replacement, Phase 11, and
authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract
retentions.
6. Accept the low bid from South Coast Mechanical & Electrical, in an amount not to
D180 exceed $118,215 plus applicable tax, for an upgrade of the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning controls and related equipment located at the Anaheim Police Detention
Center and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order in accordance
with the scope of work, specifications, and terms and conditions of Bid #8480.
D160 8. Authorize an appropriation adjustment to increase the Police Department's revenue and
expenditure appropriations in fiscal year 2015/16 under the FY 2014 Urban Area
Security Initiative Grant by $250,000.
AGR -5809.A 9• Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement with Community Service Programs,
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for consulting services related to the Gang
Reduction and Intervention Partnership program.
AGR -9130 11. Award, approve and authorize the Public Works Director to execute and take the
AGR -9131 necessary actions to implement and administer a master agreement contract, in
AGR -9132 substantial form, with seven companies for as -needed street services maintenance,
AGR -9133 construction, and immediate response (All American Asphalt, EBS General Engineering,
AGR -9134
AGR -9135 Inc., Hardy & Harper, Inc., Kalban, Inc., R.J. Noble Company, Roy Allan Slur rySeal,
AGR -9136 Inc., and Sully -Miller).
Mayor Tait recorded an abstention on this item. Motion to approve by Council Member
Brandman, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kring. ROLL CALL VOTE. AYES — 4: (Mayor
Pro Tem Kring and Council Members: Brandman, Murray and Vanderbilt.) NOES — 0.
ABSTENTION — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried.
12. Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement with Watt Communities at Cava,
AGR -9030.1 LLC, for Tract No. 17720 located at 2651 West Lincoln Avenue for the establishment of
a one -lot 41 -unit airspace residential subdivision.
AGR -9137 13. Approve the Temporary Construction Easement Agreement with Lacy Faddoul and
Maebelle Stevens, in the total payment amount of $2,600, for property located at 1243
North Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Widening Project from the 1-5 to SR -91
freeway (R/WACQ2013-00464).
AGR -9138 14. Approve the Temporary Construction Easement Agreement with Paul Cong Nguyen,
Nancy Kim Nguyen, Jack Cong Nguyen, and Daniel Cong Nguyen, in the total payment
amount of $1,000, for property located at 2168 West Huntington Avenue for the
Brookhurst Street Widening Project from 1-5 to SR -91 freeway (R/WACQ2013-00475).
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 11 of 27
AGR -9139 15. Approve the Temporary Construction Easement Agreement with Ramesh R. Patel and
Bharati Patel Family Revocable Trust, in the total payment amount of $1,700, for
property located at 1132 North Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Widening
Project from 1-5 to SR -91 freeway (R/WACQ2013-00437).
16. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with W & T Properties, LLC, in
AGR 9140 the acquisition payment of $9,400, for the partial acquisition of property located at 1142
North Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Improvement Project from 1-5 to SR -91
(R/W ACQ2013-00439).
17. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Nancy Estrella, Antonia
Estrella, and Braulio Canche, in the total acquisition payment of $4,900, for the partial
acquisition of property located at 1203 North Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street
AGR -9141 Improvement Project from 1-5 to SR -91 (RNV ACQ2013-00469).
18. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Bell Family Partners, in the
AGR -9142 acquisition payment of $42,500, for the purchase of property located at 201 East Ball
Road for the Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road Intersection Improvement Project (R/W
ACQ2015-00608).
19. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Bell Pipe & Supply
Company, in the acquisition payment of $49,400, for the purchase of property located at
AGR -9143 215 East Ball Road for the Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road Intersection Improvement
Project (RNV ACQ2015-00609).
20. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Belt Family Partners, in the
acquisition payment of $8,000, for the purchase of property located at 221 East Ball
AGR -9144 Road for the Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road Intersection (RNV ACQ2015-00610).
21. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with West, a
Thomson Reuters Business, for continued receipt of online legal research services and
AGR -7187.2 legal publications for an additional 36 months with a monthly charge of $2,270.25
increasing 3% in the second and third 12 month period.
22.
Authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to prepare, verify, certify
and submit a Notice of Non -Applicability (NONA) for the Statewide National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges,
prepare and execute any related documents, and take any other actions necessary to
establish non -applicability; and if the State Water Resources Control Board does not
approve the NONA, authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to
prepare, verify, certify and submit a Notice of Intent to apply for regulatory coverage
under the NPDES Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges, prepare and execute
any related documents or reports, pay annual permit fees, and take any other actions
necessary to establish regulatory coverage and comply with the NPDES Permit.
AGR -6229.A 23.
Approve and authorize the Planning and Building Director to execute agreements with
AGR -9146
AGR -9147
nine consultingfirms, in an amount not to exceed $600,000 during the initial term with a
g
AGR -3643.8
maximum of $200,000 per extension each for a three-year term with up to two one-year
AGR -4642A
extensions, to provide on-call environmental services on an as -needed basis to support
AGR -9148
the Planning and Building Department (BonTerra Psomas; CAJA Environmental
AGR -3644.6
AGR -6237.A
AGR -9149
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 12 of 27
Services, Inc.; Dudek; First Carbon Solutions; LSA Associates, Inc.; Morse Planning
Group; PCR Services Corporation; Placeworks; and, UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.).
P124 25. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-232 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 11872, 11873, 11874, 11875,
11876, 11878, 11879, 11880, 11881, 11882, 11887 and 11888).
P124 26. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-233 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 11877 and 11897).
P124 27. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-234 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim
certain interests in real properties (City Deed Nos. 11884, 11885, 11886, 11889, 11890,
11891, 11892 and 11893).
Pilo 28. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-235 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating two public utility easements located at 2600 Miraioma
Way pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. - Summary
Vacation (ABA2015-00314).
29. ORDINANCE NO. 6336 (ADOPTION) AN (UN -CODIFIED) ORDINANCE OF THE
F130.2 CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a Non -Exclusive Franchise to Center Of Universe LLC for
transportation services within and around the City of Anaheim Packing District and
stating the terms and conditions upon which said franchise is granted based upon the
finding and determination that said ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(10) of the California
Public Resource Code (Introduced at the Council meeting of July 21, 2015, Item No. 34).
