ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
The regular meeting of February 13, 2007 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:00 P.M. for lack of quorum. Mayor Pringle called the February 13, 2007 regular adjourned session to order at 4:10 P.M.
PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle and Council Members: Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez, Lucille Kring and Harry Sidhu.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Linda Nguyen
WORKSHOP – TRAFFIC CALMING
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer introduced the Transportation Manager, John Lower, to present background information on traffic calming measures and recommend the next step in developing a comprehensive traffic calming program to ultimately return to Council for consideration.
Mr. Lower reported there were five objectives to achieve: 1) define the traffic calming measures to be utilized; 2) map the current requests for traffic calming; 3) review existing Council policies related to traffic calming; 4) consider a traffic calming toolbox for Anaheim residents; and 5) request policy direction on going forward with the process.
As far as the definition, he explained, traffic calming measures were a combination of physical actions that reduced the negative effects of motor vehicle use, altered driver behaviors and improved conditions for pedestrians, residents and bicyclists. Some of the traffic concerns for which traffic calming measures were requested related to motorists cutting through neighborhood streets to get around congested intersections or certain neighborhoods where speeding by residents was a problem. Mr. Lower identified some areas in the City where those events were occurring and of which he had been made aware by contact from affected residents.
He indicated there were two existing Council policies in place relating to traffic calming. In 1988, a street closure policy was adopted and in 1990, a policy for speed bumps was implemented. Mr. Lower pointed out the street closure policy required the following: 1) a petition by 85 percent of the affected property owners that would be driving through the area proposed for street closure, 2) at least 3,000 vehicles per day on the street was necessary and with cut-through traffic, a number greater than 20 percent of the 3,000 vehicles was required, 3) petitioners must pay for the closure, and 4) police and fire services must concur in that action. He added the Department’s experience had been that in the few areas meeting those requirements, once the neighborhood realized the cost must be borne by them, the process fell apart and stopped. Mayor Pringle asked how the 3,000 daily trips figure was determined and Mr. Lower responded he was unsure but felt it might have been to keep the status quo since most streets could not meet that requirement. Mayor Pringle asked for an example of a local street which had 3,000 daily vehicle trips with Mr. Lower replying Lemon Street was a good example of that type of traffic usage. He pointed out Lemon
ITEM # 29
Street had a little more than 3,000 daily trips, however, before the traffic calming measure which was now in place, the street handled 7,000 vehicles per day. He added that typically the issue of traffic calming was raised by residents who lived along streets that had between 1,000 and 2,000 vehicles per day.
Mayor Pringle asked how “affected property owners” was defined; Mr. Lower responded that it depended on the layout of the street but typically referred to residents living on a street or a block off a street but it could also refer to anyone likely to use the street. On Lemon Street, he pointed out as an example, if a street closure were ever considered, those residents on Lemon Street between La Palma and the next arterial, Sycamore Street, would be subject to agreement. For east and west traffic, the affected property owners would only be the residents on Lemon Street from Sycamore to La Palma and if there happened to be any cul de sac street stubbing into Lemon. Mr. Johnson interjected that it was likely that the Department would recommend either rescinding or significantly modifying those two policies and their requirements.
With regard to the speed bump policy, Mr. Lower stated 2,000 vehicles trips per day were needed and 75 percent of the affected property owners must have consensus. Again, he pointed out, the 2,000 vehicles per day was difficult to achieve on most Anaheim local streets. He added the City had speed bumps in place on Wilken Way installed through the Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) through the Anaheim Resort area. The Institute of Traffic Engineering traffic calming toolbox also included street closures, and example of which was the Mayfair Lodge that did not meet the minimum volumes but was requested by the Police Department to control some on-going criminal activities and was funded through the Neighborhood Improvement Program as well. Another traffic calming measure referenced a traffic choker or neck-down informing Council that Lemon Street was now in a test mode utilizing that method. He indicated 7,000 vehicles per day had dropped to a little over 3,000 vehicles and with Community Development Block Grant program, funds were now available to complete the choker portion of the project. Referencing the earlier discussion on congestion and getting cut-thru travel time motorists to stay on the arterial systems, Mr. Lower indicated that a supplemental budget request would be made for widening the La Palma/Anaheim intersection to better serve the shifted traffic demands. Mayor Pringle asked if the chokers would be landscaped and Mr. Lower responded that landscaping was an important part of traffic calming and the plan was being packaged as a quality of life program. Gain Street, he added, was the site of another test project whose residents were concerned about cut-through traffic. Mr. Lower stated the Neighborhood Improvement Program worked with the residents to implement a test and an advisory poll sent to residents reflected 73 percent were in favor of keeping the traffic calming measure and making it permanent.
Council Member Sidhu asked if there was a threshold figure which recommended the use of chokers versus speed bumps. Mr. Lower indicated the decision was a combination of engineering judgment and neighborhood input but clearly speed bumps would not have had as dramatic an affect in reducing traffic volumes as the choker since it eliminated southbound movements coming from the freeway continuing across La Palma south onto Lemon Street. Another potential for the toolbox was narrower lanes, noting the textbook on traffic engineering stated a driver would reduce speed if the driver’s perception for margin of error was narrowed. Another opportunity to influence driver behavior was through speed awareness signs and he added there would be a request to purchase new speed awareness signs through various grants coming to Council for consideration in the near future.
Mr. Lower stated staff recommended the following actions. First, to have a professional consultant work with City staff to select the appropriate tools and procedures for a comprehensive traffic calming plan and then to have City staff work with the neighborhoods to identify appropriate traffic calming measures. Mayor Pringle remarked that he wanted to get to a point where specific traffic calming measures would be identified for use in neighborhoods and that there would be some consistency through the City as those measures were applied. Mr. Lower indicated that while there were a variety of measures identified as traffic calming procedures, staff believed working with a consultant to review these methods and determine those specific procedures to be utilized on neighborhood streets would provide consistency area wide. He added there was also a need to consider potential procedural steps for traffic calming and having experts in the industry review and recommend those steps would be beneficial. He stated the Department would determine the locations where problems occurred, document and prioritize them, select the right tools and address this on an area-wide basis with input from residents and, lastly, develop a funding and implementation plan.
Mayor Pringle outlined his concerns. He would like to have the community bring their traffic issues to the City rather than have City staff identify them and to have a process in place by which neighborhoods could easily participate and to prioritize those concerns based on the greatest impacts to those neighborhoods. Mayor Pringle added he believed there was value in having neighbors communicate with each other and utilize the petition process. Council Member Kring concurred stating she had received calls from neighborhoods indicating there were traffic problems and having the residents come to the City and take ownership in their neighborhood was more useful and cost-effective than the City making an inventory on needs. In response to a question by Council Member Galloway, Mr. Lower indicated that all of the areas discussed this evening had been brought to the attention of staff by concerned residents and that the citizen-driven process was the current practice.
He concluded the presentation requesting Council direct City staff to work with a consultant to define the process and guidelines for neighborhood leadership and traffic calming measures and to draft a traffic calming policy for Council consideration. In addition, he requested Council direct staff to define a tool box for an area-wide traffic calming plan with resident involvement and recommend those tools back to Council for approval.
Mayor Pringle asked if there was still a Council policy addressing permit parking in neighborhoods. Mr. Lower indicated there was a current policy consisting of six Council recommended actions. He indicated the next step in that process would be to draft a Code section that would enable Council to create new residential permit parking districts, if they desired. Mayor Pringle remarked that he would like to see a plan identified within a short period of time to present the traffic calming tool box to neighborhoods to use if they wish and that it was the community building process that was important to him. Council Member Kring asked if some measures were more effective than others indicating she felt flashing signs did not appear to be as effective. Mr. Lower responded that Garden Grove had documented significant decreases in speed with flashing signs and that the beauty of those signs was information given directly to the police department utilizing WIFI technology. Mayor Pringle remarked he was not too big a fan of those types of sign although he recognized their value when pedestrians were present.
Council Member Kring asked about countdown potential for pedestrians crossing major thoroughfares. Mr. Lower reported Anaheim’s signals were timed conservatively in favor of the pedestrian and that was why the City was one of the safest pedestrian places; however, he indicated he would look into the countdown method for the resort district or other areas where heavy pedestrian traffic occurred.
Council Member Hernandez asked if the State established the time allotted for crosswalks and Mr. Lower responded the State established four feet per second or an average walker speed while the City set its limit for three feet per second, 25 percent more than the State mandate required. He indicated the timing was based on the width of the street but other factors could come into play such as engineering judgment, the number of pedestrians, and the number of crosswalks. Council Member Hernandez asked what happened when there was an assisted living facility near a crosswalk and Mr. Lower resounded the City determined the timing locally, not the State.
Council Member Sidhu asked if the City would also study synchronization on the major arteries in the City, which was one of his goals for 2007. Gary Johnson responded the department was aware of that priority and was preparing a separate report with some background material for Council.
Mayor Pringle added part of the renewed Measure M funds was to add funding for synchronization and Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) was performing two pilot projects, one of which was Euclid Street from La Habra to Fountain Valley and OSO parkway as the second. Mayor Pringle asked for a status report on what the city had accomplished in terms of synchronization, what the future plans were and what other agencies were doing as well.
After some discussion, it was determined Council would consider a traffic calming comprehensive plan within three to four months.
At 4:40 p.m., Mayor Pringle recessed the meeting, reconvening at 5:00 p.m
Invocation: Pastor Dick Sumner, Knott Avenue Church
Flag Salute: Council Member Galloway
Presentations: Recognizing Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Graduates – Michele Rivard introduced the 20th graduating class of the Emergency Response Team program in a combined training effort with the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP).
Acceptance of Other Recognitions (To be presented at a later date):
Recognizing Bruce and Johrita Solari on receiving Cypress College Foundation American Award as Anaheim Citizens of the Year
Proclaiming February 18 -24, 2007 as National Engineering Week
Proclaiming February 2007 as Career and Technical Education Month - Board of Trustees Kathryn Smith and Thomas Holguin accepted the proclamation and addressed the importance of technical skills.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO ANY OF THE AGENDAS: With no objection from Council, Mayor Pringle continued Item 22 to February 27, 2007.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (ALL MATTERS EXCEPT PUBLIC HEARINGS):
Ray Serrano, resident, announced his neighborhood had submitted a petition to Council for speed bumps and that a neighborhood meeting was held and a variety of methods offered by the Traffic Department were initiated. Mr. Serrano reported on the success of those methods and was supportive of the comprehensive citywide traffic calming measures to be submitted by the Transportation Manager. Mayor Pringle remarked that earlier a traffic calming workshop had been conducted and within three to four months a report of those plans would be available for Council consideration.
John Karczynski, chairman of the board of directors for Chance Theatre, referenced the successful 2006 season and the awards and honorarium received this year for the mid-size professional theater
Christy Romero, Cultural and Heritage Commission introduced the other members of the commission, and addressed the possibility of locating a performing arts venue in the City. She indicated the Commission had been compiling a directory of all the arts in the City which would be available to the public and was also working on ways in which to disseminate information about the arts to all residents. She added the Commission welcomed questions and concerns about their recommendations and looked forward to working with Council toward the goal of a vibrant community for the arts.
Gary Murray, chair of Cultural and Heritage Commission, informed Council they had invited 30 different organizations to come and speak and began developing a reference manual identifying each one of the organizations as well as establishing a calendar of events for the complete year including maps, offices, and other information to have available in libraries and other public places. Mr. Murray expressed his appreciation at serving on the Commission and thanked Council for their vision in creating a community such as Anaheim.
Greg Palmer, Anaheim Police Association, remarked the Association supported Chief Welter’s recent staff presentation emphasizing the need for additional sworn and civilian staff. He added that in 2006, there were 203,832 calls for service to the Police Department and that it was not uncommon to have 25 calls for service holding on a busy night. He added the Association would work with the City to attract quality candidates and to find innovative ways to keep citizens and officers safe.
Mayor Pringle requested the City Manager include the calendar of events drafted by the Cultural and Heritage Committee on the City’s website as well as the reference manual.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Council Member Kring removed Item No. 6 from the consent calendar for further discussion and Council Member Hernandez removed Item No. 7 and waived reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to approve the balance of the consent calendar in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
MOTION: H/S Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the consent calendar. VOTE: 5-0
1. Receive and file the Public Utilities Board meeting minutes of January 11, 2007.
2. Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement of Tract No. 16650, located at 736 South Beach Boulevard.
3. Approve and ratify the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in Condemnation Agreement for the property located at 1556 West Katella Avenue, and authorize the settlement payment of $6,220 to the owners, I-Hsiung and Shu-Chih Liao Kuo Family Trust.
4. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Post Alarm Systems, in the amount of $155,000 for the Security Camera System at Angel Stadium of Anaheim project and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
5. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Brown Co Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $491,580 for the Angel Stadium of Anaheim Perimeter Security project and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
8. Accept the bid of North Pacific Group, Incorporated, in the amount not to exceed $182,972 (including tax), for wood utility poles and the bid of Pacific Wood Preserving of Oregon, in the amount not to exceed $44,708 (including tax), for cross arms for the Public Utilities Electrical Engineering program, for a period of one year, with three one-year optional renewals, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, all in accordance with Bid # 6879.
9. Accept the bid of R.J. Noble Company and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $117,000 for asphalt trucking and dumping services for a one-year period, with four one-year renewal options, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, all in accordance with Bid #6860.
10. Waive the sealed bidding requirement of Council Policy 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Spectrum Scoreboards in an amount not to exceed $81,699 (including freight and tax), for the purchase and installation of two sport scoreboards for the Community Services Department.
11. Accept the low bid and authorize the execution of an agreement with Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $529,142.40, for landscape maintenance services of the rights-of-way, parkways, medians, and tree wells in the western part of the City for a two-year period with three one-year optional renewals and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options, all in accordance with Bid #6846.
12. Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue purchase orders for vehicles for the Police, Utilities and Community Services Departments in the amount of $108,211 (plus applicable taxes and fees).
13. Authorize the execution of the second amendment to an agreement with Turbo Data Systems, Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $119,700, for processing of parking citations for the Public Works, Planning, Police, Convention Center/Stadium, and the Fire Departments, all in accordance with Bid #6628.
14. Review the need for continuing the local emergency heretofore proclaimed by the Director of Emergency Services as ratified by previous action of the City Council concerning land movement and property damage in the vicinity of 357, 365 and 373 Ramsgate Drive and the Hidden Grove Lane/Fox Glen Drive area in the City of Anaheim, and, by motion, determine that the need for continuing the local emergency exists.
15. Approve an agreement with The Planning Center in an amount not to exceed $160,000, to provide on-call environmental consulting services.
16. RESOLUTION NO. _2007-017___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO APPROVE PLANS AND DESIGNS OF CONSTRUCTION, OR AN IMPROVEMENT TO, PUBLIC PROPERTY OR TO APPROVE STANDARDS FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-123.
17. RESOLUTION NO. _2007-018____ 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. 10999-11003, 11006-11007).
18. RESOLUTION NO. _2007-019____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON APN 255-022-63, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND WILSHIRE AVENUE, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTIONS 8330 ET SEQ.-SUMMARY VACATION (Abandonment No. ABA 2006-00144).
19. RESOLUTION NO. _2007-020__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF TO EXECUTE ALL REQUIRED GRANT DOCUMENTS, AND IF AWARDED, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH GRANT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 ACCORDINGLY.
20. RESOLUTION NO. _2007-021__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AGREEING TO A REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR A REORGANIZATION OF 332 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF MANCHESTER PLACE AND COMPTON AVENUE.
21. ORDINANCE NO. 6048 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE PACIFICENTER ANAHEIM SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-3 AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5045, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, ACCORDINGLY. (Introduced 1/30/07, Item # 34)
22. ORDINANCE NO. __________ (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.09.050 CHAPTER 1.09 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CAMPAIGN REFORM LAW.
Item No. 22 continued to February 27, 2007.
23. Approve the regular City Council meeting minutes of January 30, 2007.
END OF CONSENT:
6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Freeway Electric, in the amount of $235,235 for the West Neighborhood Street Lighting Improvement project and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions, and the Director of Public Works to sign project-related documents.
Council Member Kring congratulated staff on this project to replace existing antiquated residential street lights. She requested staff look at other parts of the City for similar street light replacement, particularly West Street, north of Lincoln to North Street.
Council Member Kring moved to approve Item No. 6, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
7. Reject all bids submitted for the construction of the Anaheim Convention Center Arena Exterior Renovation.
Greg Smith, Convention Center, reported the final phase of the arena restoration project had been approved in the current budget with funds set aside in the amount of $2.9 million. The project entailed restoration of the exterior, including the installation of vision glass windows, repainting and re-stuccoing the facility. When bids came in about $700,000 more than cost estimates, he indicated staff requested HOK, the architectural design firm, to make some cuts and reduce the scope of the work. That was done, he explained and staff met with the low bidder in an attempt to reduce the scope of the project and was unsuccessful in reaching an agreement. At this point, Mr. Smith reported staff recommended rejecting all bids and rebidding the lesser project.
Council Member Hernandez asked if this action would significantly change the design or the quality of the design and Mr. Smith indicated it would not as one of the components in the bid was to replace existing wrapped tile panels with steel frame and glass windows however, in those areas not seen by the public, another more cost effective panel would be used. Council Member Hernandez asked if there were any other reductions and Mr. Smith responded the stuccoing of the box offices and the exposed aggregate would be done later as a separate bid. He informed Council he expected to return for award of the contract in April with expectations of completing the project by December. Council Member Sidhu commented staff should keep consider similar cost-saving ideas should the intent be to remodel the convention center in the future.
Council Member Kring moved to approve Item No. 7, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Use – Planning
24. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137B
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4
OWNER: Irvine Land Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: Irvine Community Development Company, Attention: John Sherwood, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: Property consists of an approximately 168-acre portion of the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area located southwest of the southern terminus of Gypsum Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241) and on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR-91).
Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan to replace a 4-way roundabout intersection at Mountain Park Drive and Gypsum Canyon Road with a 3-way stop.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended City Council approval of CEQA EIR 331 (Previously Certified and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137B (5 Yes Votes, Commissioner Karaki abstained and Commissioner Flores absent).
Recommended City Council approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (PC2007-2).
MOTION: K/H Find and determine that the previously-certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 331 is sufficient to serve as the environmental documentation for the proposed action.
RESOLUTION NO. __2007-022___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4 (SPN2006-00046) AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-177 ACCORDINGLY. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported in January the Planning Commission had approved a request by the Irvine Company to approve Amendment No. 3 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 which was to replace a roundabout with a 3-way stop sign. She stated the applicant was preparing a subdivision map for the development of Area 5 and requested the change which would also eliminate A Street and that staff concurred the proposed changes were adequate to serve the traffic needs of this area.
Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing.
Brian Autin, Irvine Company representative, asked for Council’s support and indicated he was available for questions.
With no other public comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing.
Council Member Kring moved to find and determine that the previously-certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 331 was sufficient to serve as the environmental documentation for the proposed action and also moved to adopt Resolution No. 2007-022 of the City of Anaheim Adopting Amendment No. 3 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 and amending Resolution No. 2005-177 accordingly; seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried.
25. CEQA (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00448
AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (SPN2006-00044)
AGENT: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim, Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Property is approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and east of Haster Street.
Request to amend the General Plan (Case No. GPA2006-00448) and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (Case No. SPN2006-00044) to provide the opportunity to develop wholly-residential projects that include rental housing that is affordable to very-low and low-income families on designated properties within The Anaheim Resort.
GPA2006-00448 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Note No. 2" of "Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and to amend the Commercial Recreation land use designation description.
SPN2006-00044 - Request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CEQA (Previously Certified) Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum - Recommended City Council Approval (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Buffa abstained and Commissioner Flores absent).
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 – Denied (PC2007-13) (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Buffa abstained and Commissioner Flores absent).
Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 – Denied (PC2007-14) (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Buffa abstained and Commissioner Flores absent).
Public Hearing requested by Council Members Kring and Galloway.
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SPN2006-00044) appealed by The Walt Disney World Co.
Alternative 1: Approve the Environmental Determination and the Amendments
MOTION: _H/G_____ Find and determine that the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00442 and Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan along with the Addendum prepared for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan are sufficient to serve as the environmental documentation for the proposed amendments.
RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Note No. 2” of “Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and amending the Commercial Recreation land use designation description.
ordinance no. __________ (Introduction) an ordinance approving Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, amending Ordinance No. 5453, and amending zoning and development standards set forth in Chapter 18.116 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Alternative 2: Deny the Environmental Determination and Deny the Amendments
MOTION: ___S/P_______ Find and determine that the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00442 and Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan along with the Addendum prepared for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan are not sufficient to serve as the environmental documentation for the proposed amendments.