30. Determine that the following ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State
M142 CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment and is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
ORDINANCE NO. 6337 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 15.04 to Title 15 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code pertaining to solar energy and expedited permitting procedures for small
residential rooftop solar systems, based upon the finding and determination that said
ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA guidelines and is not a project,
as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA guidelines.
C280 31. ORDINANCE NO. 6338 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Sections 18.24.030 (General Provisions) and 18.24.070
(Neighborhood Commercial District and Neighborhood Commercial -Mixed District) of
Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code based upon the finding and determination that the subject
matter of this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 13 of 27
(CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines
and is not a project, as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
32. ORDINANCE NO. 6339 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM repealing existing Chapter 6.05 pertaining to public safety radio system
coverage, repealing Chapter 15.03 and adding a new Chapter 15.03 to Title 15 of the
M142 Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Building Standards Codes, and
repealing existing Chapter 16.08 and adding a new Chapter 16.08 to Title 16 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Fire Code, Nunc Pro Tunc, to
correct clerical drafting errors in Ordinance No. 6334, previously adopted.
D114 33. Approve minutes of the Council meetings of June 16, 2015, June 30, 2015 and July 7,
2015.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: The off -consent items were considered at 8:41 P.M.
7. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the City Council's response to the 2014-15
Orange County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "The Orange County Animal Shelter: the
0144.6 Facility, the Function, the Future" satisfying the requirements of California Penal Code
Section 933(c) and direct the City Attorney to submit the report to the Presiding Judge of
the Orange County Superior Court.
David Belmer, Planning Director, remarked this item pertained to the response to the Orange
County Grand Jury on a report regarding conditions and the status of the Orange County Animal
Shelter. He explained that in that report, the grand jury made a series of findings and
recommendations and also provided a history of the county's efforts to deliver a regional facility
that would benefit and serve not only the County of Orange, but also the 18 contract cities that
would use that facility, including Anaheim. None of the findings were pertinent to Anaheim, but
there was one recommendation relative to all contract cities; i.e., 1) the 18 contracting cities
should renew or evaluate their commitment to the County of Orange continuing services and the
potential partnership to deliver a regional shelter; and 2) the contract cities should demand a
cost estimate to deliver that shelter along with a committee to evaluate how that facility would
serve the needs of the contract cities. In the response, Mr. Belmer stated the city
acknowledged they reviewed the county's service on an annual basis through the annual
evaluation process. Regarding the demand for a cost estimate and schedule, staff
recommended continuing the relationship with the county and to work in partnership to support
and facilitate their efforts to deliver a new facility.
Council Member Vanderbilt stated his concern was with the Notice of Intent in Item No. 10, in
which the city was asked to approve funding for the next year for the shelter. With the city
responding to one grand jury report that there were no problems and that the city was
monitoring services, he was not comfortable voting to expend the funds if there was another
grand jury report the city might answer differently. Paul Emery remarked that Steve Franks, the
Director of Community Service with County of Orange would answer that question.
Mr. Franks indicated there were two grand jury reports, one dealing with the facility that required
action by the contract cities for one of four recommendations, and a second report regarding the
operations and some of the operational issues related to feral cat programs and other programs
in the shelter. That report, he noted, had ten recommendations, none of which required city
action. Council Member Vanderbilt pointed out that the second report specifically cited an
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 14 of 27
incident in Anaheim Hills with Mr. Franks replying the responses were required specifically by
the County of Orange on that second report. He added staff would be sharing their response
with Anaheim via regular meetings with the city managers and that process would continue. He
noted the Board of Supervisors would take action on both reports on August 25tH
Mayor Pro Tem Kring remarked the conditions in that shelter were deplorable, however at this
point there was no other option. Regarding the incident in Anaheim Hills, she felt more training
was needed to insure animals were treated humanely. In addition she would be supporting
funding for the next year on the proviso the County began the process, using fund-raisers or
other methods, to insure the shelter was up and operational within the next five years, whether it
was located on existing property or the proposed Tustin Air Base site.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kring moved to approve Item No. 7, seconded by Council Member
Murray. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 4: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring,
and Murray.) NOES —1: Council Member Vanderbilt. Motion Carried.
10. Approve the Notice of Intent with the County of Orange for animal care and shelter
AGR-1458.K.O.7 services for the period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.
Due to a conflict of interest, Mayor Tait left the dais, and turned the gavel over to Mayor Pro
Tem Kring.
David Belmer, Planning Director, reported the City of Anaheim renewed its contract for animal
care services with Orange County on an annual basis through a Notice of Intent. The county
provided an estimate of anticipated costs and service; however, he stated, the City would pay
based on the actual cost of the service provided. For next year, the cost of service was
projected at $1.9 million, an increase of about 11 percent over the previous year, higher than
normal but due in part to the fact there were one-time catch-up expenses on revenues that were
not realized, as well as other accounting matters. Excluding those, he pointed out; the actual
increase was closer to the percentage increase in prior years. He added if Council were to
approve this item, the contract would continue for one additional year.
Council Member Vanderbilt stated his comments as articulated during discussion of Item No. 7
were applicable to this matter and should be made part of the record.
MOTION: Council Member Brandman moved to approve Item No. 10, seconded by Mayor Pro
Tem Kring. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 4: (Mayor Pro Tem Kring and Council Members:
Brandman, Murray and Vanderbilt). NOES — 0. ABSTENTION — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried.
Mayor Tait returned to the dais.
24. Approve and authorize the Community & Economic Development Director to execute
and administer a Community Development Block Grant Subrecipient Agreement, in
substantial form, with Fair Housing Foundation, in an amount not to exceed $100,000,
AGR -9211 for the provision of fair housing services for a two year term with five one-year
extensions (Continued from Council meeting of July 21, 2015, Item No.08).