RESOLUTION NO. _ _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denyING the request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Note No. 2” of “Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and to amend the Commercial Recreation land use designation description.
RESOLUTION NO. _ ___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denyING the request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.116 of title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code).
Council Member Kring stated she had a conflict of interest on Item 25 and requested the City Attorney to elaborate.
Mr. Jack White, City Attorney, explained a public official must refrain from participating in any decision if the official had a financial interest in that decision. He indicated Council Member Kring had signed a letter of intent to lease space in the GardenWalk project which was slightly over 500 feet at its closest point to the property under discussion and was deemed a conflict of interest by State law under the Political Reform Act and FPPC regulations. Council Member Kring left the chambers.
Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported two Council Members had requested a review of the Planning Commission’s recent decision to deny a City Council-initiated general plan amendment and specific plan amendment to allow residential development on certain properties in the Anaheim Resort. She added the request to allow wholly residential development was initiated by Council last August in conjunction with a request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to allow residential development in conjunction with hotel development on certain sites. Prior to and at the August Council meeting, she stated, Suncal Companies proposed additional changes to that overlay zone to allow wholly residential development on properties near the southeast corner of Haster and Katella. She pointed out the subject properties were currently developed with a retail center along Katella Avenue, single family homes and two mobile home parks. The surrounding land uses included restaurants to the north, hotels and the I-5 freeway to the northeast and east, multi-family residential uses and a mobile home park community to the south and hotel and commercial uses, residential development and a Disney employee parking lot to the west.
Ms. Vander Dussen explained the proposed amendments would provide a land use option in addition to the resort uses currently permitted, meaning subject property owners could choose to develop hotels or resort uses or could develop their properties according to the proposed amendments. Those proposed amendments included the following requirements for development of residential uses: 1) Fifteen percent of the units in the development must be rental units affordable to very low and low income households, regardless of the availability of any City subsidy, 2) the projects must be processed according to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan requirements for a master planned development which included approval of a new specific plan in conformance with the current standards for height, landscaping and setbacks; and, in addition, infrastructure impacts could be no greater than those associated with the subject properties permitted hotel density which was 75 rooms per acre or 75 rooms per parcel whichever was greater.
She remarked that while no formal application had yet been submitted by Suncal, its representatives had indicated a desire to develop 1,500 residential units on the properties. Their proposal would require processing of a new specific plan, a tract map, final site plans, an affordability agreement and removal of the mobile home park overlay zone which applied to the two mobile home parks. She indicated that removal of the overlay zone for any change in land use required preparation of a conversion impact report which must analyze current park tenancies and address the need for any relocation assistance for current park residents. The developer would also be required to submit detailed studies demonstrating that the proposed development was environmentally equivalent to a comparable hotel development on the subject property and may mean additional mitigation could be required to insure impacts to the proposed residential development were no greater than the development of hotel uses.
She remarked staff had prepared the proposed amendments in collaboration with SunCal’s representatives as directed by the City Council and that staff recommended approval of the amendments and the associated environmental determination to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approve the environmental determination, however, the Commission denied the proposed amendments basing its findings upon a determination that the commercial recreation designation which was the general plan land use designation that applied throughout the resort was intended to provide for tourists and entertainment related industries and other visitor-serving uses. The Commission, she informed Council, determined the introduction of wholly residential developments would be inconsistent with this intent.
Following the Planning Commission’s action, Ms. Vander Dussen reported the City received a letter from Latham & Watkins, representing Walt Disneyworld Company, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision on the environmental determination. Staff thoroughly reviewed this letter and still considered the prepared mitigated negative declaration and addendum adequate to serve as environmental documentation for these amendments. She also reported SunCal Company had submitted letters from the law firm of Cox, Castle & Nicholson and the environmental consulting firm, Michael Brandman Associates rebutting each of the claims in the letter submitted by Latham & Watkins. She ended her presentation stating if Council wished to adopt the amendments, staff recommended Council approve the environmental determination and approve the general plan amendment and introduce the ordinance. If the council concurred with the findings of the Planning Commission, then a motion for denial would be the appropriate action.
Mayor Pringle requested and received clarification on the slides depicting the subject property and the Gene Autry Road extension and the location of the surrounding residential homes, multi-family homes and mobile home parks. He explained the hearing process, requesting the subject property owner speak first as the proponents of the project followed by any other proponents and then would request those in opposition to the amendments to comment, after which the subject property owner could speak in rebuttal.
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, announced he would discuss the process which culminated in this public hearing, the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2007 and the subject of affordable housing. He stated the staff report had been reviewed and he concurred with the findings for recommendation of approval of the overlay zone. He stated the action in this matter was a general plan amendment which would not result in the approval of a specific project which was why there were no details included on a specific development plan.
He outlined in detail the process which he stated began in May 2006 with a City-initiated proposal to evaluate the provision of residential housing in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. He indicated the subject property was included in the May request and that Planning staff had identified properties suitable for residential development and that the residential overlay zone was approved by the Planning Commission on June 12, 2006 with the Council approving the overlay on August 22, 2006. He stated the type of residential development approved in August of 2006 was for full-time residential and not for a de facto hotel and that the Disney Corporation representative was present at that meeting and understood the City’s intent was to propose a subsequent amendment for a residential only project with an affordable housing component. He pointed out the surrounding existing residential uses and their compatibility to his property.
Regarding the January 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Elfend stated topics of discussion included the vision for the resort area, affordable housing and economic factors. In 2006, he pointed out transient occupancy tax (TOT) was down 27 percent, new hotel room construction was off 72 percent and the California Adventure attraction was down 40 percent. He added the market place confirmed that a hotel was unlikely for this property and the two developments, Doubletree and GardenWalk, had received significant TOT rebates, $13 million for Doubletree and up to $18.5 million for GardenWalk. He commented that a report prepared for the City by EPS Systems in 2005 determined that the site in question was not appropriate for hotel development as it was relatively far from Disneyland and the Convention Center and development would probably not occur for 15-20 years and could be as far off as 24-70 years. The Planning Commission, he added, were told the report was still valid for the subject property.
He also pointed out there was a finding in this report that the Lease Payment Measurement Revenues (the payments made to support the bonds sold in conjunction with the Disney 2nd Gate project) would not be impacted by this project. It was found also that this project would likely not have an impact on the TOT because development was not anticipated in the near future. He pointed out that at one time, Disneyland discussed with the City consideration of an affordable housing project in conjunction with their 2nd Gate project and when the City approved Westcott, an affordable housing requirement was included to either provide funds in conjunction with other public and private sources to preserve or create 500 affordable housing units. That condition was later modified in the Proposed Development Agreement Terms for the Disneyland Resort Expansion to change the affordable housing requirement to a $5 million payment to be used for neighborhood improvements and housing in the immediate vicinity of the Resort. He further added the $5 million obligation was then met thru the issuance of financing bonds which was subsequently paid by the taxpayers in the Anaheim Resort.
At the January 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Elfend stated the Anaheim City School District indicated that they were not opposed to the zone change and if the amendment were to be approved by Council, the SunCal Companies would work very closely with the school district to resolve their issues.
Summarizing his points, Mr. Elfent stated 1) the City of Anaheim, not the SunCal company initiated this process in May of 2006; 2) the process included the SunCal property within the City’s request for a residential overlay zone; 3) when the residential overlay zone was considered at the Planning Commission and at the City Council meetings, Disney Corporation spoke in favor of the residential overall zone allowing integrated residential housing in the Anaheim Resort; and 4) SunCal’s project would include a 15 percent affordable housing component; and 5) in a report that the City of Anaheim paid for, reviewed and approved, this project was found not to have an adverse impact on the TOT or on the bond payment.
Alan Baldwin, Santa Ana resident, spoke in support of Alternative 1 asking that Council continue to recognize any residents that would be dislocated as a result of Council’s action and that they be relocated to permanent affordable housing to be build on this property.
Anna Deseino, United Here Hotel Workers Union, spoke in support of the general plan amendment, stating there were approximately 75 members present also in support of the amendment. She urged the council members and business community to address the housing needs of the people who work in the resort area, commenting it made sense to put affordable housing where it was needed the most – in the resort area.
Cristina Bayena (translated by Anna Deseino) stated she worked at the Cat’s Café in the Disneyland Hotel for 28 years and voiced her support for affordable housing in the resort area.
Eric Altman, Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD) indicated the OCCORD organization helped working families have a voice in economic development issues and voiced their strong recommendation for Alternative 1, which would provided for needed affordable housing in the resort area.
Laurie Condenas stated she was a 20-year employee of the Anaheim Hilton Hotel commuting four hours a day from Riverside as she was unable to afford housing in Anaheim and encouraged Council to approve Option 1 and provide housing for those that work in the resort.
Antonia Torres, Corona resident, announced she had worked at the Anaheim Convention Center for 10 years and spends three hours a day in a commute that takes time away from her family, and urged Council to approve Option 1.
Silvado Rios, a five-year Convention Center worker, commented he shared a home in Anaheim with his parents, cousins and a roommate because of the high cost of housing.
Thomas Holquin, on the Board of Trustees for the Anaheim Union High School District, reported he had just found out about this issue and hoped the City would sit down with the school district to insure there would not be an impact to their schools.
Caesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission, supported staff’s recommendation to create more opportunities for affordable housing in the City.
With no other proponents coming forward, Mayor Pringle requested those who were in opposition to the general plan amendment to offer comments.
Seferino Garcia, director of Solevar Community Development Corporation, spoke in opposition to the general plan amendment citing the lack of a redevelopment plan and the problems associated with relocating mobile home residents.
Charles Ahlers, president of the Anaheim Visitor and Convention Bureau, stated the Bureau’s board took a position to support the original concept for the Anaheim Resort to ensure that its future was consistent with visitor-related infrastructure such as hotels, restaurants and businesses that would support visitor activity. He added the City received $32 million in transient occupancy tax (TOT) in 1994 which was now over $76 million; and, in 2006, Anaheim saw 21 million visitors who spent about $4.7 billion during their stay. He remarked that should housing and other non-related infrastructure be developed within the Anaheim Resort, there would be no land available for new hotels (the generators of the City’s TOT tax) and the likelihood of further convention center expansions and visitor growth would be severely lessened leaving Anaheim unable to provide for future market demands. He pointed out the Anaheim Resort was 2.2 square miles or 5 percent of the City’s land mass and there were other areas where non-visitor related projects could be developed.
Jose Silverado, mobile park resident, spoke against the amendment change, emphasizing he currently resided in affordable housing and was fearful of being forced to relocate.
Alden Esping, Anaheim resident, provided details on his background as an educator and active community volunteer. As a member of the City’s budget advisory committee, Mr. Esping understood the resort district was the largest contributing revenue source to the City’s budget supporting police, fire and other critical City services and urged the Council to take no action that would threaten the future success of the Anaheim Resort District.
Margaret Pashko stated she was here on behalf of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and its 900 members, remarking the Chambers had been a supporter of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan since it was developed in 1994 and that the rationale for creating the resort overlay had not changed and was more relevant today. She urged Council to deny the general plan amendment and insure the future of Anaheim’s most important economic asset and better serve the needs of the entire community.
Reed Royalty, president of Orange County Tax Association, spoke in opposition to the general plan amendment. He provided background details on the association’s history with the City and its support and opposition to various issues related to the resort district and urged Council to not abandon the rules established to keep the resort area for entertainment purposes which had been so successful
Tom Rizutti, Anaheim City School District, announced the school district had two concerns about the proposed zoning change, the approval process (the District was not notified and did not have an opportunity to address the impact of 1,500 to 2,000 new residential units) and the District’s inability to house students potentially generated from any residential development in this area. On behalf of the school district, he requested they be afforded an opportunity to adequately address the effects of the proposed zoning change through the CEQA process and that the city consider the impact of such an extensive residential development in Anaheim on an overcrowded elementary school system.
Mayor Pringle remarked that in this instance there had been no specific project application made, noting that the general plan amendment had been a topic of discussion in newspapers, however, he requested the City Manager notify appropriate school districts each time an application for development was filed.
Kevin Johnstone, director of Trade Shows for NAMM, commented that this year the trade show broke all records with 84,000 attendees during a four-day period and estimating $75 million had been pushed into the local economy during that event, an annual contribution that had been going on for 30 years. He attributed this success to the professional atmosphere and well-run operation of all facilities in the resort district, reporting the NAMM show had now run out of space in the Convention Center and adjacent hotels and may be forced to seek other venues in the future. He appealed to Council to protect the ability for future growth in the resort area to retain and attract large scale conventions.
Harold Reposa, General Manager of the Hilton Anaheim, stated the Hilton Anaheim was the largest hotel in the City and represented over $80 million in revenue and over 20 percent of the City’s TOT. He emphasized the Hilton was opposed to any zoning changes within the Anaheim Resort, urging that undeveloped land in the resort be used for future attractions and other visitor-related businesses as the growth in the resort district represented future growth for all businesses in the visitor-serving industry.
Judith Serafini, resident and owner at Plantation Mobile Home Park, supported the existing Anaheim Resort Specific Plan whose purpose was to systematically increase the economic revenue generated in the resort and to make Anaheim a tourist destination with a physically welcoming atmosphere. She strongly opposed amending that plan to include residential properties as the City would be asked to carry the burden of the loss of the economic revenue and to support the infrastructure needed for a residential development of that size. She commented on the fact City staff had already met the standard of 1,284 affordable houses to be built within a four year time period established in the City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and the fact that the availability of Section 8 vouchers and other tax credits which made affordable housing pencil out for developers was shrinking.
Donna Mason, East Anaheim resident and employee of the Disneyland Resort, expressed concern that allowing a single exception to the resort plan would be the beginning of multiple exceptions which would ultimately impact the City’s ability to drive revenues into the resort district and urged Council to protect the services this area provided for the entire city.