John Woodhead, Community Development Director, remarked on July 21St, City Council
approved the 2015-2019 Five Year Consolidated Plan and the 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan
which included program goals and budget recommendations for four programs funded by U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Those programs were the Community
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 15 of 27
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership (HOME),
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids or
HOPWA. The CDBG program budget included a line item allocating $100,000 for the provision
of fair housing services and per Council's direction, the award of the contract for these services
would be handled separately this evening. He added staff stood by its original recommendation
and was ready to answer any questions.
Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if staffs recommendation was based on what the
Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) advised on June 25th and what was the
basis of their debate that resulted in a 5:3 vote. Grace Stepter, Housing Manager, answered
that a majority of the discussion was centered on the CDBG contract, with many of those same
speakers. Mr. Vanderbilt asked if staff believed the no votes were based on the city switching
to the Fair Housing Foundation agency with Ms. Stepter responding the dialogue mirrored those
comments heard at the last Council meeting, i.e.," if it's not broke, why fix it". She stated that
one committee member wondered it splitting the contract was an option and moved to do so,
however, a second on the motion was not offered. One CDAC member than moved to pass the
recommendation in its entirety and the chair specifically inquired if the motion was to vote on the
Consolidated Plan, including the CDBG contract with an affirmative response given. The motion
was then approved on a 5:3 vote. Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if the city had any
assurance from the Fair Housing Foundation that an office would be located in Anaheim,
referencing a situation that was referenced in the city of Irvine, who opted to contract with the
Fair Housing Foundation a couple of years ago. Mr. Woodhead responded that he read the
letter sent from a staff member in Irvine to the Fair Housing Foundation and it was clear that no
promise to open an office in Irvine was made. A Foundation office was opened in Santa Ana
which was sufficient to show there was a local presence as opposed to a Los Angeles centric
presence. Specific to Anaheim, Mr. Woodhead stated the Foundation indicated they intended to
open an office in the city within six months and while the city did not require them to do so, that
point was included as a distinction between the two agencies.
Council Member Murray asked if the city had a requirement in the RFP for HUD certification and
if not, was there consideration given to agencies having HUD certification. Ms. Stepter
responded that in addition to asking the agencies to provide HUD certification for the rental
component, not the homeowner component, both agencies were certified and validated on the
HUD website. Council Member Murray remarked the Fair Housing Council was listed as an
agency with HUD certification, but the Fair Housing Foundation was listed as a subsidiary of the
Housing Opportunities Collaborative on the HUD website for rental housing counseling and
rental housing workshops. Providing clarification, Barbara Shull, Fair Housing Foundation
responded that HUD, instead of dealing directly with thousands of agencies, used 25
intermediary agencies and the Fair Housing Foundation received certification for their housing
counselors as an affiliate of that intermediary agency. Ms. Murray stated the service levels and
goals of the two agencies were markedly different, asking Ms. Shull what those numbers meant
in her proposal. Ms. Shull answered the Foundation looked at population and diversity and
using those demographics along with a cost allocation formula, specific goals were determined;
she added that for the 22 cities the Foundation served, they had met or exceeded all contractual
obligations for each city. She further added there were 9 full-time staff who worked equally in
each city based on the cost allocation formula and if a city was 50 percent of the Foundation's
budget, they would receive 50 percent of staffs time, education, outreach and direct counseling.
Council Member Murray requested Ms. Shull address some of the concerns raised by the
apartment owners, i.e. there was an antagonistic relationship between her staff and apartment
residents. Ms. Shull responded that the Foundation was an educational organization, there
were no staff attorneys and the goal was always to educate over litigation. They had
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 16 of 27
conducted 45 certificate management training sessions a year, and did that at no cost while the
Fair Housing Council charged a fee.
Denise Cato, Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) stated the Fair Housing
Foundation agency was affiliated through an intermediary agency for HUD certification because
they could not qualify on their own. She pointed out the Fair Housing Council had a HUD
counseling grant for 30 years, were monitored by HUD, and offered two certified mediators and
certified training and was the recipient of three HUD grants. She spoke of the strong
relationships between her agency with apartment owners and property managers and
emphasized she was a proponent of education over litigation. Council Member Murray indicated
that all applicants had been treated fairly in the procurement process, applications were
evaluated, oral interviews were conducted, and recommendations were made from the advisory
body to this Council that supported staff's recommendation. She requested Ms. Cato address
the contrast between the two service levels offered by the Fair Housing Council and the Fair
Housing Foundation. Ms. Cato remarked she had reviewed the Foundation's proposal and
thought the numbers would be difficult to comprehend and validate unless the terminology and
the specific work that was done was understood by all.
Council Member Murray then requested staff respond to the discrepancies between the two
proposals. Mayor Tait added that along with Ms. Murray's request, that staff further clarify the
previous discussion on HUD certification.
Ms. Stepter indicated when staff sent out the Request for Proposals, they were looking for
agencies that met the ability to deliver CDBG dollars and to assist in spending the money which
would allow Anaheim to certify they furthered fair housing. They were looking for agencies with
long histories of providing fair housing services, had HUD credentials, and staff was not
distinguishing between the direct or affiliate license because HUD accepted both. She added
that in the last eight to ten years, there was a pattern of Orange County cities moving towards
the Fair Housing Foundation, and staff was looking for, based on that trend, if there was an
agency more Anaheim centric because the city was funding significantly higher than any other
contract city; i.e. a $100,000 grant. Staff was also determining whether annual reports reflected
that level of service and found the quarterly reports over the last four months did not reflect a
level of commitment to Anaheim indicative of $100,000 in funding.
Council Member Vanderbilt remarked that some earlier speakers were not aware there was a
problem and wondered why the city would make a change to a program that had been working.
Ms. Stepter responded that staff was not stating in the RFP that the contract was performance
based, but just wanted to see what the responses would be in an open competition, all done
through the Five Year Consolidated Plan in which all applicants who received city funding were
applying. Mr. Vanderbilt asked what assurance would staff implement that would guaranty the
city had good Anaheim centric service. Mr. Woodhead replied that over the last seven to nine
years, staff had watched cities gradually shift from one provider to another, and with two viable
service providers both active in Orange County, staff wondered if there were any differences
and used an RFP process for that reason. The recommendation was to switch providers
because staff believed the Fair Housing Foundation would have more benefit to Anaheim
residents. Mayor Tait inquired if staff had been less than satisfied with the Fair Housing Council
and decided to use a Request for Proposals because there might be something better based on
the trend or was it because it was best practices to go out for a general bid. Mr. Woodhead
responded it was all of those reasons and when the two proposals were measured, it was clear
to staff that a change would be recommended. Mayor Tait added that he had received no
complaints against the Fair Housing Council, recognized the procurement process was fair, but
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 17 of 27
wanted to ensure the Fair Housing Foundation did what they said they were going to do and
that they were education and mediation focused. Mr. Woodhead stated staff would be
monitoring the contract, adding that it was renewable each year and would come before the
Council on an annual basis including a comparison of goals proposed and met.
Denise Cato stated that during the foreclosure crisis, her staff was able to assist over 25,000
residents save their homes, 40 percent residing in Anaheim. In addition with the HUD
counseling grant, that assistance was free to Anaheim residents, and she did not include that in
the RFP submittal as it would be considered double-dipping. Mayor Tait questioned whether
that was a value added that the city did not ask for but which it would be losing. Mr. Woodhead
replied there were other local organizations available for that type of assistance,
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kring stated she was upset over the Nicholas Dunlap letter
requesting the Apartment Association repay a contribution because one member of that
association held a different opinion and moved to approve Item No. 24, seconded by Council
Member Murray.
DISCUSSION: Nicholas Dunlap remarked that the Apartment Association of Orange County
was an affiliate of a national association and were awarded territories. The letter Ms. Kring was
addressing had been specifically directed to someone from that organization that came outside
of their territory to specifically lobby against a property owner's interest. He sent the letter
because his members specifically asked him to take action on their behalf.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring requested Barbara Shull address Ms. Cato's comments. Ms. Shull
remarked that the allegations from the Orange County Fair Housing Council and the Apartment
Associations had no foundation. She emphasized that the cities that now contract with her
agency stated they had never received better service. Mayor Tait requested Ms. Shull address
the comment regarding litigation versus the education/mediation aspect of their services. Ms.
Shull responded the Foundation had no staff attorney and no attorneys reviewed their cases at
all unless a file was referred. She added that in the last five years, there had been two cases
filed by the Fair Housing Foundation and three filed by the Fair Housing Council which meant
neither agency was litigious, adding that there had been approximately 25 cases filed in her
history, including federal, state and/or settled out of court. She emphasized that mediation was
always the first choice. Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if there were any instances where
demand letters asked for payment with Ms. Shull responding the Foundation did not ask for
money. He inquired if the attorneys ever asked for payment to the Foundation as part of a
settlement agreement with Ms. Shull replying that all organizations could show standing in a
lawsuit and try and get damages and a punitive award. She added the Fair Housing Council
purchased a building 25 years ago based on a case that was settled and they were awarded
$500,000. She further added it was a standard process and the Supreme Court recently ruled
on "Disparate Impact", but for the Foundation to be included in a case, she would have to take it
to her board and be signed on with the plaintiff. She further added the attorneys she worked
with did not ask for damages because it was a hard thing to prove in court because the
Foundation received CDBG funds to affirmatively further fair housing and why sue for damages
when they were getting paid to do the work.
Council Member Brandman asked staff a series of questions related to the CDAC divided vote,
the dissention between the two fair housing service providers and whether this process could
have been handled differently to lessen the discord of all parties. He expressed his
disappointment that council was placed in a position for two separate council meetings and
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 18 of 27
believed if enough time and information had been provided to CDAC, a unanimous vote would
have been the result.
Mayor Tait asked that as part of this motion, the city hold the Foundation responsible for
meeting these goals and in 12 months, staff would evaluate whether the goals were met and
that education and mediation was the focus over litigation. He added he would support's staff
recommendation as he believed in the process and that those reviewing the proposals did so
fairly and on behalf of the city.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 4: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring and
Murray.) NOES — 1: Council Member Vanderbilt. Motion Carried.
34. Discuss and consider a request submitted by Growth Opportunities through Athletics,
AGR -9194 Learning & Service (GOALS) to utilize city properties for academic and school -time
activities by the newly established GOALS Academy Charter School and consider
approving or denying, a lease agreement that would authorize GOALS to utilize the
properties for charter school activities.
Terry Lowe, Director of Community Services, explained that this spring, the GOALS
organization requested permission to use city land, specifically time for recess, science
education, physical education, lunch time, etc. Due to the increased liability required for this
new use, a new agreement was required. Staff met with representatives from GOALS, came to
a consensus on the terms and prepared an agreement for City Council's consideration to allow
use of the parcels for the coming school year. However, he remarked, last Friday, GOALS
informed staff they would like to have additional dialogue on the agreement.
The current agreement consisted of the following terms: it allowed for the combination of four
existing agreements into one with GOALS using four parcels for school use; a notice of 180
days was required for termination of the contract; the liability protection for the city was included
in the agreement; and the term would be for five years, with three five-year extensions because
it mirrored the five year term of their charter. Mr. Lowe stated the action before Council was to
consider GOALS' request and provide staff with direction to proceed regarding further
discussions about the future of this property. The unsigned agreement was included in the staff
report with Mr. Lowe indicating he could not comment on any new provisions from GOALS until
he had an opportunity to speak to their representatives.
Mayor Tait disclosed that he had been involved in GOALS for years, had been a past board
member, and his firm had done "pro bono" engineering design work on some of their facilities,
with that work having ended last March. He added in a discussion with the city attorney
regarding any potential conflict of interest, he had been advised there was no conflict with the
provision of pro bono services. Michael Houston, city attorney, confirmed the fact those
services did not occur during the time this matter was brought to the city's attention and that it
would not continue in the future, which meant there was no conflict of interest.