Stan Powloski, Anaheim resident for 50 years, addressed the success of the well thought out Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which generated revenues and provided for future revenue growth for the City. He spoke of the number of residential units being built or proposed for construction in the City and the slowing housing market and the fact Anaheim had more low cost housing than most other California cities and recommended Council deny the proposed general plan amendment.
Bill O’Connell, Anaheim resident, stated the reason the resort district was created was to transform an area with neon signs, no landscaping and telephone poles into a desirable tourist attraction, which had been extremely successful over the past 12 years. He believed the general plan amendment was proposed solely for the ability of one developer to change the rules and build residential homes in the resort area and asked Council to deny the amendment and to continue to work together to build affordable housing in the City.
Bill Stone, Excel Realty Holdings in San Diego, stated he was a proponent of affordable housing but was also passionate about the resort area. He emphasized the City had been so successful in creating a unique, dynamic Resort District and that there were other properties more suitable on which to locate residential housing and asked for Council’s serious consideration to not change the zoning in the resort area.
Bill Gunderson, general manager of the Anaheim Marriott, stated that securing convention business in Anaheim was not an easy task as meeting planners had many choices. Las Vegas was a formidable competitor and the new LA Live project under development and the Gaylord Hotels and their development south of San Diego would be serious competitors for Anaheim’s convention dollars and for those reasons, he was a proponent of keeping the Resort District intact and expanding the amount of venues for the visitor-serving market.
Brian Elling, resident, indicated he had worked in the Resort District for 10 years and had seen the changes that had occurred in that area over the ten years and was proud of what had been achieved. He added he supported keeping the resort district as it was to promote tourism and to create employment opportunities and career growth for those that work in the District. He also wanted to ensure that the City continued to benefit from the revenues it enjoyed as a result of the success of the District and allow residents to have improved parks, streets, and other city services and urged Council to keep Anaheim as a special place in the world.
Shirley McCracken, resident and former council person, discussed the late 80’s and 90’s when Anaheim was struggling to provide services and the area around Disneyland resembled old Las Vegas. She explained city council at that time studied the issue and with input from businesses in the only major commercial area existing in Anaheim as well as residents, a resort plan was developed. She noted it took 13 years of study and community involvement to see Disney’s California Adventure, new hotels had been built and older ones renovated and the Convention Center was now contributing a million dollars to the general fund. She asked Council to be fiscally responsible and to not cut pieces out of the resort plan and change it for a couple of hundred affordable units. She added Anaheim had more multiple family units and work force housing than any other Orange County city and asked the Council to maintain the vision developed for the resort and be responsible to all the residents of Anaheim.
Dave Wilkes, Disney Goals Program, explained the Disney Goals Program was a non-profit program that had served 15,000 under privileged children in Anaheim and that the Disney Corporation had been the single prominent entity advocating and supporting causes to help low income children have better lives, not only though the Disney Goals program but to other initiatives intended to better the community. He felt the proposed amendment was more about seeking short-term economic gain at the expense of long-tem social gain and locating housing next to the largest freeway in California with its associated health risks was not the way to go.
Larry Slagle, Yellow Cab and Western Transit, board member of the Hotel/Motel Association and chairman on the Chamber of Commerce board, stated all three of those organizations opposed the idea of changing the zoning for the resort district. He added investors had bought into the plan that the resort district would remain as a visitor-serving area and made their plans to develop and beautify the area and to upgrade their facilities. The organizations believed the resort district would only grow with the GardenWalk project and the new presentation to show to convention attendees and guests that Anaheim would be more and more in demand. He urged Council to oppose the plan.
George Mihlsten, Latham & Watkins, spoke on behalf of Walt Disney World. He indicated comprehensive letters had been submitted to Council and staff outlining concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the General Plan and failure of the addendum to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The letters, he indicated, detailed significant conflicts with the adopted land use plans and the general plan and he highlighted some of those issues for the Council. He stated the addendum failed to disclose any information regarding this project and that it was clearly done for a specific property at the request of a specific developer and he reiterated the significant impacts the proposed project would have related to traffic, air quality, land use, schools, parks, police and fire. He indicated the city should require a project description, environmental review and environmental impact report in consideration of the project and requested it be denied and staff direct the developer to prepare an EIR if the developer wished to proceed with the project.
Chris Garrett, Latham & Watkins, also spoke as a representative of the Walt Disney World Company, offering comments related to planning issues and in opposition to the amendment. He pointed out the Planning Commission had unanimously found that this amendment would conflict with the General Plan, and that it would not maintain the internal consistency of the General Plan and would conflict with goal 4.1 of the Land Use Element. He pointed out no speaker had indicated that the Planning Commission had made a wrong decision and ignoring the Planning Commission’s recommendation would leave the City with a general plan that was inconsistent. He further commented if Council wished to approve this amendment to the general plan to change it to a residential zone, it should be handled as any other project where an application was submitted for an amendment to the general plan, either to change the specific plan or to take the property out of the specific plan to allow for residential uses or change the designation in the specific plan maps to residential and change the zoning code to reflect residential as well. He added his firm had submitted materials as to why this action should not be taken. He also believed the actual planning and zoning actions necessary were not accurately described to Council in that a third action was missing to amend the Specific Plan and the maps and diagrams which refer to the ordinance. The third issue was the lack of an indemnity agreement for the City and placing liability on SunCal for having this amendment approved and recommended denial of the request.
Bill Taormina, resident, spoke in opposition to the project looking into the future and reading from a newspaper article he envisioned to be in the Los Angeles Times on tomorrow’s date. That article ended with Anaheim’s new approach to the resort area, resulting in a Resort Stakeholders Action group whose mission was to work as a common body to discover efficiencies in job creation, employee transportation, crime prevention and resort revenue growth and a Special Developer’s Task Force dialoguing with developers to understand how to get affordable housing built in the City. In addition, a Youth Services Collaborative was to be formed for every youth-oriented group in Anaheim to share best practices and create a common ground for organizations and volunteers to work together toward a common goal as well as a Resort Financial Impact Oversight Commission to make those committees accountable for their actions.
Brian Elliott, Walt Disney representative, stated the Disney Company valued the relationship and commitments between the City, Disney and the Resort District businesses that defined and adopted a long-term vision for the resort. He spoke of the process which established design standards and boundaries to preserve the land use compatibility in the commercial/recreation zone done for the purpose of insuring the protection of the tourism-based area and make the resort a world class destination. He commented that with only five percent of the city landmass, over 50 percent of City revenues were generated in the Resort area and the investment in the Anaheim Resort area was unprecedented, with billions of dollars invested collaboratively at the city, state and local levels and by private businesses and that any changes or uncertainty about the future of the resort district could compromise future investment. He added that continued growth was directly tied to maintaining the commitments that were made and the vision created to the success of this area and urged Council not put the resort master plan in jeopardy by allowing residential developers to use precedent to circumvent the planning process as a justification for change.
John Olio, Anaheim resident for 22 years, indicated his issue was with the way the City managed affordable housing and that a disproportionate share of affordable housing was built in areas such as his neighborhood. He recommended against concentrating the homeless and low income residents in small densely populated areas and to share the responsibility citywide, including the more affluent areas.