Mayor Tait suggested this item be continued to the next meeting to allow an organization that
had been involved in Anaheim since 1994 when the Disney Ducks brought in Dave Wilk to start
a hockey program for the youth of this community. It began with an old courthouse building in
the downtown area that expanded and served tens of thousands of kids. With the start of the
GOALS Academy in a few weeks and in recognition that there were issues with regard to the
master plan for La Palma Park, he recommended the item be tabled to revisit the agreement
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 19 of 27
before returning to Council for consideration. Before taking a second on that motion, he asked
for discussion on the item.
Council Member Brandman remarked that this would be an agreement for a Charter school that
was approved by the Anaheim City School District without consulting the city for their input. Mr.
Lowe responded the school district did not request discussions with the city regarding use of the
parcels and its impact on the plan for La Palma Park, Council Member Brandman asked if the
proposed lease agreement would impact the long-term expansion of La Palma Park with Mr.
Lowe responding the charter school was located on private property and was not a part of the
footprint of the park and the use of the facilities would be governed in a five-year contract that
allowed for a six month ability to withdraw the agreement so the park could be expanded to its
original vision. He believed the length of the agreement would allow for adequate time and
acquisition of resources for expansion of the park. In response to a question, Mr. Lowe replied
that had he been consulted by the school district regarding said parcels, he would have made it
clear that GOALS was not permitted to use this property for school activities and that the city's
policy makers would have to consider a new agreement for that use and he would have also
emphasized the fact there were future plans for that park land, which had been structured in the
current and past agreements. He added an agreement had been reached that provided the
flexibility for future expansion of the park but also allowed them to continue using these parcels
of land to support youth activities. After five years, GOALS Academy would have to seek City
Council's permission to extend it for another five years assuming there would still be a charter
school on that property. Council Member Brandman stated that would be a fully vested, fully
complemented charter school on that site in five years.
Council Member Brandman expressed concern that not once during this lengthy process was
the city consulted as to what their priorities were for that property and now the Anaheim City
School District had put the city in a position that if this agreement were to be approved, La
Palma Park would not expand as envisioned by past city leaders, an effort that he had long
championed. Mayor Tait inquired if Council Member Brandman had been consulted, would he
have been against the agreement with Mr. Brandman responding that he would and had the
school district consulted the city, the charter school would have been located elsewhere.
Mayor Tait disagreed, believing the expansion could occur in the future as the city acquired
additional land and in the meantime, the charter school could use the fields for recreational
purposes.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring concurred that the city would never recapture that land once
improvements were made on the fields and the site was used for school activities for five years.
She was a supporter for the La Palma Park expansion and did not want to lose that land and
thought the school board and the superintendent had to answer for more than just this piece of
property referencing litigation by the district against a charter school two years ago.
Mayor Tait asked the city attorney to speak to that issue of whether the city would be able to
use that property for park expansion in the future. Mr. Houston remarked the agreement
provided for a 180 day termination notice and that improvements made to the property during
the time of the leasehold could either be removed by the city or kept by the city. With that said,
he added that Mayor Pro Tem Kring's point was the concept of possession being worth 9/10 1h of
the law, and should the contract not be honored, the city would have to proceed through the
legal process.
Council Member Murray remarked the charter school was going to open on August 15th, asking
why there had not been a completed agreement two weeks prior to the school opening when
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 20 of 27
the site was approved by the school district a year ago. Mr. Lowe responded that numerous
attempts were made by staff to open a discussion on this matter. Ms. Murray stated she could
not support moving forward with an agreement until there were protections in place for the city
regarding liability and insurance, asking the city attorney for guidance. Mr. Houston
emphasized the current agreement did not allow the GOALS Academy to operate school
activities on the city's property absent an agreement. Related to liability issues, it was
incumbent on the city to have the insurance and indemnification provisions included in the lease
document. He introduced Dave Nunley, Risk Manager, to speak to the insurance and
indemnification needs who then pointed out the standards in the California Education Code far
exceeded minimum standards for recreational use of that facility. He added that charter schools
may not have to adhere completely to that code, but he believed the courts would hold them
liable for the standard care they owed students which could reflect back on the city. He had
drafted indemnification language sufficient to protect the city and raised insurance levels higher
than normal for another licensee using that site and added that absent an agreement, school
children should not be using that site.
Council Member Murray posed questions to Dave Wilk (GOALS Academy), asking why the
delay in providing a signed agreement to the city. Mr. Wilk responded with details on the
GOALS program, its history, and successes. He also remarked that students had used that
property in the past and that the Mann School on the opposite side of La Palma Park had
regularly visited the site as an incentive for reading programs. He pointed out he had never had
a single risk management claim in his history. Council Member Murray explained her question
pertained to why staff did not notice the agreements needed to be adjusted prior to the school
being opened. He explained staff was now learning there were new rules with a charter school
and had been discussing the agreement with Terry Lowe since March of this year, at which time
members of his board made some recommendations and requested additional time for a more
balanced agreement. He added if the agreement was not ready on August 17th the students
would not use the site.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring asked Mr. Wilk if he was aware there was no playground space available
and further added if he had knowledge that he would have to come to City Council for approval
when the charter school was approved. Mr. Wilk responded that initially he was not aware, as
in the license agreement, the lease referred to GOALS activities and he assumed the academy
(as part of GOALS), fell under that umbrella and the feeling was consistent with staff. Debbie
Shorter, GOALS Academy, added that she had taken Gauer School students to the park for
years in the past under that interpretation of the lease agreement. She hoped by August 18th
the agreement would be worked out but in the immediate future, she would have other options
for the students during recreational breaks.
In response to Council Member Vanderbilt's question, of when did city staff realize there was a
problem that must be addressed with the Charter school, Mr. Lowe remarked when he began to
hear about the proposed charter school moving forward, GOALS was contacted by city staff,
Joe Perez. Mr. Perez apprised them the existing lease did not allow for students using the city
parcels and when the Planning Commission issued the conditional use permit, staff sent a letter
in April putting it formally in writing of the need to meet. He indicated Dave Wilk responded and
they soon met and discussed the terms of the agreement and came to a consensus. Mr.
Vanderbilt remarked, as a school board member, he had been involved in the charter school
approval process over a several month period and it appeared the city was aware as well via
newspaper articles. He added there was another proposed charter school for Palm Lane School
which also had an agreement with the city to share park space, asking if anyone from that group
reached out to the city to discuss their proposal, with Mr. Lowe indicating they did not. Mr.
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 21 of 27
Vanderbilt responded it did not appear that this was such an egregious situation between the
city and the school district. Mr. Wilk stated GOALS appreciated the city's collaboration and
close relationship and would work diligently to finalizing the agreement.
Council Member Murray wished to underscore the point the city was supportive of the GOALS
programs and was not questioning their value and remained concerned that a signed
agreement was not on the agenda tonight and would have preferred that agreement had been
reached before the charter school opened. She commented that if there was another charter
school looking to operate in the city and this agreement would set a precedent, she wanted
similar agreements put in place for Palm Lane to make sure the city was not in an untenable
position when that school was getting ready to open.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring added that she felt GOALS had an expectation of an entitlement to the
other four parcels of property and that if this council approved an agreement, the city would
never get the parcels back for park land. She asked what his alternatives were in that case. Mr.
Wilk responded there were other potential options; i.e., the ice rink, and bus field trips, although
his preference would be to use the adjacent parcels.
Council Member Brandman provided that if the Charter school opened without an agreement in
place, there would have been a gross violation of the contract and would have made the city of
Anaheim liable. He added, comparing Palm Lane was comparing apples to oranges as that site
had a long-standing agreement with the city and as part of that transference of a comprehensive
school site operated by the district to an independent charter, there was a form of a due
diligence process for that to occur. He remained concerned the school district did not do their
part on behalf of the city, GOALS, the students and their parents. He expressed his concern that
the future of La Palma Park would be in jeopardy should this contract be approved.
Mayor Tait commented that this was surplus vacant land with a fence around it and was not
being used for the good of the entire community. GOALS did not charge the city for funding
these recreational programs and the city did not charge for the land, operating only under a
license agreement and he looked forward to a signed agreement coming before Council in two
weeks. Council Member Murray explained that for her to move forward at the next Council
meeting, she wanted a policy to come back that stated the city would provide the same level of
subsidy for Palm Lane and would work with parents to make sure those agreements were
completed in advance as well as to make sure there was an Anaheim City School District
representative present to answer any technical questions.
Council Member Vanderbilt asked staff if there had been any discussions after the passage of
Measure BB (the Anaheim City School District measure that provided funding for capital
improvements) about expanding La Palma Park and having a school be part of that expansion.
Mr. Lowe responded there had been a number of discussions about the disposition of that site,
including a discussion of an elementary school or junior high school throughout the years.
Regarding existing joint use agreements, Mr. Vanderbilt pointed out he did not see indemnity
language and no language requiring the school district to have insurance liability for incidents
happening on city property. Mr. Nunley replied the joint use agreements with the school districts
showed they were financially responsible parties and the indemnification language was written
as such, and the city was responsible when the city was in charge of those facilities. Council
Member Vanderbilt pointed out that the City Council recently received information showing
several scenarios for La Palma Park, the most recent one showed a small modification in terms
of the total footprint, and two earlier versions went to Romneya Drive. Mr. Lowe explained one
site showed a separate football and baseball stadium that took up the entire square block,
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 22 of 27
arterial to arterial to the freeway and to La Palma; that was a conceptual drawing, showing
"what if' ideas and which would require more acquisition of property. The memo he sent
referred to the existing footprint of the park and the expansion of the park as it was originally
directed; i.e. acquire parcels to create a larger space for athletic fields which could be
accomplished with the acquisition of a couple of more parcels. Council Member Vanderbilt
asked if this was Council Member Brandman's vision for La Palma with Mr. Brandman
responding it was the full vision inspired in the master plan.
MOTION: Mayor Tait moved to table this item to the August 18 council meeting, seconded by
Council Member Murray. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES- 4: (Mayor Tait and Council Members:
Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt.) NOES —1: Council Member Brandman. Motion Carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the public hearing began at 10:18 P.M.
35. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00496
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00269 (DEV2014-00045)
C280 OWNER: City of Anaheim, Community Services, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim CA
92805
APPLICANT: City of Anaheim, Community Development, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd.,
Anaheim CA 92805
LOCATION: The 7 acre property is located at 1710 —1730 South Anaheim Way,
approximately 530 feet south of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard.
Proposed: To amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Parks to Industrial
for an industrial property previously proposed as a park site; remove the Park
designation from figures in the General Plan Land Use, Circulation and Green
Elements; and, rezone two of the four parcels from the Commercial (C -G) zone to
Industrial (1) zone.
Environment Determination: The City Council will consider whether a Negative
Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00496 and
Reclassification No. 2014-00269. Recommended to City Council that the seven acres
being taken out of the park inventory by this action be replaced with seven acres of
parkland elsewhere in the City, excluding the park site being considered at the Ball
Road basin. Vote: 5-0. Chairman Seymour and Commissioners Caldwell, Dalati,
Lieberman and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Bostwick absent.
(Resolution Nos. PC2014-067 and PC2014-068) (Planning Commission meeting of
August 11, 2014).
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-236 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting a Negative Declaration and approving
General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00496 (DEV2014-00045) (1710-1730 South
Anaheim Way).
ORDINANCE NO. 6340 (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. 2014-00269) (DEV2014-0045).
David Belmer, Planning Director, reported this item was a city initiated request to change the
general plan amendment and zoning designation for city owned properties that were seven
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 23 of 27
acres in total, located between Katella Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard on Anaheim Way on the
east side of 5 freeway. The properties were acquired as remnants from CALTRANS as part of
the 1-5 freeway widening back in 2004/ 2005, and were subsequently redesignated for open
space or recreation uses in anticipation of potential development for those purposes. He added
that the Community Services Department felt these parcels were not well suited for recreation
purposes given their small, irregular shapes and because the city's recreation needs changed to
active sports fields, particularly soccer fields, and access constraints on Anaheim Way was a
challenge. He noted the Air Quality Management District recently issued a recommendation that
discouraged the placement of recreation facilities adjacent to freeways primarily due to air
pollution issues.