Henry Colima, Lemon Street resident, spoke against the project and of building residential homes close to the freeway. He argued the mobile home parks were already situated as affordable housing and many of those residents were long-term and would have difficulties relocating.
With no other comments in opposition, Mayor Pringle offered Frank Elfend and his representatives an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Elfend pointed out specific projects that had been opposed by the Disney Company in the past arguing many of the same comments offered this evening, which were ultimately approved by the City Council. Mr. Elfend pointed out Bill O’Connell was with the Doubletree Hotel, a project that received a $13 million transient occupancy tax rebate. The GardenWalk project, he added, also received an $18.5 million rebate from the City for sales tax and for TOT – all of this he pointed out because hotel development in this area was not viable. He mentioned he had asked the Chamber of Commerce if he might attend a meeting and explain the fact that residential in the resort had already been approved by the City, however, his request was denied.
With regard to the boarded up mobile coaches causing some speaker’s concern, Mr. Elfend stated those coaches were acquired by the City during the Gene Autry Way extension and were not related to the mobile homes on SunCal property. Related to comments from the school districts, Mr. Elfend pointed out the reason they had not yet met with the schools was because this was a general plan amendment with no project yet defined and was a change in the land use, a zoning change. He added if Council were to approve this amendment, SunCal could come back with a land use plan containing retail and some commercial, which had never been ruled out.
He ended his statement, remarking hotels were not viable on this property and were not anticipated to be built for at least 15-20 years and possibly longer and he did not believe that one particular site could have such a precedent setting adverse impact on the resort district revenues.
Michael Zischke, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, stated he was special counsel to SunCal on the California Environmental Quality Act issues and provided background on his expertise in this field.
He pointed out Council had approved bringing residential to this site through adoption of the residential overlay zone which had been environmentally reviewed and determined to have no new impacts. What was currently at issue, he remarked, was a change to the overlay to allow wholly residential instead of residential integrated with a visitor-serving use and that it specifically required affordable housing and that no specific project had yet been proposed.
He noted there had been a point made about the City’s review of the addendum and its legality as it had been prepared by SunCal’s attorneys with no review by the city. In August of 2006, he explained, Council directed staff to initiate the work necessary for SunCal’s proposed amendment and SunCal had met with the City Attorney and staff to discuss what the CEQA review should be, what the scope should be and it was suggested SunCal prepare the draft and submit it to the city. He added CEQA guidelines say a city may accept a draft prepared by the applicant but that it should be independently reviewed by the city and he pointed to modifications to the addendum suggested and drafted by the city and recent court decisions on this issue.
With regard to school impacts, Mr. Zischke commented both the City and SunCal were offering to work with the school districts, which was more than what was required in State law. With regard to the air quality issue raised, he stated that the issue would be evaluated when a particular project was available although he pointed out that a high density residential project on this property adjacent to a freeway would reduce air quality impacts; this would occur as the primary problem with freeways where small particulate matter and diesel particulates which tend to stay low and disperse and a building which uses HVAC would reduce that impact. Referencing the comment made that this was a poster child for project splitting, Mr. Zischke indicated CEQA review had to be done when it was meaningful and there must be a project to evaluate for it to be meaningful and cited the cases of Concerned McCloud Citizens and Friends of the Sierra Railroad to substantiate his point.
He stated a claim had also been made that there was no consistency with goal 4.1 and he referenced the staff report to the Planning Commission, page 7, which indicates the proposed amendment would be consistent with the following goals in the Land Use Element and recited several goals including goal 4.1
Mr. Zischke stated there was also ample substantial evidence in the addendum, the letters submitted, the mitigated negative declaration and the whole body of the record supporting the project which would protect the city from any liability should it proceed with the staff recommendation to approve the amendments.
Lou Feldman, Goodwin Procter, spoke on behalf of the SunCal Corporation. He pointed out Latham & Watkins failed to let the city know that the firm also represented SunCal. He added George Mihlsten and Chris Garrett were both entrusted with an attorney/client relationship with SunCal and that they sought a waiver from SunCal through the Disney work that they do which had nothing to do with this matter and he urged Council to eliminate their testimony from the record and any information submitted as this was an ethical violation.
With no other comments offered, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing and provided background on the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. He indicated when the City established the Specific Plan in the 1990’s, there was a desire to build additional hotel capacity in the area. With the high cost of construction and Garden Grove offering free land and percentages of bed tax reimbursement to developers to compete with Anaheim’s tourist dollars, hotel growth became limited in the City. At that time, he stated, previous council members voted to encourage a rebate of bed tax to some development projects in order to be competitive, projects which included the GardenWalk. As the hotel market started to change and those projects were finally under construction, he added, the City was looking for ways to encourage and help support financially the development of some of those future hotel properties within the resort because there were only four or five large parcels left where hotel development could occur. That was why, Mayor Pringle explained, the City considered marrying some residential as a component of the hotel construction. It was a way to get hotel units within the resort that were planned for development and create financial incentives for the developers without using general funds or dedicating future bed tax. A general plan amendment came before Council in August of 2006 which allowed residential units not more than 50 percent of the hotel square footage. At that time, SunCal chose to request a change to that amendment asking for 100 percent residential with a 15 percent affordable housing component. Mayor Pringle acknowledged based on advice from the City Attorney, the general plan amendment was not changed to incorporate SunCal’s request, and was adopted as presented. Staff was also asked at that time to prepare a new general plan amendment to incorporate 100 percent residential on that property, including a provision for 15 percent affordable, a process which was initiated by SunCal’s request and resulted in this hearing to debate the issues.
Mayor Pringle remarked through wise choices by the City in the past, the Resort District was established and today the resort area was thriving although he did not believe it had reached its maximum potential. When the process began, he reported, the City collected $30 million in bed tax which was now well over $70 million and was projected to grow by at least five to seven percent in future years. Mayor Pringle emphasized he was totally committed to addressing the residential needs of the community but he would not support eliminating the single largest site where hotel development could occur. He stated Anaheim was ranked the first domestic travel venue in the United States but also had one of the fastest shrinking hotel vacancy rates as well. He believed the capacity and need for hotel rooms was here and vital to the future generation of revenue for the City. He added a hotel on this site was projected to earn $4.6 million a year in revenues and the property across the street, if developed, was projected to earn $1.5 million a year in revenue. Those annual revenues, he pointed out, went directly to police and fire and other public services and benefited every Anaheim resident, not just those living near the Resort District. Mayor Pringle stated he could not support turning away the largest single developable site in the resort area and to lose $4.6 million in annual revenues and would not support the amendment.
Council Member Galloway thanked everyone for their testimony and talked about the City’s economic strength and the fact that tourism and the resort area was so successful. She also felt as there was currently affordable housing on the subject property she did not believe the City’s economic vitality would be drastically affected by the approval of the general plan amendment. She commented she had been consistent in saying if the mobile homes were to be removed from the property that she would not approve any project unless affordable housing were included. She also believed that those who work in the resort area should be able to live in the area as well, as part of its success was due to those working employees. Council Member Galloway indicated affordable housing would only be built by political will as no one wanted that typing of housing near them and she would support the general plan amendment.