Mr. Belmer remarked alternative land uses were explored by John Woodhead, Director of
Community Development, who looked at characteristics in terms of visibility, accessibility,
proximity to the freeway and surrounding uses that led to the conclusion the highest and best
use was industrial. Council then approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) on May 5th to solicit
development proposals for industrial uses with a deadline date of August 6th for submittal to
Council for consideration at a future date. He stated among the provisions in the RFP was a
commitment on the city's part to initiate the general plan amendment and zoning change to
facilitate future development of the property for industrial purposes. He added the RFP included
three of the parcels, not the 4th, as it was small and adjacent to the storage facility whose owner
expressed an interest in this parcel. Discussion was now underway about the potential of
incorporating that small piece into the storage facility.
Mr. Belmer indicated the proposal to amend the general plan and change the zoning on this
parcel was not an abandonment of the city's desire to further its recreation amenities in this city.
He added the sales proceeds generated from this property would be used to improve either
existing sports facilities in Anaheim or to seek additional park development to further the city's
long-term recreational goals.
He explained the general plan amendment would change the long-term language vision of these
parcels from recreation to industrial and would also amend the various documents that currently
designated this property for recreation open space use: the land element, circulation element,
and green element. He added the general plan and zoning must be consistent and the general
plan amendment, if approved, would also require a zoning amendment that would change the
parcels from commercial to industrial. He noted the land uses around the site were industrial
and in staff's viewpoint, changing the zoning from commercial to industrial would mean there
were uses that would now be consistent with the surrounding industrial properties.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended both the general plan amendment and
zone change to City Council, however as part of its deliberation, the Planning Commission did
express concern about the loss of open space land in the city and as part of that finding,
recommended Council consider replacement land to be located elsewhere in the city. They also
asked that any acquired replacement land be in addition to the Bali Road Basin as they
understood that was currently under consideration by the city.
Staff recommended approval of the environmental documents, and of the resolution that would
amend the general plan and the ordinance that would make the zoning consistent with the
general plan amendment.
Mayor Tait asked for details on the land purchase, with Mr. Lowe responding that the remnants
were purchased in 2004/05 with Platinum Triangle development funds at a price of $3.1 million.
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 24 of 27
The Mayor asked what the population would be in the Platinum Triangle at build -out and
whether any park space within that area had been purchased. Jonathan Borrego, Planning
Services Manager, replied at build out the Triangle was assumed to be about 28,000 residents.
Mr. Woodhead added that there was development going on in the Triangle with entitlements
under review right now for future development. He provided that in each of those applications,
there was a requirement for open space and as development occurred, open space would be
provided which he believed would be a community public park and some smaller pocket parks.
Mr. Lowe pointed out that Magnolia Park near the Bank of America building was built by the
developer and was a community public park, one of a string of parks in that area. He added
most were less than three acres and the largest was three acres in size. Mr. Borrego added
that projects with more than 325 units were required to provide a public park on site and there
were two projects that met those criteria, A -Town Metro Site and the Gene Autry Experience.
He noted staff was in the process of amending the A -Town plan and as part of their revision, it
would reduce the park down from 3 acres to 2 acres based on the build out they were
anticipating under the revised plan. At this point in time, there were about 7 acres of park
development which could likely be scaled back to 4.5 acres because of revisions. Mayor Tait
asked what the park fee was per housing unit, with Mr. Borrego responding that it was $8,000
per unit.
Council Member Vanderbilt inquired why the general plan amendment and zone change did not
occur before the Request for Proposal was advertised rather than now in the middle of the RFP
process. Mr. Belmer responded the city's commitment was to get the entitlements in place that
were needed to develop the remnants for industrial purposes. The plan was to pursue the zone
change, issue the RFP, to be followed by the city initiated general plan amendment and zone
change. Mr. Vanderbilt responded if he were an applicant, he would be more comfortable
submitting an application if he knew the zoning was already designated industrial. Mr.
Woodhead remarked the sequence of events was not unusual; the city was seeking the highest
and best use for the land, determined that use was industrial, and then sought to get the best
price with an RFP. Mr. Vanderbilt remarked that in trying to understand the process, he
reviewed the Commission meeting and was curious why the Ball Road Basin site was excluded
from the recommendation of potential park sites. Mr. Belmer remarked the Commission
acknowledged this remnant site was better developed for industrial uses and also wanted to
ensure that the seven acres were replaced somewhere in the city and because they assumed
the Ball Road Basin was earmarked to be added to Anaheim's park inventory, they wanted an
additional seven acres besides the Ball Road Basin. Mr. Lowe clarified that the Quimby Act
required those seven acres to be within the sphere of influence of the Platinum Triangle, an
area that would benefit the residents in the Triangle, since they paid a park development fee on
a unit by unit basis.
Mayor Tait opened the public hearing, inviting those that lived in the noticed project area,
followed by any member of the public living outside the notice area, with staff as the applicant
giving closing remarks.
William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, oppose this project alleging this was a $20 million property
the city was giving away to Disneyland for their use as warehouse space which would then free
up Disney -owned land for future Disney expansion.
Greg Diamond, resident, remarked if the zoning remained park space, those seven acres could
potentially be used as a homeless site, especially with a storage facility adjacent to one of the
parcels. He recommended Council vote no on the zone change, leave the remnants as park
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 25 of 27
land, create a humane, livable homeless site with necessary amenities and acquire other
needed park sites.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the hearing
Council Member Vanderbilt remarked that development fees were used to purchase the
remnants in 2005 dollars at a cost of $3.1 million. He asked if the $3.1 million would be
returned to the Platinum Triangle to fund the same of amount of park land or would the city
dedicate the entire amount received through the sale of these properties. City Manager Paul
Emery responded this item would determine land use and that any decision on the proceeds of
a potential site sale would be for Council's consideration at a later date. He added the
background related to those sites would be included in the details provided to Council. Mr.