Council Member Hernandez noted there was no question that the City was heavily reliant on TOT and it was a vital part of the City’s revenue stream. He asked how much revenue was anticipated to be lost should this property be wholly residential. Ms. Vander Dussen responded the fiscal impact statement attached to the staff report indicated the City could lose up to $4.6 million annually in TOT if the site were developed with residential. She said the EPS study also indicated the amount could be less than that because demand for hotel rooms for the area could be absorbed by other properties. Council Member Hernandez asked when that would occur and Ms. Vander Dussen replied it may not occur for more than 20 years. Council Member Hernandez asked if EPS had made the assumption that a developer would build a hotel on the property soon and Ms. Vander Dussen replied, the study assumed development on that site would not occur in the near future and could be as far as 20 years and beyond.
Council Member Hernandez answered that the existing property was a mobile home park and was not generating any TOT and could possibly not generate any TOT for the next 20 years or longer.
He added the property would be more productive with SunCal’s project than it currently was and he did not feel it was up to Council to deny a property owner the full economic viability of his property.
Council Member Sidhu thanked the individuals, businesses and organizations offering input on this critical issue. He did not wish to minimize the importance of providing affordable housing but the issue, he believed, was to consider the merits of changing the City’s long-standing course of action in the Anaheim Resort District. He commented that increasing revenues from $30 million a year to over $70 million annually was not done overnight and it was important to look to the future to insure the Resort continued to attract tourists and increased revenues to be able to pay for City services. He stated he understood both sides of the issue and pointed out the developer had a right to develop his property under the current zoning which included hotel use plus residential, remarking he would like to find a resolution to allow for revenue and at the same time allow some residential to be compatible with the housing in close proximity. He added he would give his final decision after Council concluded discussion.
Mayor Pringle stated that property rights were a guarantee that an owner could develop property under the existing zoning. He emphasized no one was denying the owners of that property from operating it as it was zoned and that the general plan designation for this site was zoned for resort area, and when the City fathers created the Resort area, the zoning allowed for a greater development opportunity than was originally there. He added not every single property in the community could be built to its highest use but there was also a level of protection that when land was purchased, there was a certain level of understanding of what could be developed next door and single family residents would not have to worry about a 20-story building being constructed next to their property.
Council Member Galloway asked for clarification on the claim of a conflict of issue by attorneys used by both sides. Mr. White responded there were four reputable law firms offering comments this evening and there was no reason for him to tell Council to reject or disregard any testimony on either side. He indicated there may be an issue that’s properly addressed to another body other than the City Council who did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate whether there was a conflict and what the remedy would be.
Council Member Hernandez stated the Mayor had opened his comments with an explanation of how this process came to this point and that there were three parcels in the resort area that were going to have potential residential components and the subject property was one of them. He indicated Council had decided to accommodate that residential component by making some changes in the zoning and opened the door to a wholly residential development. He added there was residential surrounding the subject property now and it was likely to stay that way for sometime and supporting this amendment would take a low-producing property that had been severely impacted by the City’s Gene Autry Way extension and turn it into something better. He added the neighborhood would stay the same and did not feel the Mayor’s analogy was applicable.
Council Member Hernandez moved to approve Alternative 1, seconded by Council Member Galloway.
Council Member Sidhu offered a substitute motion to: 1) find and determine the previousy certified mitigated negative declaration and the addendum were not sufficient to serve as environmental documentation for the amendments and 2) to approve Alternative 2 and 3) ask SunCal to present an application and environmental documentation to proceed on his project for the complete review with the possibly of 100 percent residential with 15 percent of affordable housing. Following that he would offer the resolution to deny the request to amend the general plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan as outlined in Option 2 of the staff report. Mayor Pringle seconded the motion.
Mayor Pringle indicated there was a substitute motion to support Option 2, seconded by the Mayor. Those in favor of Option 2 would vote yes, those in opposition would vote no. Roll Call vote: Ayes – 2: Mayor Pringle, Council Member Sidhu. Noes – 2; Council Members Galloway and Hernandez. Absence – Council Member Kring (recorded conflict of interest)
Mayor Pringle stated Council Member Hernandez’s earlier motion was to approve Option 2, seconded by Council Member Galloway. For those who wish to support Option 1, vote yes and those in opposition, vote no. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – 2, Council Members Galloway and Hernandez. Noes – 2; Mayor Pringle and Council Member Sidhu. Absence – 1; Council Member Kring (recorded conflict of interest).
City Attorney Jack White, stated that according to Section 1.12.099.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, when a tie vote was the result of an extension due to a conflict of interest and where there was a decision by a lower tribunal (in this case the Planning Commission), the decision of the Planning Commission would be reinstated because the motion or resolutions have failed as a result of the tie vote. In this case, the decision of the Planning Commission as to the addendum and as to the general plan amendment and as to the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay amendment would be reinstated as a final decision on this date.
Council Communications:
Council Member Hernandez reported on the development of a German Sister City committee and requested any Anaheim citizens who were interested in becoming involved and to gather historical information to contact the City.
Council Member Kring announced the annual APAL golf tournament on March 12 at the Coyote Hills Country Club and encouraged participation for the fund raiser which supported youth activities and the Vegas/Baker Run. At an orientation meeting for the Orange County Sanitation Board, Council Member Kring was made aware that the public should not flush extra medication to the sewer but instead, crush the tablets and place them in the trash. In January, she attended the Governor’s Installation Ball in Sacramento, as a representative of the city and also attended a meeting of the League of Cities to meet the newly elected representatives for Anaheim. Last weekend Council Member Kring attended the California Municipal Utilities Association Annual Legislative Rally in Sacramento and talked to legislators concerning issues important to keeping public utilities intact.
Council Member Sidhu reported that he also recently attended the California Municipal Utilities Association Annual Legislative Rally on February 5th in Sacramento and attended a panel discussion with legislative staff members from key senate and assembly committees. He also reported on the free health faire that was held at the Brookhurst Community Center last Sunday with more than 900 people receiving free health service at this event.
Mayor Pringle thanked Council Member Sidhu for assisting with the health faire. He asked that Council Member Kring and Council Member Galloway work on developing a Performing Arts Task Force, suggesting representatives from the Orange County Symphony, the Chance Theatre, Musical Theater West, the Anaheim Ballet as well as the Cultural and Heritage Commission be included. He added that so many members of the Council had expressed an interest in this subject that staff had begun researching ideas.
Adjournment: Mayor Pringle adjourned the February 13, 2007 meeting at 10:17 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Nguyen
City Clerk
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- city council finance
- city council chairs
- purpose of city council committees
- city council peoria il
- peoria il city council members
- peoria city council az
- peoria city council meeting tonight
- baltimore city council district lookup
- worthington city council candidates
- worthington city council results 2019
- peoria il city council meeting
- church council meeting minutes