Vanderbilt added that he would hope the appreciation of the property would be taken into
account when purchasing park land elsewhere in the Platinum Triangle; otherwise it would be a
disservice to the residents who paid that development fee up front. Mayor Tait concurred with
Council Member Vanderbilt's statement.
Mayor Tait remarked those seven acres were the only open space he knew of in the Platinum
Triangle and with 28,000 residents planned eventually for that area and only 4.5 acres of park
available to them, in his opinion, rezoning the parcel did not make sense. As to the suitability of
that land to park use, he indicated there were a number of Anaheim parks adjacent to freeways,
such as Pioneer, Brookhurst, and Paul Revere Parks. He pointed out and identified about ten
parks that shared those same characteristics. He added there was an article in the Orange
County Weekly that talked about Anaheim ranking 95th out of 100 worst parks in the nation,
which reflected badly on the city and he believed that rezoning these remnants to industrial to
be sold was wrong because once industrial buildings were put on those sites, they would be lost
for any potential open space use. Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if Mayor Tait would feel
differently if the funds from the sale of these remnants were dedicated to open space areas
within the Triangle with Mayor Tait responding that he would as long as he knew where that
open space property would be located. He added there was no rush to take action to rezone
the seven acres to industrial at this time and staff could take the time to locate a suitable site in
the Platinum Triangle and then present their recommendations to the council at that time. He
would be open to that alternative; however, his preference would be to have both the seven
acres and additional park land for the Triangle.
Council Member Vanderbilt asked if there was any new information on the Ball Road Basin
property with Terry Lowe responding that there was no prospective tenant for that property and
staff had discussions with the Orange County Water District regarding a potential sport park
development. He added there was also land near Cerritos and State College Boulevard in the
Edison easement that the city had access to and could add a few more acres for sport activities
along with additional land once the Successor Agency issue was solved, to use the former tree
yard at Boysen Park to give that park a larger footprint. Because of the number of units
planned for this area would require development of a school, Mr. Lowe remarked staff had
already discussed with various departments in the city and school district about developing a
joint school/city site. He added the build -out of this project would take a few years and there
would be a cash flow resulting from the development and staff was highly motivated to find
additional land to develop more parks. Mr. Lowe indicated the current conceptual plan for the
Edison easement property, which was just down the street from the edge of the Platinum
Triangle, was for picnic areas, basketball courts, and exercise equipment. He also estimated
that the Boysen Park larger footprint was probably about four to five acres, not seven acres.
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 26 of 27
Mayor Tait asked why it was necessary to make the zone change today with Mr. Woodhead
replying the industrial market was strong and setting aside policy decisions as to the appropriate
land use, the highest and best use for those seven acres was industrial and that market was
doing well in Anaheim right now. Mayor Tait wondered if there was a standard of acres of park
per capita with Mr. Lowe remarking that in California it was four acres per thousand residents; in
the city of Anaheim there were currently three acres of open space per every thousand
residents. Mayor Tait stated he could not support giving away park space because of the need
for open space within the Platinum Triangle and the city did not need the funds from the sale of
the sites.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring asked if there were any ramifications to having the remnants remain open
space since the Air Quality Management District found them unsuitable with Mr. Lowe
remarking those were advisory recommendations only, however, pointing out there were other
reasons why the sites were not acceptable. Capacity was an issue because of the irregular
shape and because space was needed for restrooms, circulation space, and adequate parking.
He indicated the site would only support one sports field. Mayor Tait asked if there were any
renderings of the park available with Mr. Lowe indicating it could be provided but was not
available now. Mayor Pro Tem Kring asked what the Planning Commission's motivation was to
recommend rezoning with Mr. Belmer responding they acknowledged the size, configuration
and location of the site surrounded by industrial uses was not well-suited for open space and
recreation uses.
Council Member Murray remarked that currently the parcel was surrounded by industrial and
had a one-way access road next to a major arterial freeway. She stated if staff could locate a
more insulated site that could be better used, it would benefit all. She added Ponderosa was
being expanded and that would offer accessibility to residents in the Platinum Triangle, with a
large community center, outdoor fields, and a skate park in close proximity to the Triangle. She
was supportive of taking a small remnant surrounded by industrial and using those proceeds to
gain a better -suited, more accessible site and was supportive of staff's recommendation, asking
that Council move forward. Mr. Emery responded this action was to change zoning only and by
doing so, staff anticipated receiving responses to the RFP that would allow Council to determine
whether a sale was appropriate and to discuss how the proceeds would be handled. Mayor Tait
commented that he did not believe these were compelling reasons to sell seven acres of park
land in the Platinum Triangle.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring stated she was supporting staff's recommendation because it made
sense, the industrial market was doing well, and the city would receive more in proceeds than it
spent in purchasing the parcel. She recommended starting with the Cerritos/State College
property.
At 11:14 P.M., Mayor Tait briefly recessed the meeting for technological reasons.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring called the meeting back to order at 11:20 P.M., inviting council questions.
With no comments offered, Mayor Pro Tem Kring moved to approve Item No. 34, seconded by
Council Member Murray.
Mayor Tait joined the dais at 11:22 P.M expressing his concern that council took action without
his presence.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kring reiterated her motion to determine that a Negative Declaration
was the appropriate environmental determination for this application per the California
City Council Minutes of August 4, 2015
Page 27 of 27
Environmental Quality Act; and to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2015-236 A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting a
Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00496 (DEV2014-
00045) (1710-1730 South Anaheim Way); and to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6340 , 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. 2014-00269) (DEV2014-
0045), seconded by Council Member Murray.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 3: (Mayor Pro Tem Kring and Council Members Brandman and
Murray). NOES — 2: Mayor Tait and Council Member Vanderbilt. Motion Carried.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member Murray requested staff present a policy for subsidy and support for Charter
Schools including Palm Lane School as the Goals Academy.
Mayor Pro Tem Kring requested staff provide a status report on all skate board parks as she
had been receiving complaints from neighbors on the Boys and Girls Club site.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 11:26 P.M., with no other business to conduct, Mayor Tait adjourned the August 4, 2015
meeting.
R pec ully submitted,
Linda N. Andal, CMC
City Clerk